RESPONSES to my previous post demonstrate two things (both of which I was already acutely aware):
1. Tory supporters really, REALLY hate it when Labour starts fighting back;
2. Tories, as I originally suggested, don’t think the state should have a role in fighting poverty, mainly because it’s not important enough.
The scorn poured on Labour’s impressive achievements in taking 600,000 children and one million pensioners out of poverty is extremely illuminating. Tories dismiss these statistics – even while accepting their accuracy – not because they reckon they could have done any better (they couldn’t have), but because they don’t think it matters. Six hundred thousand children? So? A million pensioners? Tell me something I’m interested in…
Let’s assume that the people who leave comments on this blog are more representative of the Tory Party than, say, ‘Dave’ or Boy George. And look at what they’re saying: that shipbuilding jobs should have been ditched years ago, that targets for reducing poverty are worthless, that Lamont was right in saying that mass unemployment was a price worth paying.
There’s even an attempt to claim that tax credits are equivalent to benefits!
But what is most interesting about all these comments, and many responses to previous posts, is that Tories never actually come up with any ideas for reducing poverty (apart from the “rising tide lifts all boats” nonsense). They criticise every measure we’ve implemented (someone left a comment saying that tax credits were encouraging people not to take work, even though they’re only given to people in work. Bless), but don’t come up with anything specifically aimed at poverty reduction.
Makes you wonder why the Tories even want to win an election, doesn’t it? Except, of course, we know why – so that they can be in government. Period.