Cameron is leading possibly the worst UK government...ever!

Governments in Britain have been responsible for a lot of cock-ups. But in less than two years the current government seems to have managed the impossible - to appear simultaneously nasty, corrupt, uncaring, arrogant, irresponsible and incompetent all at the same time.

It was meant to have been so different. 2010 was meant to have been the year that "Dave" Cameron (of aristocratic lineage and distant relative to the royals) had demonstrated his de-toxicification of the Conservative party. It was famously said by Theresa May (seems ironic now...) that the Tories were seen as the "Nasty Party".
The Conservatives in 2010 failed to win an outright majority (to Cameron's private astonishment); evidently, the British people were not yet fully convinced that the Conservatives had purged the "nasty" element from their blood. And so the last two years have evidently proven.
Not that many Conservatives seemed to have noticed, or cared. Once they have managed to convince (connive) the LibDems into making a grand bargain (which the Tories could use to their own ends when convenient), the Conservatives tended to act as though they had won the 2010 election outright. The likes of Cameron and his semi-aristocratic chums saw their place in government as a "natural right". Never to be spoken publicly, of course, but it was always privately thought that it was "their turn" to govern; even though they had never been in a position of real authority, they naturally assumed that they had the "in-built" ability to govern.

This confidence trick worked, for a while. The public bought into to argument that "there is no alternative" to cuts as the way to repair the economy; yet the government failed to admit that their package of public service "reforms" were not in any way related to the state of the deficit, but simply a change they wanted to make for its own sake. Even though no-one had voted for it, and that much of it was not even in their pre-election manifesto. In other words, much of the public sector reforms were imposed undemocratically. They were ripping the heart out of the nation's institutions simply for the sake of it.

"Same Old Tories?"

But all the while, charming, gregarious Cameron would be genuinely hurt and surprised to find that people thought he and his could be doing anything undemocratic or dishonest. His motives were purer than pure, surely.

But by the spring of 2012, the aftermath of the government's budget, and a series of other blunders and scandals showed the Conservative government's true face. The economy was not getting better due to the government's programme; it was getting worse. The government denied it; blamed it on other factors, anything but their fault. And even when the government could deny the truth no longer, they still claimed "there is no alternative".
Meanwhile, "honest" Dave's ministers continued to make cock-ups, then blame them on someone else. The government was making it a habit of desperately wanting to give the impression of being in total control, except when they had to accept responsibility. Like the Home Secretary, Theresa May (she of the "nasty party" epithet), who refused to accept responsibility for two high-profile cock-ups; and like the Culture Secretary, Jeremy Hunt, who was clearly in breach of the rules when dealing carelessly with a corporate merger. And these ministers remained in their posts as they were close allies of the Prime Minister. "Honest" Dave Cameron (baronet) seems to charmingly think that it's honourable and better to protect your friends to the hilt. Charming perhaps, but an attitude that belongs in the 18th century rather than the hard-headed 21st, and adds even more to the impression that he and his chums are out-of-touch.

So the impression of the Prime Minister and Chancellor, as "two arrogant posh boys" seemed to sum the whole thing up - even better when said by an MP from the Tories' own side. So, I'm sure that Dave Cameron is a really lovely guy - expect that the country doesn't need a lovely guy as Prime Minister. It needs someone who takes things a little more seriously. And I'm sure "honest" Dave would be hurt to hear that.

Vince Cable, now the Business Secretary, once said of former PM Gordon Brown that he had "gone from Stalin to Mr Bean".
Cameron's transformation is even worse - from a charming, self-confident managerial statesman to presiding over an omni-shambolic, heartless government. Cameron's "soft-touch" approach to government was meant to give ministers the freedom to reform and improve their ministries; to give the likes of the Education and Health minister, as well as the Work and Pensions minster, the freedom to reform. The result, not surprisingly, has been virtual chaos, as well as causing fury at the grass-roots.

Cameron, for all his supposed charm and self-confidence, does not govern; he presides. The Chancellor has no plan for the economy; he has a financial suicide note. The Health and Education ministers do not have a plan for public sector "reform", they have a plan for demolition. What makes it worse is that the government are too obdurate and close-minded to admit it. They would rather attack their critics, deny reality and blame it on someone else.

This is why this government is possibly the worst ever. Gordon Brown, for his mistakes, was at least never obviously heartless towards the fate of the country; he may have contributed to getting the UK into a financial mess, but he also had the brains and leadership to find a way out of it. Tony Blair may have been wrong on Iraq and his gusto over the War On Terror, but he still did many great things to improve the UK as a whole during his decade in power. John Major, although he presided over a failing and discredited government, (like President Gerald Ford) was not a fundamentally bad person. Margaret Thatcher, as a grocer's daughter, in spite of huge the polarisation and inequality she caused, was in some ways at least aware of the limits to what changes she could make to the UK, made those changes gradually, and seemed essentially down-to-earth. Jim Callaghan, her Labour predecessor, did his honourable best with a broken economy. Ted Heath, Thatcher's Conservative predecessor, although broken by the unions, tried to do what was practicable in the economy at the time, and was single-handedly responsible for the UK joining the EU. The likes of Wilson and Macmillan, Eden (undone by the Suez crisis), Churchill and Atlee (responsible for the welfare state we take for granted today), all gave something to improve the UK somehow.

What has this government done? Brought about a long-term slump in the British economy through sheer inflexibility; encouraged a generation of over-educated young people without long-term career prospects; set about dismantling the state sector that many people rely on; done nothing to give confidence to the private sector; and given just cause to make people think that the government is essentially corrupt, incompetent and dishonest.

A record to be proud of, no doubt.

Conversation with a Conservative (2)

Interviewer: Minister, I'd like to talk briefly about the economy, and in particular, the government's strategy. In a few words, could you summarise what the government's strategy is.
Minister: Look, we inherited a real mess from Labour, with our budget deficit in a huge hole. Our economy was in recession. We decided, after looking at all the options, and based in the advice of financial experts, that the first priority was to cut the deficit. This would restore confidence in our economy. And the best way to cut the deficit was by cutting public finances. This would then give the private sector the ability to take the country out of the recession by not having the public sector acting as a drag on the economy.
I: Well, you've mentioned several things there that I'd like to focus on. As you know, a large portion of the deficit that you inherited from Labour was also due to bailing out the banks. This is one point that Labour are keen to stress. Another point they like to highlight is that the economy was slowly improving from the recession of 2008/09 - the OFS figures support this - and that the economy lost its way once your government introduced its policy of cuts.  What do you say to that?
M: Look, we can't have a government that doesn't pay its way. Yes, it was a difficult decision to implement the cuts, but it was something that we had to do; we can't go on increasing the deficit forever. Our financial reputation would be cut to pieces...
I: (Wryly) So the government has to cut the country to pieces instead?
M: We live in a real world where markets matter. Yes, it's difficult, but there is no alternative.
I: Well, minister, Labour, and some other financial experts would disagree with you there. Some say that cutting too far and too fast is in fact damaging our international reputation rather than enhancing it. By cutting the state sector so much, it is killing off any encouragement for the private sector to invest because of the sheer uncertainty your government has created. Indeed, to rely solely on the private sector to help rescue the economy, some would say, is living in a fantasy land. Private companies are focused on taking risks they are sure of a positive return, and with consumers so unwilling to spend money, it gives companies little reason to take a risk. A vicious circle of the government's own making.
M: We have to give the private sector the time and confidence to want to invest. The public sector alone cannot implement a recovery. We cannot spend even more money and add to our deficit further; that's just madness.
I: Minister, if we look at the USA, it has a national debt of trillions of dollars, but the American economy, due to a government stimulus, is slowly heading in the right direction. In other words, deficits are secondary when it comes to confidence in the country as a whole. No-one expects the USA to collapse tomorrow because of its deficit, and that's why the deficit is something that should be dealt with more sensibly, over a longer time scale. One analogy to the government's strategy here is a man who takes out a mortgage but insists on paying it off in only five years rather than ten, even though it would financially cripple him. What would be your response to that?
M: I think that man should seek advice on his repayments.
I: Thank you, minister.

Conversation with a Conservative (1)

Interviewer: Minister, I'd like to talk about the state of housing. There's concern about some London councils being forced to send low income families to other, cheaper parts of the country. What is your response to this problem?
Minister: Well, you see we live in a free market. If people cannot afford to live somewhere, they are free to move somewhere more suitable to their means.
I: Yes, but minister, some critics say this is a form of social cleansing. What is your response to this accusation?
M: This is pure nonsense. We all live in a free country. There's freedom of movement. We didn't create this problem; it was created by the overspending of the previous government, which means that now councils have to take some serious steps.
I: But how does encouraging poor people to move to areas with fewer jobs help improve growth, for example?
M: As I say, we live in a free market. Obviously, people have to be flexible; that's how we promote dynamism in our economy. Rome wasn't built in day; we should all look long and hard at the sacrifices that we'll all making. We're all in this together, you know!
I: "In this together"? In what way are you making sacrifices, minister?
M:......er......well......I mean, I've had to cut down on the number of servants I use at my pad in the country. But we're getting off the point. Remember that it was the Conservatives who started the "right to buy" which helped give freedom to thousands of families to buy their council houses and put them on the road to prosperity.
I: Yes, the "right to buy", minister, that's true. And how did the Conservatives replenish the housing stock of those thousands of council houses they sold off?
M: (confused)....I'm sorry, I don't quite see what you're getting at.
I: I mean the "right to buy" reduced significantly the number of houses available to those at the lowest rungs of society, and the government has yet to replace them. This is also, is it not, a contributing factor to the rising cost of rents in those deprived areas where councils are no longer afford to pay for their council tenants. If you decrease the supply of housing, minister, you naturally increase the price.
M: Well, the government doesn't set the prices for the housing markets; we live in a free market, after all.
I: So who does?
M: Erm, no-one, really.
I: Thank you for your time, minister.