A Tory Guide to Getting Quick Cash

Image by Palestine Solidarity Campaign

In times of economic crisis, the Conservatives usually find themselves in Government (cheekily proclaiming themselves the ‘natural party’) and with the task of cutting the deficit and balancing the books. This is a task they have long developed a strategy for – if you can’t cut the services, privatise them – easy. Unsurprisingly, this is exactly the kind of strategy that has been in place since the 2010 General Election win.

They are a party of supposed economic credibility; they can decrease the expenditure and debt of the country. But the tactic of privatisation is just an easy way of getting quick cash; if you can sell something for a good enough price, you’re going to get the money much quicker than if you persevered and waited for the profit (if there even is one) to add up. Take some examples that have come out recently: student loans debt, Royal Mail, blood plasma and, more recently, social services. Here we have a wide range of government-provided but publicly-funded services that are part of the majority of society’s everyday lives. These institutions arguably provide the backbone of UK stability and health, but the government is proposing to sell them off to possibly reckless profit-orientated major corporations.

The latter case, the idea of privatising the social services, is simply abhorrent. These services help the most vulnerable children in society, protecting them from harm and helping to enable themselves to get a better lifestyle. Whilst publicly run, this is exactly the kind of service the government should be funding and providing; a government should be concerned about the welfare of its paying citizens and working on behalf of its citizens. To grant this service to a major corporation is to ignore the fact that most companies have a primary interest in raising as much money as they can as quickly as they can. As long as they provide a legally compliant service, that’s as high as they will aim, whilst asking for extortionate price. We are only able to hope that, if the sale does indeed go ahead, that the resulting managers of the social services aren’t of detriment to those who desperately need them.

This isn’t just a made-up negative judgement; it’s fact. We saw earlier this week how security companies such as Serco and G4S have been overcharging the government and, thus, the public for the installation and monitoring of security tags on offenders. Our train providers are among the most expensive in Europe. And, there’s the ever-growing problem of companies moving abroad to rake in cheap labour, destroying jobs back in the UK. In a capitalist economy, it should come as no surprise that corporations only exist to make as much money off their consumer as they can get away with. They may not even care how their services are used, only that they are gaining some money in the process. Take for example, the reports that Palestinian children are being held and, allegedly, tortured, in G4S prisons in Israel. They claim they are not breaking “international law” but surely their actions are still immoral.

But this description can surely be applied to the Tory government too. Their strategy of making cuts and selling companies is simply a way of getting as much money back as they can almost ignoring the detrimental side-effects it may have on society. Meanwhile, they will report that borrowing has fallen, the deficit has fallen, and the Government is recovering the UK’s economy. Is this really the case or just an illusion?

Prime Minister’s Questions – 17th July

Image by Victoria Kettlewell

How much of the UK’s legislation has been bought by lobbyists? Both sides of the House questioned that today. The Tories questioned Labour’s relationship with trade unions, in particular Unite, with Cameron stating that trade unions buy Labour’s policies, candidates, MPs and even leader. Meanwhile, Labour requested an answer to the connection between the advice of Lynton Crosby and the decision to not go ahead with plain packaging on tobacco products. Neither side gave particularly satisfactory answers. Miliband was particularly quiet on the day’s announcement of falling unemployment (despite long term unemployment levels having gone up) and this was something that Cameron made sure the House was aware of. As expected, another dominant topic was the Keogh Report, which placed 11 NHS Trusts under special measures with both sides of the house disagreeing on the change of number of nurses and clinical staff since the Government took power in 2010. The sight of Cameron lying back in relaxation, head towards the ceiling, was not unobvious; as we head into the Summer Recess, Cameron is in a strong position, with a recent poll placing Labour and the Conservatives on an equal lead, and he’s revelling in the knowledge. According to him, Labour’s leadership is “in crisis” – everyday, the country is getting stronger, and everyday Miliband’s leadership is getting weaker.

Remembering Thatcher

 Image by Chris Beckett

In the wake of Margaret Thatcher’s death, euphoria appears to be sweeping over the nation, with calls to rename the August Bank Holiday ‘Margaret Thatcher Day’ and to replace the five pound note’s Elizabeth Fry with Maggie. However, this is not as wide-spread a demand as it would appear to be; the demand is being exemplified by the media and the governing Tory party. In a bid to continue the celebration of the late Prime Minister, Tories are aiming to present the controversial leader on an everyday basis. But surely there are better and more politically neutral people who can take these places, if they do indeed need taking?

Margaret Thatcher’s death in April provided a fresh chance on the debate on her legacy – whichever side of the spectrum you swing, it is difficult to deny that she changed the scene of the UK forever – but the celebrations of this legacy have evolved into an unprecedented demand for everlasting jubilation. Tory MP for Wellingborough, Peter Bone, wants the country to celebrate the late August Bank Holiday as Margaret Thatcher day as early as next year, with the second reading of the Private Member’s Bill (aptly named ‘Margaret Thatcher Day Bill’) taking place today. At present, there are no days specially named after any politicians, let alone Prime Ministers, so it seems strange to allow the first one to be named after someone so controversial, who continues to provoke such strong debate nearly 35 years since she first took power. After all, surely there have been better candidates, solely within the Prime Minister category, for such an honour. Take, for example, Clement Attlee, the mid-20^th century Labour Prime Minister who oversaw the creation of the NHS and the world’s most extensive welfare state. This man’s work improved (and continues to do so) the life of millions, significant reducing the deaths of diphtheria, pneumonia and tuberculosis within the working class very quickly, as well as providing well-paid work to consultants. Whatever your views on the current NHS, this legacy continues to live on and improve the lives of millions, and is undeniably a major benefit to the UK.

Furthermore, although not a direct decision of the Palace of Westminster but the Bank of England, there is a view to remove Elizabeth Fry from the five pound note and replace her with the Conservative Prime Minister, Winston Churchill. However, as the only female (excepting Her Majesty) remaining on UK currency, there is a large campaign to increase the number of women remembered on our banknotes. Again, we are presented with the proposals to replace Elizabeth Fry with dear old Maggie. There are most certainly other women we can be proud of and owe more of today’s rights and luxuries too. We have Florence Nightingale, the social reformer and founder of modern nursing, Emmeline Pankhurst, the leader of the suffragette movement, and Emily Davison, the suffragette who died fighting for women’s rights to vote, who are all deserving of a celebration of their contributions to Britain’s rights and freedoms. They draw respect and inspire many across the political spectrum and across the world that Thatcher does not share; they lived their lives to further the women’s cause in a way that Thatcher denounced; and, they formed a pillar of society alike to those that Thatcher wished to destroy.

Despite her undeniable changes to the country, Thatcher is far less deserving of the privileges currently being discussed to be given posthumously than others who lived before her. As a controversial character, she inspires both joy and hatred in citizens across the country and, indeed, world. There are most definitely other more unifying and celebratory historical figures who are worthy of the luxuries that are being granted to our former Prime Minister, whom we should ensure we consider.