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

[ttosca]

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:

tompride.wordpress.com/2013/03/11/14-quotes-that-prove-the-nasty-party-is-still-just-as-nasty-as-ever/

'That is not a dialectic I acknowledge......moral/immoral because it would be entirely subjective'

Politics itself is subjective. What you choose to believe differs from what I choose to believe and we make subjective decisions based on our morality and our understanding of issues. There is no one answer, there is no right way, all there is is the best subjective choice to achieve goals which are subjectively ranked in importance.

I have switched from Tory to Labour and back over the years, just as many floating voters do. We make subjective decisions based on the situation at the time and our subjective opinion of the best way to solve the crises that occur.

we also make subjective decisions about the politicians we see on our TV screens. We have to decide on our experience if they are sincere when they tell us thatthey want to "save the planet" for us or if this is yet more of their spin. We come to different conclusions and time will tell which of us spotted teh "straight kinda guy" and which of us was hoodwinked by the spin.

When they do interviews on TV we have to decide if they are telling the truth or if they are lying. We are told it is superfiicial of us to do this, but we have no other way of knowing whether they are for real. We are not privy to their private conversations, we don't know if they call us bigots like Mrs Duffy, a lifelong dedicated Labour voter was called. All we can do is make subjective decisions based on what we know and what we have seen before.

policies that help people in need

Of course Tory policy is about everything other than helping people in need.

I am not really keen on moral arguments in favour/against capitalism. Whilst happy to admit my "anti" capitalist views are just that "anti" it isn't grounded in moral argument but in historical materialism. Which is not about taking moral positions on "helping people" but about acknowledging that through our need to produce the means of subsistence and need to reproduce society the social relations btw classes change. It is the history of human development and it isn't grounded in morality but class struggle.

We know they now call themselves "progressives", but we have been here before, we know not to take what they say at face value, we know we need to lift the carpet to find what lies underneath.

'Of course Tory policy is about everything other than helping people in need.'

Do the Tories not send all their bigwigs and their publicity machine down to Eastleigh to help their constituency party people in need? Helping people in need is not the preserve of only one party. Please, let us be fair.

I don't know what historical materialism is. I know it is something to do with Marx and barks ing mad, but that is at far as I want to know about that sort of thing.

But you believe in "class struggle" and you take teh side of one class. You don't support the aristocracy, you support the working class. Why? Why don't you choose the aristocracy, the Bulingdonian Berties, the Hooray Henries and the Old Etonians? I think it is due to your moral outlook.

Helping poor people who are suffering injustice and poverty is a deeply moral act

By whos measure?

I don't agree. Helping people is not a moral act. This where those on the right get very confused. Morality is a fiction peddled by the church, a patriarchal institution that was both instrumental in and created by those who wished to create class privilege.

The working class do not require help, they require democracy so that individual capacities and freedoms can be actualised not at the expense of others but in ways that share the benefits of development, whether it be better health outcomes, access to housing and food security or the right of single mothers to bring up their children without a male head of household and buckets of vitriol.

'Helping people is not a moral act. This where those on the right get very confused. Morality is a fiction peddled by the church, a patriarchal institution that was both instrumental in and created by those who wished to create class privilege.'

Oh no! These sounds like the words of Beelzebub himself, stoking the flaming fires of red hot Hades, red in tooth and claw, like a red Marxist hellbent on class war.

'The working class do not require help,'

Of course they do and that is why we have a welfare system and a National Health system, so that we don't have to go back to a time when people died on the streets for lack of funds and because they were born in the wrong household, born in the valleys and not in the hills.

'they require democracy so that individual capacities and freedoms can be actualised not at the expense of others but in ways that share the benefits of development, whether it be better health outcomes, access to housing and food security'

Have you been reading the Tory manifesto? This sounds straight out of Thatcher's policy of majority ballots for union strike decisions.

Thatcher championed democracy and democratic voting in union ballots against a socialist shop steward known as Raving Red Robbo.

But you believe in "class struggle" and you take teh side of one class. You don't support the aristocracy, you support the working class. Why? Why don't you choose the aristocracy, the Bulingdonian Berties, the Hooray Henries and the Old Etonians? I think it is due to your moral outlook.

The history of humanity is bound up in changes to the method of production and the social relations that come out of that, ownership of private property, ownership over the means of production. There was a time when land was in (held) common. People could graze animals and collect firewood. The trees and the natural world should be held in common, it isn't something that humans have developed and no one person should have monopoly rights over water, wood, grassland etc,.... when a person uses what is provided in nature and through their labour alters that thing, ie I extract rubber from trees and make rubber bands, I have altered the thing to something that has a (use) value when I exchange this for something else it becomes a commodity. At that point under the free market principle I can exchange it (its use value to you) for its commodity value (monetary value to me) for money. Now if I own all rubber tress and the means to produce rubber bands and can continue to extract money from you whilst you have to sell you labour to pay for my rubber bands. You can never earn enough to buy all rubber bands (if that was all you needed to live on) and therefore I can never sell all of my rubber bands. I can either pay you less??????or I can reduce my profit?????? what you should do of course is demand that you have equal rights to natural resources, land and the means of production. And that is what the working class do, they are therefore the revolutionary force in history because they demand change.

The Aristos (who are they? not completely dead but after 250 years nearly extinct) why would I support them? well they do not call for change. The capitalists do not call for change and they are incapable of effecting change. Incapable of saving capitalism itself, only the working class can !

this is a good starting point. Only 11 minutes out of your life

'Helping people is not a moral act.'

This may explain the real resson why the progressives are increasing the fuel bills of millions of ordinary people in the biggest financial crisis since the 1930s with their "save the planet" policies abd their carboon footprint taxes.

'There was a time when land was in (held) common. People could graze animals and collect firewood. The trees and the natural world should be held in common, it isn't something that humans have developed and no one person should have monopoly rights over water, wood, grassland etc'

There were always kings and queens and tribal rulers and tribal elders who owned teh most and made the decisions. Human society has hardly ever had a progressive Rousseauesque Marxist paradise.

Young hunters had to listen and learn from their elders. Someone was always in charge. The Greeks finally gave us the concept of democracy, and a leader was chosen by a vote of some of the people, and we are where we are now.

The Spartans had a communist type system in their rigid martial society. All property was under common ownership, there was no private property. Everyone was at the service of the state and weak children were thrown over cliffs. The Guardian, an elite class, made the decisions. They had a mighty army, but it was hell on earth.

Down the road apiece there was a city called Athens, where philosophy and art flourished and free thinking had full rein. There was a thing called democracy and the world was never again the same.

These two city states went to war and I can't remember who won, but I think it must have been Athens, and we are where we are now.

So when Raving Red Robbo stood on a podium and called teh workers to class war, a woman called Margaret Hilda Thatcher, braver and bolder than Boadicea herslef, stood up and said enough is enough. I will face this red dragon down and carry the Olympic flame of democracy and truth just like the citizens of Athens did when faced with the Spartans in their hour of truth.

And so we are where we are today.

Plato realised that the free market was not able to sustain fairness of outcome without democratic philosophical rules, contracts, law and policies that protect those that exchange goods/labour in the free market.

The problem is now one of which the state and law makers are the same class as those who gain most from the free market. This means that a huge welfare state is needed to mitigate against societal collapse whilst the powers of global finance undermine the (money/debt financed) state whilst extracting the means to impoverish every state and person it is in contract with.

That is democracy, that is a veneer of democracy, a shoddy illusion.

That is democracy? *?

'what you should do of course is demand that you have equal rights to natural resources, land and the means of production. And that is what the working class do, they are therefore the revolutionary force in history because they demand change.'

But this is nonsense. The world does not work like that. This is Alice in Wonderland and Marx is the Mad Hatter.

You can't enter any of Tony Blair's mansions because he owns them and not you. You couldn't sleep in Lenin's house or Stalin's dacha, because they owned them and not you.

The Romans gave us law and this determined people's rights.

You can'y say the rubber tree belongs to you without the backup of the force of teh law, because someone bigger and meaner will come and grab what you say is yours. That is how the world started. But through civilization and law we are where we are today. But some inherit millions on wealth and some start with nothing. You can't change that. If you believe teh revolutionaries and the progressives, we stand to be deceived, for they will assume charge and then tell you what to do and when you try to enter the palace in Moscow, they'll tell you where to go.

Why are you Claig an intelligent and well read person equating Marxism with Stalin? because you are being disingenuous and wilfully deceptive?

'Plato realised that the free market was not able to sustain fairness of outcome without democratic philosophical rules, contracts, law and policies that protect those that exchange goods/labour in the free market'

But Plato admired the communist Spartan system where a small ruling elite of philosopher kings told people what wa what. Of course our own elite, such as Bertrand Russell and teh Fabians like HG Wells, follow in his very tradition. They are teh progressives who think they know what is best for us and they believe they are the intellectuals ordained to tell ordinary people what to do. And so we have "global warming" which is their Platonic plan for us.

Unlike Bertrand Russell and the progressive elite, I back Aristotle and Atehnian democracy. I back Thatcher and oppose the squeezing of teh middle by the aristoicratic elite of guardians and their progressive proletarian puppets.

I agree wityh you that of course there are elite cheats and swindlers and gangsters who have subverted our democratic system and who do not listen to the will of the people. They look down on the people from their ivory towers and their dreaming spires, they call the people bigots behind closed doors. Of course we have been milked by the bankers.

But democracy, as Churchill said, is the best that we have got. We have to change things for the better by exposing the crooks behind the scenes, but don't fall into the progressives' trap and ruin all our dreams.

The rule of law and the formation of the state.....read Gerder Lerner? The formation of the archiac states came about to protect and provide the conditions for private property rights. The formation of the law came about to protect those rights. The two are one and the same and it would be impossible to have the rule of law without the state. It would be impossible to have private property rights without the law to protect you rights to your rubber trees. The point is that not all of human history was blighted by a large state and those laws that confer power on some at the impoverishment of others. This is why a left wing state can be the only truly democratic state because the property is held in common. Only when this is established do you have any of the conditions under which the role of the state can be rolled back.

Bertrand Russell and teh Fabians like HG Wells, follow in his very tradition. They are teh progressives who think they know what is best for us and they believe they are the intellectuals ordained to tell ordinary people what to do

The working classes do not need fabians to tell them what to do. What is needed is a joined up coalition of all working people, not these one issue top trumps groups where everyone bitches about who is the most disadvantaged. The feminists, the gay lobby, the trans lobby, the greens, the anti IMF........and so it goes on. Not understanding that not only are they oppressed by the same common enemy they attack each other claiming one has privilege over another.

'The formation of the archiac states came about to protect and provide the conditions for private property rights. The formation of the law came about to protect those rights.'

Yes that makes sense, because teh ruling elite needed to protect what they had and didn't want to have a battle everytime someone decided to grab what was theirs. So society created laws and arrested people guilty of breaking these laws. That is necessary. Without that there would be chaos and anarchists. Of course there is a political movement of anarchists that want anarchy. But they too are just puppets of hidden forces who want to subvert society in order to seize control of all teh property.

'It would be impossible to have private property rights without the law to protect you rights to your rubber trees.'

Agree, but that was progress because it provided stability and a climate of growth where warring factions were not constantly at each other's throats and destroying everything that had been built and achieved. The alternative would be chaos and anarchy.

Human beings created law in order to provide stability and remove chaos.

'The point is that not all of human history was blighted by a large state and those laws that confer power on some at the impoverishment of others.'

Of course a large state has not always blighted humanity. Now you are talking Margaret Hilda Thatcher's language yet again. She wanted to dismantle an over large state in order to free up the population and toi give them incentive to achieve and aspire and take responsibility for themselves. She saw this aa a moral duty to free people from the burden of a top heavy bureaucracy. Now you are talking her lingo.

'This is why a left wing state can be the only truly democratic state because the property is held in common. Only when this is established do you have any of the conditions under which the role of the state can be rolled back.'

This is impossible. Have you seen teh documentaries on the Spanish Civil War? Have you seen what happened to the properties of villagers when teh chief of the socialist revolutionaries went into every house and stripped all their posessions and paintings from their walls and said they were now in common ownership and took them to his place. It is dictatorship and autocratic rule and teh breakdown of law and order with no police to protect you against teh local party bigwig and apparatchik who confiscates what you and your family have worked for for generations and says they now belong to the state. They no longer belong to you, they now belong to him.

Common ownership is a fantasy. There will always be teh leaders on expenses that you pay for while they make their decisions in sofa governemnt without consulting you.

You are saying that the state is bad and eveil because it makes laws and that teh only good state is no state which can only be achieved when there is common ownership. But this is fantasy.

Of course there are good states which serve their citizens. These are open democractic transaparent states with no gagging clauses and where a free press can discover what happens behind closed dorrs. They are states with a freedom of information act where we can find out what has been done in our name, They are states that look up violent thugs and prtect teh public and do not penalise hard-working honest people by telling them what they can and cannot drink or eat., They are states that respect their people and empower their people and educate their people and free their people. That is the state I want to live in.

That is why I vote Tory.

'The working classes do not need fabians to tell them what to do. What is needed is a joined up coalition of all working people'

This is where we fundamentally differ and have a different understanding of how the world works. You say there can be common ownership. I say there cannot because someone will always be in charge and they impose what is owned by whom and they will always have more say and have a dacha more than you. Common ownership strips away everything you have worked for and puts it in a common pool, but this is contrary to what every human really wants.

If I were a great painter and I produced a Van Gogh masterpiece after 5 years of hard work day and night, I want to own what I created. I don't wnat Gordon Brown to take it off me and tell me that the state owns everything I created.

Thank God for Margaret Hilda Thatcher. She'll let me keep what's mine and won't take my every dime.