YOUR MP WRITES: Jess Morden MP for Newport East

YOUR MP WRITES: Jess Morden MP for Newport East

YOUR MP WRITES: Jess Morden MP for Newport East

First published in MPs write South Wales Argus: Photograph of the Author by

IT’S a sobering fact that around 7,000 food parcels were handed to people who visited a foodbank in Newport last year.

Families, on our doorsteps, are going hungry because they can’t make it to the end of the week without relying on parcels to feed themselves.

And Newport is not alone. There are more than 200 foodbanks operating across the UK, with two new foodbanks being set up each week – like the one being planned by the churches in Caldicot and Chepstow.

In Newport, we have foodbanks run by the Ravenhouse Trust and King’s Church’s community project Jesus Cares, who distribute food parcels to social care organisations – we should praise the work they do.

Foodbanks (alongside the street pastor scheme) are hugely significant contributions that churches are making to the day to day life of our communities. Run by volunteers, foodbanks are testament to the good society we have here in Gwent, but are also a reflection of growing food poverty.

Everyone who needs a food parcel will have a different story. But it’s true to say that those in desperate need were often the homeless, perhaps those with drug and alcohol problems and asylum seekers asking for help, more and more families are now relying on them to survive.

Now, changes to the benefits system (which often leave people with reduced payments while claims are being processed), low pay and rising food and energy bills mean the cost of living is going up faster for the poorest households.

Who wasn’t shocked by the national newspaper survey last week which reported that half of all teachers surveyed admitted taking food to school to feed poor pupils and that 83 per cent of teachers reported seeing hungry pupils each day?

In Newport, those needing help are given a voucher by professionals from social services, midwives, and JobCentre Plus etc that entitles you to a food parcel.

Help is not unlimited, people are expected to use the help to tide them over, and to enable them to start to get back on their own feet.

Food is donated to the churches by congregations, individuals and also by Fareshare, a not-for-profit organisation I visited last month based in Cardiff, who persuade supermarkets and food companies to donate the food they can’t sell.

More people are visiting foodbanks every month. With no sign of an economic recovery these statistics will rise. That’s why King’s Church is planning to increase its distribution of food parcels from 800 to 2,000 per month.

If you can help or donate, please contact the Ravenhouse Trust on 01633 762999 or e-mail them at contact@ravenhouse.org For King’s Church, e-mail admin@jesuscares.org.uk or ring them on 01633 244453.

Comments (13)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

3:49pm Mon 2 Jul 12

Howie' says...

It's an absolute disgrace that in this day & age there are family's that have to rely on food parcels to eat. In a country where the likes of Sir Philip Green the head of Arcadia can use a perfectly legal ruse to save £285million in tax or Vodafone is let off £6 Billion in Tax we have children going to School hungry. Whilst these are the very people to bear the full brunt of this Conservative Governments benefit cuts whilst the richest in society carry on regardless with their tax avoidance schemes.
It's an absolute disgrace that in this day & age there are family's that have to rely on food parcels to eat. In a country where the likes of Sir Philip Green the head of Arcadia can use a perfectly legal ruse to save £285million in tax or Vodafone is let off £6 Billion in Tax we have children going to School hungry. Whilst these are the very people to bear the full brunt of this Conservative Governments benefit cuts whilst the richest in society carry on regardless with their tax avoidance schemes. Howie'
  • Score: 0

11:19pm Mon 2 Jul 12

CM1 says...

I agree with your point about the unnacceptability of the richest in society avoiding their responsibility to pay their dues for the success that this country has brought them. However, don't be duped by the politicians and lured into making this a party political issue. All parties that have been in power have allowed this to happen. Furthermore, I wouldn't necessarily link the cutting of benefits to the unwillingness to ensure tax payment. Any party would need to reduce costs, even if it were possible to improve tax collection.
I agree with your point about the unnacceptability of the richest in society avoiding their responsibility to pay their dues for the success that this country has brought them. However, don't be duped by the politicians and lured into making this a party political issue. All parties that have been in power have allowed this to happen. Furthermore, I wouldn't necessarily link the cutting of benefits to the unwillingness to ensure tax payment. Any party would need to reduce costs, even if it were possible to improve tax collection. CM1
  • Score: 0

10:42am Tue 3 Jul 12

Howie' says...

CM1 wrote:
I agree with your point about the unnacceptability of the richest in society avoiding their responsibility to pay their dues for the success that this country has brought them. However, don't be duped by the politicians and lured into making this a party political issue. All parties that have been in power have allowed this to happen. Furthermore, I wouldn't necessarily link the cutting of benefits to the unwillingness to ensure tax payment. Any party would need to reduce costs, even if it were possible to improve tax collection.
It is a Party Political issue, how could it not be? The Labour Government which took office from the Conservatives in 1997 inherited levels of poverty and inequality unprecedented in post-war history. More than one in four UK children lived in relative poverty, compared to one in eight when Labour had left office in 1979. Gordon brown brought in a number of schemes as Chancellor to reduce poverty & eradicate child poverty which have all been undone by this Conservative Government. We are back to pre 1997 figures & worse already with the Tory's only in power for two years. Actually I was not making a party point as I do not see the difference between Labour & Tory anymore, just a bunch of politicians who would be happy in any party (that after a lifetime of being an active Labour supporter & voter, but never again). The point that I was making is, and you are right saying any party would need to reduce costs, that the Tory's had a choice & could have either shut down all the known Tax avoidance/ Evasion scams & make company's, bankers & the rich pay their fair share of tax (Perfectly feasible & possible) or they could attack the poor, unemployed & weakest in society by first of all convincing the public that these are the people who are the cause of the UK's financial problems, as opposed to the Bankers who really caused it, by having constant story's about the feckless poor in the Daily Mail /Telegraph & other right wing papers & then reducing their benefits which leads to the point of this article by MP Morden, Family's starving & having to use foodbanks to feed there family's, children going to School hungry & now Teachers actualy taking food in to Schools to feed some of the most vulnerable kids, when have you ever heard that, millions more people living below the poverty line & suicides going up. So as you see all political party's would not have done the same & it is party political.
[quote][p][bold]CM1[/bold] wrote: I agree with your point about the unnacceptability of the richest in society avoiding their responsibility to pay their dues for the success that this country has brought them. However, don't be duped by the politicians and lured into making this a party political issue. All parties that have been in power have allowed this to happen. Furthermore, I wouldn't necessarily link the cutting of benefits to the unwillingness to ensure tax payment. Any party would need to reduce costs, even if it were possible to improve tax collection.[/p][/quote]It is a Party Political issue, how could it not be? The Labour Government which took office from the Conservatives in 1997 inherited levels of poverty and inequality unprecedented in post-war history. More than one in four UK children lived in relative poverty, compared to one in eight when Labour had left office in 1979. Gordon brown brought in a number of schemes as Chancellor to reduce poverty & eradicate child poverty which have all been undone by this Conservative Government. We are back to pre 1997 figures & worse already with the Tory's only in power for two years. Actually I was not making a party point as I do not see the difference between Labour & Tory anymore, just a bunch of politicians who would be happy in any party (that after a lifetime of being an active Labour supporter & voter, but never again). The point that I was making is, and you are right saying any party would need to reduce costs, that the Tory's had a choice & could have either shut down all the known Tax avoidance/ Evasion scams & make company's, bankers & the rich pay their fair share of tax (Perfectly feasible & possible) or they could attack the poor, unemployed & weakest in society by first of all convincing the public that these are the people who are the cause of the UK's financial problems, as opposed to the Bankers who really caused it, by having constant story's about the feckless poor in the Daily Mail /Telegraph & other right wing papers & then reducing their benefits which leads to the point of this article by MP Morden, Family's starving & having to use foodbanks to feed there family's, children going to School hungry & now Teachers actualy taking food in to Schools to feed some of the most vulnerable kids, when have you ever heard that, millions more people living below the poverty line & suicides going up. So as you see all political party's would not have done the same & it is party political. Howie'
  • Score: 0

9:54pm Tue 3 Jul 12

CM1 says...

An interesting post but you appear to contradict yourself. At the beginning and end you state that it is party political but in the middle you state that you do not see the difference between the Conservatives and Labour any more.

I agree that there is no real difference between the parties, especially in the general manner in which they would handle this complex issue. However, there are shades of grey.

To state that poverty in 1997 was unprecedented in post war history really is some stretch! Unfortunately Gordon Brown wasn't the best at handling the economy, even if his motivation was sound.

I think that the state we are in is due, in large part, to economic circumstances. I am sure you will counter, that decisions over which services to cut are ideologically driven but I tend to be of the opinion that all the parties would be cutting in the same areas. Of course it suits Labour to argue otherwise but the silence on what they would cut is deafening.

You are clearly someone who thinks that every Conservative is a card carrying devil worshipper. This is clearly nonsense. It is not simply a case of EITHER taxing the wealthy OR cutting services, as you state.

That is just naive. Not everything is black or white. For someone who no longer sees the difference between the political parties, your invective seems disproportionately aimed towards the Conservative party.

By the way, I do agree with a number of your points; just think it lacks a little balance.
An interesting post but you appear to contradict yourself. At the beginning and end you state that it is party political but in the middle you state that you do not see the difference between the Conservatives and Labour any more. I agree that there is no real difference between the parties, especially in the general manner in which they would handle this complex issue. However, there are shades of grey. To state that poverty in 1997 was unprecedented in post war history really is some stretch! Unfortunately Gordon Brown wasn't the best at handling the economy, even if his motivation was sound. I think that the state we are in is due, in large part, to economic circumstances. I am sure you will counter, that decisions over which services to cut are ideologically driven but I tend to be of the opinion that all the parties would be cutting in the same areas. Of course it suits Labour to argue otherwise but the silence on what they would cut is deafening. You are clearly someone who thinks that every Conservative is a card carrying devil worshipper. This is clearly nonsense. It is not simply a case of EITHER taxing the wealthy OR cutting services, as you state. That is just naive. Not everything is black or white. For someone who no longer sees the difference between the political parties, your invective seems disproportionately aimed towards the Conservative party. By the way, I do agree with a number of your points; just think it lacks a little balance. CM1
  • Score: 0

12:13pm Wed 4 Jul 12

Howie' says...

CM1 wrote:
An interesting post but you appear to contradict yourself. At the beginning and end you state that it is party political but in the middle you state that you do not see the difference between the Conservatives and Labour any more.

I agree that there is no real difference between the parties, especially in the general manner in which they would handle this complex issue. However, there are shades of grey.

To state that poverty in 1997 was unprecedented in post war history really is some stretch! Unfortunately Gordon Brown wasn't the best at handling the economy, even if his motivation was sound.

I think that the state we are in is due, in large part, to economic circumstances. I am sure you will counter, that decisions over which services to cut are ideologically driven but I tend to be of the opinion that all the parties would be cutting in the same areas. Of course it suits Labour to argue otherwise but the silence on what they would cut is deafening.

You are clearly someone who thinks that every Conservative is a card carrying devil worshipper. This is clearly nonsense. It is not simply a case of EITHER taxing the wealthy OR cutting services, as you state.

That is just naive. Not everything is black or white. For someone who no longer sees the difference between the political parties, your invective seems disproportionately aimed towards the Conservative party.

By the way, I do agree with a number of your points; just think it lacks a little balance.
No contradiction, it is party political as in Labour policy's versus Conservative policy's. I was making the point that I mourn the death of the conviction Politician who has been replaced by career politicians with no Ideology who happily fit in to either party.
I stated that 'poverty in 1997 was unprecedented in post war history' which you claim is really some stretch, I actually took that as a direct quote from a 2008 report by the LSE (London School of Economics)
http://eprints.lse.a
c.uk/4297/1/amoreequ
alsocietyINTRO%28LSE
ROversion%29.pdf
The Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust jrrt.org.uk also reports the same as did, funnily enough, Ian Duncan Smith who wrote a report for Cameron when they were in opposition but having googled for that report that I read on line some years ago it is strangely enough no longer available, lol, maybe a 'Freedom of Information' request should be made to remind them.
'I think that the state we are in is due, in large part, to economic circumstances'. Could not agree more, after all thats what Banks are, economic. You may find this an interesting video http://www.positivem
oney.org.uk or this an even more interesting read
http://www.positivem
oney.org.uk/wp-conte
nt/uploads/2012/06/B
anking_Vs_Democracy_
Web.pdf
I'm sorry if the way I worded my post makes you think that I meant it was EITHER make the wealthiest in Society pay their fair share of taxes or hammer the poor, those on benefits & the public sector it clearly should not be as 'we are all in it together' it SHOULD be shared pro rata from the wealthiest Company's & individuals down through society but that is not what has happened because whilst this Government have demonised the poor & the public sector it has done nothing to tax the wealthy or shut down tax loopholes or to stop the likes of Boots relocate it's HQ to Zug in Switzerland to save £100m in taxes along with 27000+ other company's which mean that there are more company's there now than the population of the town, a lot of them British company's.
Vodafone dodged a tax bill of £6 billion & tax avoidance/evasion costs the UK upwards of £35 billion pa.
I do not see the Tory's as 'card carrying devil worshipers' (with Thatcher as an exception of course, lol) but they are the party which is attacking those at the lower end of society whilst protecting those at the top, that is what the Tory's have always done & if you look at their history you will understand why.Make no mistake if this was the Labour Government who were doing these things I would feel the same way about them so please understand that my views are neither invective or politically slanted as I do not support any of the main party's.
[quote][p][bold]CM1[/bold] wrote: An interesting post but you appear to contradict yourself. At the beginning and end you state that it is party political but in the middle you state that you do not see the difference between the Conservatives and Labour any more. I agree that there is no real difference between the parties, especially in the general manner in which they would handle this complex issue. However, there are shades of grey. To state that poverty in 1997 was unprecedented in post war history really is some stretch! Unfortunately Gordon Brown wasn't the best at handling the economy, even if his motivation was sound. I think that the state we are in is due, in large part, to economic circumstances. I am sure you will counter, that decisions over which services to cut are ideologically driven but I tend to be of the opinion that all the parties would be cutting in the same areas. Of course it suits Labour to argue otherwise but the silence on what they would cut is deafening. You are clearly someone who thinks that every Conservative is a card carrying devil worshipper. This is clearly nonsense. It is not simply a case of EITHER taxing the wealthy OR cutting services, as you state. That is just naive. Not everything is black or white. For someone who no longer sees the difference between the political parties, your invective seems disproportionately aimed towards the Conservative party. By the way, I do agree with a number of your points; just think it lacks a little balance.[/p][/quote]No contradiction, it is party political as in Labour policy's versus Conservative policy's. I was making the point that I mourn the death of the conviction Politician who has been replaced by career politicians with no Ideology who happily fit in to either party. I stated that 'poverty in 1997 was unprecedented in post war history' which you claim is really some stretch, I actually took that as a direct quote from a 2008 report by the LSE (London School of Economics) http://eprints.lse.a c.uk/4297/1/amoreequ alsocietyINTRO%28LSE ROversion%29.pdf The Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust jrrt.org.uk also reports the same as did, funnily enough, Ian Duncan Smith who wrote a report for Cameron when they were in opposition but having googled for that report that I read on line some years ago it is strangely enough no longer available, lol, maybe a 'Freedom of Information' request should be made to remind them. 'I think that the state we are in is due, in large part, to economic circumstances'. Could not agree more, after all thats what Banks are, economic. You may find this an interesting video http://www.positivem oney.org.uk or this an even more interesting read http://www.positivem oney.org.uk/wp-conte nt/uploads/2012/06/B anking_Vs_Democracy_ Web.pdf I'm sorry if the way I worded my post makes you think that I meant it was EITHER make the wealthiest in Society pay their fair share of taxes or hammer the poor, those on benefits & the public sector it clearly should not be as 'we are all in it together' it SHOULD be shared pro rata from the wealthiest Company's & individuals down through society but that is not what has happened because whilst this Government have demonised the poor & the public sector it has done nothing to tax the wealthy or shut down tax loopholes or to stop the likes of Boots relocate it's HQ to Zug in Switzerland to save £100m in taxes along with 27000+ other company's which mean that there are more company's there now than the population of the town, a lot of them British company's. Vodafone dodged a tax bill of £6 billion & tax avoidance/evasion costs the UK upwards of £35 billion pa. I do not see the Tory's as 'card carrying devil worshipers' (with Thatcher as an exception of course, lol) but they are the party which is attacking those at the lower end of society whilst protecting those at the top, that is what the Tory's have always done & if you look at their history you will understand why.Make no mistake if this was the Labour Government who were doing these things I would feel the same way about them so please understand that my views are neither invective or politically slanted as I do not support any of the main party's. Howie'
  • Score: 0

10:35pm Wed 4 Jul 12

CM1 says...

That's exactly why I'm saying that it is not party political; as both parties would do the same thing, so there would no division along party political lines.

I agree re the conviction politician; there used to be such politicians on all sides of the House but now they all study sociology and politics at uni, go on to be researchers and then MP.

I will try to take the time to read the reports, although the LSE is, of course, a left leaning establishment. That is not to denigrate the report, which I am yet to read! Poverty is relative and depends upon the parameters set. The
JRF report is certainly interesting. IDS produced an interesting study and it is a pity that he appears to have been dragged back to towing the party political line.

I'm afraid that your previous post did come across as a simple choice. Whilst I believe that the balance is wrong, in that the most wealthy pay little regard to the country that nurtured them, I would like all political parties to take a more robust stance on this issue but best of all, I would like those wealthy individuals to take a personal moral responsibility for paying their dues. Fat chance, perhaps!

However, I am not sure how you would plan to stop a company relocating, any more than you could stop me emigrating, if I wanted to. I also take this position of demonising the poor with a large 'pinch of salt'; that tends to be a simplistic Union stance on the issue.

100% agree re the tax issue. It is an absolute disgrace that a company has been able to do this; there's no way I can have lunch with a senior inspector and negotiate a reduction!!

At least Thatcher was a conviction politician, even if you don't agree with the policies ;-)

I think you would have the same outcome whichever party was in power, although I do tend to agree that the Conservative party tends to look after certain areas of business, rather than people (I deliberately make no reference to class, as I don't believe that is what it is all about).

What I do get annoyed about is Labour politicians stating that they are in some way different, or that they would do things differently; they are not and would not!
That's exactly why I'm saying that it is not party political; as both parties would do the same thing, so there would no division along party political lines. I agree re the conviction politician; there used to be such politicians on all sides of the House but now they all study sociology and politics at uni, go on to be researchers and then MP. I will try to take the time to read the reports, although the LSE is, of course, a left leaning establishment. That is not to denigrate the report, which I am yet to read! Poverty is relative and depends upon the parameters set. The JRF report is certainly interesting. IDS produced an interesting study and it is a pity that he appears to have been dragged back to towing the party political line. I'm afraid that your previous post did come across as a simple choice. Whilst I believe that the balance is wrong, in that the most wealthy pay little regard to the country that nurtured them, I would like all political parties to take a more robust stance on this issue but best of all, I would like those wealthy individuals to take a personal moral responsibility for paying their dues. Fat chance, perhaps! However, I am not sure how you would plan to stop a company relocating, any more than you could stop me emigrating, if I wanted to. I also take this position of demonising the poor with a large 'pinch of salt'; that tends to be a simplistic Union stance on the issue. 100% agree re the tax issue. It is an absolute disgrace that a company has been able to do this; there's no way I can have lunch with a senior inspector and negotiate a reduction!! At least Thatcher was a conviction politician, even if you don't agree with the policies ;-) I think you would have the same outcome whichever party was in power, although I do tend to agree that the Conservative party tends to look after certain areas of business, rather than people (I deliberately make no reference to class, as I don't believe that is what it is all about). What I do get annoyed about is Labour politicians stating that they are in some way different, or that they would do things differently; they are not and would not! CM1
  • Score: 0

1:18am Thu 5 Jul 12

Howie' says...

CM1 wrote:
That's exactly why I'm saying that it is not party political; as both parties would do the same thing, so there would no division along party political lines.

I agree re the conviction politician; there used to be such politicians on all sides of the House but now they all study sociology and politics at uni, go on to be researchers and then MP.

I will try to take the time to read the reports, although the LSE is, of course, a left leaning establishment. That is not to denigrate the report, which I am yet to read! Poverty is relative and depends upon the parameters set. The
JRF report is certainly interesting. IDS produced an interesting study and it is a pity that he appears to have been dragged back to towing the party political line.

I'm afraid that your previous post did come across as a simple choice. Whilst I believe that the balance is wrong, in that the most wealthy pay little regard to the country that nurtured them, I would like all political parties to take a more robust stance on this issue but best of all, I would like those wealthy individuals to take a personal moral responsibility for paying their dues. Fat chance, perhaps!

However, I am not sure how you would plan to stop a company relocating, any more than you could stop me emigrating, if I wanted to. I also take this position of demonising the poor with a large 'pinch of salt'; that tends to be a simplistic Union stance on the issue.

100% agree re the tax issue. It is an absolute disgrace that a company has been able to do this; there's no way I can have lunch with a senior inspector and negotiate a reduction!!

At least Thatcher was a conviction politician, even if you don't agree with the policies ;-)

I think you would have the same outcome whichever party was in power, although I do tend to agree that the Conservative party tends to look after certain areas of business, rather than people (I deliberately make no reference to class, as I don't believe that is what it is all about).

What I do get annoyed about is Labour politicians stating that they are in some way different, or that they would do things differently; they are not and would not!
This might come out wrong as I have had a few beers, but feel free to chastise me;-) I do not believe both party's would do the same, do not mix up politicians with the party's, agree about the unprincipled researchers who get parachuted in to safe seats to become MP's. LSE is certainly left wing but IDS is not. 'Poverty is relative and depends upon the parameters set', not sure what you mean by that. As you say fat chance to them taking a moral stance. Thatcher in 1979 made it easy by changing the laws for companys to relocate to avoid tax in this country, TUF shoes were the first.
I also take this position of demonising the poor with a large 'pinch of salt'; that tends to be a simplistic Union stance on the issue. There has been a campaign against those on benefits waged by this Government using the Mail, Express, Sun & Telegraph to blame the poor for the financial mess this country is in for the last two years (no offence but where have you been?), what has Unions got to do with my comments?
Ah, Thatcher hated, loathed & loved her. Hated & loathed for so many reasons that would take to long to type here, loved her for being a real politician, a conviction politician...****! Same outcome whatever party...Dream on.
Class is exactly what the Conservatives are all about read their history & look at their front bench.
Most probably not a very coherent defense of my previous post but I am ****, any queries feel free and I will get back as soon as I have sobered up. Ciao for now, lol.
[quote][p][bold]CM1[/bold] wrote: That's exactly why I'm saying that it is not party political; as both parties would do the same thing, so there would no division along party political lines. I agree re the conviction politician; there used to be such politicians on all sides of the House but now they all study sociology and politics at uni, go on to be researchers and then MP. I will try to take the time to read the reports, although the LSE is, of course, a left leaning establishment. That is not to denigrate the report, which I am yet to read! Poverty is relative and depends upon the parameters set. The JRF report is certainly interesting. IDS produced an interesting study and it is a pity that he appears to have been dragged back to towing the party political line. I'm afraid that your previous post did come across as a simple choice. Whilst I believe that the balance is wrong, in that the most wealthy pay little regard to the country that nurtured them, I would like all political parties to take a more robust stance on this issue but best of all, I would like those wealthy individuals to take a personal moral responsibility for paying their dues. Fat chance, perhaps! However, I am not sure how you would plan to stop a company relocating, any more than you could stop me emigrating, if I wanted to. I also take this position of demonising the poor with a large 'pinch of salt'; that tends to be a simplistic Union stance on the issue. 100% agree re the tax issue. It is an absolute disgrace that a company has been able to do this; there's no way I can have lunch with a senior inspector and negotiate a reduction!! At least Thatcher was a conviction politician, even if you don't agree with the policies ;-) I think you would have the same outcome whichever party was in power, although I do tend to agree that the Conservative party tends to look after certain areas of business, rather than people (I deliberately make no reference to class, as I don't believe that is what it is all about). What I do get annoyed about is Labour politicians stating that they are in some way different, or that they would do things differently; they are not and would not![/p][/quote]This might come out wrong as I have had a few beers, but feel free to chastise me;-) I do not believe both party's would do the same, do not mix up politicians with the party's, agree about the unprincipled researchers who get parachuted in to safe seats to become MP's. LSE is certainly left wing but IDS is not. 'Poverty is relative and depends upon the parameters set', not sure what you mean by that. As you say fat chance to them taking a moral stance. Thatcher in 1979 made it easy by changing the laws for companys to relocate to avoid tax in this country, TUF shoes were the first. I also take this position of demonising the poor with a large 'pinch of salt'; that tends to be a simplistic Union stance on the issue. There has been a campaign against those on benefits waged by this Government using the Mail, Express, Sun & Telegraph to blame the poor for the financial mess this country is in for the last two years (no offence but where have you been?), what has Unions got to do with my comments? Ah, Thatcher hated, loathed & loved her. Hated & loathed for so many reasons that would take to long to type here, loved her for being a real politician, a conviction politician...****! Same outcome whatever party...Dream on. Class is exactly what the Conservatives are all about read their history & look at their front bench. Most probably not a very coherent defense of my previous post but I am ****, any queries feel free and I will get back as soon as I have sobered up. Ciao for now, lol. Howie'
  • Score: 0

1:23am Thu 5 Jul 12

Howie' says...

What a sensitive bit of software.........the first word that is * out is bi*ch & the other is pi*sed
What a sensitive bit of software.........the first word that is * out is bi*ch & the other is pi*sed Howie'
  • Score: 0

11:14pm Thu 5 Jul 12

CM1 says...

That is a good effort for 1am in the morning!

The politicians are the parties; if you think of the Conservatives and Labour being the same parties that they were in the 50s, 60s, 70s or 80s, then I would suggest that you are nostalgic!

The point I was making about poverty is that it is relative to the time and also is often far more than the singular responsibility of any government. There was an interesting discussion on the radio this week regarding free school meals. The point was made that many parents did not understand the importance of diet and in the worst cases would be incapable of setting an examplye for their kids through drink and drugs. These kids would be described as being in poverty but the parents should have responsibility for their own lives and those of their children; that is not down to the government alone.

I'm not sure that Thatcher was solely responsible for the birth of multinational companies. I personally prefer a local approach but I'm afraid that is difficult to achieve. How would you approach this issue?

There is no "campaign" against the poor. You can argue that the Conservative party might favour certain policies over others but to say that there is a "campaign" against a certain part of society really is just sloganeering. Please explain precisely how the poor have been "blamed" for the mess this country is in. Who said that and when? I must have missed that. The language and wording you use sounds suspiciously like the party line of Labour politicians appearing on news items.

Absolutely; the same outcome whatever party. As you agreed at the beginning, cuts had to be made and I cannot see Labour saying that they would cut anything different. In which case, how would the outcome be different?

As for class, the Conservatives are more interested in business and money than class. There are plenty of upper class people who vote Labour and plenty of upper class people who are not exceptionally wealthy. Both front benches have a surfeit of public school alumni.

Hope your head is not too sore today!!
That is a good effort for 1am in the morning! The politicians are the parties; if you think of the Conservatives and Labour being the same parties that they were in the 50s, 60s, 70s or 80s, then I would suggest that you are nostalgic! The point I was making about poverty is that it is relative to the time and also is often far more than the singular responsibility of any government. There was an interesting discussion on the radio this week regarding free school meals. The point was made that many parents did not understand the importance of diet and in the worst cases would be incapable of setting an examplye for their kids through drink and drugs. These kids would be described as being in poverty but the parents should have responsibility for their own lives and those of their children; that is not down to the government alone. I'm not sure that Thatcher was solely responsible for the birth of multinational companies. I personally prefer a local approach but I'm afraid that is difficult to achieve. How would you approach this issue? There is no "campaign" against the poor. You can argue that the Conservative party might favour certain policies over others but to say that there is a "campaign" against a certain part of society really is just sloganeering. Please explain precisely how the poor have been "blamed" for the mess this country is in. Who said that and when? I must have missed that. The language and wording you use sounds suspiciously like the party line of Labour politicians appearing on news items. Absolutely; the same outcome whatever party. As you agreed at the beginning, cuts had to be made and I cannot see Labour saying that they would cut anything different. In which case, how would the outcome be different? As for class, the Conservatives are more interested in business and money than class. There are plenty of upper class people who vote Labour and plenty of upper class people who are not exceptionally wealthy. Both front benches have a surfeit of public school alumni. Hope your head is not too sore today!! CM1
  • Score: 0

11:42am Fri 6 Jul 12

james jackson says...

Interesting posts. Have enjoyed them.
It may have escaped the notice of some people, but there is a campaign against the poor and those on benefits by the right-wing media.
The fact that the majority of people don't recognise it, just goes to show how successful it is.
Notice, for example, how benefit "scroungers" are given front page exposure in even local newspapers, but especially in the dreadful red tops and increasingly, in papers like the Guardian, but rich thieves are not.
Poor people are easy targets. They can't afford to go to law if they are libelled and ridiculed, whereas the wealthy can. The cards are stacked against ordinary men and women.
But look at the "illustrious" Bob Diamond. He got a very easy ride before the Commons inquisitors.
Deference was the order of the day, when in fact he is nothing short of criminal.
British people, unfortunately bow down all the time to "class" and money.
When did you last see a mainstream newspaper hang a billionaire out to dry?
It isn't done, old chap!
Interesting posts. Have enjoyed them. It may have escaped the notice of some people, but there is a campaign against the poor and those on benefits by the right-wing media. The fact that the majority of people don't recognise it, just goes to show how successful it is. Notice, for example, how benefit "scroungers" are given front page exposure in even local newspapers, but especially in the dreadful red tops and increasingly, in papers like the Guardian, but rich thieves are not. Poor people are easy targets. They can't afford to go to law if they are libelled and ridiculed, whereas the wealthy can. The cards are stacked against ordinary men and women. But look at the "illustrious" Bob Diamond. He got a very easy ride before the Commons inquisitors. Deference was the order of the day, when in fact he is nothing short of criminal. British people, unfortunately bow down all the time to "class" and money. When did you last see a mainstream newspaper hang a billionaire out to dry? It isn't done, old chap! james jackson
  • Score: 0

12:51pm Fri 6 Jul 12

Howie' says...

CM1 wrote:
That is a good effort for 1am in the morning!

The politicians are the parties; if you think of the Conservatives and Labour being the same parties that they were in the 50s, 60s, 70s or 80s, then I would suggest that you are nostalgic!

The point I was making about poverty is that it is relative to the time and also is often far more than the singular responsibility of any government. There was an interesting discussion on the radio this week regarding free school meals. The point was made that many parents did not understand the importance of diet and in the worst cases would be incapable of setting an examplye for their kids through drink and drugs. These kids would be described as being in poverty but the parents should have responsibility for their own lives and those of their children; that is not down to the government alone.

I'm not sure that Thatcher was solely responsible for the birth of multinational companies. I personally prefer a local approach but I'm afraid that is difficult to achieve. How would you approach this issue?

There is no "campaign" against the poor. You can argue that the Conservative party might favour certain policies over others but to say that there is a "campaign" against a certain part of society really is just sloganeering. Please explain precisely how the poor have been "blamed" for the mess this country is in. Who said that and when? I must have missed that. The language and wording you use sounds suspiciously like the party line of Labour politicians appearing on news items.

Absolutely; the same outcome whatever party. As you agreed at the beginning, cuts had to be made and I cannot see Labour saying that they would cut anything different. In which case, how would the outcome be different?

As for class, the Conservatives are more interested in business and money than class. There are plenty of upper class people who vote Labour and plenty of upper class people who are not exceptionally wealthy. Both front benches have a surfeit of public school alumni.

Hope your head is not too sore today!!
Exactly James & well put.

CM1 wrote:The politicians are the parties; if you think of the Conservatives and Labour being the same parties that they were in the 50s, 60s, 70s or 80s, then I would suggest that you are nostalgic!

I was not saying that, a lot (not all) politicians could now be in any party, no ideology, conviction or historical beliefs in the party they are in, just a bunch of careerists, the senior members of that party along with unelected advisers & to a very small degree the members of the party via their party conferences decide policy & manifesto's, something which a lot of Mp's have no say in, thats the difference between the backbench Mp's & the heirachy of the party. I should have explained that earlier.

Poverty: This I think will answer a few of your points: From the Guardian's Polly Toynbee;

The aim is to rubbish the poverty measure accepted by all international organisations and to call for new measures that ignore inequality.
Poverty is not about having no money. Pay no attention to poverty figures because they only measure money. People are poor because of their lifestyles; worklessness, family breakdown, bad parenting, drink and drug addiction, irresponsible debt, crime and lack of aspiration … All week expect that message to be blasted out by ministers trying to drown out Thursday's official poverty figures. The aim is to rubbish the poverty measure accepted by all international organisations and to call for new measures that ignore inequality.

The government's problem is not that the figures – on "Households below average income" – will be bad, but that they will be embarrassingly good. The data, compiled for 2010-11 by the Office for National Statistics, will be the final verdict on Labour's record, before George Osborne's cuts. Will that ambitious target to abolish child poverty by 2020, halving it by 2010, be hit? Not by a long way. But Labour did well, at a time when poverty was rising in every other industrial country. The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) expects the figures to show Labour cut child poverty by 900,000, with another 900,000 prevented from falling into poverty. At that rate the 2020 target would have been reached by 2027. The IFS knows of no other time or nation in which child poverty fell so far, so fast.

Did you read about those figures when they were released from any of the caring sharing right wing media, thought not. I read an article in the Guardian about it & the Radio 4 Today program discussed it, Ed Balls was interviewed but neither George Osborne or any other Tory was available to speak on the show.

There is no "campaign" against the poor.


The report go's on:
The campaign of vilification has been clever: Osborne's announcement that no one would get more benefits than the £26,000 median wage was another masterstroke, suggesting most are living the high life. The truth? These represent less than 1% of people on benefits, exceptional cases in high-cost temporary accommodation in London. Yet the large sum lodged in the public mind implying it was standard. It successfully hid the plunge in living standards for millions of others through housing benefit cuts: only one in eight on housing benefit are not in work. What few realise is that 88% of all the benefit cuts are still to come. Presumably Cameron long ago decided no one cares: he may yet be proved wrong.

I agreed that any Government would have to make cuts, a Labour Government I believe would have more balanced cuts in not such a tight timescale.

I cannot see Labour saying that they would cut anything different. Absolutely; the same outcome whatever party.

Are you honestly saying that Labour after being so successful in reducing poverty & heavily investing 13 years of political capital in doing so would do a u turn & attack the poorest in society in the way this lot have? I really think that one is for the birds, apart from the implausibility of it the Labour Party would split because if it attacked the poor whilst protecting the rich, even giving tax cuts to the richest 1% in the way that the Tory's have then you would have to ask what is Labour for, it would be the biggest sellout in political history.

The language and wording you use sounds suspiciously like the party line of Labour politicians appearing on news items.

So you think I'm a Labour Politician eh? Sorry to disappoint, I have been a member of the Labour Party but that was many years ago when I lived in London. Can't help my beliefs or the way that I speak/type.

As for class, the Conservatives are more interested in business and money than class.

Oh really? So how many working class Conservative Mp's are there?

Thatcher: I never said she was responsible for multinationals.

Hope your head is not too sore today!!
Heads OK thanks, don't know why I bother drinking, I'm the wrong side of 55 & always suffer badly the next day.
[quote][p][bold]CM1[/bold] wrote: That is a good effort for 1am in the morning! The politicians are the parties; if you think of the Conservatives and Labour being the same parties that they were in the 50s, 60s, 70s or 80s, then I would suggest that you are nostalgic! The point I was making about poverty is that it is relative to the time and also is often far more than the singular responsibility of any government. There was an interesting discussion on the radio this week regarding free school meals. The point was made that many parents did not understand the importance of diet and in the worst cases would be incapable of setting an examplye for their kids through drink and drugs. These kids would be described as being in poverty but the parents should have responsibility for their own lives and those of their children; that is not down to the government alone. I'm not sure that Thatcher was solely responsible for the birth of multinational companies. I personally prefer a local approach but I'm afraid that is difficult to achieve. How would you approach this issue? There is no "campaign" against the poor. You can argue that the Conservative party might favour certain policies over others but to say that there is a "campaign" against a certain part of society really is just sloganeering. Please explain precisely how the poor have been "blamed" for the mess this country is in. Who said that and when? I must have missed that. The language and wording you use sounds suspiciously like the party line of Labour politicians appearing on news items. Absolutely; the same outcome whatever party. As you agreed at the beginning, cuts had to be made and I cannot see Labour saying that they would cut anything different. In which case, how would the outcome be different? As for class, the Conservatives are more interested in business and money than class. There are plenty of upper class people who vote Labour and plenty of upper class people who are not exceptionally wealthy. Both front benches have a surfeit of public school alumni. Hope your head is not too sore today!![/p][/quote]Exactly James & well put. CM1 wrote:The politicians are the parties; if you think of the Conservatives and Labour being the same parties that they were in the 50s, 60s, 70s or 80s, then I would suggest that you are nostalgic! I was not saying that, a lot (not all) politicians could now be in any party, no ideology, conviction or historical beliefs in the party they are in, just a bunch of careerists, the senior members of that party along with unelected advisers & to a very small degree the members of the party via their party conferences decide policy & manifesto's, something which a lot of Mp's have no say in, thats the difference between the backbench Mp's & the heirachy of the party. I should have explained that earlier. Poverty: This I think will answer a few of your points: From the Guardian's Polly Toynbee; The aim is to rubbish the poverty measure accepted by all international organisations and to call for new measures that ignore inequality. Poverty is not about having no money. Pay no attention to poverty figures because they only measure money. People are poor because of their lifestyles; worklessness, family breakdown, bad parenting, drink and drug addiction, irresponsible debt, crime and lack of aspiration … All week expect that message to be blasted out by ministers trying to drown out Thursday's official poverty figures. The aim is to rubbish the poverty measure accepted by all international organisations and to call for new measures that ignore inequality. The government's problem is not that the figures – on "Households below average income" – will be bad, but that they will be embarrassingly good. The data, compiled for 2010-11 by the Office for National Statistics, will be the final verdict on Labour's record, before George Osborne's cuts. Will that ambitious target to abolish child poverty by 2020, halving it by 2010, be hit? Not by a long way. But Labour did well, at a time when poverty was rising in every other industrial country. The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) expects the figures to show Labour cut child poverty by 900,000, with another 900,000 prevented from falling into poverty. At that rate the 2020 target would have been reached by 2027. The IFS knows of no other time or nation in which child poverty fell so far, so fast. Did you read about those figures when they were released from any of the caring sharing right wing media, thought not. I read an article in the Guardian about it & the Radio 4 Today program discussed it, Ed Balls was interviewed but neither George Osborne or any other Tory was available to speak on the show. There is no "campaign" against the poor. The report go's on: The campaign of vilification has been clever: Osborne's announcement that no one would get more benefits than the £26,000 median wage was another masterstroke, suggesting most are living the high life. The truth? These represent less than 1% of people on benefits, exceptional cases in high-cost temporary accommodation in London. Yet the large sum lodged in the public mind implying it was standard. It successfully hid the plunge in living standards for millions of others through housing benefit cuts: only one in eight on housing benefit are not in work. What few realise is that 88% of all the benefit cuts are still to come. Presumably Cameron long ago decided no one cares: he may yet be proved wrong. I agreed that any Government would have to make cuts, a Labour Government I believe would have more balanced cuts in not such a tight timescale. I cannot see Labour saying that they would cut anything different. Absolutely; the same outcome whatever party. Are you honestly saying that Labour after being so successful in reducing poverty & heavily investing 13 years of political capital in doing so would do a u turn & attack the poorest in society in the way this lot have? I really think that one is for the birds, apart from the implausibility of it the Labour Party would split because if it attacked the poor whilst protecting the rich, even giving tax cuts to the richest 1% in the way that the Tory's have then you would have to ask what is Labour for, it would be the biggest sellout in political history. The language and wording you use sounds suspiciously like the party line of Labour politicians appearing on news items. So you think I'm a Labour Politician eh? Sorry to disappoint, I have been a member of the Labour Party but that was many years ago when I lived in London. Can't help my beliefs or the way that I speak/type. As for class, the Conservatives are more interested in business and money than class. Oh really? So how many working class Conservative Mp's are there? Thatcher: I never said she was responsible for multinationals. Hope your head is not too sore today!! Heads OK thanks, don't know why I bother drinking, I'm the wrong side of 55 & always suffer badly the next day. Howie'
  • Score: 0

4:17pm Fri 6 Jul 12

chris227 says...

good god has newport sunk so low i know it looks like the third world but food parcels. I do wonder how these peeople can still keep a kennel full of staffis but cannt afford to feed themselves
good god has newport sunk so low i know it looks like the third world but food parcels. I do wonder how these peeople can still keep a kennel full of staffis but cannt afford to feed themselves chris227
  • Score: 0

12:18am Sat 7 Jul 12

CM1 says...

"It may have escaped the notice of some people, but there is a campaign against the poor and those on benefits by the right-wing media. The fact that the majority of people don't recognise it, just goes to show how successful it is. Notice, for example, how benefit "scroungers" are given front page exposure in even local newspapers, but especially in the dreadful red tops and increasingly"

I did not say that the press does not have an agenda...just don't believe that politicians actively demonise the poor. Rather fanciful in my view and I'm still waiting for someone to point me to a definitive statement evidencing the same.

"in papers like the Guardian, but rich thieves are not"

Frankly, that is simply nonsense. Are you seriously saying that bankers have not been pilloried in the press over the last four years??? Where have you been???

"They can't afford to go to law if they are libelled and ridiculed, whereas the wealthy can.The cards are stacked against ordinary men and women."

Don't necessarily disagree with that! In fact I strongly agree. The law is often a privilege of the rich.

"But look at the "illustrious" Bob Diamond. He got a very easy ride before the Commons inquisitors. Deference was the order of the day, when in fact he is nothing short of criminal."

That is the responsibility of the MPs to be better inquisitors.

"British people, unfortunately bow down all the time to "class" and money."

Not so much any more; I believe that there has been a marked shift in recent years. The St Pauls protests received a sympathetic response across a far greater range of society than might have been the case, say five to ten years ago.

"When did you last see a mainstream newspaper hang a billionaire out to dry?
It isn't done, old chap!"

Regularly, actually. Interestingly the Daily Mail (spit!) has been one the most vociferous voices over the past few weeks regarding the banking scandal.

"a lot (not all) politicians could now be in any party, no ideology, conviction or historical beliefs in the party they are in, just a bunch of careerists, the senior members of that party along with unelected advisers"

Can't disagree.

"Poverty: This I think will answer a few of your points: From the Guardian's Polly Toynbee; The aim is to rubbish the poverty measure accepted by all international organisations and to call for new measures that ignore inequality.
Poverty is not about having no money. Pay no attention to poverty figures because they only measure money. People are poor because of their lifestyles; worklessness, family breakdown, bad parenting, drink and drug addiction, irresponsible debt, crime and lack of aspiration"

Poverty is usually a mix of responsibilities...p
art state, part the individual. All political parties attempt to massage statistics to make their actions look better.

"...before George Osborne's cuts."

You said yourself that cuts were required.

"Will that ambitious target to abolish child poverty by 2020, halving it by 2010, be hit? Not by a long way."

No...but it would not have met under Labour either, as you note yourself.

"But Labour did well, at a time when poverty was rising in every other industrial country. The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) expects the figures to show Labour cut child poverty by 900,000, with another 900,000 prevented from falling into poverty. At that rate the 2020 target would have been reached by 2027. The IFS knows of no other time or nation in which child poverty fell so far, so fast."

Yes, a worthy target but it is always a balance and the last government's spending is one of the contributory factors that has left us with a mind boggling deficit. It also has to be remembered that the last government had an unprecedented boom in which to have the luxury of deciding where to spend the tax receipts. Remember, that government actively encouraged the 'light touch' regulation of the banks, due to the money it was raising, enabling spending on these important causes. Unfortunately, we cannot have our cake and eat it.

"Did you read about those figures when they were released from any of the caring sharing right wing media, thought not."

No surprise there.

"Osborne's announcement that no one would get more benefits than the £26,000 median wage was another masterstroke, suggesting most are living the high life. The truth? These represent less than 1% of people on benefits, exceptional cases in high-cost temporary accommodation in London. Yet the large sum lodged in the public mind implying it was standard."

A sensible target; agreed it is a small proportion but an inequitable position nonetheless.

"It successfully hid the plunge in living standards for millions of others through housing benefit cuts: only one in eight on housing benefit are not in work. What few realise is that 88% of all the benefit cuts are still to come. Presumably Cameron long ago decided no one cares: he may yet be proved wrong."

Again, you appear to intimating that only the present government would have instigated cuts. Given that you have acknowledged that cuts are required, what would you cut?

"I agreed that any Government would have to make cuts, a Labour Government I believe would have more balanced cuts in not such a tight timescale."

See above; what do you mean by balanced? Most economists, from the right and left, agree that there was very little between the Labour and Conservative parties on the speed of cuts.

"Are you honestly saying that Labour after being so successful in reducing poverty & heavily investing 13 years of political capital in doing so would do a u turn"

Reducing poverty whilst there was an economic boom and significant tax receipts were flowing from financial services. After the crash the government simply would not have been able to spend equivalent sums; as a Labour politician said, there was no money left!

"...attack the poorest in society"

Interesting use of language. The use of words like "attack", is designed in the same way James describes the tabloids using the word "scroungers" above. It is the clever use of language to paint the view that this government is "attacking" the poor. I just don't subscribe to that point of view (and I am not right wing!).

"...the Labour Party would split because if it attacked the poor whilst protecting the rich, even giving tax cuts to the richest 1% in the way that the Tory's have then you would have to ask what is Labour for, it would be the biggest sellout in political history."

The Labour has already done this, to promote relaxed regulations and maintain lower taxes to help the bankers. There are plenty of Labour politicians who were "relaxed about...the filthy rich". I know this quote is taken slightly out of context by many who want to attack Mandelson but the point is relevant.

"So you think I'm a Labour Politician eh? Sorry to disappoint, I have been a member of the Labour Party but that was many years ago when I lived in London. Can't help my beliefs or the way that I speak/type."

Your old allegiances are evident...which is fine!

"Oh really? So how many working class Conservative Mp's are there?"

There may be more working class Labour MPs than Conservative MPs but there are working class Conservative MPs. If you want me to name one off the top of my head then take David Davis for instance. There are plenty of working class Conservative voters, although the left often, rather arrogantly, classifies these people as not being intelligent enough to understand 'what the Tories are really about'.

"Thatcher: I never said she was responsible for multinationals."

You appeared to be implying that Thatcher was responsible for actions that allowed the multinationals to proliferate. Apologies if I have misread that.

"Heads OK thanks, don't know why I bother drinking, I'm the wrong side of 55 & always suffer badly the next day."

You are not on your own there!
"It may have escaped the notice of some people, but there is a campaign against the poor and those on benefits by the right-wing media. The fact that the majority of people don't recognise it, just goes to show how successful it is. Notice, for example, how benefit "scroungers" are given front page exposure in even local newspapers, but especially in the dreadful red tops and increasingly" I did not say that the press does not have an agenda...just don't believe that politicians actively demonise the poor. Rather fanciful in my view and I'm still waiting for someone to point me to a definitive statement evidencing the same. "in papers like the Guardian, but rich thieves are not" Frankly, that is simply nonsense. Are you seriously saying that bankers have not been pilloried in the press over the last four years??? Where have you been??? "They can't afford to go to law if they are libelled and ridiculed, whereas the wealthy can.The cards are stacked against ordinary men and women." Don't necessarily disagree with that! In fact I strongly agree. The law is often a privilege of the rich. "But look at the "illustrious" Bob Diamond. He got a very easy ride before the Commons inquisitors. Deference was the order of the day, when in fact he is nothing short of criminal." That is the responsibility of the MPs to be better inquisitors. "British people, unfortunately bow down all the time to "class" and money." Not so much any more; I believe that there has been a marked shift in recent years. The St Pauls protests received a sympathetic response across a far greater range of society than might have been the case, say five to ten years ago. "When did you last see a mainstream newspaper hang a billionaire out to dry? It isn't done, old chap!" Regularly, actually. Interestingly the Daily Mail (spit!) has been one the most vociferous voices over the past few weeks regarding the banking scandal. "a lot (not all) politicians could now be in any party, no ideology, conviction or historical beliefs in the party they are in, just a bunch of careerists, the senior members of that party along with unelected advisers" Can't disagree. "Poverty: This I think will answer a few of your points: From the Guardian's Polly Toynbee; The aim is to rubbish the poverty measure accepted by all international organisations and to call for new measures that ignore inequality. Poverty is not about having no money. Pay no attention to poverty figures because they only measure money. People are poor because of their lifestyles; worklessness, family breakdown, bad parenting, drink and drug addiction, irresponsible debt, crime and lack of aspiration" Poverty is usually a mix of responsibilities...p art state, part the individual. All political parties attempt to massage statistics to make their actions look better. "...before George Osborne's cuts." You said yourself that cuts were required. "Will that ambitious target to abolish child poverty by 2020, halving it by 2010, be hit? Not by a long way." No...but it would not have met under Labour either, as you note yourself. "But Labour did well, at a time when poverty was rising in every other industrial country. The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) expects the figures to show Labour cut child poverty by 900,000, with another 900,000 prevented from falling into poverty. At that rate the 2020 target would have been reached by 2027. The IFS knows of no other time or nation in which child poverty fell so far, so fast." Yes, a worthy target but it is always a balance and the last government's spending is one of the contributory factors that has left us with a mind boggling deficit. It also has to be remembered that the last government had an unprecedented boom in which to have the luxury of deciding where to spend the tax receipts. Remember, that government actively encouraged the 'light touch' regulation of the banks, due to the money it was raising, enabling spending on these important causes. Unfortunately, we cannot have our cake and eat it. "Did you read about those figures when they were released from any of the caring sharing right wing media, thought not." No surprise there. "Osborne's announcement that no one would get more benefits than the £26,000 median wage was another masterstroke, suggesting most are living the high life. The truth? These represent less than 1% of people on benefits, exceptional cases in high-cost temporary accommodation in London. Yet the large sum lodged in the public mind implying it was standard." A sensible target; agreed it is a small proportion but an inequitable position nonetheless. "It successfully hid the plunge in living standards for millions of others through housing benefit cuts: only one in eight on housing benefit are not in work. What few realise is that 88% of all the benefit cuts are still to come. Presumably Cameron long ago decided no one cares: he may yet be proved wrong." Again, you appear to intimating that only the present government would have instigated cuts. Given that you have acknowledged that cuts are required, what would you cut? "I agreed that any Government would have to make cuts, a Labour Government I believe would have more balanced cuts in not such a tight timescale." See above; what do you mean by balanced? Most economists, from the right and left, agree that there was very little between the Labour and Conservative parties on the speed of cuts. "Are you honestly saying that Labour after being so successful in reducing poverty & heavily investing 13 years of political capital in doing so would do a u turn" Reducing poverty whilst there was an economic boom and significant tax receipts were flowing from financial services. After the crash the government simply would not have been able to spend equivalent sums; as a Labour politician said, there was no money left! "...attack the poorest in society" Interesting use of language. The use of words like "attack", is designed in the same way James describes the tabloids using the word "scroungers" above. It is the clever use of language to paint the view that this government is "attacking" the poor. I just don't subscribe to that point of view (and I am not right wing!). "...the Labour Party would split because if it attacked the poor whilst protecting the rich, even giving tax cuts to the richest 1% in the way that the Tory's have then you would have to ask what is Labour for, it would be the biggest sellout in political history." The Labour has already done this, to promote relaxed regulations and maintain lower taxes to help the bankers. There are plenty of Labour politicians who were "relaxed about...the filthy rich". I know this quote is taken slightly out of context by many who want to attack Mandelson but the point is relevant. "So you think I'm a Labour Politician eh? Sorry to disappoint, I have been a member of the Labour Party but that was many years ago when I lived in London. Can't help my beliefs or the way that I speak/type." Your old allegiances are evident...which is fine! "Oh really? So how many working class Conservative Mp's are there?" There may be more working class Labour MPs than Conservative MPs but there are working class Conservative MPs. If you want me to name one off the top of my head then take David Davis for instance. There are plenty of working class Conservative voters, although the left often, rather arrogantly, classifies these people as not being intelligent enough to understand 'what the Tories are really about'. "Thatcher: I never said she was responsible for multinationals." You appeared to be implying that Thatcher was responsible for actions that allowed the multinationals to proliferate. Apologies if I have misread that. "Heads OK thanks, don't know why I bother drinking, I'm the wrong side of 55 & always suffer badly the next day." You are not on your own there! CM1
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree