Theresa May’s Magic Money Orchard | Daniel Clark

During the election, a nurse asked the Prime Minister how it could be fair that – since 2009 – her wages have slipped. The response was bizarre, claiming that ‘there isn't a magic money tree that we can shake that suddenly provides for everything that people want.’ The (predictable) line was reused yet again by Amber Rudd in the leader debate (the one where the leader of the Conservative Party was notably absent), and yet again by various Tory MPs. The aftermath of the election proves that Theresa May was right. There isn’t a magic money tree: there’s a magic money orchard.

Let’s start where the madness began: the DUP alliance. This was the little thing where about a billion pounds was found to prop up the Tory government in light of the fact that Theresa May is pretty useless at general elections. James Spencer-Boyce, for this very website, has already identified that ‘if it was in Russia, North Korea or anywhere similar, this would be branded as bribery and corruption.’ I do not want to enter the realms of whether this is a good deal or a bad deal, and instead pose a simple question: where on earth did this money come from?

It does not stop there. When it was announced that the public sector pay cap would remain in place, Tory MPs cheered. Allow me to rephrase that: when it was announced that a cap on the pay given to our public sector would remain in place for the seventh year, MPs who are paid £74,000 a year (and can also claim expenses) celebrated. Let’s not be too critical though. Wouldn’t you cheer if you’d prevented somebody else having a pay rise with the full knowledge that there won’t be much getting in the way of you having one should you so desire?

Shortly after this debacle, it was announced that plans for statue of Margaret Thatcher would not go ahead for fears that it would be vandalised. Theresa May, not wanting anybody to forget that she has the keys to the magic money orchard, said that she does think that the statue should go ahead. At a cost of £300,000. Now, this is obviously a small amount of money when one considers the vast amount a government deals with on a daily basis. The fact remains, however, that in the same breath in which she supports austerity, Mrs May supports a completely pointless statue (there already is one, so this is quite surplus to requirements) being constructed.

It is becoming quite clear that this magical money orchard really doesn’t ‘provide for everything that people want.’ For that, you have to be a Tory who wants to invest in either, a) saving your own back, or b) erecting an utter vanity project. For the nurse who must use food banks so that she has the strength to care for her fellow human beings, or the homeless person who uses drugs to dull the pain of living in cold and hunger, this endless money supply is simply out of bounds.

Labour had a simple campaign slogan: ‘for the many, not the few.’ Ever since the election, Tory MPs have adopted the literal negation of this statement. From looking after their own backs, to cheering when those who protect us were confined to low pay, and even having a little temper tantrum when the Speaker ruled that wearing a tie in the House of Commons is not necessary: this government has exposed itself as one for the few, not the many.

But with seven years of Tory rule already behind us, is anybody really surprised? 

Daniel Clark is a writer for Student Voices