patronage

Patronage is defined as "the support given by a patron". In politics, patronage can refer to a leader appointing "yes men" to support a power base, surrounding yourself with people who share your beliefs and will remain loyal to you. Sounds pretty simple and harmless right? It can also be used as a very cunning ploy. Patronage was a very effective tool used by a certain Josef Stalin in his plight for power, and he used it effectively to deceptively outmanoeuvre his opponents who had seemingly better credentials for being leader of the USSR.The reason why I bring this up is in relation to David Cameron's cabinet reshuffle. I know this seems an instant exaggeration, something like Godwin's law where any bad thing will eventually find its way being compared to Hitler, but hear me out.

This reshuffle is the first pure Tory cabinet in 18 years and has some interesting members. Before going into details, let's give an overview of the 21 men and women Cameron has appointed. Half of these men and women went to Oxbridge, two thirds of the cabinet, are male and 1/3 voted against gay marriage.

Now onto individuals:

• Justin Tomlinslon: new disabilities minister. Voted against protecting benefits for disabled children and cancer patients, but voted in favour of the bedroom tax. In his new job, Tomlinson has unprecedented access to the access to work fund which aims to help disabled people enter work. So it seems the future of the disabled is in safe hands...
• Justice Secretary Michael Gove. Gove has declared that it was wrong to abolish hanging in the 1960s, and the abolition of the noose has led to a 'corruption of our criminal system' and  the 'erosion of all of our freedoms'. Justice secretary. Just let that sink in. 
• John Wittingdale, Culture Secretary. This position will see over how the BBC is run. Wittingdale is openly critical of the licence fee, and if his concessions were made, our BBC would be gravely damaged. Oh, and also, he has voted against gay marriage and has 'voted moderately against laws to promote equality and human rights.'
• Caroline Dineage has been appointed Minister for Equalities and will work with Education Secretary Nicky Morgan. Both of these women have also voted against gay marriage. Once more, a certain sense of irony in Cameron appointing someone opposed to gay marriage as Equalities minister.
• Iain Duncan Smith is Work and Pensions Secretary- he's the man who we'll blame for overseeing the £12bn welfare cuts. 
• Jeremy Hunt has remained as health secretary which means he will be in charge of the NHS. As I said in my previous post, his views that the NHS should be abolished are not a very good omen, Another example of irony in Cameron's appointments. 

Whilst the comparison of the role patronage played in Stalin's power struggle of 1924 is a bit of an exaggeration, I think that patronage is an extremely important concept to consider when looking at Cameron's cabinet reshuffle. Whilst uncle Joe used patronage to establish a power base and then execute his population, Cameron has established power through a 'majority' vote, and now his use of patronage is to assure his decisions are executed efficiently. It appears to me that he has appointed these members because they hold the views that he is too afriad to admit to, the effect of this being that when he issues these laws and cuts- there will be no opposition and will be passed swiftly. Cameron must be delighted to have rid himself of the coalition cabinet where Lib Dem ministers blocked many Conservative propositions being passed. Unfortunately those coalition days have passed, and I reckon that once we see the motions carried by this new cabinet, we will realise how fortunate we were to have  the Liberal Democrats moderating the Tory delegation.

problems

As I said in my first post, my anger at the general election result has only been aggravated by the ignorance of some pro-Conservatives celebrating the party they so self-righteously follow. Today, I decided to compile a collection of my favourite remarks, commenting on the NHS and the anti-austerity march that took place on Saturday. The quotes are ranked, with the quotes I hate the most at the beginning, and least at the end. Also, funnily enough they are coincidentally ranked in terms of how much substance they have in their argument for being pro-Conservative.

"Those protests in London just looked like a load of socialist hippies"

For me, this is plain and simple proof of why many people dislike the Conservative government and its followers- snobbery. Yes, that is an unfortunate stereotype, but it is an unfortunate stereotype that is proved by comments like this! Turning to the rather snobbish phrase "socialist hippie" to denigrate the Left, like a McCarthyist from 1950s America, is no way to do yourself any favours in encouraging people to respect your views because quite frankly it makes you look like an uneducated fool.

"You lasted the past 5 years with a Tory government, stop crying"

"You'?! Who are the "you" they are referring to? The 913,000 people who had to get emergency food packages from food banks over 12 months? The students leaving university with £44,000 of debt? The disabled who are suffering more and more as a result of Conservative benefit cuts? Or the woman who committed suicide because she couldn't pay the bedroom tax? Things like this really worry me. I find it concerning that there are people my age who are of this close minded and selfish opinion, and who fail to look beyond their front doorstep when evaluating the status of the country they live in. 

"Jesus, if David Cameron wanted to privatise the NHS he would have done it years ago. Stop getting your knickers in a twist"

Once more, such an ill thought attempt at supporting the Conservatives time in power, and pays no attention whatsoever to the facts, so here they are. The Conservatives 2010 manifesto claimed there would be "no more top-down reorganisations of the NHS" and that they would "cut the deficit, not the NHS". Cameron went ahead with £20 billion worth of NHS cuts,  he allowed private health corporations to buy access to people's private health records without their consent (selling 47 million private records without consent despite public outcry), and made it much easier for the Health Secretary to force the closure of NHS hospitals and services. So just to let you know: I will keep my "knickers in a twist" because David Cameron has already posed enough of a threat to the NHS- get your facts right.

"Anyone remember when the Tories caused unrest and rioted in the streets when Labour won in 2005 with 35% of the vote? No, me neither"

Now fortunately, the slightly more serious comments begin. I found this quote interesting (only for a moment) as I realised the point being made. But as soon as I realised the point made, I realised the argument against it. It occurred to me that the simple reason (going back to stereotypes again) is that the majority of people who will have voted Conservative, were not at threat by the plans of the Labour government, which is the key difference in this case. The Tory government's malicious plans for the next 5 years are a scary prospect for many people living in Britain (including me) and therefore the need to make a stand against it is more urgent, and legitimate. Whereas, for Conservative supporters (apologies for generalising again), the majority being wealthy, they could just get on with life as usual because they would not suffer under Labour government. 

"Many Labour supporters have circulated the assumption, particularly on social media, that the Conservatives are going to privatise the entire NHS. To be clear and coherent, here is page 37/38 of the Conservative Party Manifesto on the Conservative approach to improving the NHS. I think this issue is one that many Labour supporters are utilising keeping many of the electorate from speaking out that they are a Tory-supporter."

The final quote was one that interested me a bit more than riled me. Upon the news of the Conservative majority, I set out to read the Conservative manifesto, to get an idea of what was on the cards for the next 5 years. I specifically searched for the section on the NHS due to it being such a prominent issue. I have to say I was... pleasantly surprised by its content. So, rather cynically, I researched what the suggested risks are that the Conservatives pose to the NHS, from somewhere more partial. My conclusion on the dangers posed to the NHS by the Conservatives was as follows: anti-Conservatives often misphrase themselves regarding this issue, due to lack of knowledge on subject, and make throwaway comments. The Conservative manifesto may well pledge allegiance to the safety of the NHS, through legitimate means. However, there are several areas of concern regarding the Conservatives other approaches to the NHS. The first being TTIP (Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership) which unfortunately many people are unaware of. TTIP would give US corporations unprecedented access to the NHS and ultimately sell-out of the NHS to corporate interests. If TTIP goes ahead, the NHS will turn into an organisation that puts profits before patients. The consequences of TTIP, are disastrous. Argentina privatised their water supply in 1993, but now upon renationalising it have successfully been sued $408million by the Suez water company. After changing their nuclear energy policy Germany are being sued for over €1 billion by energy company Vattenfall. Australia are currently in a court dispute with cigarette giants Phillip Morris because their planned health warnings on cigarette packages will affect cigarette sales in their country. As shown by these countries, signing trade agreements can land you serious debts. In the context of the Conservatives plans for the NHS, it shows that despite their "best intentions" for the NHS, signing TTIP may end up overriding the "good word" of the Conservative manifesto and create danger for the NHS. A crippling debt and losing control of our NHS is surely not what we need on top of our current economic issues? Yet this is the future the Tory's are supporting. The second area for concern is the Conservatives track record of how they've treated the NHS. As I've previously mentioned, the Conservatives went back on their word in 2010 with harrowing cuts. Michael Portillo said in 2011: "They did not believe they could win an election if they told you what they were going to do because people are so wedded to the NHS", what's to say things will be different this time round? And here's the tip of the iceberg- Cameron has succeeded in appointing Jeremy Hunt as Health Secretary, a man who hates the NHS and has called for it to be abolished. You don't have to be Nostradamus to recognise that none of these things bode at all well for the future of the NHS. 

So thats my review of the rather interesting comments I've found online. I must say it has been fairly therapeutic to get this anger off my chest in this form, rather than arguing with someone online which can be like talking to a brick wall a lot of the time. The articles I used to supplement my knowledge on this are below. Yesterday David Cameron announced his cabinet reshuffle which has definitely given me a good idea of what to write about next. 

http://www.redpepper.org.uk/ttip-the-corporate-trump-card/

http://action.sumofus.org/a/nhs-ttip/?sub=fb

http://anotherangryvoice.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/12-things-tories-nhs.html

http://anotherangryvoice.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/jeremy-hunt-hospital-closure-clause.html

the beginning

A day after the 2015 general election result and I begin this blog- and there is a correlation between the two statements. If 2015 has taught me anything so far, it's that I've got a lot of views on a lot of things. Expressing these views however, has mainly taken place in small scale discussions, and some times arguments on social media, like Facebook and Twitter, which I have come to realise is an inadequate way to display my views. So I've decided to upgrade the platform of these views through use of this blog.

At the moment, I'm angry. Over the past six weeks of the general election campaign, I've had many a heated discussion about the doom and gloom of British politics, and I've had even more in the past two days due to the underwhelming and somewhat frightening general election result. The future posed by a Tory government is not at all promising to me, and the prospect has been made worse by the ignorance of many people I've argued with, which is where this blog comes in.

I'm not just angry though, I'm almost... inspired by the election results. Much like many of my peers I feel driven by discontent to do something for my beliefs. Instead of arguing with opponents online I now feel the need to write about the world I see, and even though I'm not quite a political expert, I think this will be a much better, more efficient alternative than squabbling on obnoxious Tory statuses.

As I said, I'm no political expert- no matter how much I would like to be, I'm not an even-younger Owen Jones. So this isn't essentially a politics blog (I doubt I would have the stamina for that), amongst the exciting challenges of the current political climate will probably be some more mundane posts about whatever else is on in my life at that moment in time. But for now, I've got a lot of anger to vent, so here goes...