Why I hate Tories - with examples

[Idaho]

I hate politicians generally. They are careerist, self serving and fundamentally corrupt and corruptable. They all seek first to justify themselves, and this becomes the main driver for all actions.

However this thread is specifically what I hate about modern British Toryism.

Example 1:

Prisoners must work harder for privileges - says minster

Example 2:

Shorter holidays and longer days for pupils - says minister

These last two are linked:
Minister urges rich elderly to hand back free travel passes
Many young people to be made homeless by housing benefit cuts

Now I imagine that the first headline has plenty of orgahs nodding their heads, and the second has a few nodders (probably UK Tories). So what's wrong with them?

Like all Tory statements of this sort they conform to 4 basic rules:

• They punish something
• They generally blame the young
• They sound "tough"
• They have no basis in anything resembling science or research, and have all the hallmarks of being a "big idea" created by committee in order to appeal to voters

Tories and punishing
Tories are at heart, quite primal creations. Their response to the foreign is fear. Their reaction to the new is retrenchment. Their answer to anti-social action is violence. Nothing seems more "right" to a Tory than to hit things and hurt them. If there is something you don't like, a good whacking will sort it out. In this sense they both appeal to, and speak from the base nature of humanity. Both of these example policies are punishing policies. Prisoners need more punishment. Punishing prisoners is always good. Students and children need less fun to make them less lazy. Being harsh with children is always good.

Tories and the young
Tories are, on average, significantly older than non-tories. Look at the conservative conference participants and they are usually in their 60s at least. Many much older. Their natural constituents are also old. One of the features of this demographic is a fear of the young. Young people are essentially seen as a menace that can only be tolerated when strictly controlled. Schools and prisons are full of these young people. In the last two examples with have the two approaches to cutting costs when applied to the old and rich (all voluntary) and young and poor (mandatory)

Sounding tough
Not much to add on this other than to restate it. Policies must "sound tough". Why? I am not really sure. It taps into the human (chimp?) desire to not be cheated. Better that people suffer than we are made to look foolish by helping people who are laughing behind our backs. Hence a high profile campaign against people who work and claim unemployment benefit. Millions were spent on well produced tv adverts with these cheats smirking at us for paying them. Even showing images of their generous friends paying for their rounds in the pubs as they smiled evily to themselves. Elicit fear, distrust and resentment, then offer to punish.

No basis in science or research
The last example of the unemployment benefit cheats is a good one. The actual cost of this problem is fairly minor compared to many other costs the government incur through negligence, mistake or poor planning. However it has a punishment angle, and can be sold to voters. In fact the biggest benefit expense the government by a massive margin is pensions. Why not attack these? See point 2.

Making life harder for prisoners is all very appealing. Flogging and locking up. Generally showing them who's boss. But what's the result? We don't really know. Neither does the minister who came out with the statement. The statement wasn't the rational and reasoned policy stance based on principle. It was a "sound tough" meaningless brain fart designed to appeal to voters and set an agenda. It was branding. It was what modern politics is all about. Likewise the claim that children need less free time and more lessons. Is there any evidence that less free time improves children's education? Well actually there is a pretty good body of evidence to the contrary - but that is irrelevant in this case.

So what's my conclusion? Well all politics and hence government policy comes down to electoral positioning and branding. It is about appealing to the base nature of people. And about reinforcing stereotypes and prejudices that people have. In the case of the Tories, the prejudices of realtively wealthy old people.

Politics and government should be a sober, long term project of improving societal outcomes. Making sacrifices here and there for long term improvement. Perhaps even implementing policies that seem counter intuitive, but are backed up by research. Admitting mistakes and embracing change. Removing the knee-jerk and daring to look bad when things go wrong. Instead we have the kind of politics that generates the above examples.

[HopAlongBunny]

The problem with the politics of fear is that it works. Further, it simply requires shuffling funding as opposed to proposing something new. New is dangerous.

[InsaneApache]

I could list the evils of socialism but I'm 53 years old and I'd be dead long before I finished.

[Idaho]

I could list the evils of socialism but I'm 53 years old and I'd be dead long before I finished.

I was going to predict in the opening post that you would remark along the usual well tramelled adversarial lines. I suppose once you start unpicking the motives of toryism, there is nowhere else to go.

[classical_hero]

Example 1 is most definitely true. Prisoners should be punished for their crimes. I say that current prisons are far too easy on those inside.
Example 2 is meh. It is not really that bad to extend the hours of teaching students. I am not for it, but I won't kick up a stink if such a thing goes through.
Example 3. I though the left was for means testing entitlements so those who can afford to live without it can and give support to the less fortunate.
Example 4. Just where is the money going to come from? The UK has a rather sizeable debt that will mean if not tackled now it will cause more harm later on for those who are reliant on the money when it eventually runs out.

[HoreTore]

We're not so different, Idaho. Your four points represent conservatives in general, not just UK ones.

Points 1&2 are the main reasons I identify as a socialist. Not just coming from politicians, mind you, but also what I observe in everyday life. I hate those attitudes with a passion. Point 3 is a continual source of distaste for conservatism in general. Point 4 is something I discovered as I got educated myself, and is what makes me stay a socialist.

I would expand your second point with a general fear/distaste/hate of difference. Conservatives do not judge the of worth behaviour, preferences, etc on objective criteria, they seem to base it on how much it resembles themselves. Kids should behave as they do, and not go skateboarding on the sidewalks. Drink tea instead!

[Idaho]

Example 1 is most definitely true. Prisoners should be punished for their crimes. I say that current prisons are far too easy on those inside.
Example 2 is meh. It is not really that bad to extend the hours of teaching students. I am not for it, but I won't kick up a stink if such a thing goes through.
Example 3. I though the left was for means testing entitlements so those who can afford to live without it can and give support to the less fortunate.
Example 4. Just where is the money going to come from? The UK has a rather sizeable debt that will mean if not tackled now it will cause more harm later on for those who are reliant on the money when it eventually runs out.

Exhibit A: the Tory.

Other than reflecting on your emotional response to the issues and issuing opinion based on that. Do you not think that some rational appraisal and review of the impact of such proposals should be paramount? Or do you trust your knee jerk implicitly?

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

Example 1 is most definitely true. Prisoners should be punished for their crimes. I say that current prisons are far too easy on those inside.
Example 2 is meh. It is not really that bad to extend the hours of teaching students. I am not for it, but I won't kick up a stink if such a thing goes through.
Example 3. I though the left was for means testing entitlements so those who can afford to live without it can and give support to the less fortunate.
Example 4. Just where is the money going to come from? The UK has a rather sizeable debt that will mean if not tackled now it will cause more harm later on for those who are reliant on the money when it eventually runs out.

Since your location is listed as Perth, where I lived for a number of years (I'm currently in Melbourne), do you mind if I ask which Australian party you would identify most with?

I personally view the OP as an entirely reasonable observation on the key problems with current 'right-wing' politics. I am all for sustainable economic policies and a 'fair' system: I just do not see how the British or Australian coalitions are providing that in their track record and advertised policies respectively.

[InsaneApache]

I was going to predict in the opening post that you would remark along the usual well tramelled adversarial lines. I suppose once you start unpicking the motives of toryism, there is nowhere else to go.

I've said it before and I'll say it again.

Listen very carefully.

I. AM. NOT. A. TORY.

[Brennus]

I. AM. NOT. A. TORY.

I. AM. QUITE. SURPRISED.

[Idaho]

I've said it before and I'll say it again.

Listen very carefully.

I. AM. NOT. A. TORY.

I am surprised as everything you've ever posted screams "tory".

[Fragony]

I've said it before and I'll say it again.

Listen very carefully.

I. AM. NOT. A. TORY.

I feel your pain

[Greyblades]

Almost a big a con as capitalism. Particularly trickle down economics.

I could list the evils of socialism but I'm 53 years old and I'd be dead long before I finished.

Lazy, or empty, the world will never know.

[InsaneApache]

Capitalism a con? The very thing that has lifted billions out of poverty in the third world.

Or maybe your getting it confused with corporatism, which is not the same thing.

[Brennus]

As Karl Marx noted, no other social or economic system before capitalism had done as much to break the bonds of slavery and raise people out of poverty...

...now, on topic. The problem is the Tories take such a revolutionary system and use it to establish and entrench themselves at the top of the social spectrum.

[Idaho]

Capitalism a con? The very thing that has lifted billions out of poverty in the third world.

Or maybe your getting it confused with corporatism, which is not the same thing.

I don't think you understand the topic. Perhaps you would be kind enough to start your own capitalism versus socialism thread and stop derailing this one?

[Rhyfelwyr]

OP is almost enough to make me want to vote Labour. But I still won't do that, you won't catch me voting yet.

The policy on prisons is the most moronic. Idaho is spot on that the emotional response the Tories are plugging into has nothing to do with what the facts show. In fact, here's a quote from the Daily Mail of all sources, lol:

"And yet, an extensive new study undertaken by researchers across all the Nordic countries reveals that the reoffending average across Europe is about 70-75 per cent. In Denmark, Sweden and Finland, the average is 30 per cent. In Norway it is 20 per cent. Thus Bastoy [the most 'progressive' prison], at just 16 per cent, has the lowest reoffending rate in Europe."

Overcrowding and a lack of activities has caused UK prisons to start to resemble those in America. Combine this with the socioeconomic disadvantages of certain groups, and we're starting to see them being taken divided along ethnic and religious lines. In Scotland and Northern Ireland, you have the loyalist and republican gangs. In England, you have whites, blacks, and Islamist gangs.

Petty criminals are thrown in with the worst kinds, and have to become like them unless they are going to be victimised. What exactly do the authorities expect to happen when you throw a bunch of young guys, many with a history of violence, into an overcrowded space with absolutely nothing to do?

I cannot think of a more unproductive way to treat criminals. You may as well beg to have them completely fail to integrate with society and stay in the prison system, costing that precious taxpayer money, their whole lives.

Or maybe your getting it confused with corporatism, which is not the same thing.

The problem is that corporatism is an inevitable consequence of capitalism.

Capitalism is great at the 'small, independent business' stage. The problem is a few businesses start to eat up the competition, and then you're on the way to corporatism.

[Greyblades]

Capitalism a con? The very thing that has lifted billions out of poverty in the third world.

...What history have you learnt? Capitalism did jack squat for most of those billions. Minimum wage,the main reason most of those billions are above the poverty line, that came about only because of socialist movements, capitalists most certainly didn't agree to pay more than bare minimum without being forced. Safety standards, that's socialist, capitalists didn't want to pay extra to preserve a notoriously replaceable resource. Sane working hours, that's socialist.

Want to see what happens when capitalism runs without limits of socialism look at the victorian period, the 1800's. At it's purest capitalism was so bad those billions considered stalinist russia as a marked improvement.

Anyway, back on topic. The tories are the guys we get to pay our debts, arrogant ruthless gits though they may be they can make a buck (or did until recently) for everything else we go with Labour who at least pretend to give a spit about anything other than themselves.

[Idaho]

I also think that the kinds of people able to succeed as politicians are those who have skills in pandering to those above them, and crushing those below them. These people aren't actually that bright.