(Go: >> BACK << -|- >> HOME <<)

The coalition must stay calm and ignore the sour yoghurt

The government must rise above the left's howl against budget cuts and explain its attempt at a fair distribution of pain

Turn away from the mob. Ignore the angry brigade. Let their spittle run down the walls. This is the moment for the coalition to rise above the yells of the left. The government is about to be tested to what it must not allow to be its destruction. If hollow outrage is all Labour cares to offer, then reason and calm explanation must be the coalition's answer. Outrage fails in the end. It poisons rationality, it repels the moderate, it frightens the balanced. It lures zealots into a world where everyone inside thinks the same way and no one outside wants to enter. It is where Labour is going now.

The coalition mustn't follow. Its members must steel themselves for abuse. It is tempting, of course, when you are sniped at, to snipe back. David Miliband, who has taken to Twitter like a duck to quacking, is spending his days typing out edgy little digs at the coalition, particularly the Lib Dem part of it, puffed up by righteous indignation. But a political movement cannot be sustained by resentment. Rage against the machine is an emotion, not a policy.

The Liberal Democrats need to be reminded of this now, as they endure Labour's scorn. The party is unaccustomed to provoking reactions. Some MPs are wobbling. Many are worried about the VAT rise – forgetting that not long ago they believed Labour's VAT cut would have no economic effect. Lots will be worried about Danny Alexander's search for theoretical 40% cuts. They are alarmed by jeers from a party that has no alternative economic policy.

Nick Clegg is under serious internal pressure. His understandable response has been to promote the things from the coalition that Lib Dems like. Last week we got his freedom campaign, and on Tuesday we get more detail on the alternative vote referendum. All this is fine. But AV – whose impact either way it suits everyone to exaggerate – will prove peripheral beside the budget. The coalition cannot afford liberal political reform to look like a trade-off for Tory economics. That is Labour's line. Lib Dems mustn't fall for it.

So far they haven't, quite. The budget went down surprisingly well: voters agreed with George Osborne's description of it as unavoidable. The next battle is for the spending review this autumn to be seen as fair. Some will point to the unpicking of the budget measures by the Institute for Fiscal Studies as evidence – though taken as a whole, these stand up. They'll point to the scale of cuts too. But fairness is not another term for precise financial redistribution. Indeed, a heavily redistributive budget would be seen by many as unfair.

Instead, the key to fairness is inclusivity – and this is where the coalition must direct its efforts. There must be no sense that one group is exploiting others: the rich the poor, or the poor (through welfare) everyone else. Or Conservatives the Lib Dems, of course.

You don't have to agree with the Daily Mail to understand that some people who get incapacity benefit don't deserve it, and some who could work don't; or that housing benefit has become a racket paying millions to private landlords. Labour cannot be allowed to get away with the idea that it stands as the defender of an outraged majority, victims of an ideologically extreme government.

The left is beginning to smell like sour yoghurt, a long moan against the world as it is and how the last government left it. The problem is not that Labour is heading towards interesting ideological isolation. The varied shades from pale pink to light magenta in which its serious candidates are painting themselves are not socialism. The problem is that the party is being bundled up in all sorts of shallow resentments and is assuming that the public will share this negativity.

UK politics is often characterised as a contest for the centre ground, but that misdescribes the nature of the quest. Centrism implies banality, but I don't think voters want their governments to be mundane. There is a willingness to endorse radical action if it is explained and if it looks practicable. It worked for the left under Attlee and Blair; it worked for the right under Thatcher; and it is working – so far – for this government.

That a large number of people oppose what you are doing, very strongly, can become a strength, so long as they are seen to be opposing something rooted in a kind of imperative. Eight years ago almost half a million people marched through London with the aim of blocking the hunting ban – and to their dismay, the public took the government's side. The miners' strike, the Iraq war – examples are legion. Half a million people and more will probably be marching against the budget cuts soon, and will feel just as strongly that their solidarity brings invincibility. They may be proved wrong.

Keep calm and carry on has become a cliche, but it is good advice for a government. Stay pragmatic and keep explaining, firmly, in moderate language and with courtesy. The left will howl at budget cuts that their own economic legacy makes necessary, just as the right will howl against political reform. That doesn't mean these things won't get through. The nosiest causes often fail.

There are 110 days until the spending review is published. That is not long to win people over to an understanding that the new government will be attempting a fair distribution of an unavoidable shock. But unless that case is made, the coalition endeavour cannot last.


Your IP address will be logged

Comments in chronological order

Post a comment
  • This symbol indicates that that person is The Guardian's staffStaff
  • This symbol indicates that that person is a contributorContributor

Showing first 50 comments | Go to all comments | Go to latest comment

  • FifthCookieMonster FifthCookieMonster

    4 Jul 2010, 9:12PM

    This comment has been removed by a moderator. Replies may also be deleted.
  • GoldenAxe GoldenAxe

    4 Jul 2010, 9:13PM

    Perhaps the Guardian could play a part in this by stopping this absurd "40 per cent cuts" garbage. There is no plan to cut spending by 40 per cent. Overall spending will rise in nominal terms until 2015. The exercise is purely theoretical, part of an attempt to rank priorities.

    Even the 25 per cent figure is grossly misleading. Most of the "cuts" are virtual - axing non-existent projects.

  • necroflange necroflange

    4 Jul 2010, 9:13PM

    Eight years ago almost half a million people marched through London with the aim of blocking the hunting ban – and to their dismay, the public took the government's side. The miners' strike, the Iraq war – examples are legion. Half a million people and more will probably be marching against the budget cuts soon,

    It's pretty telling that you seem to represent the march against the hunting ban (an election manifesto promise) to be the most significant of the legion of examples.
    A load of apologetic bollocks for what is at heart full steam ahead on the Thatcher Express.

  • CiFAndrew CiFAndrew

    4 Jul 2010, 9:16PM

    Contributor Contributor

    That is not long to win people over to an understanding that the new government will be attempting a fair distribution of an unavoidable shock.

    But there is no attempt to make this a fair distribution. The poor, unemployed, disabled, mentally ill, elderly, carers, homeless etc. will all be massively and disproportionately affected. If you're well off, you may begrudge the few extra pounds you pay for your plasma TV, but if you're in a vulnerable group you're going to be absolutely hammered. Whitehall is devolving a lot of the cuts to local level - so provisions which are essential to vulnerable groups with little media voice are the lowest hanging fruits which are going to be cut first.

    Any pretense of fairness disappeared when the coalition caved in to City lobbyists over a graduated capital gains tax in line with income tax, when they caved in to bank lobbyists over the scale of future tax demands and discontinued the bank bonus tax, when they ruled out from the start any additional incremental income tax rises and when they continue to spend $20 billion a year more than the likes of Germany or Japan on the military budget without a second's thought.

  • Peason1 Peason1

    4 Jul 2010, 9:18PM

    If the government caves in to those fighting every cut as though it is on a moral par with administering arsenic to babies then this country will descend into chaos and destruction.

    If the left could bring themselves to acknowledge that a) we can get by without some government 'services' and b) that some people on benefits are taking the country for a ride then they might actually benefit and so would the country.

    From what I've seen so far government departments, their advocates and their beneficiaries propose to resist any cuts to the last paperclip.

    This will turn extraordinarily ugly.

  • cbb1984 cbb1984

    4 Jul 2010, 9:18PM

    I completely agree Julian.

    The problem is that the party is being bundled up in all sorts of shallow resentments and is assuming that the public will share this negativity.

    Many Labour voters will and already do share this negativity. You only have to read some of the comments here on CIF. I get the impression that a lot of them couldn't care less what might be best for the country.

  • physiocrat physiocrat

    4 Jul 2010, 9:19PM

    Sorry the coalition have shown no sign that they want to see the pain shared.

    A simple indication of good intent would have been to announce a change in the Council Tax ratio from the present 3:1 between bands A and H, to at least 4:1 and preferably 6:1 which would make it proportional to actual values.

    This itself should have been announced as a temporary measure, pending reform of the whole property tax system on a national site-value-only valuation basis.

    No chance of that of course when the country is run by and for the benefit of the handful of people who own most of it.

  • robbo100 robbo100

    4 Jul 2010, 9:21PM

    The idea that there can be any practical equivalence between attacks on the rich and attacks on ordinary workers and poor is a complete nonsense. How comforting to know that when you're rendered destitute there's some still very rich people who are slightly less rich.

    GoldenAxe

    4 Jul 2010, 9:13PM

    Perhaps the Guardian could play a part in this by stopping this absurd "40 per cent cuts" garbage. There is no plan to cut spending by 40 per cent. Overall spending will rise in nominal terms until 2015. The exercise is purely theoretical, part of an attempt to rank priorities.

    Part of an attempt by the coalition themselves to 'manage expectations' by hoping that people will be relieved when things don't turn out to be quite as bad as previously anticipated. A pretty forlorn hope I should think.

  • greyhound1 greyhound1

    4 Jul 2010, 9:23PM

    The left will howl at budget cuts that their own economic legacy makes necessary

    Amen! It's amazing how history has repeated itself: Thatcher came in and had to clean up after Labour had bankrupted the country and Cameron/ Clegg have now had to do the same. Labour are economic terrorists and should never be allowed anywhere near the country's finances again. Yes, the poor may suffer in these spending cuts, but so will everyone and ultimately, it IS Labour's fault.

  • PeterGuillam PeterGuillam

    4 Jul 2010, 9:23PM

    This comment has been removed by a moderator. Replies may also be deleted.
  • McCauley McCauley

    4 Jul 2010, 9:25PM

    adult

    If you seriously think caring about hurting the poor this much is "howls" "digs" and "spittle" you are beyond civil discourse.

    If you seriously think that David Miliband and Co's "howls" "digs" and "spittle" have much to do with caring about the poor, then you are being wilfully naive.

  • KenBarlow KenBarlow

    4 Jul 2010, 9:27PM

    "The budget went down surprisingly well:"

    I've seen interviews with sick people shitting themselves that they are about to be thrown off benefits.

    The right-wingers don't get angry by this at all as they don't do empathy (too bust sat around crying for themselves for having to pay tax) so it's up to the left to get angry, yes.

  • JockMcDoc JockMcDoc

    4 Jul 2010, 9:28PM

    greyhound1 @ 4 Jul 2010, 9:23PM

    it IS Labour's fault.

    I am really getting sick of every Labour politician screaming against cuts when they would have done exactly the same thing if they had got into power.

    I am also sick of this for the simple fact that they had a chance to stay with the progressive coalition but chose not to. It may not have lasted but they should have at least tried and gained some credibility with opposition to the Tories.

  • seejaybee seejaybee

    4 Jul 2010, 9:28PM

    We have the government that the Labour party deserved - one with them not in it.

    Grow up, you disappointed bunch of losers, and work out why you lost. It really shouldn't take you long.

  • JonDess JonDess

    4 Jul 2010, 9:29PM

    New study showing 75% of "pain" will be borne by women and 25% by men, coupled with the fact that women have a lower average income than men demonstrates the hypocrisy and lies of the coalition with their "we're all sharing the pain".

  • Peason1 Peason1

    4 Jul 2010, 9:30PM

    By the way, there's a second (much bigger) wave of sub-prime credit defaults on its way to the US banking system this autumn which will involve yet another massive hit on our banks.

    What happens then? Will the government suddenly find squillions to help them out and risk riots on the streets or will they let them tumble taking the entire global system down?

    Who'd be PM at a moment like this?

  • bertellie bertellie

    4 Jul 2010, 9:31PM

    This is troll city. Glover, I am not sure what orifice you talk out of, but this is specious rubbish. The rich will continue to live longer and happier lives as the effects of this budget take hold. There are people taking this country for a ride, indeed they've been at it for hundreds of years, but they ain't on benefits. They are Cameron, Clegg and all their class mates in the City and industry.

  • mertondensher mertondensher

    4 Jul 2010, 9:31PM

    Just to remind you, Julian Glover had the audacity to write: "Instead, the key to fairness is inclusivity – and this is where the coalition must direct its efforts. There must be no sense that one group is exploiting others: the rich the poor, or the poor (through welfare) everyone else."

    WTF planet do you live on, Jules babe?

  • JockMcDoc JockMcDoc

    4 Jul 2010, 9:31PM

    Peason1 @ 4 Jul 2010, 9:30PM

    By the way, there's a second (much bigger) wave of sub-prime credit defaults on its way to the US banking system this autumn which will involve yet another massive hit on our banks.

    What happens then? Will the government suddenly find squillions to help them out and risk riots on the streets or will they let them tumble taking the entire global system down?

    Who'd be PM at a moment like this?

    We can always borrow the money. It seems to be the consensus on cif.

  • XanderHarris XanderHarris

    4 Jul 2010, 9:32PM

    There must be no sense that one group is exploiting others: the rich the poor, or the poor (through welfare) everyone else.

    Yeah.

    When I see some poor bastard on £65 quid a week 'cos he only gets rejection letters, I feel so exploited.

  • PeleMcAmble PeleMcAmble

    4 Jul 2010, 9:33PM

    Look Julian, your points would be absolutely valid had the Tories won the election. But they didn't and they are only in power through the support of the Liberal Democrats, a party which was supposed to be left of centre, and one which jettisoned its principles for the sake of a sniff of power.

    The Lib Dems are little more than despicable opportunists and the electorate, the majority of whom did not want a Tory government, will not forget it. In the words of the late great John Laurie, they're doomed.

    And, by the way, I assume that the Guardian wheels in someone like you to try and justify its misplaced support at the general election. Someone earlier called you a twerp and he/she is not far off the mark.

  • Timsimmons Timsimmons

    4 Jul 2010, 9:33PM

    This comment has been removed by a moderator. Replies may also be deleted.
  • PeterGuillam PeterGuillam

    4 Jul 2010, 9:33PM

    This comment has been removed by a moderator. Replies may also be deleted.
  • Dogstarscribe Dogstarscribe

    4 Jul 2010, 9:34PM

    I got as far as the blatant lie about there being no alternative economic policy then realised that this is just a piece of puffery on the part of the government.

    No alternative? No alternative to keeping Trident, not clamping down on tax evasion, or not properly taxing vacant properties? Course not Julian...

  • EvaWilt EvaWilt

    4 Jul 2010, 9:35PM

    Contributor Contributor

    Julian

    Instead, the key to fairness is inclusivity – and this is where the coalition must direct its efforts. There must be no sense that one group is exploiting others: the rich the poor, or the poor (through welfare) everyone else.

    How on earth you can call hammering those at the bottom of the pile in our society a fair distribution of pain I do not know. Perhaps you have no understanding of what life is like for the poor sod living on £65 quid a week - oh well never mind they'll get a food voucher. Hardly the same for those at the top is it? Investigate the inequities so far rolled out with ESA - read what Paul Gregg has to say about it, then write your article.

  • PeterGuillam PeterGuillam

    4 Jul 2010, 9:39PM

    cbb1984

    Funny you should say that Peter, I felt exactly the same under the last government.

    Not surprising - it was right-wing government and shafting us is what they do. I don't know how many times it needs to be said but we have been ruled by one continuous politics since 1979 - irrespective of party - united by an ideology that has comprehensively failed.

  • ebonycat ebonycat

    4 Jul 2010, 9:39PM

    an article so lacking in compassion, sour yogurt is not what those at the sharp end of these cuts deserve , We need a voice and opportunities forgive my spelling I was educated under Thatcher the milk snatcher.She curdled our milk and the Condems now want to give us food stamps taking away our choices on what we spend the dole on .Heaven forbid we choose to pay to heat our houses or put shoes on our childrens feet.

    Yes the Condems have soured the milk and stolen the days of honey

    why is it if a rich man has money he has to have more?

    When do the rich have enough to live on?

  • FifthCookieMonster FifthCookieMonster

    4 Jul 2010, 9:40PM

    Too bad, they deleted my earlier comment. Just as well, cos I had second thoughts.

    Julian, you're spot on old chap. You see, you're right: they're like CHILDREN, you know? Emotional, prone to violence, don't understand what's good for them, express themselves with bodily fluid (ugh: spittle...), don't realize what the "world as it is" is like. Best to speak CLEARLY and CALMLY to them, set clear boundaries, and if that doesn't work, well there's only one language they understand.

  • RicardoRichardo RicardoRichardo

    4 Jul 2010, 9:41PM

    This article is desperate.

    1) The idea that the coalition are moderate, whereas Labour are extremists, is laughable. International opinion (including Obama's) has been against cutting as deeply and quickly as the coalition plan to do. Respected economists such as Will Hutton and Paul Krugman back Labour's approach. So did Vince Cable, until a ministerial Jag was in the offing.

    2) The idea that Labour does not have a response to the economic crisis, and is merely indulging in name-calling, is risible. Labour was in power when the crisis hit and, thankfully, ignored the suggestions of George Osborne. It is widely accepted that Osborne's reluctance to bail out the banks would have led to calamity, with cash machines grinding to a halt and riots in the streets.

    3) The idea that the coalition's cuts are 'fair' is at best deluded. Everyone knows that VAT is a regressive tax that will hit the poor hardest. The other groups targeted to pay off the national debt are the disabled and jobless. Oh, and children.

    Glover's columns are symbolic of the sad decline of the Guardian. Of course the paper needs a right-wing voice, but does it have to be one so narrow-minded and simplistic? I see no evidence that Glover is capable of laying aside his personal bias towards the Conservatives and attempting something like objectivity. Someone like Tim Montgomerie would be a big advance on this clown. If I have to read right-wing opinion in the Guardian, can it at least be rational and fair-minded?

  • EvaWilt EvaWilt

    4 Jul 2010, 9:43PM

    Contributor Contributor

    And another thing Julian

    You don't have to agree with the Daily Mail to understand that some people who get incapacity benefit don't deserve it, and some who could work don't; or that housing benefit has become a racket paying millions to private landlords

    Look at the roots of what placed so many folk on incapacity benefit in the 80s, why a lot of folk aren't in work and what caused the rise in housing benefit claims. Mass unemployment in the 1980s and the selling off of council housing stock during the same period. Still, never mind - kick the poor bastard at the bottom - it's his fault..

  • Volvobollox Volvobollox

    4 Jul 2010, 9:43PM

    Perhaps the Guardian could play a part in this by stopping this absurd "40 per cent cuts" garbage. There is no plan to cut spending by 40 per cent. Overall spending will rise in nominal terms until 2015. The exercise is purely theoretical, part of an attempt to rank priorities.

    I agree. Maybe the Glover School of Sensationalist Journalism would advocate something like:

    Cameron to public sector "It's War"

  • cbb1984 cbb1984

    4 Jul 2010, 9:45PM

    Not surprising - it was right-wing government and shafting us is what they do

    Are you suggesting that Labour were/are right wing? Labour is socialist party, which from my perspective places them well to the left.

  • thegreatfatsby thegreatfatsby

    4 Jul 2010, 9:45PM

    The poor are hammering us through welfare?

    That's really something, no really. Magnificent in its way. I wonder who cleans up after this guy? Some job. Still, good for someone's roses I suppose.

  • ArseneKnows ArseneKnows

    4 Jul 2010, 9:45PM

    The budget went down surprisingly well: voters agreed with George Osborne's description of it as unavoidable

    Yes , they fell for the lie. The Sun and the Mail have know for years that if you peddle a lie with enough conviction it will be believed.

    Some will point to the unpicking of the budget measures by the Institute for Fiscal Studies as evidence – though taken as a whole, these stand up.

    Yes the unpicking does indeed stand up.

    The budget book also contains a chart showing who the austerity measures will hit (p67). The chart (look at the dotted line for the net impact) shows that although the richest are the worst hit, the poorest are a close second leaving middle England cushioned from the worst of the blow. It’s also worth pointing out the chart doesn’t go beyond 2012-13. And we know (from table 2.1, p40) that more than half of the £11bn welfare cuts kick in after that date. So the chances are the poorest have more pain to come

    .

    http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/politics/domestic_politics/budget+factcheck+housing+benefit+and+taxes/3688827

    You don't have to agree with the Daily Mail to understand that some people who get incapacity benefit don't deserve it, and some who could work don't; or that housing benefit has become a racket paying millions to private landlords

    No, but you have to be a right wing nut job to penalise the sick and disabled in order to ensure that you catch the small minority who abuse the system. When David Cameron describes those on benefits as 'scroungers' but has not a single word to say about the tax avoidance that costs many times more it obvious that the attacks on those on benefits is not because of its scale but a political decision.

    As for housing benefit the National Housing Federation estimate the changes could put 200,000 people at risk of homelessness.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/jul/03/treasury-orders-cabinet-plan-40-percent-cuts

    There is a willingness to endorse radical action if it is explained and if it looks practicable. It worked for the left under Attlee and Blair; it worked for the right under Thatcher; and it is working – so far – for this government.

    This is bloody ridiculous. Thatcherism destroyed millions of peoples lives, entrenched mass unemployment and is the main reason why here in Scotland the Tories got 1 seat, it was theresa May who coined the phrase 'the nasty party'. Blair is described by many as a 'war criminal' and he never followed a radical policy in his life. The 1945 government received its support from a population that had suffered the depression of the 1930's and 2 World wars and demanded in return for its sacrifices homes, jobs, health care and a decent education - hardly radical ideas for the vast majority.

    That a large number of people oppose what you are doing, very strongly, can become a strength

    Strangely you omitted from your list of examples the poll tax riots and the refusal by millions to pay this tax on living.

    As to your protestations of fairness the key to fairness is inclusivity

    The budget book also contains a chart showing who the austerity measures will hit (p67). The chart (look at the dotted line for the net impact) shows that although the richest are the worst hit, the poorest are a close second leaving middle England cushioned from the worst of the blow. It’s also worth pointing out the chart doesn’t go beyond 2012-13. And we know (from table 2.1, p40) that more than half of the £11bn welfare cuts kick in after that date. So the chances are the poorest have more pain to come

    http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/politics/domestic_politics/budget+factcheck+housing+benefit+and+taxes/3688827

  • jackayarcher jackayarcher

    4 Jul 2010, 9:46PM

    Yes, the Lib Dems need to keep their nerve as Cameron and the Tories dismantle their party. Good advice. Let's remember it in a few months. By the time of the vote on election reform, the Lib Dems will have either vanished as a political force in the UK or bolted the coalition, if they come to their senses, that is.

  • robbo100 robbo100

    4 Jul 2010, 9:47PM

    seejaybee

    Grow up, you disappointed bunch of losers, and work out why you lost. It really shouldn't take you long.

    Why don't you try and work out why the Tories didn't win despite the fact that, bar the Daily MIrror, the Labour government did not have one single newspaper supporting it, was the target of a relentless and vicious pro-Tory media campaign, had a leader who, rightly or wrongly, was widely considered a figure of fun and/or derision, and was seeking re-election in the context of an economic crisis? It shouldn't take you too long.

    The Tories are only in power because they're being propped up by a party that was voted for in the main by people who wanted to stop the Tories. Even David Cameron agrees, remember 'Vote Clegg get Brown'?

  • teaandchocolate teaandchocolate

    4 Jul 2010, 9:48PM

    What are the coalition doing about job creation, economy boosting and future planning in light of the failure of the right-wing anti-restriction policy on the markets?

    We have millions of young people who are hoping to be employed on building projects, science and engineering projects, training courses etc imminently.

    What are George and Danny going to do about this?

    I am still waiting........

    FifthCookieMonster

    Emotional, prone to violence, don't understand what's good for them, express themselves with bodily fluid (ugh: spittle...), don't realize what the "world as it is" is like. Best to speak CLEARLY and CALMLY to them, set clear boundaries, and if that doesn't work, well there's only one language they understand.

    We are not all like this. We have children and are quite polite. We want a future for our children. And we are not seeing one.

  • PeterGuillam PeterGuillam

    4 Jul 2010, 9:49PM

    cbb1984

    Are you suggesting that Labour were/are right wing? Labour is socialist party, which from my perspective places them well to the left.

    Jesus, is this kind of comment what the Guardian website has come to? Have you really missed the last two decades of political history? New Labour meant the acceptance of the Thatcherite settlement and the end of anything even remotely resembling socialism - that was what the word 'new' meant. Only a complete idiot would describe the New Labour party as left-wing.

  • Peason1 Peason1

    4 Jul 2010, 9:51PM

    Dogstarscribe -

    No alternative?No alternative to keeping Trident, not clamping down on tax evasion, or not properly taxing vacant properties? Course not Julian...

    Trident doesn't cost enough to make much of a dent on the deficit if you cut it.

    Clamping down on tax evasion (definition please or is this just an unnumbered collection of 'rich' people?) will always fail because they will make other arrangements.

    Taxing vacant properties will just mean people put in a 'tenant' to avoid it.

    When are you people going to come up with policies that acknowledge that if you change the rules of the game people will play it differently - not just sit there with a vacant look on their face while you relieve them of their money.

  • ebonycat ebonycat

    4 Jul 2010, 9:54PM

    Thatcher decimated our townd this government has condemmed them they are demolishing the jobs of millions of middle class probably Lib Dem voters not very astute.

    But I'm sure that they will vote Tory when they see how much dole they can get all £65 pound less a pound or two when its been revised down to an affordable rate for the Toffs paying sorry dodging their taxes

    How much sour milk can they take from you if you have nothing in the first place?

    Gordon Brown didnt increase benefits to cover Gas and Electricity rises

    sounds like sour grapes from Julian no support for Condem cuts from the Labour Party then?

  • GoldenAxe GoldenAxe

    4 Jul 2010, 9:56PM

    @PeterGuillem:

    I don't know how many times it needs to be said but we have been ruled by one continuous politics since 1979 - irrespective of party - united by an ideology that has comprehensively failed.

    Er, this is one of the richest nations in the world!!

    For real poverty, try a nation with a socialist history like China, Russia, Bulgaria or Ghana.

    Seriously - this pathetic attempt to equate a rise in VAT and tightening benefits with the gulag archipelago is infantile.

  • Volvobollox Volvobollox

    4 Jul 2010, 10:01PM

    cbb1984
    4 Jul 2010, 9:45PM
    Are you suggesting that Labour were/are right wing? Labour is socialist party, which from my perspective places them well to the left.

    Where have you been for the last 13 years?

    Labour is not a socialist party and hasn't been for a good number of years, hence Thatcher's boasting of her greatest legacy: "New Labour".

  • teaandchocolate teaandchocolate

    4 Jul 2010, 10:02PM

    Julian Glover

    Who are you to comment? What is your history in the Labour environment? What are your credentials to question the thoughts, hopes and aspirations of the Labour voting man and woman?

    What good has the Tories ever brought for the majority of the British people?

    To work in their grand houses? To doff their caps? To eat the scraps from their table? To suffer illness but remain unable to pay for health-care but to be expected fight in their wars and to polish their shoes.

    I have no time for the Tory Party.

    I know where I came from and i know where we will all end up if the Tories have their way.

  • RicardoRichardo RicardoRichardo

    4 Jul 2010, 10:03PM

    You don't have to agree with the Daily Mail to understand that some people who get incapacity benefit don't deserve it, and some who could work don't; or that housing benefit has become a racket paying millions to private landlords

    That whole debate is meaningless unless you produce figures about the extent of abuse of the system. If we're talking about 5 per cent of incapacity benefit claimants being on the make, then the money to be saved will be negligible. In fact, the underlying assumption made by the likes of Glover is that cheating is the norm, and that a huge proportion of benefits claimants can be removed from the system altogether.

    It's fantasy, but it's also offensive. Remember Glover's paeans to David Laws a few weeks back? About how wrong it was to sack him for fiddling the expenses system? And yet the sin that was so excusable in Laws is utterly reprehensible in a benefits claimant.

    This is the paper that Hugo Young used to write for. Remember the David Aaronovitch column? Andrew Rawnsley is still writing a top-notch column on these very CIF pages. Simon Jenkins, one of the most respected columnists from the right, features in the Guardian a couple of times a week. George Monbiot writes one of the most influential and original columns of modern times for the paper.

    I don't agree with all those people, but they are Guardian legends - part of the paper's character, and part of its history. What on earth is Glover doing in their company?

  • cbb1984 cbb1984

    4 Jul 2010, 10:03PM

    Jesus, is this kind of comment what the Guardian website has come to? Have you really missed the last two decades of political history? New Labour meant the acceptance of the Thatcherite settlement and the end of anything even remotely resembling socialism - that was what the word 'new' meant. Only a complete idiot would describe the New Labour party as left-wing.

    Actually no, being only 26, I was too young to remember the Thatcher years and I'm not sure what I read here on CIF is credible enough evidence to draw any comparisons between my own experiences of the last decade.

    Only a complete idiot would describe the New Labour party as left-wing.

    Yeah, insults always work best, nonetheless I shall refrain from following your example.

Showing first 50 comments | Go to all comments | Go to latest comment

In order to post a comment you need to be registered and signed in.

|

Comments

Sorry, commenting is not available at this time. Please try again later.

Our selection of best buys

Lender Initial rate
First Direct 2.99% More
ING 2.99% More
First Direct 2.29% More
Name BT Rate BT Period
Barclaycard Platinum 0% 15 mths More
NatWest Platinum 0% 15 mths More
Royal Bank of Scotland Platinum 0% 15 mths More
Provider Typical APR
Sainsbury's Personal Loan 7.8% More
Provider AER
EGG BANKING PLC 2.80% More
ING DIRECT 2.75% More
TESCO BANK 2.75% More

Latest posts

Compare insurance

Search insurance policies

Get an insurance quote for your travel, home, car, life and health, dental and more

Property search

Buy

Rent

Find local professional advice

Search UK-wide for an independent financial advisor or legal expert in your local area who meets your personal requirements