We rely on advertising to keep the lights on.

Please consider adding us to your whitelist.



Advanced search

14 quotes that prove the nasty party is still just as nasty as ever

(205 Posts)
ttosca Mon 11-Mar-13 16:07:07

We’ve all heard nasty quotes from Tories such as “Hang Mandela“, “The homeless are what you step over when you come out of the opera” etc etc which prove just how nasty the nasty party really can be. But those quotes are all pre-Cameron – who likes to claim his party has changed.

Well, here are a selection of quotes from Tories from the Cameron era which prove the nasty party is alive and kicking and just as nasty as ever:

1) Neil Burden – Tory councillor in Cornwall and lead member for Children’s Services – referred to the “expense of keeping “handicapped” children alive” and said there were “too many disabled children who cost too much“.

2) Steve Hilton - senior adviser to David Cameron and Tory strategy director – said the government should boost economic growth by abolishing all working mothers’ maternity leave and rights.

3) Iain Duncan Smith – Tory Work and Pensions Secretary – quoted the Nazi slogan above the gates of Auschwitz Arbeit Mach Frei (work makes free) when he said about the government’s workfare programme that “work actually helps free people.”

4) Iain Duncan Smith again - this time on how ‘lazy’ disabled workers are: “Is it a kindness to stick people in some factory where they are not doing any work at all? Just making cups of coffee?”

5) Philippa Stroud – senior Tory strategist and adviser to Iain Duncan Smith – said that poverty, sexual abuse and homosexuality are caused by demonic possession. In her book “God’s Heart for the Poor” she blames the death of a poor girl living in a hostel on the fact she “hadn’t the will to stick with” being a Christian and so God “was calling her home”.

6) Boris Johnson – Tory Mayor of London - on same sex marriage: ”If gay marriage was OK … then I saw no reason in principle why a union should not be consecrated between three men, as well as two men; or indeed three men and a dog.”

7) Chris Steward - a Conservative councillor in York – said people shouldn’t donate food to food banks because poor families “can’t budget” and if they were given food would only have “more money to spend on alcohol, cigarettes etc“.

8) David Jones – Tory MP and Welsh Secretary – obviously thinks LGBT people are not “safe” for bringing up children: “I regard marriage as an institution that has developed over many centuries, essentially for the provision of a warm and safe environment for the upbringing of children, which is clearly something that two same-sex partners can’t do.”

9) Richard Powell - Tory councillor and campaign manager for Tory MP Conor Burns – was temporarily suspended as a councillor but then reinstated after he admitted sending racist jokes from his phone which targetted Muslims, Indians, Irish people, Pakistanis and black people.

10) Philip Davies – Tory MP for Shipley - thinks disabled people should take “a lower rate of pay” than the minimum wage to “help them get on their first rung of the jobs ladder” because that is the “real world we live in”.

11) Christopher Chope – Tory MP for Christchurch – regards people like waiters and waitresses as servants. Talking about a visit to a House of Commons restaurant he said: “The service was absolutely fantastic because there was three-to-one service – three servants for each person sitting down“.

12) Peter Chapman – a Tory councillor in Dorset – complained on Facebook about the “terminally slow (and bad) service from the bone idle bitches at Costa Dorchester” and said the waitresses: “all need a good beating”.

13) Bob Blackman – Tory MP for Harrow East – said he thought the Tory’s infamous Section 28 law that banned teachers from talking about homosexuality should be brought back: “Section 28 was the right rules to have in school so that we should not in any way shape or form promote same-sex relationships…“

14) David Cameron – Tory member for Witney – when talking about the bedroom tax, said that ”Anyone with severely disabled children is exempt from the spare room subsidy”. This is particularly nasty because it’s a downright lie – as this article shows:


ironman Wed 13-Mar-13 09:05:26

ttsoca I have met David Cameron and far from being a member of the 'nasty party' he is in fact a member to the Liberal Party! (although he is in the closet!)smile.

CommanderShepard Wed 13-Mar-13 09:38:38

I don't totally disagree with Boris on the gay marriage quote, although the dog thing is just stupid since a dog cannot possibly give consent. But if one is in a polygamous relationship with other consenting adults why shouldn't one be able to marry them?

somebloke123 Wed 13-Mar-13 09:50:05

I'm sure a dog could find some painful way of withholding consent ...

Incidentally there are pressure groups in the USA who are pushing for trans-species marriage. I think they are called zooophiles (not sure if that's the correct number of "o"s).

TheFallenNinja Wed 13-Mar-13 09:53:44

What a load of bollocks.

MiniTheMinx Wed 13-Mar-13 09:58:11

ironman a friend of mine went to school with Cameron, he said he was thick. He probably got lost on the way to a Liberal conference.

ironman Wed 13-Mar-13 11:29:12

minitheminx Thick and naive is my opinion!

ironman Wed 13-Mar-13 11:31:24

About Cameron obviously!smile

adeucalione Wed 13-Mar-13 14:29:57

Wiki says 12 O'levels, 3 A levels (all As), PPE at Oxford (first).

I'm a bit depressed if that's considered thick nowadays, what are the clever people achieving then?

niceguy2 Wed 13-Mar-13 14:36:10

So...with the above education results, a millionaire in his own right and prime minister of this country and he's 'thick'? Is your friend a millionaire Mini?

Out of touch I would agree with. Thick? I don't think so.

DieWilde13 Wed 13-Mar-13 14:41:31

Marking my place, need entertainment later

MiniTheMinx Wed 13-Mar-13 17:32:43

My friend went to school with him.......so think what you will.

So if Scameron isn't thick he must just be nasty ? grin

MiniTheMinx Wed 13-Mar-13 17:42:34

Seems no one wants to comment on the Tory List of triumph. I thought those on the right would be turning cart wheels at such good news.

ttosca Wed 13-Mar-13 17:52:55

Not sure if he's thick. He's definitely nasty though.

Another Tory triumph:

Majority of British children will soon be growing up in families struggling 'below the breadline', Government warned

The majority of British children will soon be growing up in families which are struggling “below the breadline” because of welfare cuts, tax rises and wage freezes, the Government is warned today.

Within two years, almost 7.1m of the nation’s 13m youngsters will be in homes with incomes judged to be less than the minimum necessary for a decent standard of living, according to a new report.

The figures, which emerged a week ahead of George Osborne’s Budget, suggest that an unwanted legacy of the Coalition’s squeeze on spending will be to leave more children living close to poverty.

They coincide with a new survey for the Resolution Foundation think-tank, which found that almost seven in ten of people believe the Government does not understand the financial strains they face.

The impact on children of the economic downturn and austerity measures was underlined by an analysis that concluded that the number of under-18s living in households below minimum income standards would increase by 690,000 between 2010 and 2015. The definitions of acceptable living standards are drawn up by the respected charity, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation.

Today’s report said 460,000 children would be pushed below those levels by the increase in VAT and cuts to tax credits, 170,000 by sluggish wage growth and 80,000 by the curbs on public sector pay. Just 20,000 would be raised above the minimum level by the new Universal Credit system, which begins to come into force in October.

The TUC, which commissioned the research by the economist Howard Reed, said the figures should “shame” any civilised society and challenged Mr Osborne to cut VAT to ease the pressures on the lowest income families.

By 2015, a lone parent with one child is calculated to require an annual income of £19,226 to have a decent standard of living, rising to £23,992 for a lone parent with two children, £24,643 for a couple with one child and £29,093 if they have two children. But Mr Reed calculated that 54 per cent of youngsters will be living in households with income below those levels in two years’ time.

His report concluded that 90 per cent of families will be worse off in 2015 than in 2010.

Only the poorest ten per cent will be better-off – and then by £29.60 a year, or 57p a week. The boost they received from raising tax thresholds has been virtually wiped out by the increase in VAT to 20 per cent in 2011.

Frances O’Grady, the TUC general secretary, said: “Families are suffering the tightest squeeze in living standards in nearly a century. On top of wages that do not keep up with prices, government policies are making life even more miserable for millions of low to middle-income families through tax increases and cuts in benefits and tax credits.

“By the 2015 election, the majority of children in Britain will be living below the breadline. For any civilised society, that should be shaming.”

The Department of Work and Pensions accused the TUC of choosing an “arbitrary measure to support their own point of view”. A spokesman said the Government was committed to eradicating child poverty by tackling its root causes including unemployment, educational failure and family breakdown.

He added: “Our welfare reforms will improve the lives of some of the poorest families in our communities, with the Universal Credit making three million people better off. And by next year, we will have taken two million of the lowest earners out of paying tax altogether."

In the Resolution Foundation poll, 69 per cent of people thought the Government did not understand the “financial pressures” they and their families were experiencing. The sentiment was shared across all income and class brackets in the poll conducted by Ipsos MORI.

Just 19 per cent said they believed ministers appreciated the pressures they were under.

Vidhya Alakeson, the foundation’s deputy chief executive, said: “Faltering prosperity is a key issue not only for the government of the day but for all political parties as we approach an election in two years’ time.

The TUC will stage a pre-Budget rally today at which it will urge the Chancellor to focus on jobs, growth and family next week.

Dave Prentis, the general secretary of Unison, will tell the gathering: “Austerity is OK if you are rich. It’s OK if you are one of the 13,000 millionaires in this country because austerity means you get richer. That’s because if you are rich, you’re in line for an extra £100,000 tax break, taken from the pockets of the poor.”


ttosca Wed 13-Mar-13 17:53:44

Please read that again:

The majority of British children will soon be growing up in families which are struggling “below the breadline” because of welfare cuts, tax rises and wage freezes, the Government is warned today.

And think about it the next time you chose to defend Tory policies.

MiniTheMinx Wed 13-Mar-13 19:10:31

Child poverty rose from 1 in 10 in 1979 to 1 in 3 in 1998

I wonder if that witch thatcher set the ball rolling.

moondog Wed 13-Mar-13 19:11:31

What would you do if you were running the show Tosca?
Genuinely, I am interested in what you see as the solution to all of these things that clearly distress you.

ttosca Wed 13-Mar-13 19:48:10


> What would you do if you were running the show Tosca?
Genuinely, I am interested in what you see as the solution to all of these things that clearly distress you.

Obviously, I would abolish Capitalism and replace it with democracy.

But you're looking for a reformist answer, aren't you?

OK, well, within the confines of social-democracy, I would at the very least look at our european neighbours and see how they manage to run things without having half their children run in poverty.

I would also crack down on tax evasion and avoidance, bringing in tens of thousands, and possibly hundreds of thousands of pounds to the treasury every year.

I would ease the burden of the poorest and middle-classes by:

a) Cutting V.A.T., which disproportionately hits the poor

b) Raising the income tax threshold to the minimum wage.

c) Raise the minimum wage to a living wage.

d) Tack the minimum/living wage to inflation, so the poorest people don't get progressively poorer due to inflation.

e) Nationalise and rationalise the railways. Make affordable and efficient transport for everybody a priority.

f) Enact a 'Tobin Tax' or 'Financial Transactions Tax' like most of the rest of europe has already agreed to do; this would not harm the financial services. The amount is absolutely tiny, and would furthermore add stability to our financial economy.

g) Enact either a 'Mansion Tax' (instead of a 'bedroom tax' which hits the poorest) or else re-create the council tax banding system with more gradations, and a higher top level. It is not right that millionaires living in mansions are taxed at the same rate a middle-class families in large homes.

These are just some of the ideas I would implement. There are a many more I can suggest later.

The point is that wealth inequality in the UK has become extreme, and it has become harmful both socially and economically.

moondog Wed 13-Mar-13 19:51:53

Some good points.
With you on the transport issue totally.
Which European neighbours would you look to specifically?

Having lived and worked in many developing countries, with a dh who works professionally in this field I do find your hysterical accusations about poverty totally over the top though.

ttosca Wed 13-Mar-13 20:02:17

> Some good points.


> With you on the transport issue totally.

Yeah, it's a big problem here. Rail costs are so outrageous that they've reached a point where they're making taking up jobs in other towns and cities not viable.

> Which European neighbours would you look to specifically?

To be honest, most of them. I know that's a vague answer, but I think that the majority of citizens in most western european countries fare better than in the UK. Of course, there are some countries which are performing very poorly: notably Greece, Spain and Italy. However, Germany, France, and the Nordic countries all manage to run social-democracies without extremes in wealth and the social problems which the UK seems to suffer from.

> Having lived and worked in many developing countries, with a dh who works professionally in this field I do find your hysterical accusations about poverty totally over the top though.

I don't think children in the UK fare anywhere nearly as badly as in developing countries. That wasn't the comparison. The UK is one of the richest countries in the world. We are also one of the most developed and technologically advanced. There is no excuse whatever for the levels of poverty and deprivation we have here. None at all. It's entirely political.

MiniTheMinx Wed 13-Mar-13 20:24:27

If we were living in a democracy I'd vote the first proposal smile

Capitalism is inherently unstable and incapable of meeting human needs. The only people who can save capitalism are the reformers who mitigate against its worst excess and prevent crisis. I can't remember who said it, I think it may have been Gramsci "the workers are best people to save capitalism" in reference to the fact that the capitalists are digging their own graves.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UD-QqYFJqY David Harvey on the 17 contradictions of capitalism

moondog Wed 13-Mar-13 21:06:54

Hmmm, well I spend a fair bit of time in France nad beleive you me, all is not rosy in the garden there!
Would you agree that spending on welfare seems to have spiralled out of control and that it is far better for people to work than to be passive disempowered recipients of benefits?

I am no economist (slight understatement to say the least) but house prices seem to be a key factor in so much of what is going wrong. I can't see that the vast buy to let empire that Labour did so much to encourage helps matters at all whereby tax payers fill the coffers of private investors to provide housing for people.

ttosca Wed 13-Mar-13 21:17:53


> Would you agree that spending on welfare seems to have spiralled out of control

I would like to see evidence for that. I do know that the amount of unclaimed benefits exceeds fraud by a factor of about three to one.

Of course you probably mean 'legitimately claimed' i.e. legal claims have spiraled out of control. I don't think this is the case with Jobseekers Allowance at all.

I think you could make the case that there is a lot of state subsidy for poor people who are trying to make ends meet, but keep in mind that the majority of recipients of benefits of one form or another are working families.

We're in a situation where employers don't pay employees enough. Wages have stagnated for three decades for the majority of people. Meanwhile, the cost of living has risen considerably. So the state subsidizes wages so that people can survive.

It's ridiculous, but that's what happens when you race to the bottom. It's also one of the contradictions of Capitalism, as Mini alluded to: employers will try to pay less and less to workers to reduce their costs, but in the end, their own greed is self-defeating, because their employees can no longer afford to buy their own goods and services which they produce under the employer.

> and that it is far better for people to work than to be passive disempowered recipients of benefits?

Yes, of course, but the vast overwhelming majority have no desire to live a life on benefits - nor can they even if they wanted to. This drive to get people off of benefits when they are disabled or ill and unable to work is not (and cannot) encourage these people to work. It just ends up stressing them out and sometimes killing them.

MiniTheMinx Wed 13-Mar-13 21:59:40

>Would you agree that spending on welfare seems to have spiralled out of control and that it is far better for people to work than to be passive disempowered recipients of benefits?

I would agree with you Moondog but under capitalism there is a tendency towards monopolisation where capital (money) accumulates in fewer hands, this means that workers can only compete against each other for available jobs. Often there only leverage is the acceptance of lower pay. Jobs can only be made available to them and they can not compete against those who hold all the money. The other issue is that fewer workers are needed in production, over time service industries take up more workers. This is why it is important to keep making the case that we need welfare services, if not welfare in the form of benefits. Far better to hand a man a shovel and a living wage to fill holes in the road and feed his kids than JSA.

MiniTheMinx Wed 13-Mar-13 22:00:21

*their only leverage (very tired)

moondog Wed 13-Mar-13 22:40:05

My (personal) observation from a career of working with disabled people is that many would LOVE a job.
We do seem in a situation where ostensibly the state has to subsidise people to live. I can't understand the logic of the taxpayer boosing a wage which should be sufficient in itself. Why are we subsidising big businesses? It's nuts.

But surely this is also to do with people's perceived need to own things that they don't need to own? Spending on food for example is now about 5% of peopls' total income whereas in the 50s it was about 20%. Forgive me for not having the exact figures to hand. Food security is my dh's line of work and he could give me good references but is in another time zone.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now