For once, I agree with Luke Akehurst
jkitleft Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 09:05:26 PM GMT 
Facebook
I love it when I hear New Labourists explain why they would never EVER support the Conservative Party.
My personal opinion about David Cameron, is that he is a hard-right demagogic charlatan. When people say that he has no substance, I wholeheartedly disagree. His policies are the very reason why we joined the Labour party in the first place (don't get me started on marriage incentives for instance, is the first thing a mum of two kids who has recently lost her husband to a car bomb in Basra will be hit with, is a tax hike?)
My personal opinion about David Cameron, is that he is a hard-right demagogic charlatan. When people say that he has no substance, I wholeheartedly disagree. His policies are the very reason why we joined the Labour party in the first place (don't get me started on marriage incentives for instance, is the first thing a mum of two kids who has recently lost her husband to a car bomb in Basra will be hit with, is a tax hike?)
But while I disagree with Luke Akehurst on many many things, I 100% agreed with his post today:
Cameron said "thank god we changed [Callaghan] for Margaret Thatcher". Luke has said:
"Er... I would beg to differ and so might a few million other people. There was a lot wrong with the 1974-'79 Labour Government but Callaghan, for all his faults, was a very wise national leader. His replacement Margaret Thatcher was an extremist, sectarian fruitloop who butchered the public services, destroyed our manufacturing base, sowed poverty, discord and division, blighted the lives of the three million people she deliberately put on the dole, left the inner cities and industrial areas to rot and raised the worship of the free market to totemic status that we are now paying the price for. There was a lot that needed to change in Britain in 1979 but the human waste created by the frankly evil policies Cameron's heroine promoted was not the way to do it."
Too right. Of course some economic liberalisation was needed. But without the gutting of our public services, and huge spiral in inequality etc. That is what a social democracy is supposed to promote.
Then, Luke bettered himself, by responding to a Tory writer who said that the Tories were simply more popular than us, with this:
"as an electoral reformer I would argue Thatcher won because of our crazy electoral system - nearly 60% of the public voted for the 2 centre-left parties and against Thatcherism in all 4 elections."
Again, quite right.
Cameron said "thank god we changed [Callaghan] for Margaret Thatcher". Luke has said:
"Er... I would beg to differ and so might a few million other people. There was a lot wrong with the 1974-'79 Labour Government but Callaghan, for all his faults, was a very wise national leader. His replacement Margaret Thatcher was an extremist, sectarian fruitloop who butchered the public services, destroyed our manufacturing base, sowed poverty, discord and division, blighted the lives of the three million people she deliberately put on the dole, left the inner cities and industrial areas to rot and raised the worship of the free market to totemic status that we are now paying the price for. There was a lot that needed to change in Britain in 1979 but the human waste created by the frankly evil policies Cameron's heroine promoted was not the way to do it."
Too right. Of course some economic liberalisation was needed. But without the gutting of our public services, and huge spiral in inequality etc. That is what a social democracy is supposed to promote.
Then, Luke bettered himself, by responding to a Tory writer who said that the Tories were simply more popular than us, with this:
"as an electoral reformer I would argue Thatcher won because of our crazy electoral system - nearly 60% of the public voted for the 2 centre-left parties and against Thatcherism in all 4 elections."
Again, quite right.
For once, I agree with Luke Akehurst | 0 comments ( topical)
