It was interesting to hear all the hypocrisy at the Conservative conference, and the complete lack of shame or irony at some of the statements and lies spat like rabid right-wing mongrels threatened with being neutered.

Among them, we were told of the ‘politics of resentment’. According to George Osborne, this was the term for those who demanded increased taxes on the wealthy, because of course nobody should expect the super-rich to help pay for a crisis their kind created. Perhaps some ignorant people may accept this spurious defence of a farcical Government’s vested interests, but the palpable irony practically brought the building down when Osborne then evoked a hypothetical shift-worker who resented his neighbour’s apparently easy idle existence on benefits. But of course, this was not the ‘resentment’ he was referring to. Osborne was talking of the kind of resentment that he wishes existed; the Victorian-era forced deference to our ‘social betters’. This is the kind of resentment that keeps him warm at night, as he imagines people born without his outrageous privilege wishing that they were him. Despite his laughable employment background, his ascent to the Treasury owing only to his public school ties to the Prime Minister, Osborne consoles himself that, as inept as he is in his position, his inherited wealth somehow elevates him above those less fortunate, and gives him power to decide their fates.

He also boasted of ‘shrinking the State more than any before’, as if this was going to excite anyone outside of the raving Thatcherite Right. Besides that shameful attempt at hubris, recent evidence underlines that this is actually the biggest Government; in ministers, civil servants and advisors, since the turn of the 20th Century. When Osborne claims to be ‘shrinking the State’, what he means is he is removing aid and benefits from the needy, while swelling the ranks of his own cronies.

Even ignoring the outright lies and spin David Cameron deployed when defending the deplorable NHS reforms, he had the nerve to deploy his deceased disabled son, when claiming that his Government had made people view the disabled as ordinary people more than ever before. I’m not sure which planet he has been living on, but you don’t have to look far to see that his Government’s hateful rhetoric has actually increased abuse and attacks on, and suicides of, the disabled, whilst his advocated welfare reform is depriving the disabled of even a dignified existence.

Also, I would be remiss not to remind us of the difference between the words ‘privilege’ and ‘benefits’, for our Prime Minister seems to have forgotten. Cameron, in what must have seemed like a good idea at the time, claimed his Party does not stand for the ‘privileged’, rather he wishes to spread privilege around! Keeping in mind that privilege is defined as exclusionist: by its very nature it sets you apart from the majority, spreading it around is clearly impossible. Privilege is also quite similar to a word beloved of the Tory Right: entitlement. Bitterly do we laugh when we hear a Government raised on privilege chastising those with a ‘sense of entitlement’. Because of course, privilege and entitlement are almost interchangeable terms. So why do the privileged hate a ‘sense of entitlement’, when it is so similar to their own attitudes? There is only one reason: these people they term ‘the entitled’ are not one of them. They are poor. They claim this ‘entitlement’ from the collective, whereas the Government’s privilege came from their own parents. What it boils down to then is that those born into great wealth actually resent contributing anything to keep the poor from destitution.

‘Benefits’ meanwhile, are actually what can be spread around. See the difference, Dave?

Aspiration is a word the Tories slather over. They have always claimed it defines them as a Party: that they stand for ‘the strivers’. But of course everyone has aspirations. Some aspire to raise a family. Others strive to control others, or build their own business, or reach peaks of excellence in a discipline. Others are happy just aspiring to become a better person. All of these are good targets and should be welcomed and encouraged by a diverse and tolerant society. But, of course, this was not what Cameron meant. He used aspiration as an acceptable word to disguise his true intent: money grubbing.

In a country where food banks are exploding, our Prime Minister wants to encourage people to step over each other to grab a larger slice of a limited pie. In a world of shrinking resources and expanding populations, the Conservative’s response is to hand you a knife and tell you to get stabbing. They are of course not merely instructing, but forcing this option on many, because the alternative is inadequate benefits to cover the costs of shelter, food and heat. Stab or be kicked into the gutter. Of course, for those with nothing, there is no choice of utilising the ‘entrepreneurial spirit’ so beloved of the Right, so they must work for peanuts for a company who soon will wish to trade away their job security for magic beans.

For a Party that promotes aspiration, their speeches dripped with the politics of fear, and I, for one, want no part of the kind of twisted society they envisage imposing on all of us.


Leave a Reply

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