Britain, Conservative Party, David Cameron, Ed Miliband, Environmentalism, European Union, Health, UKIP, Welfare

Why we should ditch the Tories at the next election

While musing about the nature of modern politics I remembered an encounter I had with the then council leader of a Home Counties’ District Council. A Conservative fellow of honest repute who when asked by my good self whether he would consider standing for Parliament after his service “running” the district council replied thus: “No. I control a bigger budget than I ever would as an MP”.

It was at this moment that my membership and association with the Conservative Party officially died its final and very terminal death. Since that day 7 or 8 years ago I have always wondered why right-wing types vote for the Conservative Party and having analysed all the data have come to following conclusion. Tory voters who vote for the Conservative Party are the political equivalent of heroin addicts. Trapped in an unbreakable spiral unaware of the damage they do to themselves and society.

Oblivious to the reality going round outside them they go through life in a dreamworld of Conservative induced certainty never knowing what the effect of their actions really are. It doesn’t harm anyone, really, does it?

Well, actually it does. It now ensures that we have no choice between the 3 main parties and because of this they are pretty much free to say what they want during an election campaign knowing full well that if they change their mind they will (a) probably not lose that many votes and (b) it doesn’t matter anyway as the other lot would have done pretty much the same thing anyway.

I mean, look at this current Conservative government and compare with the last illustrious government.

Defence:                                             Identical in approach but worse in effect.

Europe:                                               Identical.

Benefits:                                              Marginally better in some future years assuming economic  indicators come true.

Health:                                                 Don’t Ask. It takes real skill to come out with a policy that everyone hates and will be so watered down so as to be not worth implementing other than to save the face of the implementer.

Environment:                                      Identical in most respects but a lot worse in others.

Foreign Policy:                                    Same silly wars, sucking up to dictators when it suits and some silly Foreign Secretary.

Home Affairs:                                    Identical but fewer police and weaker sentencing.

Treasury:                                              Borrowing getting worse again and acceptance of the high tax regime of the Labour Government.

I admit that the current PM is not a sociopathic spineless freak who hides in the toilet every time something bad happens but this fellow does seem to think that being PM mainly involves dreaming up some ridiculous policy, giving it his full backing and then hanging the relevant minister out to dry when everyone with an IQ over, let’s be generous here, 25, points out that the policy is laughable.

So, naturally the Conservative voters on seeing the approach of the government are deserting the party in droves and wondering where the hell the party they knew and put up with went. Nope. Support has remained constant if not up from the last election. Which can mean only 2 things; the entire population (save for nutters like myself) are New Labourites with a common goal of living in a high tax, high maintenance country or a large chunk of Conservatives voters will put voting for the party before their political beliefs. And I reckon it is the latter.

Drift through the comments section of the Telegraph and you will find the same measly arguments cropping up. UKIP was a wasted vote, what other choice is there, at least it is better than the alternative, better Cameron than Milliband etc, etc. Well I think not. And I think that the Conservative Party would be a hell of a lot better off it all its normal voters gave it the heave-ho for one election. 15% vote share type of effort. It would force out the entire bench-warming party loyalist Trotskyites and refresh the party from the bottom up. It would also give the party back to its grass root members.

And the fear that the other lot would get in? Take a look at their policies – would it really matter if we had a New Labour Government led by Cameron or Milliband for 4 or 5 years? The only other option would require much harder work. Reform the Tory Party as an entity separate in thought, in being, in action, in philosophy and intent and do it quickly.


11 thoughts on “Why we should ditch the Tories at the next election

  1. Interesting article. It’s great that you’ve noted the homogenous nature of the parties at the moment. Aside from policy though, they are of similar age and background now. Even worse is that in future leaders debates, there will be even less for us to go on in recognising the differences between parties. At least they let us know which party they stand for by their tie colour……

    Posted by Danieldeanwillis | July 7, 2011, 9:03 pm
  2. I would also add education to the list of policies that make the Tories no different to the left. They proceed blithely with the great comprehensive experiment. To not oppose comprehensive education – and, indeed, continue it – is socialist or an act of obeisance to socialism.

    A proper Tory Party would reintroduce grammar schools.

    Posted by jamesgarry1979 | July 8, 2011, 8:29 am
  3. It’s clear to see that the two major parties have made a massive shift towards the centre ground in the past 15 years. I personally believe the Tories are exceptionally scared of being seen as the nasty party at the moment, and won’t stick the finger up to the people and give a bit of tough love like Thatcher did.

    The most important thing to remember is that all the things that you listed revolve around the strength of the economy. Under the Conservatives the government will cut spending, and hopefully stimulate the private sector some what to pick up from a lot of the non-jobs in the civil service.

    Labour did not agree to cut spending in the way Tories have done, and if they were to do that I am fairly certain we would have lost our AAA credit rating, the implications of this are so huge, and such a long list that it would seem like a long rant, which I might one day publish an article for.

    The Conservatives at the moment are massively constrained by what they can do because of the economy, and public opinion, which they are barely winning/losing depending on which poll you read. No doubt though the cycle of Labour completely demolish the public finances, followed by Conservatives fixing them, followed by Labour making massive promises on spending, then getting reelected for the cycle to repeat itself will continue though..

    Another term of Labour would lead to more willfull mismanagement of public finances, something which the Conservatives are much less likely to do, which is why I will continue to vote for them, they need to take a long look at the way their policies on a lot of things, and NHS reform under the Tories was always going to be controversial. In fact any reform of any public sector body is always controversial by muesli munching Guardian readers who simply have no concept of a defecit, or are in complete denial.

    Cameron has my vote, barely. Good article 🙂

    Posted by politicspreacher | July 8, 2011, 10:07 am
  4. Excellent article, but why stop there. Two have real choice why not vote for AV/PR and allow real choice at the ballot box as opposed to tweedle dumb and tweedle dee?

    Posted by orderandtradition | July 8, 2011, 2:11 pm
  5. I broadly agree. Although @James – are you suggesting we abolish comprehensive eduction?

    Posted by Wes Brown | July 10, 2011, 1:44 pm
    • @Wes Brown

      I advocate the rebuilding of grammar schools so that academically able children from poorer backgrounds have a chance to succeed in life and not have their talents wasted by the comprehensive system.

      The trouble with the comprehensive system is that its designed to manufacture equality. It is impossible to give everyone an equally good education so it satisfies itself to give everyone an equally bad education. For this reason it fails its academically able children.

      I favour the tripartite system of education over what we have now because the tripartite system was based on merit and aptitude.

      So, yes, I’d abolish state funded comprehensives and replace them with state funded grammars, moderns and technicals.

      Where do you stand on the subject of comprehensive education? Can it be drastically improved despite its limitations?

      Posted by jamesgarry1979 | July 10, 2011, 6:39 pm
  6. @James Garry

    I’ve been drinking and eating meat all day, so apologies for the slow reply.

    I too am in favour of a tripartite system, in the spirit of Rab Butler. I went to a comprehensive school – a ‘good’ comprehensive, in Headingley, Leeds, which meant a lot of Left wing, well off, middle class types sent their kids to our school expecting to get the same level of education as a private school.

    The reality was, rather than integrate, the ‘cream’ stayed at the top socially and in terms of achievement, while the rest of us had to make do with poor discipline and less attentive teaching. There was an apartheid in the school between the have’s and the have not’s.

    And while this contributed toward a Leftwing masturbation fantasy, that they could send their kids to a bog standard comp and get Oxbridge places, to the rest of us, getting to Oxbridge was a more faraway than going to a private school.

    The reintroduction of grammar schools would give those who deserve an academic path a chance, and those who don’t, the opportunity to learn skills that are vital to a career path and important for us in a competitive economy.

    I’ve drank two beers, a bottle of wine, four vodkas and half a bottle of whiskey. I’ll reply properly later….

    Posted by Wes Brown | July 11, 2011, 3:10 am
  7. The Political Parties are fighting over the floating voter, their timidity is born of the belief that if they “abandon the centre ground” the election is lost. Of course, the extent to which Politician’s (particularly national ones) can legislate to introduce real and effective change is debatable anyway.

    Posted by cdmarsden | July 15, 2011, 9:04 pm


  1. Pingback: Mass immigration, sexualised children, cheap booze: Are free markets really right-wing? « Politics on Toast - July 12, 2011

  2. Pingback: George Osborne or David Davis should stab David Cameron in the back « Politics on Toast - July 19, 2011

Debate this article!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Read all about…

Sites We Like

Directories We’re Listed In

British Blogs Politics Blogs
Politics Blog Directory
Add blog to our directory. My Zimbio
KudoSurf Me!
%d bloggers like this: