The Conservatives

[MammaBrussels]

I cannot believe someone, even someone in the Conservative Party, would say this.

How can anyone support them?

Yes, the right care more for the poor, without a doubt. The left just pretend to but have policies which fail.

As for improvement in the lot of the poor, it is incontestable. It was also the middle classes when I was born who rarely had central heating. We have come a long way and forget how lucky we all are at times. There are too many moaning whingers in the UK rather than people counting their blessings. The right are much more fun.

dismissing a group of people on this thread as bible thumpers because they used parts of the New Testament to add to the debate isn't the most well mannered of responses Novack so I think you are quite capable of giving it out. I didn't see evidence of anyone trying to convert anyone, or even particularly stating beliefs, just that whether you are a believer or not the Gospels hold some pretty relevant truths to the debate we are having.

How do the right care for the poor? x 10

The right care for the poor by telling them to get on with it and giving them the incentive of jolly well starving if they don't!

The left just faff around helping them subsist, the bastards.

And pointing out how good they've got it with their indoor flushing lavatories

A million posts ago I gave the introduction of the NHS and the minimum wage as 2 concrete examples of improving the life of the poor as introduced by the left. Can you give us 2 back from the right? Apart from the invention of central heating for all....

The right are much more fun,

They can afford to be. I had christmas dinner with a bunch of barristers a few years ago, they were a real hoot but if you stuck them on a council estate, no job and £67 for the week I think they might lose their sense of fun.

NovackNGood Mon 11-Jun-12 19:58:37

When debate is stifled by people like you sarge who just use rude phrases and fling direct insults instead of facts or enagaging in debate then it's easy to see why it's ridiculed a lot.

Where are your facts then? I've asked three times for facts, you've yet to provide one. I've backed up every claim I made, why should it be different for you?

Whenthe economy does (which is usually under the Tories) there is more money and the poor do well.

No way has the minimum wage helped the poor. Why do people think that is so? It is an example of something which damages the poor. The poor are helped by a welfare state all parties support but with incentives to work. The poor are never helped by a nanny state going poor you, never work again and we will look after you. They are helped by a system where for a year or two if they cannot work they have benefits but then are eased back into work as that tends to keep people happier. A thriving economy helps the poor. We have never had also such a high personal tax allowance as now under the Coalition. This helps the poor too. A couple can earn about £8105 each ie £16,210 without paying a penny of tax at all.

Agree with there being too many whingers in the UK xenia. Particulary those moaning about benefit scum, immigration, plasma TVs in poor peoples houses. Instead of opening their eyes to the reality for so many people in the UK today.
Novack you are not moving the debate forward because you are seemingly unable to provide factual evidence for your opinions. Nor do you seem a bundle of laughs for a right winger. You seem very angry....

So Xenia, are you saying 'trickle down' works? Provide proof and I'll believe you. Until then stay under the bridge with Novack.

"eased back into work" . You are spot on Xenia, the right are more fun! That's hilarious.

Why does the minimum wage damage the poor?

Yes, trickledown works. Look at the present - we have no money. Labour through its profilgracy fleeced the nation and in effect robbed the poor and thus there is now less to give to them.

I certainly don't moan about immigration (am very pro it) and nor do I resent anyone taking what benefits to which they are entitled (it's not their problem if the system is as it is). Many people on benefits cannot get jobs even thought they want them (in the UK). It's very very hard at present. Most people out of work get back in within 12 months to 18 months and do not hang around on the dole if they can help it. So I probably at heart agree with much of other people's views on the thread, except we just have different ways of dealing with the issues but with a similar aim, to maintain a welfare state.

The minimum wage reduced jobs. If you cannot get a job you cannot get on that first step of the ladder which helps you up to those above. It is an interference with the free market.

The NMW gives less skilled people an incentive to work because they know they will be assured of a basic minimum level of remuneration. Also, if and only if the government continues to offer working tax credits, which is in fact a tax payer subsidy to businesses to allow them to pay less than a real living wage the NMW helps to mitigate against the worst abuses of employers regarding wages.

Real wages have fallen whilst GDP has risen, we are something like the 4th wealthiest nation and yet we have families relying on food banks. We now have a situation in London where even bankers are being squeezed out of the most expensive housing in london, a rising tide of homeless people and poor working people being thrown out of london and housed elsewhere, where will it end? It will end when WORKING people realise that neo-liberal economics and right wing, centre left and centrist policy is not conducive to a fair and just society.

Capitalism creates the conditions under which we need a welfare state. Capital moves to where capital can make more money, why else do you think private companies like A4E and Serco have rushed to involve themselves in health and welfare, because it's big business. There is no longer demand for other goods and services because workers are too impoverished to stimulate demand in other consumer goods but there is an ever rising tide of social, health and welfare need.

Minimum wage reduces the number of jobs that small enterprises can create and fact is that the most vibrant part of an economy for job creation after a recession is the small enterprise side with companies with few employees.

apps.facebook.com/theguardian/commentisfree/2012/jun/10/observer-leader-eradicating-child-poverty excellent article on child poverty observer editorial

"the poorest forfeit the most ? a freeze on child benefit, the housing benefit cap and sharp reductions, for instance, in childcare support. One consequence is a doubling in cases of child neglect. The IFS predicts that child poverty could eventually increase to the levels of two decades ago: a shameful reversal."

I don't see having big differences bewteen rich and poor as being morally wrong. If the poor have more if there is a bigger gap then roll on an even bigger gap.

We certainly need to get the economy moving again. That will come from SMEs and this Governmetn and last have done very very little to help them. All this talk of abolishing red tape and quangos has led to more laws and no fewer quangos. Both parties tinker at the edges and neither get much done. Perhaps those of us on the right and left on this thread can agree on that statement.

It is ludicrous in my view that people are allowed to be supported by hard working tax payers who have to live out of London in Luton and the like so that thsoe unemployed poor have massive housing subsidies paid so they can live in Chelsea at tax payer expense when there are areas where housing is cheaper. If the middle class have to move where they can afford to why not the poor? Harldy anyone has yet been made to move because of the housing benefit cap. The cap is ridiculously high at £20,800 just for housing benefit alone! It is incredible we support the poor to such huge extent and haev such generous requirements in terms fo rooms per family when the working squeezed middle squeezed middle squeeze their families in smaller places and cut their cloth according to their means.

Xenia, that's rubbish. The crisis is a banking and financial crisis. It was created by global finance, not by one government in one country. There were right wing governments in charge in the US, Germany, France, Italy and other countries at the time - this wasn't a simple UK Labour v. Tory issue. Even if it had been, the Tories at the time promised to match Labour spending commitments - they were in it up to their necks just as much as the other side. And I really think you will struggle to find any record of the Tories calling for more regulation of the City - far from it.

The crisis shows that the consensus between governments of the major economies and democracies was wrong. That light touch regulation of the financial services industries was wrong. These are cross cutting issues, not merely left wing v. right wing - except in as far as New Labour wasn't terribly Labour and maybe if they had been a tad more critical of the City it mightn't have been so bad.

I know few people are fans of Gordon Brown right now, but when Labour left office the economy was actually growing. I think he was as bad as everyone else for being too soft on financial services but he (and especially Alastair Darling) showed leadership when the shit hit the fan, and I think the EU has suffered from not having his leadership over the past two years. He would certainly have argued for a balance between growth and austerity which may well have avoided the continuing EY crisis over the past two years. We'll never know, because he wasn't there, but clearly austerity alone hasn't worked, has it?

I am self employed and I have employed people despite the NMW, it isn't the NMW which works against employers its national insurance. Another huge factor for small businesses is maternity, paternity and sick pay.

If small businesses were allowed to pay less then tax payers would have to give more money to less skilled workers to allow them to live and work. The answer is to get rid of the bureaucracy and red tape, make tax simpler and get rid of the ridiculous length of maternity leave, then compel them to pay a decent living wage.

Oh Xenia, stop the pretence that thousands of people live in Chelsea in social housing while middle class people are exiled to Luton. The truth is the other way round - the middle classes have gradually 'gentrified' the whole of inner London, driving rents and property prices way out of the reach of ordinary people, let alone the poor, even in traditionally rough areas. Do you want the whole of London 'gentrified' so no-one on less than £80k can live there? Would London survive without bus drivers, cleaners, bin men and everyone else on low wages - or do the well-off assume they can get all these jobs done by illegal immigrants living in shit accommodation?