With the Tories` much-vaunted "long-term economic
plan" now clearly in disarray, and "deficit reduction targets" about to be
missed, one would have thought that such news would at least make the front
page of a newspaper claiming to be left-of-centre (New figures reignite fears
that Osborne will fail to hit his budget surplus goal,23/12/15). Having won the
May election by convincing the electorate that only Tories can manage the
economy competently and reduce the deficit, and that Labour governments borrow
too much, this administration has already borrowed £66.9bn in eight months, when
its twelve month target is £68.9bn.
Billions of pounds are being denied to the
Treasury every year, money which, if used sensibly, could transform our health
and education services, as well as providing finance for much-needed improvement
of our infrastructure. So when "some of the biggest and most profitable
investment banks in the City of London" are found to have paid "little or no
corporation tax last year", shouldn`t this be headline news, too (Outrage as top
City banks pay almost no tax on £3.6bn profit,23/12/15)? The Tories, after all,
supposedly think such tax avoidance is "morally repugnant", and promised years
ago to make greedy businesses, like these banks, "smell the
coffee".
The opposition parties in parliament do have a
duty to challenge the actions of the government, but arguments and elections
will not be won by them as long as the more liberal elements of the press fail
to highlight government failures like these. Brilliant editorials are all very
well, and it is right to criticise the government for "redefining poverty out of
existence", rather than attempting to abolish it, but this government cannot be
allowed to brainwash, again, the public with its "competence" and "caring"
nonsense. (Christmas illustrates a truth the Tories ignore: money
matters,23/12/15).
Of course it is right, too, to highlight
humanitarian issues like the plight of the refugees, but there is a lot of news
space on a front page; it is not only Labour`s anti-Corbyn brigade in the
parliamentary party who are hindering Labour`s chances of election success in
2020.
Your editorial on the prime-minister concludes that
"it is time for Mr Cameron to show some steel", but ducking confrontation has,
as it admits, "served him well" in the past, and the likelihood of a change in
policy in 2016 is slim (The price of party unity has been a loss of strategic
purpose,26/12/15). The reason is simple: there is no "steel" to be shown, either
by him, or his leader-in-waiting, George Osborne. The latter talks frequently of
having to make "difficult decisions", but is it really painful or awkward for a
Tory chancellor to cut benefits for the poorest and most vulnerable in our
society, whilst shielding his party`s key supporters from the effects of
austerity? Claiming tax avoidance by companies and rich individuals to be
"morally repugnant", and warning that they will soon "smell the coffee", is
easy, when there is no intention of taking effective action, and the Treasury
continues to be denied billions of much-needed revenue (Outrage as top City
banks pay almost no tax on £3.6bn profit,23/12/15).
Cameron is an ideal Tory leader, because he has
no backbone, and refusing concessions to opponents within the party would,
indeed, "be out of character". Deferring a Tory "civil war", whilst he and his
chancellor reduce the size of the state, and enrich supporters with cut-price
privatisations, is his only strategy. As long as so many voters strangely view
this procrastination as "prime-ministerial", there is no reason for a "steely"
pretence, especially when myopic opposition parties fail to see the open-goals
offered to them.
Bernard Jenkin is right to say that "people in
politics" should not be denied an honour "just because they give public
service", but what on earth does this have to do with the highly paid
Australian, Lynton Crosby (Knighthood for Tories` election strategist undermines
honours system, say critics, 28/12/15)?
Bernard Jenkin is right to say that "people in
politics" should not be denied an honour "just because they give public
service", but what on earth does this have to do with the highly paid
Australian, Lynton Crosby (Knighthood for Tories` election strategist undermines
honours system, say critics, 28/12/15)?
No comments:
Post a Comment