Anything Political

[philmayfield 6,136]

The problem with Photoshop et al is that any picture can be faked. Coupled with artificial intelligence we will never be told the truth. It's all too far advanced to be stopped now.

[DJ360 6,730]

10 hours ago, Brew said:

All governments have used SI in the past but  Blair seems to have quietly used them as a nuclear option.

So who has made the greater inroads towards an authoritarian state? Who sidestepped democracy more?

Supremacy of Parliament?

 

I'm not here to defend Blair.  As I repeatedly say, my politics are pretty much fixed and often most closely align to Labour's, but that doesn't make me a Blairite or a Starmerite. At present the party which has most closely aligned itself with my views is probably the Greens, but sadly they won't unseat the Tories, which is my priority at the next election.

 

So..to Blair. I repeat, I'm not defending him, but his use of statutory instruments, though clearly pretty extensive, was qualitatively different to what some Tories have tried to achieve since 2010. The vast majority of Statutory Instruments as I see them are simply changes within the existing framework of Law, as 'allowed' by the Law.  Huge numbers relate to temporary traffic restrictions during roadworks etc. and other mundane stuff. Here's a few by way of illustration:

 

From 2008: 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_statutory_instruments_of_the_United_Kingdom,_2008

 

 

And from 2020:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_statutory_instruments_of_the_United_Kingdom,_2020

 

 

Worth saying that the Tories employed around 3000 such 'Instruments' per year from 2010 on, though records are incomplete for more recent years.

 

BUT, the key point here is that whatever we think of either Labour or the Tories' use of SI's, both did so within the provisions of the Statutory Instruments Act. 1946. which defines what can and cannot be changed via SIs.

 

What I am trying to highlight, is a different process, with different objectives, pursued by the Tories since 2010.

Basically, they have repeatedly tried to alter the relationship between Government and Parliament, and between Govt. and The Law, with the overall objective of crippling proper Parliamentary Scrutiny, and proper Accountability under The Law. Basically attempting to do whatever the hell they like, without scrutiny and with a longer term objective of staying in power forever.

 

THAT, is what I mean by Undermining Democracy and the Rule of Law and it is exacerbated by parallel Tory attacks on Citizen's Rights, Voting Rights and the Independence of the Judiciary.

Even if they have been thwarted at times, that doesn't alter what they are about, and what they are about, is anti Democratic.

 

I Googled 'Tory Attempts To Weaken Parliamentary Scrutiny':

 

First line results here:

 

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Tory+attempts+to+weaken+Parliamentary+Scrutiny&t=newext&atb=v356-1&ia=web

 

 

I rest my case.

 

 

[DJ360 6,730]

12 hours ago, Deepdene Boy said:

When are people going to realise that Reform UK are as Fascist as Moseley's Black Shirts from the 1930s. They need to be stopped at all costs.

 

What people should do, is to read ALL of any party's manifesto.  Just as Johnson and Co. 'telegraphed' their real, anti democratic objectives in their manifesto, so Reform hide their darker and and more authoritarian ambitions behind their Populist and simplistic message.

[philmayfield 6,136]

I think the majority of people would like to unseat the present government at the next election. The problem is that there’s no viable outstanding alternative. There will probably be a low turnout and Labour will come to power on a wave of apathy. They will spend the first four years of their reign on blaming the Conservatives. Watch your pension fund though. Stashed with cash and a very tempting source of funds!

[DJ360 6,730]

Starmer puzzles me.  If I were him, I'd be promising to tackle regulation of privatised utilities such as water and energy suppliers, forcing them to end pollution of our rivers etc., Fat Cat salaries, shareholder dividends etc, on threat of Re-Nationalisation without compensation. Also Rail and other public transport.

I'd be promising to fix our roads.

I'd be promising to fix Education and Training and to end the 'businessification' of Higher Ed which is destroying both the reputations of our Uni's and the experiences/outcomes for students.

I'd be promising to root out sleaze and corruption.

I'd be promising to tackle illegal immigration by speeding up processing and deportation, and I'd be promising to reduce the need for Legal Immigration by addressing Labour Shortages via Education and Training reforms.

 

To the inevitable question of how to fund all of that?  I'd go on about spending the Tax Take on Public Services rather than shareholder profits, etc..

 

Is it all achievable?  How should I know.. but I'm certain that NOTHING can be achieved from Opposition.

 

 

[Brew 5,417]

1 hour ago, DJ360 said:

THAT, is what I mean by Undermining Democracy and the Rule of Law and it is exacerbated by parallel Tory attacks on Citizen's Rights,

The end game is control , the Tories by stealth, Labour by draconian law and the creation of criminal offences.. And it will not get better  as the situation worsens.

Tory v Labour... how can anyone vote for either of them?

[philmayfield 6,136]

I’m a long time Tory voter but I, like so many others, have no positive leanings towards them presently. I think it’s partially due to the calibre of politicians these days. At one time MP’s were people of honour and principle but now most of them appear to be a bunch of rabble. Politics doesn’t attract the right sort of people anymore. There are better rewards to be had in commerce and industry. If they were paid more we’d just have a more expensive bunch of rabble for many years until the present lot died out.

[LizzieM 9,508]

Agree Phil, in fact I haven’t a clue the names of the Cabinet and Shadow Cabinet these days!    Might be because years ago the top politicians were a lot older than us and were people to look up to and believe in.  
BUT …… we think we’ve got problems, the United States has possibly a bigger issue in November! 

[Brew 5,417]

9 hours ago, DJ360 said:

'd be promising to fix Education and Training and to end the 'businessification' of Higher Ed which is destroying both the reputations of our Uni's and the experiences/outcomes for students

Like a lot of political speak , sounds good and I'm (mostly) in agreement, but how? it has no bones. Do you mean the old radical Labour practice of throwing money at it? or something more creative?

I can't comment of the present state of Ed or training, it's over twenty years now and time and technology has moved on.

 

Utilities - even as a shareholder I'd agree.

 

9 hours ago, DJ360 said:

I'd be promising to root out sleaze and corruption.

I think that would be reasonably easy if they cut all the  complexity of expenses etc. I see no reason why they keep their own home and  buy another house(s) on their expenses.  BAN second jobs. When you're an MP then its a full time occupation, no if's, no buts .

 

10 hours ago, DJ360 said:

I'd be promising to tackle illegal immigration by speeding up processing and deportation, and I'd be promising to reduce the need for Legal Immigration by addressing Labour Shortages via Education and Training reforms.

 

A major problem is identifying them and is one of the main reasons the process takes so long. Reading various reports (Migration Watch, Guardian, etc.). it's common practice for 98% of them to dump any identification before they land. Why if they're genuine?

 

Rule 1 no valid ID - immediate refusal of entry, black and white, no shades of grey. A bit draconian i know. and would probably never be allowed before being snowed down under an avalanche of legal challenges,  

And then we have to ask where do we return them to?

LEGAL immigration times are 3 to 8 weeks. Average for asylum seekers is around six months, who's fault is that?

Rule No1 would rapidly reduce that wait by refusing entry to most. There may be mistakes and miscarriages but it would not take long  before the word spreads and they cease risking their lives and maybe even  start to do things properly.

 

Question, what about Adult social care, Social housing, NHS, Defence, Universal Credit etc.etc... Do we still keep the Tories method of offloading onto councils or bring them back in-house. Will bringing them back  be a move towards a command economy, or is the Tory way of slimming down the government and civil service a better way?

 

I think we should be told 

[Brew 5,417]

On 3/11/2024 at 12:17 PM, DJ360 said:

And as if by magic, as I type, I'm reading that Anderson has joined the Far Right 'Reform' Party, becoming their first MP. As far as I'm concerned, a betrayal of the people of his constituency. If he had any conviction, he'd have resigned, forced a by-election and stood officially for Reform instead of slithering in the way he has.

 

 

A bold statement there Col, I wonder would you consider Ramsey Macdonald in the same way?

He and every Labour MP (15),bar one left Labour and formed a new party, 'National Labour.'

Did their constituents agree or even have a say?

John Strachey, the odd one out, refused to join on the grounds he "did not agree with the party's drift towards Fascism"

 

Or Cripps,or Bevan,......... How many Labour MPs dumped the party and joined the SDP?

Leaving a party for another or 'crossing the house' is not so unusual, morally reprehensible, but not unusual.

 

 

[Oztalgian 3,294]

On 3/12/2024 at 9:42 AM, DJ360 said:

But this link below is, surprisingly, from a US Govt. website and has some interesting  long-term analysis of the rise of the Tory Right.

A very interesting article DJ360. I'd be curious to know how much interest the average Joe has in Nigel Farage and the growth of the more extreme right-wing element within the conservative side of government. I look forward to the upcoming UK general election to see how this pans out.

 

The leader of our Federal opposition coalition parties Liberal/National is part of the right-wing faction, I would not say extreme, as yet, and am curious how our 2025 election turns out especially if Trump becomes US President again.

[DJ360 6,730]

@Brew,

 

Regarding my 'proxy' Manifesto for Starmer, it was of course a 'back of a fag packet' list, which I came up with in a matter of moments. I was just highlighting the lack of anything in Starmer's message to inspire ordinary voters, and at the same time pointing to issues which people are really 'p'd off about that they are looking for someone, anyone, to fix. How hard would it be to join the two into a simple message of hope for a tired and disillusioned electorate?

 

  If I sat down and really concentrated there's hardly an aspect of British Govt, Infrastructure and Public Services which doesn't need fixing, repairing, reforming, replacing, re-building, just returning to what was, or whatever, and all of that on top of the cost of living, housing and other crises.  Whilst some were already developing when the Tories stumbled into power most seem to me to be a direct result of the Tories' relentless pursuit of failed NeoCon economics, Privatisation etc.. but even those problems they didn't directly create, they have had 14 years to address.  They have utterly failed.

 

So, what are the Tories offering us at the next election?

 

So far it seems to be more of the same, summed up as   "Stick to 'the plan' and there'll be Jam Tomorrow"., supplemented by the endlessly repeated 'Labour have no plan.. but we do'..which is frankly pathetic. That's it.  Mostly a plan to supposedly tidy up a mess of their own creation.  It's hardly the same inspired (but deeply dishonest) 'Labour Isn't Working', from the Thatcher Era, or 'For the Many, Not The Few', from Labour. And as for, 'Let's Get Brexit Dun', which prefaced Govt chaos, virtual Dictatorship and Parliamentary/Constitutional Crisis. the least said etc.. 'Strong and Stable', from the Tories in 2019.. seriously?  What we actually have is 'Weak and Wobbly'.

 

So, Labour so far have 'Let's Get Britain's Future Back', and 'A Britain Built To Last', from the front page of their current manifesto. Laudable stuff, but vague, and I'm hearing nothing like that from Starmer's public utterances. It's not just natural centre left voters like me who need a vision, and mostly some semblance of HOPE. It's most of the electorate, I'd say.

 

On 3/12/2024 at 11:05 PM, Brew said:

Like a lot of political speak , sounds good and I'm (mostly) in agreement, but how? it has no bones. Do you mean the old radical Labour practice of throwing money at it? or something more creative?

 

At the risk of sounding flippant.. I don't mean anything..  I'm just pointing out what I see as lacking in Labour's message.  All the good intent in the World is useless without a message linked to reality, which people can get behind. It doesn't have to be a detailed plan, so long as Ministers and MPs are all 'on message' and well briefed when challenged on the Telly, etc. None of the memorable slogans from above were detailed, or even honest, but they grabbed people, right or wrong.

 

How about linking the idea of Clean Rivers and Clean Politics?  Broken Britain with Broken Promises, etc.. etc.. The Genius of 'Labour Isn't Working' was that it Blamed Labour without offering any solution.  That's an option for Labour too.

 

On 3/12/2024 at 11:05 PM, Brew said:

I can't comment on the present state of Ed or training, it's over twenty years now and time and technology has moved on.

 

It's ten years since I retired and at that time, we were seeing wholesale closures of Further Education colleges. Blunkett for Labour had all but neutered the World's best Career Guidance system and Gove reduced it to a rump, another responsibility mostly 'dumped' onto Local Govt and only invoked around unemployed youngsters. The comprehensive Career Guidance to which every school leaver had been entitled, from an independent, free Careers Service, was casually dumped onto schools, with no funding. Most young people were leaving school etc., clueless about the '(lack of) Opportunity Structure' which they now faced.

Things have got worse since, as crumbling schools, the gaping hole left by 'Sure Start' closure and many other issues have made things worse.  Reasonable summation here:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/feb/29/tories-education-system-labour-keir-starmer-sure-start-further-education

 

Two or three times in the last week or so I've also heard Labour representatives mention a boost for 'Career Guidance'. In all honesty I have my doubts as to what many Labour politicians actually think Career Guidance is, but 'any port in a storm' as they say.

 

This, from Ofsted is frankly horrifying.  From the perspective of a fully qualified Careers Adviser who started in the Profession in 1985, what I'm reading is amateurish, naive, ill-informed and frankly 99% tripe. It is praising certain entities for beginning to feel their way towards, prioritising pupils likely to 'fall through the net', or 'beginning' to collect and analyse Labour Market information..etc...etc.. etc.. ALL of which and MUCH more was 'bread and butter', basic stuff to the Careers Service bastardised by Blunkett and finally destroyed by Gove. It's enough to make a grown man weep. I should add here that providing a Careers Service, free at the point of delivery, independent, highly qualified and universally available, cost a fraction of 1% of overall budget for 'compulsory' education and also straddled both the Education and Employment sectors, providing benefit to both. Talk about 'spoiling the ship for a he'porth of tar'.

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/independent-review-of-careers-guidance-in-schools-and-further-education-and-skills-providers/independent-review-of-careers-guidance-in-schools-and-further-education-and-skills-providers

 

The other side of the Education and Training 'mess' we have currently, is a 'Skills Shortage'. This has many facets and is partly due to technological change etc, but fundamentally it is down to Govt failure to 'grip' the issue.  Again this comes back to NeoCon economics and the ludicrous assumption that 'The Market', will fix it. Time and again it is proven the 'The Market' will NOT fix it, as employers continue to expect to be able to recruit competent staff either by 'poaching' from elsewhere, including abroad (reliance upon Legal migration), or for Govt. to train employees at no cost to Employers. It's an old problem, but it's arguable that Thatcher's abolition of the Industry Training Board system, along with the 'levy' sytem of funding, caused most of the rot, and it's never been properly addressed since. As Toynbee points out in the article linked above,

Quote

An apprenticeship levy on big employers has failed, as they have used it to fund business degrees for existing senior staff at the expense of taking on young beginners.

 

I'll add to that that Govt. claims around numbers of 'apprenticeships created', are just plain lies, as what they have done is 'approve' places, which are useless if unfilled, as many are.

 

Right... Lunch is calling.. I'll respond to the rest of your post later.

 

 

[Brew 5,417]

14 hours ago, Oztalgian said:

I'd be curious to know how much interest the average Joe has in Nigel Farage and the growth of the more extreme right-wing element within the conservative side of government.

 

Hopefully Farage will simply fade away, but the present appalling state of politics in the UK is opening doors that should remain closed.

 

The mess made by the present lot and the abysmal Labour lack of direction and passive opinions can make strident voices like Farage and Anderson seem attractive. They're are seemingly offering a positive view and certainty in an uncertain world. I've noted before we should not side-line or ignore him.

 

Those who cry it's just 'populism politics' need to reconsider what that actually means.

[letsavagoo 963]

On 3/12/2024 at 11:33 AM, DJ360 said:

Starmer puzzles me.  If I were him, I'd be promising to tackle regulation of privatised utilities such as water and energy suppliers, forcing them to end pollution of our rivers etc., Fat Cat salaries, shareholder dividends etc, on threat of Re-Nationalisation without compensation. Also Rail and other public transport.

I'd be promising to fix our roads.

I'd be promising to fix Education and Training and to end the 'businessification' of Higher Ed which is destroying both the reputations of our Uni's and the experiences/outcomes for students.

I'd be promising to root out sleaze and corruption.

I'd be promising to tackle illegal immigration by speeding up processing and deportation, and I'd be promising to reduce the need for Legal Immigration by addressing Labour Shortages via Education and Training reforms.

 

To the inevitable question of how to fund all of that?  I'd go on about spending the Tax Take on Public Services rather than shareholder profits, etc..

 

Is it all achievable?  How should I know.. but I'm certain that NOTHING can be achieved from Opposition.

 

 

If you stand on these policies/ambitions, I’d vote for you.

[Brew 5,417]

8 hours ago, DJ360 said:

The Genius of 'Labour Isn't Working' was that it Blamed Labour without offering any solution.  That's an option for Labour too.

 

So basically you recommend Labour follow the Tories lead - again?   

[Brew 5,417]

6 hours ago, letsavagoo said:

Starmer puzzles me. 

And most of the party too i imagine. He is a barrister so not exactly dim, but when cross examining Sunak always seems out of his depth. 

[Oztalgian 3,294]

10 hours ago, DJ360 said:

It's ten years since I retired and at that time, we were seeing wholesale closures of Further Education colleges. Blunkett for Labour had all but neutered the World's best Career Guidance system and Gove reduced it to a rump

The experience in the UK is mirrored here in Australia'

In 2019 the incoming Liberal State government closed seven TAFE (Technical and Further Education) campuses across South Australia and privatised the system leading to widespread rorts and students being ripped off. This was done under the guise of "operating efficiencies" and effectively gutted the system and left it as a shell.

Fast forward to 2023/4 and we now have 10,000+ fee free places and they are building five new technical colleges, the first opened earlier this year.

The big wheel keeps on turning or Back to the Future.

 

We are in the midst of a crucial by-election in the state seat of Dunstan formerly held by the ex State Liberal (Conservative) leader who is leaving parliament after losing the last election after only one term in office. So far the debate appears to be just about mudslinging, trying to see how much sticks to which candidate and almost no policy debate. Is this what our democracy has come down to?

[mary1947 2,081]

I am seeing quite a lot about about our local MP in the papers name 

Lee Anderson.

 

there should be in my opinion,  where,  some-one stands  as a labour candidate and gets to be in the House of commons as an MP Then changes to another party what is Joe public to think.

 

I have just voted for ????? he was very good as a ???  but now he has changed to a different Party 

Should he not stand again for the other party  as he was voted when he stood for one party  because he changed from that  party to another  the party I did not  vote for. 

Why can Lee Anderson MP stand for 3 parties and get in on each. The law should be changed if you are a candidate for the Blues and you want to quite and join the Reds  

 

YOU SHOULD HAVE TO BE RE-ELECTED'

 

 

 

[DJ360 6,730]

15 hours ago, Brew said:

 

So basically you recommend Labour follow the Tories lead - again?   

 

Hardly.. Maybe if I'd said 'that's ONE option for Labour too'. Play them at their own game, only better.

 

At present, there is little real pre-election 'sloganising' to be seen from either party, but I'd say that for those prepared to listen to the detail, the performance of most Labour folks on the Telly, on such progs as Newsnight, The Daily Politics, QT, etc., etc., generally blows the Tories out of the water.

Even with a relatively poorly developed 'message' and policy offer, Labour come out on top because the Tories just have no answers.. Their 'Govt' has been such a chaotic, disastrous process of lurching from crisis to crisis, scandal to scandal and failure to failure.. that they are often left sitting staring ahead, like rabbits in the headlights. They are incapable of climbing out of their self cut 'rut' of privatisation, 'kow towing' to 'big money' an obsession with the assumption that 'Markets' will save us, etc.  Utterly, totally and completely failed ideology, which they have pursued despite all evidence of failure, economic, social and environmental damage,collapsing public services and a 'zombie like' industrial base.

Forget his name, but a Labour chap last night on QT said words tro the effect that:

 

"This govt. is finished and it is only they who don't realise it".

[Cliff Ton 10,466]

The subject of voting for someone who has changed to a different political party highlights the question of whether - in an election - you vote for a person or a party.

 

For instance…if you were a dedicated Labour voter, but you didn’t like or approve of the candidate - would you still vote Labour ?

 

If you liked the candidate as a person, but didn’t agree with their party politics, which way would you vote ?

[Brew 5,417]

Excellent question CT. The old old cry of he's an unelected Prime Minister highlights it. We don't and never have voted for a Prime Minister, we vote for a party and the party leader is elected by party members to become PM by default. 

The leader/candidate's personality and popularity though can make that seem nonsensical and I'm reasonably sure in many peoples minds they're voting for personality not policy.

[Brew 5,417]

32 minutes ago, DJ360 said:

on such progs as Newsnight, The Daily Politics, QT, etc., etc., generally blows the Tories out of the water.

 

Only in your estimation Col. I mention earlier Reeves performance on Sunday and quite frankly she is hoping to do what you accuse the Tories of doing, kowtowing to big business. A major plank of her rather vague plan is bringing big business and investment on board. she wants to 'leverage' private investment in her green policy, something the rest of the talking heads are strangely quiet about. When asked direct questions she stuttered, prevaricated and it was obvious the she was reluctant to a clear and unambiguous answer. She also hinted that the economy will benefit from 'trickle down!'

[DJ360 6,730]

I did say 'generally' Jim.  All is relative.

[DJ360 6,730]

1 hour ago, Cliff Ton said:

For instance…if you were a dedicated Labour voter, but you didn’t like or approve of the candidate - would you still vote Labour ?

 

If you liked the candidate as a person, but didn’t agree with their party politics, which way would you vote ?

 

It seems to me that it's usually a question of recognising what is most important to you in any situation.  So, for e.g., my 'primary imperative' at the next General Election is to get rid of the Tories, so I'd be prepared to vote for whoever is most likely to prevent a Tory win in my constituency.

On the other hand, in local elections I have frequently voted for the candidate rather than their party, so, the odd Lib Dem, Green, or even occasional Independent (only if I know them very well..as there's a recent trend for the 'unelectable' with a track record of extremism, to stand as 'Independents').  Oddly, never a Tory though...

[DJ360 6,730]

On 3/12/2024 at 11:05 PM, Brew said:

I think that would be reasonably easy if they cut all the  complexity of expenses etc. I see no reason why they keep their own home and  buy another house(s) on their expenses.  BAN second jobs. When you're an MP then its a full time occupation, no if's, no buts .

 

I'd certainly favour something along those lines.

 

On 3/12/2024 at 11:05 PM, Brew said:

A major problem is identifying them and is one of the main reasons the process takes so long. Reading various reports (Migration Watch, Guardian, etc.). it's common practice for 98% of them to dump any identification before they land. Why if they're genuine?

 

I don't know for certain but apparently they are told to do so, by the people smugglers.

On 3/12/2024 at 11:05 PM, Brew said:

Rule 1 no valid ID - immediate refusal of entry, black and white, no shades of grey. A bit draconian i know. and would probably never be allowed before being snowed down under an avalanche of legal challenges,  

And then we have to ask where do we return them to?

LEGAL immigration times are 3 to 8 weeks. Average for asylum seekers is around six months, who's fault is that?

Rule No1 would rapidly reduce that wait by refusing entry to most. There may be mistakes and miscarriages but it would not take long  before the word spreads and they cease risking their lives and maybe even  start to do things properly.

 

It's a minefield Jim and I have no easy answers.  Neither, I would argue, has anyone else.. which is part of why I'm so annoyed by the Tory efforts to keep immigration, and now their idea of 'Extremism' Front and Centre, as a distraction from their myriad failures.

We have to face the fact that the 'Middle East and Global South', are the focus of Political and Religious unrest, catastrophic environmental change etc.  That will continue to force huge numbers to seek a 'better life' elswhere, which usually means Nothern Europe, or the USA. Russia and China are hardly options, yet both have falling populations I think.

In the long term, we either engage with those countries where migrants are originating and try to alleviate the 'need' for migration, or we continue to battle the situation we have.

 

On 3/12/2024 at 11:05 PM, Brew said:

Question, what about Adult social care, Social housing, NHS, Defence, Universal Credit etc.etc... Do we still keep the Tories method of offloading onto councils or bring them back in-house.

 

Somebody more expert than me may be able to offer a good reason why Adult Social Care should be a Local Govt, NHS, or National Govt. responsibility..but the current Tory policy of 'dumping' it onto Local Councils not only fails due to insufficient funding, but aslso due to the 'disconnect' between NHS Hospital Treatment and Adult care, which causes bed blocking.

 

On 3/12/2024 at 11:05 PM, Brew said:

Will bringing them back  be a move towards a command economy, or is the Tory way of slimming down the government and civil service a better way?

 

I'd see it as a return to a mixed economy, with a better balance between Public and Private Sectors. I certainly don't favour a Soviet or Chinese style Command Economy.

The Tory way isn't really 'Government' in any meaningful way. It does not seriously seek to protect, or to enhance the lives of the majority and its claims that this will follow via 'trickle down' etc..are just window dressing an empty shop.  The current Tory Way is simply a set of Political devices designed to allow a small number of people to control the economy entirely for their own advantage.