Why I still hate the conservatives more

I have learnt about a downside (upside?) of blogging. You have to carefully construct your posts to be clear. And I thought this would be a break from essay writing...

I decided to write this blog because of following the election very closely and getting very involved in politics/policy. My own emotional-value-laden distate for the conservative party riles me up and makes me so angry that it catalyses an eruption which I thought best channelled into something productive.

However, I acknowledge the Labour party were not any better. I am not a party follower, I am a policy advocate. If I support any party it would be an amalgamation of the Greens/Lib Dems/Labour manifesto. The 'New' Labour party represented a continuation of the Thatcherite Neoliberal agenda, often rolling out policies that would have been considered bold even for the lady herself.

The Greens are the only party commiting to any serious reform in this country. Their contraversial citizen's wage which would pay a wage to recognise voluntary work and caring responsibilities is a particular favourite of mine. It is contraversial in terms of our current politics, and yet frequently discussed in the policy literature as a solution to social exclusion, unpaid carers, gender inequality and lack of community cohesion.

I suppose none of the political parties truly support these societal aims. The desperate blundering of public services would have happened under any of our main three parties. However, I can't see Labour cutting child benefit. Labour at least in theory oppose these kind of cuts.

The fundamental difference between Labour and The Conservatives is philosophical. The Conservatives follow the free markets with an almost religious commitment: state intervention into markets is wrong, taxation is slavery, intervention into the lives of the individual (other than to impose law and order) is wrong. The market delivers all! Progess is wealth, inequality stimulates productivity, inequality encourage innovation. Wealth and inequality in wealth are the staple tools in our society.

From this viewpoint, inequality is a necessary part of the market. It is not something to reduce, and any interference in the market or the lives of the individuals to improve the situation of those worse off is unwelcome.

The Labour party (in theory) follow a more collective philosophical agenda. As opposed to the staunch individualism of the conservatives, they believe (in theory) that society should act collectively to remove inequality. Markets are seen as imperfect mechanisms that create inequality, and governments are meant to protect the worst off from these effects. Markets are flawed, and cannot deliver public services such as health care and education.

Therefore, (in theory) inequality is something to be stamped out. People disadvantaged by the market should be protected against the worst effects... poverty and all that goes with it.


It is forgotten that this is the root of the differences between the parties. I know I have presented the differences in black and white form, when in actuality there are few fundamentalists. However, essentially, my comments remain true.

Maybe my hatred for the conservative party is that it stands for this in principle. That is why I am so angry about them getting elected... at least with a Labour government we could pretend that we cared. I also find the incredible wealth of the tories rather distateful. And their inheritance tax policy represents everything I find disgusting about society. Are they so out of touch with the average UK citizen that they actually feel sorry for 'the normal hard working people' who get taxed on £1,000,000?

Additionally I am fearful of the zombies creeping out the woodwork into Cameron's cabinet for 'Change', missing (hidden) from the election campaign. Hague, Duncan Smith, Letwin, May. The people of nightmares! Shudder.

But do not confuse this personal distaste with a belief that the Labour party, away from the theory, in practise were/are much better.