IAN Duncan Smith’s resignation over disability cuts has serious local repercussions.
If IDS – responsible for some of the harshest policies ever to hit the poor – found this a step too far, what does it say about Kit Malthouse, who fully supported the measure, despite representing a constituency with so many vulnerable and disabled residents?
There is a major conflict of interest here. Mr Malthouse had the opportunity to stand with those Tory politicians who opposed the motion, and surely the special needs of his constituents would have compelled him to do so. Why didn’t he?
Actions speak louder than spin. Many Tories worry about their party’s political dogma that consistently penalises the vulnerable. The desire to replace the Nasty Party image with ‘compassionate, one nation Conservatism’ was no moral epiphany – it was electoral windowdressing, as their increasingly discriminating budgets prove. Rewarding the rich on the back of the poor is not sound politics (or economics) but it is in the Tory DNA.
It is the ideology at the very heart of the Cameron / Osborne agenda. You only have to look at how Google and other big multinationals get away with billions in tax, to know that under their leadership, big business is always let off the hook, and the least able always pay the price.
There is no ‘austerity’ for the rich. We are fortunate to have some very decent, caring Tory councillors who must be burying their heads in shame at the present situation.
Jennifer Godschall Johnson, Balksbury Hill, Upper Clatford
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here