The Conservatives have some growing up to do and they better do so quickly. Their response to Alistair Darling’s tax repair job yesterday was so weakly opportunistic that, in different political times, it would have rebounded on them dangerously. In the light of the government’s self-inflicted crisis David Cameron and George Osborne suddenly discovered an interest in giving more money to the poor, although their official policy is to take money away from the poor in order, apparently, to deal with the “causes” of poverty. For weeks the Tory leadership has demanded that the government came up with a package to deal with the losers from Gordon Brown’s last budget.
Yesterday the government came up with a package and the Conservative leadership screams: Where’s the money going to come from? This would be a perfectly valid scream if at any point they had made a suggestion as to where they would have found the money. Now in the aftermath of yesterday’s announcement they give the impression of not giving a damn for the original low paid losers. Instead they contrive to make the opposite opportunistic point to the one they were previously making: “How outrageous that the government has come up with the package when it has got to borrow money to pay for it!” Having called for such a package would the Conservatives have preferred a tax increase?
There are echoes here with the juvenile response from Cameron and Osborne to the public ownership of Northern Rock. Their over-excited reaction was so out of step with the times in its vaguely strident opposition that the Conservatives’ fortunes fell in the opinion polls.
Every now and again I am reminded of a party I attended during Cameron’s leadership bid at the Conservative conference in Blackpool in 2005. An aide, who had drunk one glass too many, came up to me and said: “It’s all a game to us. We were all Thatcherites until the other day. Now we are modernisers. We will do anything to win”. In fact there has been serious thinking from the Conservative leadership in some policy areas, but at big moments the leadership shows another side. Is it, I wonder, a truer side? At the moment in the anti-Brown hysteria they get away with the contradictions and incoherence. They will not do so for much longer.
Steve- you are trying to have it both ways. For years you have played along with the Labour canard that tax cuts = fewer 'scoolsanospitals'. Yet Labour have just borrowed a whopping £2.7bn to do cut taxes ! And all to get themselves out of a self inflicted political fix, and save face in Crewe.
The Left seem to think that they have the freehold on concern for the poor,yet the supine and dense Labour PLP showed what they really think of the poor by nodding through Brown's dishonest budget in 2007, either that or they lacked the intellect to understand its consequences.
The contradictions and incoherence are all with the Labour Govt you support.
Posted by: Cameron Fan | Wednesday, 14 May 2008 at 11:12 AM
Mmmm I rather think that intelligent people who cling to the idea that Labour care about 'the poor' and are honest, in the face of overwhelming evidence that they don't and are not are juvenile.
George Osbourne was not given the proposals to look at - as is normal. Don't you think that is juvenile behaviour?
Labour have constantly goaded the Conservatives about unfunded tax cuts. Now here they are not only making an unfunded tax cut, but one that is short term and the only reason for it is to win a by-election. I call that both juvenile (ie foolish) and wicked.
Labour care nothing for the poor, they make them dependent on benefits, do nothing about raising standards of education, and swamp the country with immigrants all making claims that seem to have priority over British 'poor' people. That isn't juvenile, but it is wicked.
Attacking the causes of poverty is RIGHT, and is what conservative ideology is all about. Isn't it better to attack the causes of cancer, than the disease itself. If you think otherwise then again you are the one who is foolish. By attacking the causes you also lift people into the areas of social mobility - hey now there is a good idea. Remember social mobility under Labour is fast heading back to the middle ages - where once a serf always a serf!! Is that what you support Steve?
Posted by: Miranda | Wednesday, 14 May 2008 at 11:29 AM
WHAT A MESS, TRYING TO GET VOTES BACK ON THERE SIDE,
PEOPLE ARE GETTING TO A STAGE OF POVERTY THANKS TO LABOUR PUTTING THE COUNTRY IN A MESS, SAD VERY SAD..
Posted by: wt | Wednesday, 14 May 2008 at 11:31 AM
Well, it worked for me. Bribed with my own money, I’ve now completely forgotten how crap this government is and they will definitely receive my support next time – that is, if “next time” and “when Hell freezes” mean the same thing.
Posted by: Richard Dean | Wednesday, 14 May 2008 at 12:19 PM
Yes thats right posters Labour don't care about the poor and the Tories do, no really...ha ha ha ha ha ha aha ha ha aha ha. No really its true, Gordon Brown isn't really interested in helping people in poverty and David Cameron is, thats right, so let everyone who is poor or who wants to help the poor in society vote for the Conservative Party at the next General Election tee hee...
Posted by: Edward | Wednesday, 14 May 2008 at 12:30 PM
By their actions will you know them.
While the Tories were in power social mobility increased, i.e. more people moved up the social ladder out of poverity.
While Labour has been in power social mobility has decreased, i.e. less people moved up the social ladder out of poverity.
Like Edward said,"... let everyone who is poor or who wants to help the poor in society vote for the Conservative Party at the next General Election tee hee..."
Posted by: A Williams | Wednesday, 14 May 2008 at 12:47 PM
A Williams:
The point is that even if it's true that more people moved up the social ladder under Tory rule (which I highly doubt) the problem is with the whole mentality, which is social mobility for the few at the expense of the many. Pragmatic social justice would improve the quality of life for everyone at the working-class end of the social spectrum, not just offer opportunities for the few to join the middle-class and pull the ladder up after them.
The fact remains that over 90% of the country would have been better off with Brown's original policy and the number of people who qualify for the 10p tax band is so small anyway and their earnings are so low that it would have made a difference of £3 less a *year*. This was a hit job by the Tory press prior to local elections, no more, no less.
Posted by: Joe Order | Wednesday, 14 May 2008 at 01:38 PM
Yes you heard it here first help the poor in society by voting for the Tories. Yeah thats right and while we're at it lets vote for the British National Party to improve race relations.
By the way Mr Williams what is poverity?
Posted by: Edward | Wednesday, 14 May 2008 at 01:50 PM
Edward,
when all is said and done which administration made the biggest impact on reducing poverty? Compare the end of the seventies with 1997, and then compare 1997 with 2008. My apologies for the poverty of my spelling.
Joe,
don't you tire of blaming everthing on the nasty Tory Press, It seemed that a large number of Labour MPs took part in this "hit job" as well.
Posted by: A Williams | Wednesday, 14 May 2008 at 02:14 PM
A. Williams are you seriously suggesting that poverty was reduced by Thatcher and Major? Are you really going to try and claim that?
Posted by: Edward | Wednesday, 14 May 2008 at 02:44 PM
Do the words "Pot", "Kettle" and "Black" mean something on your planet Steve?
Down here in the real world it is clear that ZaNuLabour has been uncovered and that the only ones who will believe your petty attacks on the Conservatives are the tired old misguidedidealists who hold on the the sinking Lefty shi.
Posted by: Cel Oduro | Wednesday, 14 May 2008 at 02:55 PM
Beware anyone who writes new Labour using a 'u' instead of writing the word 'new' properly. Its a rather obvious sign of an unwillingness to engage in genuine political discussion.
The same should go for anyone who instead of writing Blair writes the word liar with a capital 'B' infront of it.
Posted by: Edward | Wednesday, 14 May 2008 at 03:13 PM
A Williams:
Absolutely I do not tire of blaming the Tory press - I question any medium that tries to get people to vote against their own interests and will continue to do so.
There have been absolute improvements in quality of living for the less well-off. OK, it hasn't brought everyone up to the levels enjoyed by the middle-class becasue it's spreading the same amount more fairly rather than generating more to start with.
And Cel, as for ragging on "lefty idealists" do you really want your kids to grow up in a nasty, mean-spirited dog-eat-dog world? Or do you want them to have hope for the future? I take it your "real world" consists of blaming immigrants and tax for the fact that you can't live as you feel you deserve to. The barriers between the wealthy and poor nations are crumbling and the new economic powerhouses are going to be China and India, not the US (which has committed hari-kiri on its economy by slavishly following tax-cut ideology* and fighting a war it can't afford). To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin, we need to hang together lest we all hang separately.
[*- Yes, the same tax-cut, trickle down ideological faith-based economics the Tories would reinstate]
Posted by: Joe Order | Wednesday, 14 May 2008 at 03:17 PM
Also beware of anyone who is more interested in the spelling rather than the content of a message. It shows they are more interested in shooting the messenger rather than addressing the message.
Posted by: A Williams | Wednesday, 14 May 2008 at 03:23 PM
Or they could just be sick to death of the lack of respect coming from those on the other side of the debate. You don't see too many primary-school level verbal twistings on the Anti-Tory side.
Posted by: Joe Order | Wednesday, 14 May 2008 at 03:38 PM
Yes beware those 'who are more interested in shooting the messenger rather than addressing the message.' Yes we must beware them! Where are they those scoundrels?
No really when are you going to explain how the Conservative party is better at alleviating or reducing poverty Williams? Wouldn't it be better to admit that reducing poverty has never been the strength of the Conservatives, not since Wilberforce anyway.
Posted by: Edward | Wednesday, 14 May 2008 at 03:43 PM
I would have to agree with a number of the comments here - in that Labour get away with a lot because they successfully pedal this myth that they are all about helping the poor and so implying that the Torys are in some way anti-poor.
Actually the converse is true. Labour are very much about entrenching poverty. Yes they come up with incredibly complicated sytems of government hand-outs to make poor people feel beholden to them. But to fund this they tax, tax, tax and who do they tax the most? The poorer people. They work on a similar basis to a drug pusher - get them hooked then they'll always come back to you.
Labour is about controlling people, not giving them the tools to achieve things for themselves.
Yes they employ as many people as possible in the public sector but this has nothing to do with quality, it is about a)endless form filling b)getting as many people as they can on the payroll so they vote Labour.
Yes they allow mass immigration to keep wages down (though they are now getting tougher to mimic the tories)
Yes they quadruple the number of people 'on the sick' (though they are now re-looking at this to mimic the tories)
Yes the gap between rich and poor is widest under Labour
Ask yourself this: are people generally more likely to vote Labour if they are poor? So which party do you think benfits from keeping people poor?
Posted by: charlie clark | Friday, 16 May 2008 at 02:31 PM