Thursday, March 08, 2012

Dorries is right. And no, I have not taken leave of my senses.

"The problem is that policy is being run by two public school boys who don’t know what it’s like to go to the supermarket and have to put things back on the shelves because they can’t afford it for their children’s lunchboxes. What’s worse, they don’t care either."
Not often that I agree with Tory MP Nadine Dorries, but on this, she's spot on.

James Delingpole - a Conservative commentator, writing in the Telegraph adds
under Cameron, Osborne (and with able assistance from yet another millionaire ex-public schoolboy Nick Clegg) the Conservatives really have become the party of the spoiled, remote, arrogant rich. So much so that it makes you wonder why anyone on an income of less than £200,000 a year would even consider voting for them... what I do seriously object to is the effect this cushion of comfort has on their policy-making... Cameron and Osborne (and, though she didn't mention him, Clegg) simply have no idea how badly this recession is treating those struggling middle class families who constitute their core vote.
That's a pretty damning comment. Cameron, Clegg and Co may be able to get away with this scam for a while, but from their point of view, the aspirational middle-income Tory vote is crucial, something that Margaret Thatcher grasped perfectly.

Is it a lack of vision, of coherent political thought and ideology at the heart of government - or is it far worse? They know that there is such a thing as society and that it can be sold off to their mates. The vision is the roll-back of the post-1945 state - the long-term destruction of the National Health Service, the race to the bottom of an American-style system of welfare, rolling back health and safety and work place protection in pursuit of the myth that this will create jobs. Ayn Rand would have been proud of this bunch of wreckers.

The eventual outcome will be grinding poverty for some, a struggle for many and wealth for a privileged few. These policies will not promote social mobility, they will enshrine status and make movement all but impossible, although the dream will be dangled before you to encourage you to keep voting for measures that sustain those few. However, if Cameron cannot sustain the core vote, then that land will be but a dream for him and his cronies.


CharmedLassie said...

Yes, agreeing with Dorries yesterday was the surprise of my week! The sad thing is, because of all the bile and rubbish she spouts on a regular basis, she won't be listened to on this occasion. Never mind that she's articulated precisely what much of the public see as the major problem.

Andy Loughran said...

I concur wholeheartedly.

The problem though does not lie in fixing the current system, but transitioning to a new system where 'value' comes before 'wealth' - the problem with such a transition is that those who currently regard wealth as being 'high value' will lose out to the majority for whom 'high value' is being able to provide food on the table, let the kids play around the neighbourhood, have enough set by to take a holiday every once in a while, and the financial capacity to be able to help out with local volunteer communities, whether that be at an old person's home, scouts, or a neighbourhood group.

It's this 'high value' that the current economy fails to rewards, and through an unrelenting push for labour efficiency/productivity increase when technological improvements aren't 'helping employees, but hindering them.

By exploiting low-cost labour in foreign countries, the West has set of a timebomb. When Henry Ford introduced his first automobiles, he paid his staff incredibly well. Why? If his employees weren't able to pay for the car, then who would they be making them for?

If we take this same logic and apply it to the largest cash-holding company in the world - Apple - where do we end up? At a factory where people are committing suicides for cheap labour, where working conditions are abysmal, and when the product still costs a pretty penny for the 'luxurious west.' Where has that left the social economy? The manufacturers are depressed, the 'luxurious ones' are depressed as they try and get the 'next big thing.' Apple end up with a pile of cash taking up 4% of the stock market - where anything but 'growth' will be seen as a failure by investors, causing their stock to plummet and the 'luxurious ones' and 'manufacturers' to end up suffering.

The new focus has to be on local micro-economies - where 'value' isn't discerned by whether a company turns a handsome profit (and can continue this indefinitely) but in providing what is required, with a smile and some care.