Skip to main content

The silence of the Liberal Democrats, the silence of the lambs.

Casting aside any attempt to rescue the economy the Tory government with the connivance of the Liberal Democrats have set about a fundamental transformation of welfare and the National Health Service. It is the most right wing agenda we have seen in government. It is more ruthless than the government of Mrs Thatcher, and hers was a ruthless government.

I suspect they have abandoned any hope of pulling the economy round by 2015; they have abandoned hope of winning the general election on the economy. Their remaining strategy is to implement a divisive and profound attack on the poorest and to break up the NHS. Should they succeed, the consequences will be, at least in any short to medium term, irreversible. The damage once done will be difficult and expensive to restore.

Several readers of this blog have pointed out to me that it isn't that the government are bereft of ideas; they are ruthlessly putting their ideas into practice. That is a fair assessment.

Under the cloak of coalition they are working to an extremely right-wing agenda. It is difficult to understand what the Liberal Democrats are doing. They can hardly claim to have had much influence on the agenda. Their concerns, if there are any, or if any have been expressed, have been largely dismissed or ignored.

The Liberal Democrats act like a fig leaf, barely covering the real Tory purpose of the government. And even as a fig leaf, a token gesture to Tory modesty, they are discarded in the machismo thrusting of Ian Duncan Smith and George Osborne.

But the Liberal Democrats are trapped in a contract of their own making. I doubt they could give a significant list of how or where they have made a difference in the major areas of policy. Mr Vince Cable, grumbles from the sidelines of economic policy, but is largely ignored. He once gave a warning of the dangers of stoking up division with the 'strivers' and 'shirkers' approach to welfare.

Now he sits in silence as Osborne  and Cameron link the Philpott case with welfare scroungers. The silence of the Liberal Democrats is deafening. Their silence is a disgrace. The silence of the lambs, heading for slaughter.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba

Mr Duncan-Smith offers a disingenuous and divisive comparison

Some time ago, actually it was a long time ago when I was in my early teens, someone close to me bought a table. It was an early flat pack variety. It came with a top and four legs. He followed the instructions to the letter screwing the legs into the top. But when he had completed it the table wobbled. One leg he explained was shorter than the other three; so he sawed a bit from each of the other legs. The table wobbled. One leg, he explained, was longer than the other three. So, he sawed a bit off. The table wobbled. He went on cutting the legs, but the table continued to wobble. Cut, cut, cut! By this time he had convinced himself there was no alternative to it.  He ended up with a very low table indeed, supported by four very stumpy legs and a bit of cardboard placed under one of them to stop it wobbling on the uneven floor.  Mr Duncan-Smith argues that we need a 1% cap on benefits to be 'fair to average earners'. Average  earners have seen their incomes rise by less tha

His way or none? Why I can't vote for Jeremy

There is an assumption that all would be well with the Labour Party if people hadn't expressed their genuine concern with what they consider the inadequacies of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. If only, it is said, the Parliamentary Labour Party and his Shadow Cabinet had supported him, instead of undermining him, all would have been fine. If they had been quiet and towed the line, then the party would not have been in the mess it is in. So, should they have stayed silent, or speak of their concerns? There comes a point when the cost of staying silent outweighs the cost of speaking out. This is a judgment. Many call it a coup by the PLP. They paint a picture of a right-wing PLP out of touch with the membership.  This is the narrative of the Corbyn camp. But Jeremy Corbyn, over the decades he has been in politics, showed the way.  It was Jeremy Corbyn who opposed almost all Labour leaders and rarely held back from speaking out, or voting time and again against the party line. As