Comments on: The Conservatives are talking poverty

By: Sarah

Sarah — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 19:38:31 +0000

Mousa, Thanks for that, there is some really good stuff on here which I will look through. The links to the Citizens Income look good.
It’s interesting to see that Cameron’s claims that poverty and inequality have got worse are not backed up by Channel 4 fact checker.
http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/politics/domestic_politics/factcheck+labours+poverty+record/3420402

Lots has been done to tackle poverty, but so much more needs to be done. I don’t believe the conservatives will make it better!

By: julian dobson

julian dobson — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 18:48:45 +0000

I thought David Cameron’s speech was more nuanced than his attack on ‘big government’ at the party conference (but then the audience was very different).

I’ve posted some thoughts on this in the context of tomorrow’s Chain Reaction event: http://bit.ly/31DxiE

By: David Cameron’s Big Society Speech | ToUChstone blog: A public policy blog from the TUC

Wed, 11 Nov 2009 18:07:38 +0000

[...] Note that David Cameron is talking here about inequality of outcome, not of opportunity, or life chances or any of the other formulations that have been used as cover for abandoning equality. One has to admire the way Mr Cameron has burned his bridges; it will be very difficult for future Conservative politicians to escape criticism by defining poverty out of existence. And this change of approach has been welcomed by anti-poverty groups like Oxfam. [...]

By: Josh

Josh — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 16:45:57 +0000

While I think it’s commendable that the Conservatives are taking seriously the issue of poverty – particularly their commitment to support the child poverty bill – they often confuse cause and effect with these issues (for example they talk about drug addiction being a cause of poverty where as I would say that although drug addiction compounds poverty it is often poverty that causes drug addiction). You may be interested in Child Poverty Action Group’s statement on Cameron’s Speech http://www.cpag.org.uk/press/2009/101109.htm

By: Moussa

Moussa — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 14:41:22 +0000

Sarah, I think you make a very interesting point. It could be argued that what the CSJ is trying to do with its welfare proposals is to undo some of the negative consequences of the means-tested approach to poverty reduction of the past 30 years or so. The argument would run something like this: means-tested benefits are great for lifting people from one point to another (e.g. over the poverty line), but they can create barriers (’poverty traps’) that prevent people from rising any further.

You might be interested to look back at a few articles we hosted on the idea of a Citizen’s Income – which is essentially what you’re talking about under a different name. Though it’s certainly not the whole answer, I think it’s fair to say that the CSJ proposals would move the UK’s welfare system some way along the spectrum from means testing to a Citizen’s Income, and that is arguably one of their biggest strengths.

By: Sarah

Sarah — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 16:29:21 +0000

More meaningless promises from the Conservatives who have far from embraced the idea of equality for all.

The only way in which poverty will be tackled is to ensure everyone has access to non-means tested benefits to ensure the most vulnerable in society get the help they need, just like child benefit, it goes where it is needed. Where it is not needed could be dealt with by income tax, then we could get rid of all the other regressive taxes that hit the poor hardest of all. That really would bring about some social justice for the poorest in our society.

We need more jobs and more council housing and more public services, there is a massive shortage causing people to live in poverty. What we don’t need is the conservatives tinkering with benefits and trying to make out it’s the answer – the answer is simple but no one seems to want to try it – use the income tax system and give people decent well paid jobs in the public service and tax those who earn the most.