Milliband singles out Deserving Poor

[CogitoErgoSometimes]

""Do we treat the person who contributes to their community the same as the person who doesn't? My answer is no."

[CogitoErgoSometimes]

Should have added.... I think he's going to annoy a lot of his supporters with that kind of controversial statement.

[gorionine]

having not heard it and having just that sentence totally out of context I really have no idea what your OP is about. could you tell more? does he think those who contribute are treated better? worse? what are his arguments?

[CogitoErgoSometimes]

It's a preamble to today's speech. Link He has a list of people who Labour are going to support in future. Doesn't like 'fast buck' merchants or 'asset strippers' - fairly standard stuff. But I was surprised that he thinks people who 'contribute to their community' are not the same as people who don't. Will mention the idea being tried out in a couple of Labour councils that people who 'contribute to their community' will be able to jump the housing queue

I thought Labour were meant to be on the side of all the poor and didn't make any distinctions, that's all.

[rycooler]

Times are changing - global recession, world in meltdown, he knows the money simply isn't there anymore - Labour threw it around like confetti for 13 years and now look at us. He has to adapt or die ( politically speaking )

[GrimmaTheNome]

Maybe people who 'contribute to their community' are more likely to vote?

[CogitoErgoSometimes]

I'm sure they are. And I'm sure that most of the 'hard working families' that deserted Labour at the last election have felt very marginalised in recent years when it has seemed that doing nothing at all brings rewards and preferential treatment. However, the standard MN/left-wing press response to any suggestion that some poor people may be more deserving of help than others in the past has usually been to howl 'tory scum'. But if a Labour leader says it, it's OK.

[Pissfarterleech]

Agreed Cogito

Good on him. If he continues in this vein, I may even consider voting for them!

[Pissfarterleech]

All parties need to focus hard on those who are the working poor or those who are trying to improve their lot through voluntary work, education or community work.

[OracleInaCoracle]

as a labour voter, I'm disappointed tbh.

[CogitoErgoSometimes]

Wouldn't go as far as agreeing to vote for him. :) But this will be the first time since he took over the post 12 months ago that he's said what he actually stands for and the way leaders position themselves says a lot about where they see their target market lies.

[GrimmaTheNome]

I thought Labour were meant to be on the side of all the poor and didn't make any distinctions

I've always assumed 'Labour' meant they were on the side of the workers (inc ex-workers, would-be workers, paid or unpaid) but not necessarily on the side of anyone who wasn't interested in working.

If that's the distinction he's making, is it contentious?

[rycooler]

• Labour were for the working classes - once upon a time.
  

Glad they're finally going back to their roots - I back what he's saying and most people will. He's not saying anything wrong.

[CogitoErgoSometimes]

And if I'd said it was David Cameron that made that original statement .... ??

[meditrina]

If Cameron had said it, the response would be "benefits bashing" or "blaming the victim". To have "deserving poor", you also have to have "undeserving poor" - so it is still rounding up a group to villify.

[rycooler]

It wouldn't be news if Cameron had said it - it's Tory policy to help people who want to get on.

[Pissfarterleech]

Hmm, not so Red Ed. In fact, decidedly pink.

[vesela]

I thought it was horrible. It was all "if you're a good little person and contribute to your community then the state will reward you." Every other sentence had reward in it. Blergh.

[Tianc]

Can I just link to the almost duplicate thread Cogito started on this topic?

I don't want to have to say it all again.

[Jinx1906]

"Do we treat the person who contributes to their community the same as the person who doesn't?"

I'm puzzled... those who are not contributing, paying taxes etc... are the labour supporters. So, if he singles these out who is going to vote him in?

[MillontheFloss]

I think the point he is making is about active citizenship. Rights come with responsibilities and everyone should contribute in some way, if not financially then with their time. People can try to help themselves a little bit to move out of difficult circumstances. Better that than reactionary theories of an 'underclass' with no stake in society- that's all just a bit hopeless isn't it?A lot of people don't have much interest in work and I agree that a system of rewards might be just the ticket.

Jinx1906 I believe that the Labour party is traditionally a party for the working class having initially formed out of the trade union movement. Sure, people fall on hard times and claim benefits but I think the target of his wrath is those who sign on from 16 to 65 with work being an alien concept.

[MillontheFloss]

Might I add, I think the latter group are a tiny minority. Most people want to work. Sounded a bit Daily Mail just there!

[Jinx1906]

"the Labour party is traditionally a party for the working class " not my experience.

I have been working all my life, still labour has never put a penny in my pocket. Perhaps they were traditionally a party for the working class but the last labour gov. seemed to serve only those who did anything but work and some of the very rich did rather well too.