Only Tories, not Brown, can tackle poverty, says Cameron

[Morris Onions]

David Cameron yesterday attempted to steal a march on Gordon Brown by lambasting Labour's record on poverty and declaring that only the Tories can tackle the prime minister's "great passion". Launching a new Conservative report, Make British Poverty History, he accused Brown of failing in his big mission, saying Labour had concentrated on tackling the symptoms of poverty, not the causes.

He highlighted a series of failings: Labour's claim of lifting 600,000 children out of poverty was based on "a narrow measure" achieved by "short-term tinkering with the benefits system"; child poverty rose by 100,000 last year; and more than 600,000 more people were in severe poverty now than in 1997.

"The gap in life expectancy between the richest and poorest in our country is now greater than at any time since Queen Victoria's reign," Cameron said.

The Tory report blamed a "one-dimensional approach" to tackling poverty. A few extra pounds a week were targeted at people close to the poverty line - earning less than 60% of average income - while the complicated system of tax credits offered those slightly better off no incentive to earn more, because there would be little increase in their take-home pay.

Cameron said the Tories were committed to the government's target of halving child poverty by 2010 and eliminating it by 2020. But the report said: "We need a new approach that tackles the causes of poverty, not just the symptoms. This means addressing deep-rooted problems, such as educational failure, family breakdown, drug abuse, indebtedness and crime."

As a first step, Cameron said a Tory government would establish a national financial advice service to allow people in debt to receive free advice. Labour responded that it had set up an internet and telephone advice service for people in debt in the wake of a report published last month by Otto Thoresen.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/apr/29/conservatives.gordonbrown

[LeftishBrit]

1. I understand that McCain recently called Obama 'insensitive to the poor'

Seems to be a current theme of standard-bearers of RW parties. 'We're better on poverty issues than the left'. Whom do they think they're kidding!?

[T_i_B]

2. You only need look at the demographic of RW party supporters

to know that the likes of Cameron are being insincere when they tobe good at tackling poverty. Nobody in poor areas such as inner cities votes Tory for instance. Now why would that be?

And why when you meet RWers do you so often find them ranting about how horrible the poor are, be it ranting about "social security housing", welfare recipients in general, immigrants and so on.

[fedsron2us]

3. Well the left only have themselves to blame

for the half hearted way they have defended the poor from being trampled under foot by corporate vested interests. They have been far too keen to avoid tackling the issue of economic inequality.

[Nihil]

4. Sad but true.

There is no way that Obama, Clinton, Blair or Brown could be described
as "good for the poor". They are all sell-outs to corporate buddies ...
just the same as the Tories and Republicans.

[non sociopath skin]

5. So what do we do?

Do we assume that "they're all alike" - that there would be no difference whatsoever between a Cameron or a Brown premiership, an Obama or a McCain presidency and simply cultivate our gardens?

The Skin

[Nihil]

6. They are all *alike*, just not identical ...

... which means we're stuck in the usual cycle of voting for the
lesser of the two "evils" and pretending that it will make more
of a change than it will. A Tory politician will tend to support
more nationalistic policies so someone with those opinions will
choose a Tory. A Labour politician will tend to support more
(racial/sexual/religious) minority policies so someone in one or
more of those categories will be more likely to support Labour.
A Lib-Dem politician will refrain from supporting either extreme
and so will pick up the traditional "Don't Know" vote.
None of them behave any differently with regards to their corporate
masters so that simply isn't a differentiator to voters.
:shrug:

On a local level, the problem largely doesn't exist as (from my
experience anyway) there is always at least one candidate who
actually *works* for the area he/she represents and so that person
is the one that gets the vote, regardless of the colour of their
poster. If there is more than one on any particular ballot slip,
the voter has to determine which is the better of the two good options.
*That* is the level of democratic representation in this country
(and, I suspect most others).

It's the national level where everything goes corporate and which
(justifiably IMHO) reinforces the tendency for apathy towards politics.
Yes, there will still be *a* difference between the two potential
winners - just not as much of one as people might hope for.

[non sociopath skin]

7. I broadly agree with you, Nihil, particularly on the National v Local thing.

But the fire in my belly keeps giving me indigestion and I want to do something about it, in spite of my advanced age! :evilgrin:

But what? The democratic socialist wing of the Labour Party is moribund. The Lib Dems (at least hereabouts) bleat on about "caring" but then ally with the Tories to cut services to the most needy. The Greens are superficially attractive but seem narrowly focussed and disorganised. The Far Left has never appealed because I dislike dogma -Trotskyist as much as Thatcherite.

So where do I go? Trade Union activism? Single-issue politics?

Oh for the fond idealism and optimism of my youth! :cry:

The Skin