How the Labour government has hurt the poor

Perry

Yes, yes, yes, Fraser! All this is so. And indeed known, and suffered, by many.

But clearly, it counts for little. Noo-Lie-Bore is still in office. And, until recent unfolding of events, was Cock-Sure and planning their (our) future.

Their constant blab was, and is, churned out more or less unhindered and unchallenged.

Meanwhile, . . . the Loyal Oppo did, and does . . . . . what?

Who will speak for us, - the not-too-wealthy, non-metro-liberal-elite? Those who, often with little means but big hearts, challenged in every which way, dare I say, form the backbone and heart of this land.

But enough! I’ve depressed myself again.

ethan hurlington

I agree totally. But it does make me think, how bad really these days, does a senior politician have to be before they get the boot? I agree totally about all the failures with policy...but this guy could be 'running' the country until Summer, 2010! I ask myself, what more could he have done wrong? If the Brown 'era' ended tomorrow, would ANYONE be able to put their finger on a significant positive measure Brown had achieved for this country?... apart from handing power back to the Conservatives? I’m a Conservative, but I have to say, although I didn’t agree with a lot of Blair’s political leanings, I respected him as a formidable politician, with Brown, I can’t honestly think of one reason to respect him…

The Conservatives need to be strong now...go for the kill, it's there for the talking...no more wishy-washy-ness, no more Mr Nice Dave...

kinglear

ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. AS SILVIO BERLUSCONI SAYS " OF COURSE THE LEFT LOVE THE POOR. EVERY TIME THEY GET INTO POWER THEY MAKE MANY MORE OF THEM"

Mousecatcher

..It is now the political wing of British state bureaucracy..

Well said. I hope lots of people pick up on your phrase and use it because it sums up the whole awfulness of this government in a nutshell.

A V

Brilliant analysis. But do you mean the last bit?

Tiberius

Well that hits right between the eyes, Fraser. BTW, have you had a tip about the Tories raising tax thresholds?

TrevorH

Thank you Mr Nelson for taking the trouble to spell out the machinations of this calamitous labour regime.

The fact that "the number of income tax payers has rocketed by 20% " gives a lie to the fact that this govt is helping the poor.

One wonders where the government will find any money to help the poor or any of us in future.
Rights issues will affect the stock market which will affect pensions and pension funds themselves will have less money to invest if they are forking out for rights issues.
fewer sales for lower values will affect returns from stamp duty.
Lower profits will mean lower taxes and disappearing non doms will do the same.
If we are spending more on (nonvatable) food we have less to spend on vattable goods.
Oh - fewer city bonuses to tax as well ...

Government revenues must fall as its spending commitments rise - all this when it is already too deeply in debt.

The banks will have to finance their 'haircut' as well, from somewhere.

Quo vadis? Well the poor are seemingly guaranteed a let of sometime in the future, the rich - wwell there are too few of them and they are well skilled in avoiding the taxmans knif. That only leaves the mugs in the middle.

Travis Bickle

4) 5.2m plus how many jobs that have been artificially created just to manage Brown's seriously complicated tax, tax credits and general benefits system?

All of this with the sole aim of making more and more people believe that only Labour will continue to support such blatant waste, thereby securing their vote.

Fergus Pickering

Is this because the poor kids are thick? Nope. How do you know this? Perhaps the poor kids ARE thick. I used to think it was self-evident that rich kids were thick. They'd have to be to speak in the silly way they did. But I think I've probably revised that. Poor kids didn't use to be thick. But it's possible that, more and more, they are, because the genetic pool... well, you get my drift. I would hate for this to be so, but there is no reason for the truth to be comfortable. I'm not STATING, you understand. Just asking. I won a free place to the Royal High School when I was twelve, along with noneteen other boys. Most of them were ffrom poor homes, though I was not. I had just arrived from England. At the end of six years of education very few of the twenty scholarship boys had remained at the top. Why was this? I don't know.

Sean

I earn a good wage and don't have £89 a week disposable income ! After tax and bills my wife and i have maybe £50 a month for any luxurys.

David

Lest we forget. Brown and co have destroyed the savings culture. Negative equity is not or will not be, confined to a few hundred thousand would be home owners but also to the million or so up to their eyeballs in consumer debt.

JR

"And only the Tories will assess all of the 5.2m on the welfare roll for what work they can do – and compel people to do it using work as the best source of welfare."

Fraser - some good points but this one is rubbish. The Tory proposals are basically the same as Labour's here. Both parties are committed to retesting the whole of the incapacity benefit caseload and both are basically using the same model of private providers paid to get people back into work. The Tories have said nothing of substance about jobseekers, lone parents, those out of work on disaiblity living allowance and the partners of those on benefits. They also need to work out a policy on those who are economically inactive not on benefits. They've also been clear as mud about their plans for the tax credits system.

As you're aware they've rowed back from wisconcin - let's hope their "white paper" (due in the next couple of months) says something of note - otherwise there is no choice on welfare reform between the parties.

Victor, NW Kent

The Social Mobility Report states that property prices tend to be high near to good schools. That seems to imply that first the school is good and then better-off parents move in. I suggest that better-off and better-educated parents are much more concerned with their childrens education. That forces neighbouring schools to respnd and perform.

I hate to raise the selective school matter again but once upon a time a clever kid from a poor area had a chance at really top-grade education. This is a matter that I can vouch for personally.

Now, all they can hope for is not to stand out too much at their disruptive school and to avoid being seriously injured or killed by other youths.

EyeSee

The careless cut of the 10p tax rate is proof of the move of Labour's 'heartland'. Once Labour championed the 'working class' meaning the poorest people. Now their base is the 'non-working class' who exist, much more comfortably than their working forebears, on State largesse. It will take a very great effort to overcome such a mass of vested interest.

Fraser Nelson

Ah, JR. Welcome back. Purnell has not said what would happen when he'd assessed his 2.6m people on IB - if 1.7m can work (as Freud says) then we need 600,000 pathways places a year - and we hear nothing about this. Until the DWP starts altering its medium-term caseload projections I will not take its proposed crackdown at face value.

Tiberius, it's just a hunch on my part. After watching Brown's economic policies unfold so spectacularly, only a mad fool of a Tory would pledge to copy them. It will be obvious even to a Shadow Cabinet member that the Brown was was the wrong way. If Cameron can be taken at his word in denouncing Brown's giving with one hand and taking with the other then the logical conclusion is that he substitutes tax credits with tax cuts. But I am travelling hopefully here.

Fergus, my belief (a fairly uncontroversial one, I think) is that intelligence is equally distributed at birth. Yet an Experian director once told me that of their tens of thousands of their indicators (crime, health etc) the one that matches income most closely is GCSE reuslts. ie - we have created the most perfectly unequal system. The polar opposite of what was intended by the architects of the comprehensive education disaster.

JR

Fraser - fair enough, I still don't think the tories have got a solid policy position here.

Freud's figure is about as accurate and thought out as the figures you'll hear at PMQs. There's a Panorama interviewing various people for an uncoming prog and i'll be interested what he says when challenged on the issue of figures.

On the testing front the Tories have basically said they'll use the new medical test being introduced by the Government in Octobe. That will get 150,000 off tops. Basically the Tories will need a much tougher test to reduce the figures that way.

The tories like everyone else need to decide what their policy objectives are. Reducing the benefit roll isn't the same as reducing spending and that isn't the same as increasing employment. For instance the 1995 clinton changes actually increased Government spending on benefits. Also work for the dole schemes are actually highly expensive because you'll subsidising private labour costs or introducing public works.

Personally I believe worklessness is the greater ill but don't see tougher IB tests as solving the problem.

Fraser Nelson

JR, I think we are agreed - my primary concern is to address worklessness because like Beveridge I consider it a "giant evil". Perhaps the Tories do need to up the ante - I've spent the day with Chris Grayling (on the campaign trail in Bury) and he sees his proposals as the beginning of something. Much room for development. He obv needs to be careful before "spending" any expected cuts from this.

BTW here are the medium term welfare caseload projections to which I refer

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2007-12-06b.163511.h

And whats the problem with tougher IB tests? Isnt lax IB "tests" the reason 2.6m are on this wretched benefit in the first place?

Simon Orr

If we are going to get that many people of IB I think there need to be tax incentives for business to hire them (paid for by part of the reduction in benefit costs). Who will want to hire 1.7m less than fully able workers who have been long term unemployed? Especially when there are keen fit young eastern Europeans willing to work for less.

Fergus Pickering

Fraser 'Intelligence is equally distributed at birth'What do you mean, equally distributed? Equally distributed among the income groups? If intelligence is inherited in any degree then it is likely that intelligence is more likely to be found among the rich UNLESS the society has no social mobility. In other words the greater the social mobility in a society the grater the likelihood that poor children will be stupid. Doesn't that follow? I agree one might wish it were otherwise but, as my old granny used to say, if wishes were horses then beggars would ride.

JR

Agree on Beveridge.

I agree overall on a tougher test to help maintain taxpayer/voter support for the welfare state. But in itself this won't solve the problem. About half of those who fail are likely to become jobseekers (JSA) and may subsequently move into a job, the majority of the rest will become economically inactive and may or may not claim benefits. Employment effects are therefore mixed.

Indeed that forecast doesn't include the impact of new policies. As above I'd put the new test down for an additional 150,000 achieved by 2013. As for ESA and Pathways it all depends on economic conditions;-) But at least the contracts are outcome based so if people aren't found jobs the tax payers liability is limited.

Low tax hat

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-pension22apr22,1,5885954.story

Bloody scroungers claiming disability money whilst working.