03 November 2007

David Cameron Is A Phony Liberal.

David Cameron has desperately tried to conceal that he spent nearly a third of a million pounds on domestic private jets and helicopter flights in the last 2 years (not including his international flights). This is not the actions of someone who believes in the environment or someone who believes in open government.

Whether Cameron made a joke about 'one legged Lithuanian' lesbians or dance troupes, this is not the actions of...
someone who believes in equality for minorities, this is the sort of joke we have come to expect from reactionary unreconstructed Tories about the disabled, foreigners and gay people (when off their guard).

And that is exactly what David Cameron, Boris Johnson and George Osbourne really are - unreconstructed Tories. Do we really believe they no longer support section 28? Surely someone who supported such a vindictive policy doesn't just suddenly change their attitude and love gay people? Are they really serious about reducing inequality while still praising the policies of Thatcher? Have they really changed their mind on the congestion charge and the minimum wage? Don't believe a word of it!

Cameron, Johnson, Osbourne and co are actually more frightening than even this, because they are from the generation who were young Conservatives in the 1980s, with their frat boy antics that were so right wing and fascist even the Tory hierachy were embarrassed. They scrapped the lot and changed the branding to Conservative Future (even more scary!) but few were fooled.

Whether it be inheritance tax or stamp duty, the only people who benefit from Tory policies are the well off. Sadly the Tory press have persuaded some of us otherwise but don't be fooled. If Cameron is ever PM, we will soon see his true colours.


  1. Neil, all will be lost when the Conservative Party have policies you support!

    Until that fateful day, revel in the fact that the general public are offered a choice at every Election! They can either vote for tax cuts to reward those who work or vote for benefit increases to reward those who would rather stay at home and breed.

  2. "equality for minorities"

    WTF? Neil, even you in all seriousness cannot be suggesting that a homophobic Muslim minority be forced to live on equal terms with a decent, law-abiding and tolerant gay/lesbian minority?

    Or are you?

  3. Are they really serious about reducing inequality while still praising the policies of Thatcher?

    They seem to have been taking lessons from our current PM. What has he done recently (or in the last ten years) towards reducing inequality - oh yes, put up marginal rates of tax for the poorest employed people - great work.

    I don't think any politicians have exactly covered themselves in glory regarding their carbon bootprint - none of the current senior Labour lot are very good at saving energy are they?

  4. Urko: How much worse do you think inequality would be without the £100bns of redistribution through tax credits, national minimum wage and expenditure on public services that this 'new Labour' government have achieved?

    From what I heard it was John Prescott, Ian McCatrney etc. who blocked Blair from holding referendums on PR and the Euro. So it is 'old Labour' we have to blame for the continuation of the Tory lack of democracy in this country and xenophobia on Europe.

  5. Snafu: Don't you think it is time the Tories came into the 20th century at least? - I know the 21st century is asking too much of them.

  6. Mark, it was a lazy phrase - all I meant was that minorities should not be discriminated against

  7. Unlike that phoney "1984 is my instruction manual" liberal Brown.

    As for the joke, it was a sodding joke. Clearly meant to be offensive to grant committees that sponsor ludicrous events rather anyone else.

    As for the "£100bns of redistribution through tax credits, national minimum wage and expenditure on public services"

    Tax credits are the most idiotic idea possible, a decent size income allowance would achieve those goals without being so complicated that as to require huge administration costs. The allowance also has the advantage of being workable.

    There are arguments for and against the minimum wage but what they boil down to is that the higher the minimum wage the more unemployable people you have. Where to set that level is the only thing to argue about on it.

    As for the expenditure on public services....surely even from your lefty perspective you can see that simply pouring money in has been massively ineffective. It is time to try other methods of provision. After all, some things are far too important to be left to the government and those things that must be should be devolved to the lowest level possible.