tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14115431.post116635954466951773..comments2023-10-16T15:59:02.445+01:00Comments on NEIL HARDING: The Tories are in a right IDS mess.Neil Hardinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01333739272733802133noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14115431.post-1167944209135118742007-01-04T20:56:00.000+00:002007-01-04T20:56:00.000+00:00Snafu: "It is meaningless and totally unachievable...Snafu: "It is meaningless and totally unachievable unless everyone, regardless of worth or merit, earned the same!"<BR/><BR/>If you accept that inequality matters (and now the Tories accept this), then this definition makes perfect sense. Even under this definition there would still be wide disparities in wealth, but they would be less. I think your position of defending someone who earns ten thousand times or more what a full time worker can earn is disregarding 'worth and merit'.<BR/><BR/>"I am yet to meet anyone who agrees that their taxes should increase to help the "poor and needy"!"<BR/><BR/>If you ask people if their taxes should fall, of course a majority might say 'yes'. Just as a majority will also say 'yes' to better funded public services and reductions in inequality. <BR/><BR/>This tells us nothing other than the majority want totally contradictory things. The best surveys weigh these two against each other. <A HREF="http://www.icmresearch.co.uk/reviews/2002/internet%20report%20final.pdf" REL="nofollow">These surveys</A> show a majority want to redistribute wealth. So it seems they effectively do want their taxes to rise to pay for the poor.Neil Hardinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01333739272733802133noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14115431.post-1167915049052993762007-01-04T12:50:00.000+00:002007-01-04T12:50:00.000+00:00Neil, I don't accept such a ridiuclous definition!...Neil, I don't accept such a ridiuclous definition! It is meaningless and totally unachievable unless everyone, regardless of worth or merit, earned the same!<BR/><BR/>Labour have not won this argument with the electorate. I am yet to meet anyone who agrees that their taxes should increase to help the "poor and needy"!Snafuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16069053283344578792noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14115431.post-1167862512617105832007-01-03T22:15:00.000+00:002007-01-03T22:15:00.000+00:00Even the Tories now accept Labour's definition of ...Even the Tories now accept Labour's definition of poverty - i.e. less than 60% of median income. <BR/><BR/>It is a simple definition and of course poverty in the UK is not the same as poverty in the developing world but the Tories now claim to aspire to Labour's commitment to abolish poverty (by this definition) by 2020. <BR/><BR/>It can be done as the Scandinavians have proved. The Tories now admit that inequality matters when it comes to quality of life. It is inequality that causes misery not just absolute poverty. <BR/><BR/>Even the Tories now admit this because Labour have won the argument with the electorate. The difference however is that the Tories cannot be serious about reducing poverty when they still stick by the policies of Thatcher which widened inequality so much. By this international definition Thatcher tripled child poverty while Labour have reduced it by a third. That is the difference between Tory spin and Labour real achievements.Neil Hardinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01333739272733802133noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14115431.post-1167671665579114622007-01-01T17:14:00.000+00:002007-01-01T17:14:00.000+00:00How did Thatcher manage to "triple child poverty" ...How did Thatcher manage to "triple child poverty" and don't say it's because she f**ked the nation!?!<BR/><BR/>Would fewer children be raised in poverty if the state didn't reward the poorest members of society who produce the most offspring!?!Snafuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16069053283344578792noreply@blogger.com