The deserving or undeserving poor?‏

And that mention of the wealthy raises an intriguing final thought, which might make tax evaders and big bonus bankers uneasy. If we are now more prepared to talk about the "undeserving poor", who are the "undeserving rich"?


I'm very uncomfortable about removing people's benefits entirely. I understand why they're doing it but I'm not convinced it's the right course of action

The untold story of poverty in working households

"it suits politicians of all parties to claim that work is the route out of poverty. Such a message wraps a snarling toughness directed at workless adults inside a saccharine justification: you must work for the sake of your kids.

The truth is very different. Work that does not provide a sufficient income is now much more to blame for poverty than worklessness"

Very true, and a real key issue. Jobs, equality and poverty are the most important issues in my politics. I'm soon to experience being without work for the second time in a year and I'm not looking forward to it.

Facts, David Cameron, and poverty

What have all these things got in common?
Nothing.
"The verdict

Cameron's claim on poverty just doesn't wash - the number of people in general, and particularly children and pensioners, in poverty have reduced since Labour came to power, although progress seems to have stalled in recent years.

There's also a different definition of "severe" poverty favoured by the Tories, which suggests things have got worse under Labour - but there are so many uncertainties about these figures they merit a separate FactCheck entirely (which we've done, here: FactCheck - more in severe poverty?).

Inequality has got slightly worse under Labour, particularly in recent years, much of it made up of increased riches for the very richest, and a poorer deal for the very poorest.

This increase in inequality is nothing like that which happened under Margaret Thatcher, though it's debatable how much this ice this cuts in the 21st century.

It's worth noting too that Labour's tax and benefit reforms have been redistributive (Robin Hood-like). Had they kept the same system they inherited, there would be far more people in poverty today. "


Factcheck is such a great resource, there really needs to be much more use made of it.

Cameron's article in the Guardian

In an effort to feel better about life, I read some comments on Cameron's article in the Guardian.
Some great ones, but this says it all:
"

'Selfishness and individualism' are not consequences of statism but of neo-liberal ideology which takes as its starting assumption and aim the enthronement of selfishness and individualism as cardinal values, and has these as its effects.

Inequality has increased because New Labour embraced neo-liberalism - that was what the 'new' in New Labour meant - and it won't be rectified by the party that never abandoned it. The only period in which the UK became more equal was during the social democratic post-war consensus of, say, 1945-1976.

Localism was diminished because the Tories did not like the choices that some local areas made - 'loony left councils' - and in the process swathes of municipal authorities which had done an excellent job (not least in reducing inequality) were eviscerated. This kind of civic pride and responsibility cannot be replaced by allowing a few local crackpots to run amok but only by the re-instatement of social democracy."


also good:
"

So Call-Me-Dave, you're going to dump that old neoliberal, wealth-as-a-meritocracy thing, are you?

Get rid of student loans and bring back student grants? Cut the tax on the poor and raise it on the rich?

Regenerate vast areas outside the south of England, where traditional heavy industries were never replaced?

Raise the minimum wage and pour special resources into education in socially deprived areas?

No? You're not?

You're going to persist with the loans for banks, bonuses for bankers, deregulated financial services (because that's the goose that really lays the golden egg, innit Dave?) and just rely on the wealth to 'trickle down' somehow?

This local responsibility thing sounds good, though. So when you starve the local authorities of funds to service their communities, it'll be their responsibility. Damned clever that.

I look forward to another 8 to 12 years of the same old crap with a different-coloured rosette."

Cameron setting out welfare plans

This is laugh a minute stuff.
DC "claims the Tories are now "best-placed to fight poverty in our country"."
"says the welfare system tells young girls that having children before finding work and a loving relationship is a way to getting a home and money."

""Our alternative to big government is the big society, but we understand that the big society is not just going to spring to life on its own: we need strong and concerted government action to make it happen. We need to use the state to remake society.""
Big government has failed, we need bigger government to sort it out. What else is "strong and concerted government action"?
Unless he meant "strong and concerted government INaction". THAT'S small government for you.
Personally, I fead he's still tripping after those wild days at uni.

Wasn't he praising the NHS and minimum wage not long ago?
Those are both big government things, and have done as much as anything in the history of this country to help the poorest

19th Century Liberals and poverty

Apparently, 19th century liberals did more to reduce poverty than Labour ever did. Really?
Well, no. But makes a good right-wing attack on Labour, if you're abit shabby about the detail, which they obviously are.
Lloyd George had a huge role in reducing poverty in his time through things like National Insurance, and he was a liberal.
But liberalism is not so easy to box, 19th C liberalism also lead to the workhouse, back in those days some Tories were at least paternalistic one-nationers, while the liberals were the 'leave them be' lot.

About the only true or sensible part of the article is:
"If either party were serious about reducing poverty they would reintroduce that very sensible Classical Liberal principle, one of the few Liberal principles that the Lib Dems still believe in – that the poor shouldn’t pay tax at all. They could raise the income tax and National Insurance threshold to £10,000 and abolish council tax, while taking benefits away from the well-off."

Broken Britain

The Sun are doing their bit on 'Broken Britain'.
"THE SUN'S focus on our fractured society today looks at an area where almost half the locals are jobless and where feral kids roam the streets"

I'd like to propose some easy answers, but easy doesn't tend to mean right.
While I have some qualified support for their analysis, The Sun coming out as champions of the poor rings very hollow.
And their promotion of Iain Duncan Smith is silly: "Tory poverty guru Iain Duncan Smith, 55, believes family breakdown is at the heart of Britain's troubles." His solution, well, not given. He's not quoted as having said anything.
So HOW exactly are we going to get families to stay together, bring up nice, lovely, well intigrated children? Less Big Government? Bollocks to that.
Not demonising people, not being afraid to put money into poor people where it's needed, better front line services, personal responsibility. Some will argue 'responsibility' and Big Government don't go together, i disagree. The others are Big Government solutions. It's a lack of government, not too much, which has failed these people.
When all else fails, the state should be there to look after it's own.