The FT makes a simple point this morning — that unacceptable as Cameron and Osborne are to most in this country, they’re just as unacceptable to their own Tory candidates to be MPs.As they note:
David Cameron is struggling to convince a group of his own party election candidates of the merits of key Conservative policies.
Financial regulation, tax and climate change were the most controversial areas of policy for would-be Tory MPs, a Financial Times investigation found, with a number of candidates unconvinced by the party’s direction.
In a survey of candidates the FT found:
About a quarter of those the FT examined had held jobs in financial services or the City, and many of those were unhappy at the prospect of the government legislating in that area.
Twelve of those interviewed were uncomfortable with any government involvement in pay, while eight backed such action only at government-owned banks.
Only five echoed Mr Osborne’s outspoken approach and few supported a special tax on financial institutions.
The idea, entrenched in the City, that bankers somehow create wealth as a result of their zero sum games when this is far from the truth is to be found amongst the candidates:
“The last thing we want to do is drive people out of this industry who are going to create wealth over the next 10 years,” Andrew Bridgen, standing in North West Leicestershire, said.
There’s more though:
There were signs that Mr Cameron will come under pressure to speed up the scrapping of the 50p top rate of income tax. Every candidate who answered the survey opposed the measure and most stressed that the Tories should be the party of low tax.
You might as well say these candidates have one aim: to make the rich richer and the poorest poorer.
As worrying:
Many prospective MPs appeared unconvinced by the argument that humans were responsible for climate change. Few believed governments should legislate on the issue.
It’s as if these people want to find as many cliffs as they can over which society can jump, and then want to help the slippery slope to oblivion that will destroy society as we know it.
The stakes are high.
And yes, I know I could be very depressed in four weeks time. But don’t worry — the arguments for reform will continue whatever the Tories do.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
“unacceptable as Cameron and Osborne are to most in this country,”
Who says? You have NO evidence for that statement and neither does the FT. Two of the latest opinion polls have the Tories, led by Cameron, with a 10% lead over Labour. How does that translate into ‘unacceptable.’
@Boudicca
As an East Anglian resident I’m aware Boudicca led a rebellion that lacked strategy, she was defeated and her supporters were slaughtered
Sound familiar?
Go think again about your pseudonym I suggest
Richard
I think it’s a bit of a stretch to say that bankers (while not saints) don’t create any value.
Yes – the role they play is to move money and risk around while profiting from both sides of the deal, but that DOES have intrinsic value if it’s done well; it increases the velocity of money, which means that more real-economy projects can get funded, and almost all of them at cheaper rates. Amazed that you can’t see that.
Next time you want to purchase a house/car or fund a business on finance, try having a whip round the individuals in your street, and see how you go.
Bankers give savers/investors the confidence to lend their cash (before you say that’s not true, is your money actually under the mattress?), centralize investment to take away concentration risk, and provide access to money to a large pool of borrowers. All those things add value to EVERYONE.
And in the UK, banks have done that pretty well over a long period of time. Yes there has been a short term crisis, but that’s pretty much the result of people (adults remember) borrowing money, and spending a disproportionate fraction of it on things that don’t produce a great return:
– first class travel for small software businesses
– new Astons for individuals who can’t afford them
– more box tickers for big government
…and at the end of the day, they go broke, and life moves on (it just takes longer if they’re on the taxpayer junket)
And if it’s really a global recession, how come China / India are growing at the rates they are? It’s a consumer economy problem, and it’s been stoked by interest rates being set too low for too long, as (yet another) vote/voter buying strategy.
Also amazed that the ‘unacceptable’ label is applied to Cam & Oz with no hint of irony, when they are 10% ahead in the polls. I guess your response to this being pointed out in an earlier comment carries on the tone of your article – but an ad hominem and irrelevant attack on a pseudonym of a commenter is getting pretty desperate, even for a leftie!
Troy
Classical banking adds value – of course
But is adding value wealth creation?
I dispute they are the same
The former facilitates, the latte initiates
I agree real banking facilitates
But I am not convinced it initiates
So I stand by my comment
As for Cam & Oz – this is politics. We can differ!
Richard