The party of the poor

Way to go Nick - such a negative slant on a positive piece of news.

You and your friends have been calling for more detail behind the Conservative plans - and as soon as you get it, you come out with this>

Why not try to write an unbiased piece, Nick? It'll be a useful exercise for you.

David Cameron is right - Big Government has failed. Please don't castigate him for suggesting that the answer may lie in a different direction.

No, they are not the party of the poor, they are just the party trying to get back into office, so they are smoking up the fire and polishing the mirrors. But the trouble is that it will work, and we will keep voting for the same three main parties - in England at least.

the family courts have contributed to this problem by greating division
and wasting vaste quantities of public monies and priviate money too that could better be spent by all parties in a more productive manner for the whole society.

It has been a job creation excercise for Judges and court staff, social workers and solictors etc

So why did the Tories oppose the introduction of the minimum wage? It's the single most-important anti-poverty measure in recent years. Nothing else comes closed. They opposed it. I'd say this was a more relevant and revealing example than a charity co-founded in 1967.

Simple fact - 12 years of New Labour has failed. Time for a change and whether DC says one thing or another it's clear that there has to be some new administration to provide impetus to the country. God knows the country needs a driving force to bring some enthusiasm and positivity to the populous. The negativity has to stop.

More left-wing spin from the BBC, Nick. Keep it up, you only have a few months to go.

The plan *is* to roll back the state. Twelve years of a Labour government has shown us that socialism is a failure. Witness the growing gap in rich and poor, the reduction in social mobility. To their credit, Blair and Clinton realised the game was up and tried the 'Third Way', but this was soon subverted by big business interests into a neofascist compact for grubby politicians lusting after power and rich business men who prefer to get richer through minimal effort.

The Tories are our only hope now. I just hope it isn't too late.

Ah well. I think we can see which way this one is going to go...

#4 the minimum wage and the failure to enforce the rules along with the prime objective of engineering mass imigration have been the issue that has undermined the poorest members of our society, Which is why the are voting for the odious BNP.

Can you not see that ?

if you have 12 in a house the bills are devided by 12 , but for the UK workers thay cannot do that, so its the Bills divided by 2 on very low pay, just an example of how this has trapped the white poor

Unfortunately the Tories are a party full of contradictions.

They whinge about European control but ironically due to living in a safe seat area and us having a first past the post system whilst the EU elections are PR I actually have more of a vote about how our country is run whilst we're under European law than I do under our own system of Democracy. If Cameron pulls back from the EU he's actually taking away my vote because my UK vote is meaningless whilst my European one is not. This wouldn't be a problem if the UK switched to proportional representation or at least a hybrid system, but as the Tories are dead set against this it's clear why Cameron wants to pull back from the EU- not because they want to give more power to British people as they claim, but because they want more personal power for themselves at the expense of taking more power away from the voters whose vote counts via the EU. So on one hand Cameron talks about bringing more power to British people by pulling power back from the EU, and on the other he keeps power out of the hands of many citizens by supporting first past the post. He is a hypocrit of the highest order, he tells you he's giving you something with one hand, whilst taking more away with the other.

All that said though, at least their domestic policy is far better than Labour's even if their foreign policy is an abysmal joke.

No1 WestLondonWilly.
Now that the financial buffoons and bonus bandits in the City and other financial institutions are reappearing,and bearing in mind that their current ability to earn a living was secured by the actions of Her Majesty's Government, do you think that they will share your view that 'big government' has failed?

The poor to vote for Cameron ???
Millionaires voted against "minimum wage" to avoid paying their
gardeners,cleaners etc.
All this Tory talk about supporting the family.
It was Thatcher who stopped the marriage tax allowance.
Now it's dry tears from the Tories.
If as I fear next April/May,wish I was able to pack up and leave.
The poor,vote for anyone but Cameron and the "boy" Osbourne!!!

David Cameron @ zero

"we must use the state to remake society"

exactly right; if you could now just follow up with some hard policy on (1) a more progressive tax system, (2) the public sectorisation of retail banking (incl Mortgages of course!) utilities, transport, and (3) an end to private schools, then you will not only have my (100) votes but I will also CAMPAIGN for you throughout the length and breadth of North London

sadly neither of the big two parties are that interested in the poor, both pay lip service to their plight, both know it and come pre election time they roll out the rhetoric with promise after promise but just empty words and fake smiles.
they use this issue as a quick fix issue taking something they try to hide off the front page or hide some governmental gaff.
one can only hope the voting public are not so easily fooled this time and elect a government that will work for the people of this little island first and foremost.

If the numbers quoted for shoplifting at £4,880,000,000 is to be believed, it seems many of the poor are quite capable of helping themselves.

Recently I saw a table that the Tories have just produced which ranked Government 'benefits' with around 109 constituencies that had returned Labour MP's.

It is going to require an enormous leap-of-faith for these Labour 'client' voters to switch to the Conservatives.

Are these turkeys really going to vote for Christmas?

Big government has proved time and again that it solves nothing except providing outdoor relief for the otherwise unemployable middle class.

Currently receipts from income tax do not cover the expenditure made of welfare and benefit payments. So some adjustment is required in either one or the other.

Why is it that we have five million unemployed or economically inactive, including a million under the age of 24 at the same time as high unskilled immigration. There is something wrong with the labour market.

The minimum wage has for many become the maximum wage as income tax cuts in at far too low a level to encourage the lower paid to improve their circumstances.

It doesn't take a great brain to work out the the tax and welfare system both discourages and penalises the work ethic.

So it should be no great surprise to find the not so great brains in the Tory party see an opportunity. I do recognise that IDS has done some very good work in this field. It is sad that Cameron is just cherry-picking the more attractive bits.

There is a great task to be done to resolve the economic and fiscal difficulties this country faces. To my mind this can only be done by returning to manufacturing of some sort to add value to society at large. To do this we need a workforce and a population capable of putting its shoulder to the wheel. At the moment this is not the case.

The degree of credibility on poverty that the Tories manage to acquire will be a measure of the lack of success of Labour in rolling back the level of poverty in the UK. While there have been achievements the obssessive compulsiveness of Brown with the interests of the banks and City will heavily undo much of the modest gains in the fight against poverty. Nowhere is this more obvious than the draconian rules applied to job seekers' allowance and deferring the introduction of the higher rate of tax.

8. IR35_SURVIVOR wrote:

if you have 12 in a house the bills are devided by 12 , but for the UK workers thay cannot do that, so its the Bills divided by 2 on very low pay, just an example of how this has trapped the white poor

How come you can fit more immigrant workers in a house than UK workers? Are they smaller?

If you've got any more examples, I'd love to hear them.

The conservative party was created, specifically, to protect the interests of the landed gentry.

The name 'conservative' implies that they are strongly against change and that they cherish their original core values.

Thats pretty much the only 2 things anybody needs to know about them.

Are the Conservatives 'kidding'?

Only the laughter around the country prevents you Mr Robinson and all 650 at Westminster hearing the accompanying raspberries!

This is the Political Party of the centre and right leaning policies: Never mind Ian MacLeod and Crisis some 40 years ago, take a long look at the advisory Think-tanks and Business backers of Cameron's Tories. Every one is to right in their basic views and principles of a free-market and free-enterprise economic system.
His posturing over the Referendum issue is classic - - there is no way this very wealthy man and his very wealthy backers are ever going to give up the EU gravy-train - - it is only the votes of the BNP and UKIP the Tories are interested in recapturing and the "..never again.." pledge is about as relevant/useful as Cameron's pledge on Lisbon because as they well know there are no more EU Treaties in the offing.

Iain Duncan-Smith has produced a report for Cameron on various 'poor' related issues: It is a deeply interesting and centre-left view of how a Conservative Government might realistically deal with these problems - - Cameron has already launched into the no-chance orbit - - there is concern for the 'poor' etc. within Conservative ranks. It is a concern almost entirely prompted by how to introduce and manage policies that will do as little and cost as little as is possible for unemployed, homeless, low-paid, single-parent, sick etc. short of leaving these members of UK society inconveniently dying on the streets.

Big Government will continue: It will be the 'big' tax rebates for the big-businesses, relaxing of big fat-cat pay/bonus restrictions, renewed access to off-shore tax havens, frozen minimum-pay, big reductions of nurses-paramedics-teachers-social workers etc.

Cameron is being honest when he proclaims there is no contradiction in his speeches - - if you can point to one in which this public relations expert actually offers guarantees or even proposals for securing any public services' futures (and please, no Thatcherist, "..the NHS is safe in our hands.." garbage) then it will be new to all of us inc. David 'what's my policy today' Cameron!

"Big government, he claims, has been tried by Labour, and it has failed. The alternative, though, is not no government - not a return, in other words, to the Thatcherite ideology of rolling back the state. Instead, he argues in a striking phrase, "we must use the state to remake society".

What does that mean?"

To me it means Tory-enforced normality. Labour has been remaking society by implementing its ideology through the hundred of bits of new legislation. I can't see there's an easy way back unless a war came to us whereon we'd have to focus on the essentials.

Because of the global credit crunch and Brown's mismanagement of the UK economy, we as a nation are going to be poorer for 5-10 years.
Doesn't it make sense to try and sort through some of the expensive and convoluted red tape to attempt to deliver help more directly to the very poorest?

I'd applaud that, whichever party is in power.

If any private company ran a scheme as complex as the Tax Credit stuff that Brown introduced, paying out way more than planned and trying to grab-back from people who can't afford repayments, that company would go down the pan rapidly.

Brown and his colleagues love the complexity. So they can hire more people to oversee and manage it. And it keeps the "little people" as supplicants.

(A bit like the 10p tax fiasco. Instead of simply saying the 10p band would only apply to those with incomes less than - say - 12K, Brown scrapped the lot and forced all sorts of twiddly compromised bits of support for the people he hurt. How "clear thinking" is that, for the man who "always does the right thing, at the right time"?)

Big government has failed? I think not. The single biggest problem faced by the incoming Labour government was to the lack of investment over the preceding decades in services (Health, Education, Social Services etc.). If anything it was the low point it had to start from that has caused the real issue.

All Thatcherism achieved was to make some people very rich and ensure that the rest of the population were subordinate to these people. Labour at least attempted to balance the need for a dynamic economy with the need to protect and improve the lot for the "ordinary man". Perhaps the only failure was that they (Labour) were not able to keep a lid on expectation.

Nothing Cameron has done so far gives me any confidence that he cares about the less well off. His policies if followed last year would have seen many banks go under, the unemployment numbers rise well above 5 million and set back social justice generations.

This is the same man who suggests, he cares for the poor - I think not!

Cameron has a strategy and it is the opposite to Big Government. Small government, i.e. Local Authorities and the like can work with and fund local bodies to help people back into work. Councils, for example, can tie social housing and school places to job offers. If JobCentre Plus were abolished (half a million white collar unemployed have recently found out that it is not a job finding service, just a benefits registration service) and all the funding of Benefits and administration devolved to local government, councils could work with local employers through these organisations to fund and subsidise work based training, internments, etc and also use the unemployed to provide some basic services (recycling, etc) that are currently expensive. The something for nothing benefits culture has to end - Labour's biggest failure has been not to reform Welfare. Tax credits have made Gordon Brown the most re-distributicve chancellor in history but he has got little in return. It's not a scandal that half a million East Europeans came to the UK to work and then started claiming benefits - it's a scandal that they moved 600 miles to find these jobs, whilst people in this country can choose not to move 60 miles and still claim benefits indefinitely. Workless households are a shame on all of us. It's our fault. It has to end and some measure of obligation and compulsion on the workless is part of the solution, not a punishment.

stanilic @ 16

You say that there is a great task to be done to resolve the economic and fiscal difficulties this country faces.

Not many English people seem to know about the third 'technical' stream of education that, due to political squabbling, never became established in England, apart from two technical schools in the mid-1960's (I was fortunate enough to attend one of those) at a time when, for example, the Germans had 12,000 of these technical schools.

It seems to be in the nature of a politicians makeup never to admit errors, especially catastrophic strategic errors in the education system such as the failure to develop the technical stream and instead mandate the deeply flawed comprehensive system.

When the politicians, both Labour and Tory, belatedly realised the damage that they had inadvertently inflicted upon our country, they simply could not introduce a technical stream some 30 years after it should have been established so instead they dreamt up the name Academies, usually known as City Academies which more-or-less, perform the same 'specialist' function as the stalled technical stream.

The very competent Lord Adonis has been one of the chief architects of this policy and it appears on the whole to be successful so maybe in a decade or so we English will actually be inventing, designing and possibly making useful products and services again.

'Instead, he argues in a striking phrase, "we must use the state to remake society".'
God help us!

Great News from David , its about time the poor got some much needed support

#12 sagamix

How about:

1. Stop taxing the poor
2. Break-up of the banks into small, local utilities. This would a reasonable move, even in the most liberal of free-market economies, given that it's in a bank's nature to game the system to the detriment of genuine wealth creators. (The rest of your list is too old-skool for comment!)
3. Expand private education to narrow the wealth gap and improve social mobility

#18 because they "state" does not enforce the Rules on rented properties
like It does for the indiigenous population. If they are paying in cash and getting paid in cash they are OFF the radar unlike the tennants that I have.

but do you understand the problem , it make them more competitive in the market place as they can work for below minimum wages.

ask yourself why they have not enforced the laws , remeber the cocklel pickers of mrocombe bay 50+ died

DC et al have stood in the wings for so long watching and waiting.

Of course they will champion the poor and be charitable in thought word and deed to those less fortunate than ourselves.

Find me a newlabour apologist who will acknowledge that it was Winston Churchill who campaigned repeatedly for invalidity benefits for injured workers and widows pensions for those left without an income if their spouse had been killed at work.

It is nothing new for the tories to campaign on these issues; but it would be something new for the newlabour apologists to acknowledge that we were there first.

Call an election.

"Anti-Tory sceptics will argue that this is in reality simply code for Thatcherite rolling back of the state and will end with the same result: more poorer people."
Nick -- not to sure whether you have noticed but there a very large number of people "poorer" in the UK right now. This is predominantly due to the gross mismanagement of the UK economy by Brown while he was Chancellor. Our business [IT & Business Services] revenue is down 50 percent in 2009. The country has 2.5 million unemployed, Lloyds about to drop 5000 [who will be poorer] and so it goes on under Brown and Labour.
David Cameron is right that they will need a very different approach to turnaround the UK so Labour supporters and "Anti-Tory sceptics" need to get to grip with the fact that 2010 will see a new approach. We actually need an election NOW so that David Cameron can get on with the job. Yvette Cooper can cry "Thatcherism" as much as she likes but Labour have failed the the UK people in so many areas that they should be ashamed to even comment.

20. At 11:20am on 10 Nov 2009, cool_brush_work wrote:
Are the Conservatives 'kidding'?

...- - there is concern for the 'poor' etc. within Conservative ranks. It is a concern almost entirely prompted by how to introduce and manage policies that will do as little and cost as little as is possible for unemployed, homeless, low-paid, single-parent, sick etc. short of leaving these members of UK society inconveniently dying on the streets.

Big Government will continue: It will be the 'big' tax rebates for the big-businesses, relaxing of big fat-cat pay/bonus restrictions, renewed access to off-shore tax havens, frozen minimum-pay, big reductions of nurses-paramedics-teachers-social workers etc....

**********************

As you seem to have an insight into Cameron's mind that is denied to the rest of us, perhaps you would be good enough to point us to the scource of your information.
I mean it is true isn't it?
You do have this knowledges from a good truthful scource don't you?
You can actually prove this is what Cameron means to do?
You wouldn't be making it up would you?

I do believe big government has failed, it hasn't failed because it is too big in size per se, I think it's more to do with the fact that it is too centralised

There surely must be more sense in distributing powers and monies directly to local authorities and leaving them to decide what and when to spend it on

There is too much direction from Whitehall, how on earth can they have the slightest idea of how to get people into work in Cumbria? Or Northumberland for instance?

Distribute the decision making powers localy, not centraly - that is the key to 'small' government. The idea has to be to distribute power to the local authorities and away from London

Ol' Uncle Charlie is sure keeping them stoogie interns busy!


What was it:

Last week hit the Daily Mail and UKIP,

This week: The Sun and the BBC:

Tomorrow: Guido?

like flies buzzing from one cowpat to another....

It's a moral issue rather than a profits one, but what seems necessary is some channel to ensure that the beneficiaries of the wealth in society look after those who produce that wealth for them.

If the tories can bring that off, great!

#23 manuinlondon "Perhaps the only failure was that they (Labour) were not able to keep a lid on expectation."

More like unable to keep a lid on expenditure!

This new initiative is a rebuttal of the Thatcherite view of there being no such thing as society – it is imperative that we find ways of educating and inspiring our young to have a positive outlook on contributing to society through education and work.

It is was one of the greatest indictments of this government that so many young adults fail to contribute to society – through their wish to educate all to the highest level, the authorities have denigrated unskilled employment and allowed a generation not suited to academia to fall into the dependency culture rather than undertake meaningful employment.

Whether they are any more successful than NuLab in improving the prospects of the poor remains to be seen, but this is definitely a step in the right direction.

With so many People now around with very short memories by blaming all the ill's in our U.K. Society on the past 12 Years of the current Labour Administration, while forgetting the total failure of the previous 18 Years of the last Thatcher Conservative Government when in which David Cameron and Boy Hague were last in Government, with Cameron at the Treasury, and Willie Boy as Minister for what now is Works and Pension.

The Conservatives have over this life-time of the current Labour Government only had one thing to do, and that has been to blame the Labour Administration for doing things wrong, while keeping a sizeable distance from even mentioning that during the time of the last Conservative Government things overall were far morw worse for everyone whom did not come from a Wealthy back-ground.

If ever we forget how bad things were under the Thatcher Years, along with Cameron, Hague, and others in Tow, then we will be deserving too be returning once more to much more in the way of bad times to come for the ordinary folks in the U.K. under any future Conservative Government should they ever be returned to Power, for any returning to a Conservative Government at the next General Election will reverse any gains that the Working - Classes have achieved over the past 12 Years, or be it slowly, for even Turkeys don't, and won't Vote for Christmas.

The problem suffered by all parties is they have no one in key ministerial positions who know what life is like down here among us. People like Osborne, Clegg, Cameron maybe, are out of university but without experience of the struggles of living on an average let alone minimum wage. People like Ken Clark and Vince Cable on the front line with extensive experience in their fields are rare.

I hold out no hope for the poor nor middle-earners with the state this country's in now.

Of course welfare probably wouldn't be an issue today if Brown hadn't insisted that Blair sack Frank Field for daring to suggest radical reforms to the system in 1998!

Funny how things like this can come back to haunt you!

reardon @ 28

I like your (1) and I don't mind your (2)

your (3) however ... expanding private schools ... I don't like at all

or do I?

let's see now ... if EVERY child was given a voucher to exactly the same value (£12,000 per annum, say) and ALL schools had to charge exactly that for a year's worth of schooling (with no parental top ups allowed) ... then I'd seriously consider it

reason I'd consider it is that the objective is schooling of a uniformly high standard for all (with no advantage to the wealthy) and whether the route is public or private sector (or a mix of the two) is secondary

is that what you mean?

being a o.a.p.no goverment wants to change the tax laws that makes us pay both p.a.y.e.+self assesment tax,my income before tax is about £1400 per month so IF the tory party wants to help poor then look at reforming income tax for us at the bottom of the pile.if they do help the poor it will be the first time i can remeber,any one complaining about the minimum wage should try to live on it,i worked to earn money,not for work its self,work did not pay bills the money i earned did.

39#

Christ, its like listening to Bob Crowe....

Message 25 John Constable

Thank you for reminding me about the failed third stream envisaged by Butler but never implemented. I can recall the technical colleges of the Fifties which were knocked on the head to become Polytechnics in the Sixties and the new universities of the Eighties and later.

I was amazed that when the big switch to comprehensive education took place the big winner was academic education. It was no wonder that education began to degrade at that point for the simple reason that academic teaching is not right for all. For example, I was useless at maths until I went to work and found a useful context for my now extensive numerate skills.

I am unfamiliar with the modern education system. I gave up on it in the Nineties because it just could not provide the right sort of person we needed. So I trained my own workforce from scratch. It was a good exercise for both parties although now the exigencies of commercial life and stupid senior management have spread us to the four winds.

If as you say the third stream is now being reconstituted then more strength to it. However, the fact that these are called academies makes me nervous.

The role of government has to be to facilitate skilled people such as teachers and other trained professionals to develop training in the skills that we need to create the added value our economy so desparately needs. These professionals must not be subjected to bureaucratic interference: their results will speak for themselves.

I would also suggest some improvement in R&D funding would not go amiss as would some very cheap workshops and factories for start-ups. We must get all the country back to work: there is no living to be had from just selling insurance and houses to each other. Full employment is a good aspiration and we should go for it.

The sad truth is that no party at present has the trust of the British Public.

No matter what any party says or does the suspicion will always be that they are saying what the voters want to hear to either stay in power or get into power.

Britain is in need of major reform and for the taxpayers that reform starts at the top.We need politicians who demonstrate their honesty, integrity, transparency and their genuine commitment to looking after the interests of the public.

New Labour has had 12 years to implement the necessary reforms and even now, following an inquiry into MPs expenses, we still have MPs who are looking after themselves by contesting the conclusions of the enquiry.

In essence, MPs have not got the message that things need to change.They support reform so long as it does not affect them.They support changes in the law for the populace just so long as they remain above it and are exempt from its consequences.

We could save a vast amount of money by reforming Parliament and introducing a political system like that in Sweden which runs at a fraction of the cost.

There seems to be a farcical belief in this country that giving a post a high salary will attract the best candidates.Given the state of Parliament, the banking system, te Royal Mail and the economy this is plainly untrue.

What we need to see is MPs making real sacrifices. Apart from reducing the costs of Parliament, they need to be looking at how we can better value for money and reduce public spending without hurting front line services.They need to look at ways of getting more people into work.Often that will mean cutting the salaries of management staff,CEOs etc.It may also mean rationalising pay structures so as to allow more people to be employed.It is after all better to employ 100 hard working people at £10,000 per year than 50 at £20,000 per year especially if they are all genuinely needed and all demonstrate an effective commitment to the work ethic.

There also seems to be the philosophy that costs and expenditure must automatically rise. We need to learn that overpaying ourselves is not the best way to run the economy.Often we price ourselves out of markets because costs are too high.

I suspect that New Labour are out of ideas and lack the will to carry out the necessary reforms.David Cameron may not be popular and if he does not keep to his word when elected we need only to wait until the next election to vote him out.

The problem with Labour policy on poverty is that there is far too close an association between throwing money at a problem and the perception that it has been solved. How many times have we heard someone from the cabinet, for example Cooper this morning on Today, on being asked what the government is doing about a problem, try to answer merely in terms of the millions (or billions) that are supposedly being directed to solve it?

Here's a problem, the kind of thing that is, in my view, central to the kind of mess the nation is in now and will remain in until a wholly new approach is taken. At the infants' school where one of my relatives is a governor, forty percent of the pupils live in an environment where they do not have a single adult (to say nothing of a couple) occupying the roll of parent. Note the words - conventional single parent families, or even other families where, for example, an older sibling is in loco parentis, are not in this grouping. These are children, mostly under the age of ten, without anything even resembling a family life in the way we know it. How does money, of itself, ease this problem, either now or in the future? The answer is, "not at all".

Labour have no answers to genuine, endemic poverty. I fully expect the Labour apologists on here simply to deny its existence. For me that would just be the final admission of having absolutely no clue as to what to do.

The answer lies in a different approach and different people with different ideas trying to achieve a solution. It is clear from what Duncan-Smith has produced that he has a clearer idea of the problem than anyone in government. Taken together with Cameron's willingness to stick his neck out and commit to an improvement, I have far more confidence in the Conservatives to address and tackle poverty than I do in Labour. I don't think Labour even understands the question, far less that they have an answer.

12. At 10:57am on 10 Nov 2009, sagamix wrote:
David Cameron @ zero

"we must use the state to remake society"

exactly right; if you could now just follow up with some hard policy on (1) a more progressive tax system, (2) the public sectorisation of retail banking (incl Mortgages of course!) utilities, transport, and (3) an end to private schools, then you will not only have my (100) votes but I will also CAMPAIGN for you throughout the length and breadth of North London
===========

What is wrong with private Education?

Nick what do you mean 'if Cameron is elected' ? you are like Brown in making mistakes in letters, you mean 'when Cameron is elected'

36. At 11:55am on 10 Nov 2009, atrisse wrote:
It's a moral issue rather than a profits one, but what seems necessary is some channel to ensure that the beneficiaries of the wealth in society look after those who produce that wealth for them.

If the tories can bring that off, great!

================================================

It is also a practical issue, as the full market ideology is not available to small and medium sized businesses. In normal circumstances an approach to a bank for a loan was eminently possible, but with the credit crunch the terms are too onerous wrt collateral for the loan (usually your house). The confidence is not in the system just now and despite splashing out from the top with billions using QE, the trickle down effect has been limited. Time to try nurturing from the bottom.

Only large existing companies can raise capital by going to the stock markets or those who are cash rich are able to exoand or go into new ventures. A partnership between local gov and small firms seems a good idea in theory - once the firm is settled the state can be reimbursed in some manner.

The over-centralisation of gov in Whitehall also needs addressed. Wilson and Callaghan were very good at de-centralising from London to the regions. Blair and Brown have done the reverse. We should also start copying the French when it comes to new EU regulations - cherry pick what suits us, and pay lip service to those do not.

pdavies65 wrote:
"How come you can fit more immigrant workers in a house than UK workers? Are they smaller?"

Are you joking ?
In our area there are lots of temping agencies who have bought several houses and turned them into dormitories for migrant workers, the house next door to where one of my relatives’ lives was bought and converted a few years ago. Each bedroom has had three bunk beds fitted and two of the downstairs rooms have been converted to bedrooms too.
This means that this three bedroom house now has fifteen migrant workers living in it at any one time, all of them working for the same temping agency. A minibus arrives at the house at about 5 o'clock most mornings to take them to whatever factory needs them that day.
They are paid by the temping agency who deducts their rent, utility bills etc from their wages before they're paid.

Obviously the living costs for 15 working adults sharing one of these houses is a fraction of the living costs for a family living in one of them.

The migrants don't seem to mind the conditions as most of them are only here for a short period and this sort of arrangement allows them to minimise their costs and therefore increase the amount they're able to save up while they're here.

fubar
"Ol' Uncle Charlie is sure keeping them stoogie interns busy!

He means Charlie Wheelan everyone apparently a grass roots campaigner fo Labour. The reason we don't seem to have many of the usual bland mass produced comments from the Conservative Grass roots people may be that since the introduction of the new BBCid it is 1 account to 1 email address. The sort of thing we like to discuss is much more difficult. You may be wrong this time fubar. The idea that the conservatives are the party for the poor is ridiculous. Which is why a majority out of 49 people are criticising it.

19. At 11:17am on 10 Nov 2009, goldCaesar wrote:
The conservative party was created, specifically, to protect the interests of the landed gentry.

The name 'conservative' implies that they are strongly against change and that they cherish their original core values.

Thats pretty much the only 2 things.... people like me bother to... know about them.

--------------------

I've fixed it for you.

I look forward to reading his speech Nick. I hope it will answer some of the contradictions in policy that I have in my mind at present. DC wants to help the poor but at the same time:
He wants to opt out of the EU social chapter that provides employment protection (TUPE), maternity leave, a maximum working week for people -all essential for less wealthy people with families to be able to hold down a full time job and manage family life.
He wants to move people on incapacity benefit onto job seekers allowance, fair enough, but he needs to provide jobs in the areas where they live (often high incapacity benefit claimants are in areas of high unemployment) His plans for the third sector here won't work because the payment structure he is suggesting will lead to cash flow problems and the social enterprises (small businesses) will fold with the current plans. I speak here as the owner of an SME.
He is planning to end Train to Gain that trains people often in low skilled jobs to realise their potential and increase their earning power. All essential to bring people out of poverty.
His obsession with cutting our way out of the deficit rather than growing our way out, as all other countire in the world suggest, seems to me to be incompatible with helping the poor in our society -but maybe he knows something I don't.

Like I say I will read his speech with interest and maybe I will be enlightened but maybe not.....

Zydeco

re #33

I have no insight to Cameron's mind: I wrote about Conservative Party policy as it presently exists within the Tory shadow front-bench speeches.

I gave 2 clear examples of the Conservative Party leader's current attitudes: the Lisbon referendum (he reneged on the pledge) and the Duncan-Smith Report which he has all but dismissed (with the faint praise).

Read Shadow Chancellor Osborne's speech from the Conference - - it did not even have veiled hints about 'cuts' in Public Spending, he promised them - - then he spoke of "freeing up the Nation... the people... from 'big' Government".

Check out as I wrote in #20 the right-wing Economic Think-tanks currently advising Cameron's Party: As any logical person would expect You wont find any ideas except 'laissez-faire' and severe cut-backs of Public Spending.

Sorry, but if you cannot determine what sort of policy the above is clearly indicating the Tories are headed towards I cannot assist You any further.

sagamix 42

As you know, I am no great enthusiast for the private education sector, but how can fiddling about with one small element of the education system, involving so few of the population, have the slightest bearing on addressing, let alone solving, genuine poverty? Your post seems to me to be classic, old socialist, ivory towers thinking, from someone who doesn't even understand the problem.

18. At 11:16am on 10 Nov 2009, pdavies65 wrote:
8. IR35_SURVIVOR wrote:

if you have 12 in a house the bills are devided by 12 , but for the UK workers thay cannot do that, so its the Bills divided by 2 on very low pay, just an example of how this has trapped the white poor

How come you can fit more immigrant workers in a house than UK workers? Are they smaller?

If you've got any more examples, I'd love to hear them.

-----------

Plenty of example old chap, immigrant workers pack themselves into far smaller living spaces. My Mrs. is doing a part time PHD on just this subject, immigrant workers who come to the UK from Eastern Europe (where she was brought up). They sleep 2 or 3 to a bedroom, have bed's in the living room, and live for a short number of years in squalid conditions earning money until they are ready to return.

If you think a minimum wage has helped poverty, you know nothing at all of the really poor. Anyone who has a job, although they may not be above the poverty line, can not claim to be in abject poverty, minimum wage has done nothing for those without jobs. In fact, evidence suggests it has actually increased their numbers. Employers do not spend more on wages, they spend the same on fewer people.

The minimum wage does nothing to reform society or help the poor.

Most 'poor people' don't have jobs or hope, to suggest that the minimum wage is going lift people out of poverty is absurd.

The minimum wage is foolish notion that prevents individuals from getting even limited gainful employment, prevents investment and growth in private enterprise and results in an unworkable ideology that can only create more poverty as a result.

Winston Churchill spotted it back in 1945, citing socialism as the biggest threat to private enterprise, will result in the removal of liberty and enterprise and is apocryphal to the freedom of the British people.

The fact is - remove the minimum wage and then more people can be employed, businesses will grow, resulting in more wealth and reduced poverty.

And I am afraid that those brave souls who work in excess of 60 hours a week, put their houses, marriages and lives on the line to create these businesses, yes I am afraid there is a danger of them getting rich and being successful. Possibly even enough to buy big cars and issue bonuses to themselves. Horror.

Two cheers for Cameron. He wants to be poor-friendly. Well, I'm not sure I heard anything during the conference season (especially from the Conservative's shadow chancellor) that made me think that the Tories have actually woken up to the fact that tax is a massive issue for the low paid - and I mean income tax starting on far too low an income and council tax being set with no regard towards ability to pay. I would really like to hear the Tories speak on these areas which are ready for reform. But so far I have not heard anything.

Usually when Cameron picks up a subject like this and the actual detail is looked at, the benefit to someone on a low income is usually about £6 per annum. Big deal I end up retorting.

Cameron had the idea a little while ago that Parliament should "feel the burn" along with the rest of us and not have susbsidised food and drink for MPs - to me this is the modern Conservatism at its worst: it's a bit like putting a penny in the charity tin. I will however be interested to hear what he has to say on befriending the poor. But the theme must include some real money somewhere down the line, some real tax reform and not just a few scraps falling from the master's table.

I just read one comment, 'The Tories are our only hope.'This is the Conservative Party that squendered our oil wealth in one long party during the very time when our national infrastructure was in dire need of investment,reflected in the current need to rebuild energy resources, hospitals, schools, transport, long overdue during those years of Conservative rule.
The Conservative heritage is a huge divide between the very rich minority and the majority of the public which creates social unrest, crime and mutual distrust.More egalitarian societies are much happier and more successful than ours...like Holland or the Scandinavians.
Every time I pay a utility bill that is too high, or pay an inflated price for a rail ticket on our de-centralised and chaotic rail system, I think of the Conservative party's input into this.
If the Tory's are our our only hope, then we deserve another 18 years of Tory misrule!
What we need is electoral reform, so that we can develop a political culture which more accurately reflects the British public. 'First-past the post' voting fails to secure an outcome that reflects the majority's opinion.
At the moment tha party in power loses the election after a surge of public disgust in the marginal constituencies.
This is not a democratic or representative way to elect a government...particularly since 91% of our representatives are still male, along with a House of 'LORDS'. We need to secure an equitable, representative system for choosing the government.

20

----------

" Big Government will continue: It will be the 'big' tax rebates for the big-businesses, "

Examples please of tax rebates under Tories but not under Labour. Suspect you have no knowledge whatsoever of what you speak, to avodi looking foolish you should avoid commenting on such matters.

"relaxing of big fat-cat pay/bonus restrictions,"

Osbourne suggested the only restrictions that are currently in place. Simple mindedness abounds...

" renewed access to off-shore tax havens,"

So, pretty much like now. And unfortunately, for all his bleating, there is sweet naff all Brown can do about it either.

" frozen minimum-pay,"

Evidence?

"big reductions of nurses-paramedics-teachers-social workers etc."

Evidence?

And by the way, evidence does not consist of "Everyone knows...." or "they did it last time"...

why are all Nick's friends part of the Nu Labour spin machine? Could it be that he is in fact a cog in that machine ?

23

Nothing Cameron has done so far gives me any confidence that he cares about the less well off. His policies if followed last year would have seen many banks go under, the unemployment numbers rise well above 5 million and set back social justice generations.

-----------------

Do stop making things up.

I bet you were the exact same type of person who a little while ago was confidently proclaiming "The Tories have no policies".

Now it is your belief that they hand extensive policies for beggering swathes of the population and sending the banks under.

You can't make this nonsense up. You must stop listening to Labour HQ.

For those that 'remember' the bad days of Thatcherism then lets not also forget the Enterprise initiatives, increased social mobility, an end to Union control, reduced unemployment and a shorter less debt ridden recession than the one this shower have given us.

Some of us remember the government that Thatcher inherited, power cuts on a whim, trains cancelled, bus services reduced, rising unemployment and poverty, increasing debt and poor levels of education thanks once again to a Labour government.

There isn't a single government out there that can fully achieve the end of poverty, but at least with the conservatives we have never had such penny pinching on the essentials and huge payouts for the lazy and idle.

Now I live in a society where I am watched in everything I do , my emails, phone calls and websites are being watched, my movements when I leave the house are under surveillance and I can't even look after my nephews and neices without a certificate.

What a place to live!

@48 There is nothing wrong with a private education (except the cost!), but it does offend the rabid leftys for some reason. Jealousy is so unattractive.

Perhaps if public education was more than glorified childcare churning out illiterate chavs there would be less of a gulf between the 2?

The conservatives will have do a lot more than this to convince people that they genuinely mean they want to support those in our society who are less well off, both financially and physically. The worry is that the current state of the country's finances are such that the goal is simply to cut the welfare budget and "throw people on the scrap heap", locking them up in prison when they have to resort to crime.

What is actually needed is a radical switch from taxing those on low and middle incomes to taxing higher earners and things we wish to discourage (eg cigarettes, products which are bad for the environment etc). This will encourage more people into the workplace, as more of their wages goes into their pocket instead of into the taxmans. I think this is too radical for either main party to even contemplate.

The chant of "Wir sind das Volk." brought down the Berlin Wall, then the Stasi which had grown to 9 times the size of the Gestapo and 35 times the size of KGB. In democracy, politicians are the servants, parliament is the shell, and the people is the root. Neglect and poison the unseen roots and the plant withers then dies.

Do not walk behind me, for I may not lead.
Do not walk ahead of me, for I may not follow.
Walk with me.

Love others as you love yourself.
Love yourself as you love others.

Do for others as you would have others to for you.
Do for yourself as you do for others.

Do not do to others what you would not have others do to you.
Do not let others to do you what you would not do to others.

Expect neither saints nor superman.
Demand neither miracles without belief nor cures without sweat.
For better or for worse power, respect and pride are in examples set for us and from us for others.

Oh, and to all you labour trolls. I dont care how the tories position themselves. A competent government right wing government will do more for the poor than the current sorry shower, as they wont screw up every aspect of our economy.

Attacking teh tories all the time is v boring, how about putting some thought into rectifying all Labours knee jerk policy balls-ups?

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

#42 sagamix

I'm generalising, of coarse, but a private education is better than one you will likely receive in a state school. Scream and wail if you want, but that is a cold, hard fact you must face up to. I suggest we axe 50% of all university places and spend the money on scholarships for the brightest kids. Let's be ambitious. We could aim for the top 10% of academically gifted children in private schools within 10 years. The private school sector will expand to meet the demand, they will employ the best teachers and pay the best wages. In a generation we will have done more for social mobility than any so-called progressive has ever dared to dream of.

The left wouldn't like it, though. They don't *get* social mobility. They like their base in it's place: poor, down-trodden, captive, compliant.

66. At 1:00pm on 10 Nov 2009, John Ruddy wrote:
The conservatives will have do a lot more than this to convince people that they genuinely mean they want to support those in our society who are less well off, both financially and physically. The worry is that the current state of the country's finances are such that the goal is simply to cut the welfare budget and "throw people on the scrap heap", locking them up in prison when they have to resort to crime.

What is actually needed is a radical switch from taxing those on low and middle incomes to taxing higher earners and things we wish to discourage (eg cigarettes, products which are bad for the environment etc). This will encourage more people into the workplace, as more of their wages goes into their pocket instead of into the taxmans. I think this is too.... simple minded and just plain incorrect.... for either main party to even contemplate.

--------------

Fixed this one too.

The issue at the moment is not lack of willingness to work, it is lack of jobs.

And if you want to enocourage people into work, the logical solution is far simpler. Stop paying out benefits from those who can work, but don't.

greatHayemaker

Re #61

I refer you to my #20 and #33

Also, I would suggest it ill behoves someone promoting the Tories to start telling others what they can or cannot comment on: To save further embarrassment I would advise You to consider carefully Mr Robinson's headline to this Article and that the purpose of these Blogs is debate and are not there merely to propound only Your version of the world at large.

Whether You like it or not I have addressed the content and context of Mr Robinson's 'The Party of the poor'. Of course you are perfectly free to disagree, but not to attempt to limit the views of others on those grounds.

Nowhere do I mention "beggaring swathes" of the UK Population: In fact I make clear that the Conservative Economic Policy is about "..how to do as little and cost as little as is possible for unemployed... sick etc. short of leaving these members of society inconveniently dying on the streets." (see #20).
It seems a clear version of the present policy-attitudes of the Conservatives led by Mr Cameron: If/when a Tory Government comes to power in 2010 it will have every intention of reducing Public Spending and cutting back the whole range of Public Services across the UK. The advisors to the Tories are submitting these ideas and Osborne has been been increasingly straightforward articulating them.

Show me evidence to the contrary.

So we are going to have to choose between the Tories who promise to help the poor - but might not.
Or Labour who tell us they have helped the poor - but haven't.

Come back Lord Sutch!!!

68 IDL
Two queries
1) What exactly is a 'labour troll', and am I one? (Excuse my ignorance, I really don't know what 'troll' means in this context. I suspect it isn't a term of endearment though.)

2) Attacking the tories all the time is v boring wrote I_Despise_Labour. Have you no sense of irony, man?

gHm 63

manuinlondon's post 23 quotation "His [Cameron's] policies if followed last year would have seen many banks go under, the unemployment numbers rise well above 5 million" is actually a misquote from David Blanchflower (ex MPC), who was on about the future effect of cutting QE as being to increase unemployment to 4 to 5 millions.

Blanchflower is a left wing academic economist, somewhat discredited these days due to his characteristic style of "I am very eminent so if I say it, it is inherently true". He is somewhat notorious in academic circles for not having produced a coherent argument to justify any of his pronouncements in twenty years. Needless to say, he is a "friend of Gordon".

greatHayemaker and Zydeco

re my last Comment: Apologies, I think I've inadvertently got the Comment Nos mixed up - - anyway, that aside, my opinion is there for all to read - - and I stand by it.

Strange how many posters here have a fixed mindset. Or are n ot really thinking. How do you thnk Britain will suddenly move to a manufacturing economy again? The reason we are not is that foreign workers' labour costs are minute by comparison. If you make a car in Britain, you pay British workers and even at minimum wage it creates a product with built-in costs far higher than those made in India, China etc. How can you even sell that car in Britain compared to imports made at cheaper labour costs? And then how will you sell it in India or China or other foreign climes?

And of course, not many Brits would work for minimum wage, would they? Especially if they have a union.

And it has always puzzled me how people perceive parties.

I've always seen the tories as being in favour of everyone having a chance to make something of themselves. But if you don't try, you don't get - they can't rewrite the laws on nature..

Labour I see as trying to be Robin Hood - take from anyone that has achieved anything and give it to those who have not, irrespective of whether they have done anything to deserve it - or indeed anything at all. In effect, this is dragging us all back down into the mire except a few fat cats to whom they now pander, in a strange twist of fate, and bring us back towards a baronial rule type of society.

The fact is that there are a core of those on benefits that just don't want to do any work. Cameron is right to address the benefits system and make sure that people can only profit by working, never by sitting out.

If they would only see the light on immigration I might even vote for them. The next government must prevent the influx of people who will work for almost nothing or live on benefits... before we get to the point where the immigrants can outvote the "indigenous" population.
If they must come here then for God's sake realise that a working visa should not lead to right of abode/residency/citizenship.

72

The issue with your post, dear sir, is that you make things up, have no basis whatsoever in fact at any point.

I can not argue against you, since you have failed to make a point in the first place. Show me anything that proves, or even supports, a single word you say, and I will happily furnish you with a correction.

74#

Come on pd, you're a man of the world (stop retching at the back Saga!), you understand what an astroturfer is....

If ol' Charlie boy has been wheeled out to firefight on 5 Live with Nicky Campbell, things must be bad....



As an aside... it doesnt reflect very well on Cameron that he's had many many chances to bury Brown in the commons over 2 years and failed to take them... Brown rings up a bereaved mother of a soldier and within minutes, the man is completely at sea, holed below the waterline.

How curious.

Re:44.
Christ, its like listening to Bob Crowe....

---------------------------------------------

Yes correct, beside Railwaymen, alot of ordinary People DO listen to what Bob Crowe has to say.

Further to my 78, to make it simpler to understand.

If you say "Tories would create 5m unemployed and bankrupt the banks" and finish their.

I could just come back and say "Unemployment under the Tories would be nil, and their would have been no recession".

Do you see that this style of nonsense is not really a discussion at all, and gets us precisely nowhere?

In one sense, I can have a lot of sympathy with what Dave is saying. It's pretty clear that, even if they might have been well intentioned, the Labour policies of the last 12 years have spectacularly failed to tackle poverty. Labour can claim to be the "party of the poor" only in the sense that they have increased their numbers.

So, clearly a completely radical reform of the tax and benefits system is needed if anyone is going to do anything about poverty.

However, on the other hand, it's very hard to believe a word of it. The Tory party has a lot of history in really not caring two hoots about the poor. Remember Norman Lamont and his comments about unemployment being "a price worth paying" just to keep inflation down? And how are we supposed to reconcile this new found caring about the poor with the seemingly far greater priority for the Tory party to make sure that people with huge estates don't have to pay too much inheritance tax?

If Dave is serious about tackling poverty, then I wish him well. I'm just not sure I believe a word of it. He's got to do a lot more than this to convince me that the Tories are no longer the "Nasty Party".

It is interesting to hear that the so-called "Middle-Classes" will turn out to support the Conservatives at the next General Election, while I am reading in todays News Heading that Shop-Lifting has risen higher through thiving in the same Middle-Classes during to this current Recession.

This speaks Volumes about the interlect of the reasonings given by the Middle-Classes in their approach to everyday matters.

79.Fubar_Saunders wrote:

74# Come on pd, you're a man of the world (stop retching at the back Saga!), you understand what an astroturfer is....

Excuse me! I think you'll find my question was addressed to the monkey, not the organ grinder.

And I really don't know, which is why I asked. There's such a thing as too cynical, F-S! But anyway, I'll look for an answer online ...

@71 I wish the tories would make their minds up - its either not enough jobs or not enough incentive to work!

It is only right that in a decent civilised society, we support those who are unable to support themselves. Does that mean that some people get more benefits than they should? Yes, and that needs to be sorted - it does not mean an across the board cut in benefits, simply to force people to either work or starve.

I am still struggling to find a political definition of "poor" and where do I go to see all the poor people.
As far as I see the really "poor" people living in the UK are the old age pensioners who have to live on a pitance while the supposed poor live very comfortably in council estates living off state benefits.
Now if the political definition is the latter of these two categories I think it right that Government should look at the benefits system and the money saved should be distributed the the former so the OAP's can live a decent life instead of just scraping by.

sircomespect wrote:
"There isn't a single government out there that can fully achieve the end of poverty, but at least with the conservatives we have never had such penny pinching on the essentials and huge payouts for the lazy and idle."


Would that be the same Conservatives who gave us two year long waiting lists for basic medical treatments, sent many of our armed forces to the Falklands without the right kit, squandered billions of pounds worth of oil revenues, destroyed our border controls, sold off our utilities at a fraction of their real value, destroyed the apprenticeships system, ruined our vocational training systems, reduced our social housing stock by over 50% and under-funded our education system ?

Now my memory isn't what it used to be but I also seem to remember them giving tax breaks to the rich while encouraging tens of thousands of people to sign up for what is now called Disability Living Allowance so that they could take most of the long-term unemployed in the ex-mining & heavy industry towns off the unemployment figures.

To claim that under the Conservatives "we have never had such penny pinching on the essentials and huge payouts for the lazy and idle" merely shows you to be a historical revisionist.
The Conservatives very nearly destroyed our country last time they were in power and the only thing worse than the Labour party continuing to govern our country would be for the Conservative party to replace them.

I think Shakespeare got it pretty much spot on when he wrote "A plague on both your houses !"

It's time for a change and the Conservatives do not offer any sort of real change, all they're ever going to do is all they've ever done, look after themselves and shaft the rest of us.

#8, #29, #51, and anyone else who feels that there is a great injustice because you can fit 15 foreigners into a house that would only be big enough for 2 indigenous Britons (who, naturally, would be able to trace their British ancestry back to the ice age):

So what? What exactly is the problem here? Yes, your living costs are a lot less if you share 15 people to a small house. Some people may choose to do that, and maybe those that do are more likely to be foreign, as you suggest (although it does remind me a bit of my student days, back in the days when foreigners hadn't been invented), and some people prefer to have a bit more space and so choose to spend more money on their living arrangements and live in less crowded conditions.

As far as I see it, both kinds of people have every right to do whatever they want. It's a free country. Are you saying you think there should be a law that forbids foreigners living more than 2 people to a house? Or should it be compulsory for Brits to squeeze 15 people into a house? I'm really puzzled by why different people having different priorities for how much they value their personal space should be anyone else's concern.

83

I'm sorry, but are you suggesting that the middle classes are unintellectual?

Do you have a tattoo that says "class warrior"?

pdavies 84

Astroturfer - someone whose activity is astroturfing. See:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing

Tell you what makes me laugh

Labour claiming to be the party of the poor when their mastermind, Queen Mandy is wandering around with a fifteen grand Patek Philippe watch on his left wrist and three ministers are sitting on 1 million pound plus property portfolios that they didnt have when they initially came to office....

Oh yes. Very much in touch with the poor and down with the homies....

What a bunch of jokers.

greatHayemaker

Re #78

October 6 2009 - Shadow Chancellor George Osborne, Manchester conference:

Extracts from speech.

"Our (Conservative Party) unwavering commitment to fiscal responsibility." I.e. Cuts in Public Spending.
"Our understanding that millions of Britons depend on Public Services and cannot opt-out." I.e. Cuts in Public Services.
"Our conviction that precisely because so many depend on them (Public Services), those services need radical reform." I.e. More cuts of Public Spending and more cuts of Public Services.
"Our determination as compassionate Conservatives to protect the most vulnerable." I.e. No dead on the streets.
"Our hard-headed recognition that without enterprise and aspiration, compassion comes with an empty wallet." I.e. Tax-breaks and lax employment regulations for big-businesses, the well-off and the City.

Followed up by, "..We must move this economy from one built on debt to one sustained by savings and investment." I.e. Savings on Public Spending and Public Services in order to Invest in Tax-breaks.

Finally, ".. Across world too much borrowing.. Government borrowed, Banks borrowed.. Let's tell the truth - we all borrowed too much."
I.e. It was a National collective error largely greed-driven by our backers and friends in the City so someone has to pay and it is certainly not going to be us, our financial backers and political friends.

Evidence to the contrary please.

Re:77
Strange how many posters here have a fixed mindset. Or are not really thinking. How do you thnk Britain will suddenly move to a manufacturing economy again? The reason we are not is that foreign workers' labour costs are minute by comparison. If you make a car in Britain, you pay British workers and even at minimum wage it creates a product with built-in costs far higher than those made in India, China etc. How can you even sell that car in Britain compared to imports made at cheaper labour costs? And then how will you sell it in India or China or other foreign climes?

-----------------------------------------------------

What I find interesting is that ALL Political Parties are banging-on about getting People back into Work while at the same time completely failing to say just WHERE all these "New" Employment places are going to be found.

If, we sit still for five minutes we begin to realise that in the future we as a Nation will be completing with far many more than ever emerging New Third - World Econimies such as China and Brazil etc:, whom will be able to beat us everytime on price per Product, for even if somhow we do one day decide to invest once more in the Manufacturing Sectors of the U.K.'s Economy, we will never ever again see Full-Employment return to all within the U.K. Job's Market - Place, and that is something that has got to learnt by ALL Politicians when adjusting the State Benefits System.

92#

How about positive evidence to support all your "i.e"'s instead of just pure made up dog-whistling supposition?

80#

... which is why they're always on strike over a long weekend... Crowe is just another Scargill, a communist dinosaur thug with political ambitions way above his station, if you pardon the pun. No better or worse than Griffin.

He'll still be blaming everyone else when the whole underground goes the way of the DLR and ends up being automated...

pdavise @ 6

All the minimum wage did was to allow an explosion in immigration.

Why employ a native for the minimum wage when you can get an immigrant who won't complain cheaper? As the low end jobs were filled and menial jobs were getting done the outcry over dole reliance was submerged.

Now the effects of dole reliance and immigration can no longer be hidden by economic growth and the reality is there to see.

Re:89.

No, but on the other hand do you have a Tattoo saying: " Middle - Class Shop-Lifting is a Game", that we ALL can Play?

92 cbw

Are you saying Labour aren't going to cut public expenditure? You are going to look a little foolish come budget day, I think.

89#

He cant even spell intellectual let alone look it up in the dictionary.

Intellectual is probably a left wing word that translates as "I spend all day contemplating my navel because I'm far too important and clever to get out there and do a real days work... thinking up new ways to rebadge the same old discredited guff from last time"

Found a couple of interesting quotes about intellectuals....

Edward Saïd noted that:

"The real or ‘true’ intellectual is, therefore, always an outsider, living in self-imposed exile, and on the margins of society’.[10]

Hmmmm

"The intellectual often is associated with political administrations, e.g. the Third Way centrism of Anthony Giddens in the Labour Government of Tony Blair.[11] "

"Váçlav Havel said that politics and intellectuals can be linked, but that responsibility for their ideas — even when advocated by a politician — remains with the intellectual; therefore, utopian intellectuals are best be avoided, for offering ‘universal insights’ that might, and have, harmed society"

You never hear people described as Right Wing Intellectuals do you? Its always "Left Wing Intellectuals", a bit like "bleeding heart Liberals"...

How odd.

85. At 1:44pm on 10 Nov 2009, John Ruddy wrote:
@71 I wish the tories would make their minds up - its either not enough jobs or not enough incentive to work!

It is only right that in a decent civilised society, we support those who are unable to support themselves. Does that mean that some people get more benefits than they should? Yes, and that needs to be sorted - it does not mean an across the board cut in benefits, simply to force people to either work or starve.

-------------

No mind to be made up old chap. At this very moment in time, there are not enough jobs. The longer term problem that has been with us for years is lack of inclination. We are in a very specific set of circumstances that will shortly change, the longer term problem will not.

At no point did I suggest an accross the board cut in benefits. Those that can not work should continue to receive them. Those that can work but don't should not. Simples.