In her Monday (10th) column, Yasmin Alibhai-Brown of the Independent asserted that "It's OK to totally loathe [the Tories] once again". She explains how she felt agitated by Theresa May's anti-Human Rights Act episode at the Conservative Party conference in Manchester last week. However, her piece - outlining why the Tories are worthy of our scorn - was met with passionate disapproval. One critic referred to her opining as "truly horrible bile". Another described Alibhai-Brown as "silly, out of touch [and] bitter". This scornful response would suggest that not everyone is feeling let down by David Cameron's right-wing rabble. Despite unemployment rising (latest figures showing that youth unemployment alone has risen to 991,000; 2.566m unemployed overall) and economic growth stagnating, the Tories find their support just 1 point down since the general election (35%), with Labour just 2 points ahead (37%).
The Conservative's support declined most during the News International phone-hacking fiasco, when party support fell to 32%. Cameron still enjoys greater popularity than both Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg. Just 18% of Tory supporters are dissatisfied with Cameron's performance compared to 34% of Labour supporters who feel frustrated by their leader. But how can this be? Whilst Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg has never fully recovered following his party's tuition fees U-turn, David Cameron's faults and incompetence is skirted around and conveniently veiled by our right-wing media. Newspaper's that endorsed Cameron before the general election - the Daily Telegraph, the Daily Mail, the Sun, the Daily Express, the Times and the FT - have loyally stood by their man and chosen to overlook his many faults. Thankfully, not all of us are so blinkered.
Let us start with VAT. In April 2009, David Cameron told a group in Exeter, "If you look at the effect of sales tax (VAT), it's very regressive, it hits the poorest the hardest". During an interview with Jeremy Paxman (23rd April 2010) Cameron stated, "We have absolutely no plans to raise VAT. Our first budget is all about recognising we need to get spending under control rather than putting up tax". Needless to say, earlier this year, VAT rose from 17.5% to a record high of 20%; something Ed Balls rightly predicted would harm Britain's recovery. Not only was this decision economically reckless (growth has flatlined as a result of consumers having less to spend), it also highlights Cameron's willingness to conceal the truth for electoral purposes. This rise signals a direct U-turn on a campaign pledge not to raise VAT as, in Cameron's own words, it would "hit the poorest hardest".
Just four days before the general election, Cameron memorably stated on the Andrew Marr Show, "What I can tell you is, any cabinet minister, if I win the election, who comes to me and says: "Here are my plans" and they involve front-line reductions, they'll be sent straight back to their department to go away and think again". Since this vow, universities have witnessed an 80% reduction in teaching budgets, the police have received front-line cuts and the NHS is suffering real term cuts. These decisions are made, they say, to help pay off the huge deficit - something they knew about long before taking office; so why were these cuts not made evident in their manifesto? But what troubles me most is that Cameron, last August, claimed that the coalition's biggest priority was cracking down on benefit fraud. He stated in the Sun, "That's why benefit fraud is the first and deepest cut we will make".
Benefit fraud costs the state approximately £1.5bn annually. This sum represents about 1% of the £155bn overall budget deficit. Tax evasion, mainly conducted by the rich, costs the state £25bn annually. The Ministry of Defence, it was revealed, wastes £2.5bn a year carrying out projects it cannot afford. Despite this, Cameron sees chasing the £1.5bn in benefit fraud as a bigger governmental priority than chasing the £27.5bn lost each and every year to tax evasion and ministerial waste. Why? Because, as ever, the Conservative's view protecting their rich supporters as more essential than helping the less well off in society. This is why, when Ed Miliband and other Labour ministers say these decisions are ideologically driven, they are correct.
Further proof of this ideologically driven agenda comes in the form of pension's reform. The government has continually claimed that the current public-sector pension system is "unaffordable" and "untenable". David Cameron himself stated that the current system, if kept, was in danger of going "broke". As an aside, cynical attempts have been made to stir resentment between private and public-sector workers. Conservative MP Francis Maude said that "not very many people in the private-sector can enjoy pensions like that" when asked about public-sector pensions. However, what he failed to disclose was the fact that two-thirds of all private-sector employees are not enrolled in a workplace pension scheme; compared to just 12% of public-sector employees. This would suggest that private-sector workers are not that fussed about pensions.
Moreover, any complaints regarding private-sector pensions should be aimed at improving provisions within their own sect, not aimed at driving down public-sector pensions. The two do not correlate. In fact, as Mark Serwotka pointed out in the Guardian, "It's not public-sector workers who exploit [private-sector workers] but their private-sector employers". However, Cameron's claim that the system is "unaffordable" simply does not add up. The government-commissioned Hutton Report indicates that public-sector pension payments will peak at 1.9% of GDP in 2010/11, gradually falling to 1.4% of GDP by 2059/60. This report emphasises the inaccuracies within the coalition's claims. The truth is that the government is making workers pay more and work for longer in order to pay off a financial crisis that the people did not cause. This is not only unacceptable, but unethical.
Up until now, most right-wing attention has been given to government U-turns that have benefited the public. Plans to abolish free school milk, plans to abolish Bookstart (the scheme that provides free books for young children) and plans to sell off Britain's forests were all withdrawn following widespread disapproval. Naturally, the pro-Conservative media was only too happy to highlight these U-turns; selling them as a sign that the party is willing to listen to the public. Less well underlined was the coalition's U-turn on child benefits; well, there is a surprise. Cameron made numerous pre-election pledges, saying things like, "I like the child benefit, I wouldn't change child benefit" before going on to - you guessed it - change the system, meaning 'higher earners' no longer have a right to child benefit.
Yasmin Alibhai-Brown was right to bring up the question over trust in the Conservative Party, and far from being "out of touch", actually ignited a worthwhile debate. How can we trust them when so much of what they have said and done has gone against pre-election pledges and so-called guarantees? As Ed Miliband restructures his shadow cabinet, it is essential for the Left that questions are asked of the coalition's record thus far; simply because it does not stand up when offered close scrutiny. Far from "progressive conservatism", the current crop of Tories are leading an extreme rampant ideological charge against the middle and working-class masses of Great Britain; through political choice alone, not economic necessity.