The Tories are not “paying down the debt” as claimed. They are “raising more money for the rich.”
Labour’s social and economic policy was a success, and this is substantiated by the LSE’s definitive survey of the Blair-Brown years:
There is clear evidence that public spending worked, contrary to popular belief.” Nor did Labour overspend. It inherited “a large deficit and high public sector debt”, with spending “at a historic low” – 14th out of 15 in the EU.
Labour’s spending increased, and money was invested in public services and social programs, and until the crash was still “unexceptional”, either by historic UK standards or international ones.
Until 2007 “national debt levels were lower than when Labour took office”. After years of neglect during the previous Conservative administration [2 recessions during the Thatcher era, another during Major’s], Labour inherited a mess: public services in very poor state, shabby and squalid public buildings and unforgivably neglected human lives that formed a social deficit much more costly than any Treasury debt.
Labour Ministers set about addressing the causes and devastating effects of poverty and social marginalisation. Both poverty and inequality had risen to levels unprecedented in post-war history. This process accelerated during the 1980s.
Unlike every other post-war decade, in which the benefits of economic growth had been shared across social groups, the economic gains of the 1980s disproportionately benefited the rich at the expense of the poor (Hills, 2004). Social inequality on such a gross level was not only the result of Thatcher’s policies, she celebrated it. She declared that inequality is essential to fostering “the spirit of envy” and hailed greed as a “valuable spur to economic activity”.
The mess that Thatcher left is verified by several longitudinal studies. Dr. Alex Scott-Samuel and colleagues from the Universities of Durham, West of Scotland, Glasgow and Edinburgh, sourced data from over 70 existing research papers, which concludes that as a result of unnecessary unemployment, welfare cuts and damaging housing policies, the former prime minister’s legacy
…includes the unnecessary and unjust premature death of many British citizens, together with a substantial and continuing burden of suffering and loss of well-being.
The article also cites evidence including the substantial increase in income inequality under Thatcher – the richest 0.01% of society had 28 times the mean national average income in 1978 but 70 times the average in 1990, and the rise in UK poverty rates from 6.7% in 1975 to 12% in 1985.
It concludes that:
Thatcher’s governments wilfully engineered an economic catastrophe across large parts of Britain” by dismantling traditional industries such as coal and steel in order to undermine the power of working class organisations, such as unions. This ultimately fed through into growing regional disparities in health standards and life expectancy, as well as greatly increased inequalities between the richest and poorest in society.
Blair established the social exclusion unit inside No 10. “Social exclusion” signified not just poverty, but its myriad causes and symptoms, with 18 task forces examining education, babies’ development, debt, addiction, mental health, housing and much more. Policies followed and so did improvements.
John Prescott’s department published an annual Opportunities for All report that monitored these social targets: 48 out of 59 indicators improved. So when Cameron and his band of brigands sneer that “all Labour did was give tax credits to lift families just over the poverty line” – “poverty plus a pound” – they lie through their teeth.
Contrary to Tory claims, benefits were not Labour’s main instrument of social change: the benefit budget fell as a proportion of spending, outstripped by increases in health, education and other social services.
Despite Blair’s neoliberal turn, Labour’s social policies enshrined principles of equality and inclusion. The Tories deplore such principles, yet that doesn’t stop them claiming that their socially regressive policies are somehow “fair”. Things got better with a Labour administration, money was mostly well spent. That’s not the case now. It’s all being intentionally and spitefully undone. We are moving backwards on just about every positive social measure Labour put in place: the coalition’s “more for less” is exposed as pretence. They are simply raising more money for the rich.
And all because of their driving ideology. George Osborne’s “plan A” isn’t about economics: it amounts to little more than a rehashed Thatcherite ideological agenda of deregulation and labour market “flexibility”, as modelled by the Beecroft report – the assault on the rights of employees, and Labour’s historic equality legislation. The Tory demand for a “nightwatchman state” is both ill-conceived and completely irrelevant to Britain’s economic circumstances.
The Coalition have borrowed more in 4 years than labour did in 13 and have NOTHING to show for it except a handful of wealthier millionaires. And the return of absolute poverty.
We know that austerity was intentionally imposed by the Coalition, using a feigned panic over the budget deficit to front an opportunistic vulture capitalist approach to stripping our public assets. With the Coalition in power for 4 years, the deficit has apparently receded in importance.
We can hope that Labour can return to its pro-social role of advocating government spending for the provision of public services. Conservatives have always played on dogma and popular prejudice by constantly equating government with bureaucracy. But that’s just the superficial excuse for their obsession with removing every trace of supportive provision and our public services.
It’s more accurate to say that Conservatives equate socially responsible, democratic, caring governments with “bureaucracy”. Conservatives aren’t ever interested in championing independent and merit-based public service. But most criticisms of government bureaucracy are based on myth, not reality.
The agencies that the Tories attack and destroy actually play a valuable and indispensable role in making our society a better place to live. They are the very hallmarks of what makes us civilised, they are how we support vulnerable citizens, ensure equal opportunities, uphold human rights.
The whole point of having human rights is that they apply to EVERYONE – something the Tories never understand – if rights are not universally applied, then they are worthless. In fact they are hostile to the very notion that we each have equal worth, as we know.
Tories value and develop social hierarchy. When Tories want to make “shrinking” government sound attractive and feasible, they claim they are cutting “bureaucracy” and not social “programs.” Most people recognise the public value of State programs – in the areas of education, health and the environment for example – and don’t want to see these reduced; but everyone hates bureaucracy.
Using the term “bureaucracy” in this way is a rhetorical sleight-of-hand that attempts to obscure the real costs of cutting back on government programs. The lack of coherent reasoning underpinning the rhetoric is because this is simply Tory fundamentalism: it is not founded at all on rational, evidenced discourse.
I’ve said elsewhere that Edwardian levels of inequality led to the Great Depression. Austerity measures under Chancellor Hindenburg contributed to the rise of Nazism. The drop in household income in Japan between 1929 and 1931 led to a wave of assassinations of Government officials and bankers.
Social policies after World War 2 turned the tables and brought peace, with inequality steadily dropping in Britain until recently. But inequality is now returning to pre-war levels. The Tories are incapable of learning from historic lessons, because of their own sense of entitlement, privilege and ideological bondage.
In response to the atrocities committed during the War, the International Community sought to define the rights and freedoms necessary to secure the dignity and worth of each individual. Ratified by the United Kingdom, one of the first countries to do so, in 1951, those human rights originally established in the Universal Declaration have been steadily eroded since the Coalition gained Office.
There’s a clear link between high levels of inequality and failure of Governments to recognise human rights, and to implement them in policies. Authoritarians view the rights of the individual, (including those considered to be human rights by the international community), as subject to the needs of the Government. Of course in democracies, Governments are elected to represent and serve the needs of the population.
Democracy is not only about elections. It is also about distributive and social justice. The quality of the democratic process, including transparent and accountable Government and equality before the law, is critical. Façade democracy occurs when liberalisation measures are kept under tight rein by elites who fail to generate political inclusion.
How remarkable that a government that argues against bureaucracy on the grounds that it’s a “threat to individual freedom” have no problems imposing the Gagging Act and the Legal Aid Act – policies purposefully designed to severely limit our freedoms. But then, the Tories were never known for their rationality, coherence and joined-up narratives. Or for integrity and telling the truth.
Thatcher’s secret plot to dismantle the welfare state and privatise the NHS revealed
The mess we inherited: some facts with which to fight the Tory Big Lies
The great debt lie and the structural deficit myth
Osborne’s real aim is not budget surplus, but attack on Welfare State & public sectors It’s not a difficult task for a government to guarantee a safety-net that is always available for anyone who falls on hard times during an era of huge social and economic change. We all fund it, after all. And we all know that unemployment, injury or illness may happen to anyone through no fault of their own. It’s considered a duty of any first-world government to provide the means of basic survival for its citizens and to fund that with the money we contribute via taxes. In fact such an approach to social and economic welfare is internationally codified in human rights.
Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to which the UK is a signatory, reads:
Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control. Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.
The Tories prefer to spend the tax they take from you on Tory donors – private companies that don’t deliver a service but simply fleece profit; on undeserving millionaires’ tax breaks – the feckless, scrounging rich had at least £107,000 each per year extra already. Then there is the never ending list of Tory expense scandals – all at our expense. And tax evasion. Why are we paying for this?
Furthermore, why are we indifferent as a society to the fact that our government is causing harm to our fellow citizens? I can’t comprehend this, how can we have allowed this to happen, as a so-called civilised and once democratic society? It’s about a driving ideology that is socially detrimental, malevolent, and not economically necessary: the Tories do not think that people have a right to food, housing or medical care, that much is clear. But they continue to take the money we have paid since the 1940s for those things. And hand it out to the wealthy.
Despite these facts, the Govt and the right-wing media have the audacity to talk about welfare claimants, as if all our woes are their fault. They aren’t, the spiteful authoritarian Tories are the problem.
We can’t afford this government, economically, socially, morally or psychologically. Osborne’s austerity message was seriously undermined, and his lies in trying to blame the last government were demonstrated last November when the Office for National Statistics found that the coalition had borrowed £430.072 billion since it took over, whereas the last Labour government managed to borrow just £429.975 billion in 13 years. – George Osborne Says Britain’s ‘Best Days Lie Ahead’, Ignoring These 6 Graphs
Many thanks to Robert Livingstone for his brilliant memes
26 thoughts on “Tory dogma and hypocrisy: the “big state”, bureaucracy, austerity and “freedom””
Kitty I love your articles they tell it as it is. So sad to see what this shower are pushing through as quickly as they can without any forethought for their fellow man.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks Mr Angry. I’ve just been banned from public posts on Facebook after someone on Camerons’ home page reported this blog as “abusive or spam”
I feel a sense of pride that some sad little Tory hates it enough to want to silence me 🙂
Reblogged this on nearlydead.
kitty i never knew about your blog but because of you being blocked i was able to fine this your blog and what ever you did or didn’t do on face book your certainly have a few of them scared to do this to you. keep up telling the truth and making it so everyone can understand in a langue that make sense.
Reblogged this on Vox Political.
Reblogged this on sdbast.
Nice work Kitty plain and easy reading keep it up Vote Yes
Though we are somehow puzzled that the Labour leadership since 2010 have not also been shouting all this from the rooftops every time Cameron and Osborne come forward with their lies about Labour’s record in office,looking ahead to 2015,we should not merely be seeking a defeat of the Tories and all they stand for,we should be looking to bury them!
If we learn the lessons of history,every time Labour has put forward a radical agenda,as in 1945 and 1997,the outcome has been exactly what I am seeking for 2015,the Tories were buried!
Some may argue that Labour have too much ground to make up from 2010?However previous historical studies of elections do not apply to the result in 2010.If we had got a Tory majority in 2010 then of course these historical trends would apply but the fact was that the Tories did not get a majority in 2010!
Well done kitty you have told it like it is i know i have lived through 4 Tory governments and they only look after the rich THE POOR ARE DEMORALISED and the Tories wont stop as they think it is their right to be above us but we all know different don,t we . They will never stop our spirit . or stop our drive to make this country a better place to live in.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Reblogged this on Diary of an SAH Stroke Survivor.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Excellent article Kitty tells it how it is in a language we can all understand, do not worry about facebook as I know you have the means to get the word out.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Reblogged this on DaveD's Blog.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Reblogged this on TheCritique Archives and commented:
The thing about reducing the public sector debt is that it ipso facto ALWAYS leads to an increase in private debt – the many people who can’t afford the basic services that are being withdrawn have to borrow money in order to afford them. And then, when they try to pay that off, they have to stop buying other goods or services. The companies they were purchasing from therefore lose sales, and in turn lose profits, and may have to lay off staff to avoid making a loss.
And so, when enough people stop purchasing, unemployment starts to surge and…. CRASH! goes the economy.
It’s really simple, it’s really obvious, but very few people seem to get it. George Osborne is certainly not one of those few.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Reblogged this on Beastrabban’s Weblog and commented:
KIttysjones shows here how the Tory austerity campaign is ideologically driven and profoundly undemocratic. Maggie destroyed industries in order to create massive inequalities in wealth and break the unions. Labour, contrary to the myth, kept spending under control, but through government spending actually made most people’s lives better and more prosperous. This has been disastrously reversed under the Tories. she also demonstrates how the Tories play on people’s justifiable aversion to bureaucracy to justify their policies cutting welfare spending, by deliberately confusing ‘bureaucracy’ with ‘government spending’. And this is profoundly undemocratic, as it removes people’s ability to improve their lives through the actions of the res publica, the state.
All this is absolutely true. Adam Curtis, in his documentary series, ‘How We Lost Our Dreams Of Freedom’, criticised the NeoConservative ideology of promoting democracy and small government policies because it denied people that ability to improve their lives through political action. And several of the NeoCons interviewed on the programme actually said that their policy was based on limiting people’s democratic choice to protect the dogma of free market economic liberalism with minimal government interference.
As for Maggie Thatcher and her celebration of greed and inequality, Mussolini himself talked about the ‘eternal, fruitful and beneficial inequality of classes’. She made much of her policies being based in ‘Judeo-Christian values’, but a celebration of envy would have profoundly shocked the Christians of the Middle Ages and 16th and 17th centuries. When Bernard Mandeville wrote his ‘Fable of the Bees’, arguing that private vices, like greed, led to public virtue, he was denounced for anti-Christian views, and pilloried as ‘Man-Devil’. Everything about this government is a sham, and its policies are designed only to enrich the obscenely wealthy at the expense of the poor.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Really good summary, as usual . Thanks for sharing this.
I wrote it with conservative supporters in mind, as I had a couple of irate PM’s from their supporters about comments I made on their FB page. Apparently I am a “gobby bird”. Ha ha. Needless to say, the posting of this blog on their site earned me a ban. 🙂
Reblogged this on stewilko's Blog.
LikeLiked by 1 person