Wednesday, April 18, 2007

The Tories Are Still the Nasty Party

Recently there has been this nasty lie going around that Gordon Brown has raided the state pensions in order to subsidise the British economy. Aside from the fact that even the Tories grudgingly admit that we have a relatively stable economy (which they try and pin the responsibility on the previous Tory government, even though Labour have now been in power for a decade), this is not exactly true.
This is what happened. Gordon Brown stopped a Conservative government subsidy for people who were wealthy enough to pay for private pensions. He then consequently put the money into the NHS in order to bring down the waiting list:
As the Tories know, the effect on the Pension industry was miniscule. All it did was remove a £5bn subsidy, which can hardly bankrupt an industry worth £1,000bn.
In consequence, Brown has virtually eradicated long-term waiting on the NHS. In 1997, 283,866 people in England were waiting more than six-months for an operation. Today, according to independently verified figures, there are only 299. That is still 299 too many and the system is still imperfect. For the Tories to then try and frighten vulnerable state pensioners is disgusting and vile.
The Express did the icing on the cake today by listing in it's editorial every postwar Chancellor of the Exchequer as being better than Gordon Brown. What, are the noveau riche of Middle England really dumb enough to believe that Norman Lamont (who wiped out 3.4bn of Britian's reserves in one day) is better than Gordon Brown? Richard Desmond has run an industry which peddles to the sad fantasies of sexist men and women which demeans them. A pity he has seen fit to continue in stoking the fantasies that arise from the fears of financial wellbeing from the vulnerable.


C4' said...

The Tories have NEVER been the nasty party

Paul Burgin said...

Obviously I don't agree and am more than happy to list various incidences to prove my point, although I hasten to add that many individual Conservatives are not nasty at all, quite the opposite

Anonymous said...

"which they try and pin the responsibility on the previous Tory government, even though Labour have now been in power for a decade"

The first three years of Labour Government were based on Conservative spending plans and you use Thatcherite econcomics. You do not even bother to pretend to aim for full employment!

New Labour = Old Tory

And the Lib Dems...they are a long long way behind in terms of economics.

Your all the same.

Paul Burgin said...

Not exactly. Hence why Gordon Brown made the move that he which has caused a storm in a teacup these past few days.
As for unemployment. There is far less unemployment than the three million under Margaret Thatcher, plus there is now the National Minimum Wage and initatives like the New Deal which, incidentally, I have benefitted from.

Anonymous said...

I said SPENDING was the same. Sure he made his move to increase taxes, but that did not change the fact that you stuck to Tory spending plans.

And as for the 3 million unemployed, that was clearly because the economy was so screwed up by Labour + Con govts. that used Keynsian economic theory post WW2.

Changing to Reaganomics is the best thing anyone did in the C19th and the 3mill was the 'gap' period Friendmen warned Thatcher would happen. She however, had the balls to do what was good in the long term, not just the short term unlike Cameron, Blair etc.

Labour benifited hugely and built upon Thatcher. The huge increases in spending are only possible because Thatcher layed the foundations to a good economy throughout the 80s and Brown has had an easy job.

Paul Burgin said...

If the foundations for a good economy were that perfect in the 1980's, how come after the first recession, there followed a rapid boom and bust which put house prices through the roof and where unemployment did not significantly drop?

Anonymous said...

Its not very nice to ask a question and then not make my reply public...