And another thing…

Oh, come on, Tom. That’s a load of bollocks. End of.

Neither of you have solved the damn problem, Tom. Neither of you. Not ‘the Tories have failed’, not ‘Labour have failed’, Westminster has failed.

I can’t agree with you that this is a ‘dividing line’. Just because Labour claim to care deeply about it doesn’t make them any more effective at sorting out the issue, does it. You say yourself benefit dependency is rising under a Labour government, not falling. After. Twelve. Years. Who gives a crap whether it’s ‘anathema’ if your solutions are not working?!

i don’t think Labour or the Tories are seriously going to manage to ‘help’ the impoverished, to be honest. Both are more interested in pointing fingers at the other, just as you’re doing here. Nothing could be more depressing than seeing MPs who I probably DO desire to help others – and are uniquely positioned to do so – spending more energy stereotyping their opponents as if it was some game than they do actually working to achieve that goal. Caring more about following their pet ideology, or ensuring that they at least appear to disagree with their ‘opponent’ (you’re all supposed to be on the same side, after all), than they do about whether their policies actually flaming work.

I even know you’re only taking the piss and doing it to provoke ‘Tories’ but you really just don’t realise how it sounds to people who don’t give a crap what colour strip you wear.

Grow up. All of you. For Christ’s sake.

I’ll bang your bloody heads together.

Or, alternatively, it might also be the that Theresa May is simply wholly unimpressive, on both the political and intellectual level.

And I say this as an instinctively Conservative voter.

“To Labour, long-term benefit dependency is anathema”

OK Tom. While you have been an MP, how many long-term jobs in the wealth-creating private sector did you assist in creating in your Constituency. The figure before Oct 2008 will do nicely.

Anymouse is quite correct re. Ms May.

You have a person in your party that would have reformed the benifits system.
As soon as his proposals were known he was out on his ear before you could say Frank Field.
Any reforms the Tories wanted to make you were at their throats with your BBC friends.
Again I blame Labour.

Well we have had your results at running the country. with your large majority you have been able to do exactly what you wanted and the result is for all to see.

Why is 3 million unemployed in a Labour administration any less than 3 million under the Tories.

All you have done is put off what is going to happen by all your borrowing and spending. Then you can shout from the sidelines at the only thing you are any good at, slagging off Tories. It is just so patetic.

So the dividing line is you care deeply about worklessness but don’t fix it and the Tories don’t care and don’t fix it. Wow what a choice.

I thought Tories were all in favour of things “being passed on from generation to generation”. Or does that only apply to filthy lucre?

Oh!

So the argument runs that “It was different under the Conservatives; as if the end result is somehow ‘more acceptable’ if not indeed, ‘more understandable’ under a Labour Government because “they care about it”. . . regardless of the fact that they have presided over it for 12 long years.

I’m not sure that the Tories would consider the drain on tax that 5 million unemployed exacerbate, as something to ‘care less about’ since they are a burden on those of us lucky enough to have jobs who are having to pay more tax to subsidise those that don’t.

Whilst I have no problem with paying taxes to help keep our elderly in pensions and our sick in health care – I DO resent having to watch as Labours client state – the underclass – are given money for doing sweet FA, and at the other end of the spectrum, Labours friendly Bankers are cosseted with OUR BLOODY MONEY with which they are STILL . . . FFS! . . . paying themselves Big Fat Bonuses and your government does sod all to prevent it.

And THAT is only one of the reasons why your party deserves to be annihilated at the coming General Election.

Do you really believe this? You come over most of the time as so rational and balanced on the issue of welfare reform and unemployment. You look almost like the kind of sensible bedrock that your party will need to build itself on from June 2010 onwards. Then you come out with a line like:

“When the number of people on long-term benefits rose under the Conservatives, it was a fulfillment of policy, and ministers ticked a box for every additional million chucked on the scrapheap and congratulated themselves on a job well done.”

and I can only wonder if you foam at the mouth and need to be locked in a rubber-padded cell every evening.

If this is the best that the brighter wing of your party (where I would definitely place you) can come out with in the run up to the next general election then you’ll be lucky if you can save more than 100 seats. Because this kind of drivel won’t wash with the rest of the country.

You’re not stupid. Get to work on actual solutions to the problem of deep-rooted welfare dependancy rather than ludicrous invective and you might just be able to start your party’s comeback in the 2014 elections. Or carry on doing this and inflict a Lib Dem opposition on the country.

Now there’s a scary thought…

So it’s not the number of unemployed or how long they are there but the intention of the Political party in power that determines whether the number is “good” or “bad”.

Very good definition Tom.

Sums up Labour in one article.

The way to hell is paved with good intentions.

The caption for the 1979 election was ‘Labour isn’t working’ and the caption for the 2010 one might as well be ‘Labour hasn’t worked again.’

Most of the jobs ‘created’ in the UK over the past 13 years have been filled by immigrants. We have a hard-core of welfare dependent, non-workers which Labour has done nothing to reduce.

After 13 years of education, education, education we have almost 1 million young people unemployed. The number of NEETS is high and rising.

“Today’s news that one in six households in the UK now has no adult at work is truly discouraging.” Is that REALLY the most appropriate comment you could make? I suggest the last two words should be changed to “completely disgraceful.”

If you need help looking for the plot, then do let us know…

a figure of three million unemployed, especially if we hit the magic number before the election, will bury Labour.

Luckily i’m sure that nice mr darling will arrange for the counting procedures to be revised to ensure that we don’t find out.

So what you are saying is that Conservative governments achieve their policy objectives whilst labour governments fail miserably but are very good at saying “we meant well, we’re nice they’re nasty”.

Perhaps that’ll be labour’s epitaph.

Though I do think you are wrong to ascribe malice to the conservatives, it wasn’t policy to increase unemployment. Though freeing up the market and reducing union power along with less funding for failing industries, did have that effect in some areas.

Sorry partisan guff.

Tosh Harris feeding the ducks when they quack.

If you’ve nothing to say, say nothing.

For the next decade and beyond the Conservatives will be able to point to 1979 and 2010 as evidence that whenever Labour gets into power they bankrupt the country.

And with fair evidence too…

I share Stu’s anger. He summed it up. I wouldn’t have taken the Lord’s name in vain, but politicians would try the patience of a saint. The truth is that none of you are fit to make decisions on our behalf.

“To Labour, long-term benefit dependency is anathema.”

Maybe to ‘Labour’ it was. For New Labour, however, it is necessary for your continuation in government.

People who earn a decent wage (before tax) and care about things like freedom and decency aren’t going to vote N.L. You need skint and disinterested masses to send you to the government benches.

As Berlusconi said ” socialists love the poor so much that when they lose power, they manage to leave more of the poor behind them than when they gained power”.

Which says it all.

As outraged as you are, you do realise Labour has been in office since 1997 right?

I agree with the point though. Hiding people on benefits to keep unemployment down is only good for the government. It is bad for the population and the economy.

Oh Tom, you are a one.

My Great Auntie Lil voted Conservative all her life. She worked in a canning factory and her husband was a docker. Real people who worked to provide the common wealth of the country. The rest of my family on my dad’s side were fishermen, or when they were on their uppers and not in the army, they worked for Fogarty’s, stuffing pillows or something or did land work. They all voted Tory.

What they and I have in common is the knowledge that not to work for a living is shameful. To live on the state in perpetuity, to pass this onto your kids is the real cancer in society.

Labour policies have done nothing to convince the long term unemployed to do anything other than to sponge and expect to sponge for the foreseeable. Your own position on this regarding pregnant teenagers reflects the truth of what I say.

I simply do not understand why those on long term benefits are not gainfully employed doing all those silly Micky Mouse jobs that Labour has created to stuff local councils with its own supporters..you know, the translators and the health and safety officers and the “environmental protection” patrollers.

The unemployment problem of the 1980’s was caused by the Labour Party and their dogmatic allegiance to a monarchial trade union aristocracy. The trade unions refused modernisation and mechanisation, just like the Luddites during the Industrial Revolution. So you assertion that the Tories have a bad record on unemployment is simply dogmatic, tribalist rubbish.

In the 1990’s, that recession was entirely avoidable. We shouldn’t have joined the ERM. We could have adjusted monetary policy in the late 1980’s to dampen the boom, but Lawson, whose arrogance was perfectly punctured by Alan Waters, couldn’t accept being wrong and couldn’t accept being bitchslapped by a proper monetarist. Major the moron, who wanted to be a ”good European” persisted with ERM, which caused the recession and consequent unemployment. But remember, the Shadow Chancellor of the time, one Gordon Brown, was even more in favour of ERM than the Tories. Showing his complete idiocy when it comes to economic matters, Brown said that if we left the ERM, interest rates would RISE!!! How can interest rates in response to leaving a fixed exchange rate system that kept rates too high in the first place? How Brown managed to build a reputation based on being a good Chancellor is one of the enduring British mysteries. If Brown had been Chancellor in 1992, Soros still would have attacked the pound and Brown would have been forced to devalue.

The unemployment caused by that recession was entirely avoidable. Before that recession, employment was one of the highest levels in Europe, and unemployment was falling faster here than anywhere else. Lamont’s reputation took a hit because of ERM, but he was the best Chancellor of the Tory years. The inflation report, the strengthened Bank of England, the Ken n Eddie show, minutes of meetings and the new monetary framework of inflation targetting all came from Lamont’s Chancellor.

My word, I am a master of non-sequitur

Tom: “Here is a woman who is either entirely unaware of her own party’s shameful record in government”

Pot. Kettle.

Methinks Tom is losing it.

Why would any government aim to make people unemployed and then pay a fortune in welfare payments to support them? You often have some sensible and interesting things to say but this really is an example of mindless bigoted and embittered Labour tribalism. Shame on you!

The ERM debacle was a perfect case in point. When the time came for our European ‘partners’ to support us financially (by buying sterling) they did precisely nothing and watched as the pound collapsed.

How we could ever consider re-entering a common currency scheme with these people is beyond my comprehension.

“Methinks”? People still say “methinks”? I did not know that.

As to the Tories’ motives for moving people off unemployment benefits into incapacity benefits, I agree it was a stupid policy. But it happened.

As to the Tories’ motives for moving people off unemployment benefits into incapacity benefits, I agree it was a stupid policy. But it happened.

The obvious question though is after 12 years why hasn’t Labour moved them back again. By not doing so proves that you don’t entirely disagree with this ‘fulfillment’ policy.

I agree with Johnny Norfolk (I can’t believe I wrote that), Labour had a wonderful opportunity to do so in the form of Frank Field, whose radical proposals were largely blocked by the now current, inept, Prime Minister.

“People still say “methinks”?”

Zounds Tom! There’s no more faith in thee than a stewed prune.

@Keldorne “If this is the best that the brighter wing of your party (where I would definitely place you) can come out with in the run up to the next general election then you’ll be lucky if you can save more than 100 seats. Because this kind of drivel won’t wash with the rest of the country.”

I agree and couldn’t have put it better myself……Tom?

Now Tom, you didn’t think you could get away with such rubbish could you?

You’ve taken the traditional viewpoint that Labourites are saints and Tories are evil and used it as a dividing line! If that’s why you think people go into politics – to make people unemployed – then you should really get out now.

I disagree with many Labour policies and some Tory ones too, but I don’t for a minute think that they are not done without the best of intention, it’s just a different means to an end.

Lines like “the number of people on long-term benefits rose under the Conservatives, it was a fulfillment of policy, and ministers ticked a box for every additional million chucked on the scrapheap and congratulated themselves on a job well done” is clearly clap-trap. You know as well as I do that all Governments want to bring down unemployment and that is a factor in how they are judged.

I know that you know what they meant when they said “the price worth paying”. It was crap language and needlessly harsh but in the early 80’s the economic model needed changing, and in the early 90’s inflation needed to be brought down. High interest rates were the way to achieve this, and your Government has agreed to this method of economic management. Unfortunately a very bad by-product is a period of high unemployment.

There could have been greater help for the unemployed, admittedly, but it is impossible to conjure jobs from thin air without increasing the deficit. You need to get the economic conditions right where sustainable jobs can thrive.

You know all this, so why spout this rubbish? It belongs in the Michael Foot era of the Labour party.

Obviously long-term dependency on benefits is anathema to the Labour party as it is to me, but it’s a fact that every Labour Government has left more people unemployed on benefits after their period in office. So your methods are misguided.

Tom

Please Note Paul williams agreed with me.

I AM NOT ALONE

I think Paul Williams is a great person.

@wrinkled weasel

Now now, stop mithering poor Tom. His poor wretched soul has been through enough.

What, with his own party telling him off, he has to toe the party line at times!

“mithering”?

I come from Lincolnshire, and thought it was peculiar to that county. Where did you get it, Scott?

We used mithering in my home county of Lancashire.

Tom,

I can accept arguments about unemployment under the Tories on a variety of grounds.

But can you please explain why you say it was actually an end goal to get more people on long term benefits?

I was 12 when tony blair came to power, so maybe I’m missing something.

“But can you please explain why you say it was actually an end goal to get more people on long term benefits?”

The (successful) aim was to keep the much more politically-damaging headline unemployed figure down. Thatcher did it as well and welfare rights officers employed in Labour-run councils connived in the process, I must confess. Utterly disastrous. It is always – always – easier to get people into benefits than off them.

@ Jonny Norfolk.

Aye. It’s grim oop north.

Thanks – now I understand

Even simpler:Norman Lamont said of unemployment as a tool of economic policy “if it isn’t hurting, it isn’t working”…

And also “je ne regret rien”.

The Tories used unemployment as a crude tool to bear down on inflation levels.

They could not care less about the effect of any policy on ordinary people, as long as they can bribe or frighten enough people to vote Tory on the day.

@ Alex
What a load of twot.

Conservatives are not a load of baby-eating monsters who want to see loads of unemployed roaming the streets any more than Labour are a bunch of sub-communists who want everyone to earn the same wages and hang rich landowners.

Employing crude stereotypes is neither helpful or productive.

@Alex:And also “je ne regret rien”.

If you want to argue that the Tories are heartless bastards, who’d love to see nothing better than everyone unemployed, it would help your case if you didn’t quote people out of context.

Lamont’s response: “As Edith Piaf said, “je ne regrette rien” was to the following question: “Which do you regret more: singing in the bath or seeing green shoots?”

It was a frivolous answer to a clearly frivolous question.

Richard,

You are right about Labour. And of course Tories don’t eat babies.

But I can only say what I saw, because I lived through it, that the last time they were in power the Tories used unemployment as a tool to reduce inflation. They did it openly with only token aplogies so they didn’t look too bad.

Whe Norman Lamont said “if it isn’t hurting, it isn’t working”, he meant that Tory policies were designed to bear down on the money supply and inflation and if that led to mass unemployment, which most economists forecast it would, that was just too bad.

Now you may say that they were only doing what was necessary in the circumstances, but that doesn’t mean that they should do nothing to ameliorate the forseeable effects of their actions. What they did was distort the unemplyment figures (and incidentally the economy and sections of society) for a generation by convincing people to live off disabilty benefits rather than give a true figure for the unemployed which they feared would damage their image.In politics, as in other walks of life, bullies usually are cowards as well.

They did not set up effective schemes of training, job identification, target youth unemployment, long-term unemployment or whatever, all of which Labour has done and is doing, to lessen the effects of economic problems on individuals and the state.

So, no, they don’t eat babies. But their basic philosophical approach to a modern economy is skewed by their philisophical approach to compassion.

Actually there’s quite a good case to be made from the history of the ’80s and early 90’s that the Conservatives are unfit, by nature of their basic philiosophy, to manage a modern country and economy. But that would take more than a mere blog to record…

I’m not sure you can argue the Tories are heartless b*stards anyway, since 12 years of a Labour government has seen the gap between rich and poor increase, not decrease.

@RT. “Why would any government aim to make people unemployed and then pay a fortune in welfare payments to support them?”
You forgot to add…unless they are public sector… real jobs that Tories despise and consider to be valueless, and according to what I read will be swept away; just read Tory blogs and acknowledge the future. Tough luck if you’re a teaching assistant, PCSO or translator.
It’s cheaper to get these mortgage/tax paying workers onto benefits (allegedly) never mind the resulting destruction caused to their families, and the consequences of cost of everything value of nothing mind-set.

“Actually there’s quite a good case to be made from the history of the ’80s and early 90’s that the Conservatives are unfit, by nature of their basic philiosophy, to manage a modern country and economy.”

And based on their record in the 70s and the last 12 years, you think Labour are fit ?!?!?!?!?!?

@ani – The Tories don’t despise public sector jobs, e.g. doctors, nurses, police etc. They do, however, understand that it’s the private sector that has to pay for them.

So the ideal economy would have a large, vibrant private sector, and a small, efficient public sector.

THe gap between “rich” and “poor”… has indeed grown. The reasons as outlined in a Rowntree Foundation Report last year are complex…

The “rich”, i.e. the top 1% includes the Roman Abramovich class. Wealthy people, some nondoms, who have billions and choose to live in the UK. THe line on the graph for that 1% is practically verical upwards.

The poor, i.e. the bottom 1% includes those who have fallen through the benefits sqfet net, are unable to get what is due to them for various reasons. The line on the graph for that 1% is also almost vertical ..downwards.

If you remove the top 1% the gap narrows considerably. And if you remove the bottom 1% it narrows even more.

Another statistic, just as valid follows: The majority of people at the bottom end of the earnings scale are better off. Those in the middle are also better off. The only group that is worse off is a very small group of the earnings profile at about £100,000 – £200,000 per annum. No tears for them.

And of course those unfortunates who are unable to get the benefits due to them.

The line on the graph for 98% of us is a quite steep uphill from the left (bottom 1% below the line)leading to a gentle downhill to meeet the last 1%. Try drawing it.

It is a fact that child poverty tripled under the Tories and has halved under Labour.

Similarly pensioner poverty increased under the Tories and has reduced under Labour.

The majority of people are better off, both actually and relatively.

And they are so because Labour introduced policies to achieve those very aims.

The Tories never did and never will.

Paying people who do not work but can, infuriates everyone, government and populace alike.

Only when there is absolutely no work of any kind can it be tolerated.

So the fact that it still happens, and has done for decades, regardless of the party in power, completely astonishes me.

It’s not difficult. Just stop paying.

@ Alex.

So, what you’re saying is that if you exclude the figures that don’t fit your hypothesis you can come up with a result that is completely meaningless and yet supports your own narrow views?

Marvellous.

@ Ani
Not to forget that a dole cheque costs substantially less than a public sector paycheque…

Given that England used to rule/administer approximately one-third of the world with half the civil servants that work for DEFRA i’m pretty sure there is scope for substantial savings.

Richard what I am saying is that the majority of people are better off actually and relatively and the bottom 1% are, unfortunately, worse off. Do you agree?

The gap is wider, no doubt, but the size of the gap is due in the main to a sharp increase in the number of billionaires resident in the UK and they form the top 1%.

Draw the graph. Imagine a cross section through the cliffs of Dover. Draw a horizontal line from just below the lip of the cliff inland (left to right).

On the left a steep rise, that’s the bottom one percent, Then a slight swell up (above the datum)and a gentle slope down (still above the datum until very near the end), away from the cliff. Thats the rest of us. You then encounter a light house taking your line sharply up again. That’s the super super rich.

The gap is the height of the lighthouse to just below the lip of the cliff. big for sure. But the swell and the gentle slope above the line, that’s the 98% majority and they (we) are all better off.

But the gap, from the top of the lighthouse to just below the lip of the cliff is big.

See. It’s easy.

Another way of expresing it is that the bottom 1% are worse off. The other 99% are almost all better off. The bottom ten % are better of, as are the next 10% and the next and the next and the next.

Only at the 90%-100% (is it decile?) does the graph fall slightly below the datum. And then at 99% it shoots up vertically.

so just saying the gap between rich and poor is wider is not the whole story. The vast majority are better off. And that is as it should be.

Do you agree?

“so just saying the gap between rich and poor is wider is not the whole story. The vast majority are better off. And that is as it should be.”

So the richest are richer, and the poorest are poorer, under Labour. “And that is as it should be” ?

Your figures are also distorted by the army of extra public sector workers that the Government are borrwing billions of pounds every month to pay. Once the money dries up, these will all be unemployed and therefore worse off.

Alex:
No offense, but please learn statistics before you talk statistics: “Child poverty halved under Labour”
Poverty is a relative term, when the economy crashes, as now, poverty can actually decrease as the poor get relatively less poor than the median income earners (against whom poverty is measured).

I could not agree more that income inequality is completely irrelevant. Who cares what the richest earn? Surely there are only two things that matter, are YOU better off than you were and are the poorest better off than they were. Anything else is the politics of jealousy. btw. The poor today are much better off in almost every way than the rich of 100 years ago…

However, Labour cannot take pride in the ‘achievement’ of 10 years of growth when the world economy was growing thanks to consumer spending in America, debt fuelled spending everywhere and decreased costs to consumers and producers from cheap imports from the Far East. Indeed, given those circumstances it would be a talented (evil) government who managed to avoid decent growth in that time.

Tom: some basic economics from the monetarist side (which the tories favour more than the Keynsian Labour) simply states that to decrease the inflation rate you have to increase unemployment. It was not a cynical ploy to get elected, it was what they thought was in the best interests of this country.

Can’t believe I just defended the tories for ripping the industrial heart out of this country. Blogging is evil.

@ Alex

Still unimpressed. Yes, wealthy people distort the wealth-gap figures, but then so does the fact that in the past 12 years the number of public sector workers has doubled (most with salaries that are artificially high in comparison to similar roles in the private sector).

You can’t just select the figures you like and recalculate accordingly

Hello Paul

actually staistics is not my strong point, and neither is condescension…. so I’ll take your comments as seriously meant.

“…please learn statistics before you talk statistics:Poverty is a relative term, when the economy crashes, as now, poverty can actually decrease as the poor get relatively less poor than the median income earners (against whom poverty is measured).”

Isatso?

Poverty measured on the internationally recognised basis as an income of less than 66% of the median income halved under Labour. Because Labour targeted the lower paid and those on benefits and used to tax system to improve their position in relative terms.

It’s not Labour’s fault that the recognised measure of poverty is a moving target. It is to Labour’s credit that they addressed the problem of in-work and benfit poverty and tried to improve it.

@ Alex

So what you’re saying is that we should be thankful that we’re living under a benign (yet incompetent) Labour government who’ve bankrupted the country than under the Conservatives who caused unemployment in order to help the economy and in the process gave Labour a golden legacy to squander.

Lovely sentiment but ultimately not a vote-winner methinks.

Ricahrd,
What I’m saying is that I have grown used to having conversations where I quote facts and arguments and the other fellow asks inane questions (So what you’re saying is…? Is what you mean…? Are you telling me..? etc.), but strangely, the fellow asking the inane questions and presenting no facts and no arguments, thinks he is “winning” the debate.

They are usually Tories or Nationalists, although there is really no categorical difference between them that I can see.

Just that one thinks they are not the other, but they’re wrong.

Alex has got a point. The ‘So let me get this straight..?’ strategy only works in moderation. Used excessively, the speaker begins to sound like a right tw*t.

Then again, Richard only uses it once out of a half dozen or so comments on this page. The other question was too obviously laden with sarcasm to qualify as leading.

@ Bridie McWilliwarmer

In fairness, I wasn’t expecting Alex to agree with me…