George Osborne gives a stunning speech.... Brits here?

[Osborn F. Enready]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/aug/20/georgeosborne.conservatives?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront

Osborne says Tories the party of fairness in battle against poverty


The battle lines of an autumn contest between the main political parties are drawn today when the Tories deliver a blunt assessment that Gordon Brown's main instrument for tackling poverty - the redistribution of wealth - has failed.

In a Guardian article, ahead of a speech on fairness, the shadow chancellor, George Osborne, declares that free markets are the fairest way of rewarding people.

"We know that redistribution alone, as the sole policy tool to tackle poverty, has failed," Osborne writes. "There are 900,000 more people in severe poverty than in 1997 and child poverty has been rising for two years in succession."

The intervention by Osborne is likely to be seized on by Gordon Brown, who believes that "Cameronomics" masks a rightwing agenda of tax and public spending cuts. Labour attacked the Tories earlier this year when a shadow minister likened tax credits - Brown's main tool for tacking poverty - to subsidies to nationalised industries in the 1970s.

Osborne, who has insisted in recent months that the Tories have no plans to scrap tax credits, says in today's article that he believes the time has arrived for a radical change in the fight against poverty. With the gap in life expectancy between rich and poor at its widest since the Victorian era, Osborne says it is time to end the "target-driven, top down, statist approach" pioneered by David Miliband when he was Tony Blair's policy chief.

"That approach is failing because it relies on a flawed assumption that only the state can guarantee fairness," Osborne writes. The shadow chancellor says the Tories will use different methods from Labour, with a big role for free markets.

In his speech he will praise James Purnell, the Blairite work and pensions secretary, who has embraced a report by the financier David Freud which calls for a greater role for the private sector in helping the unemployed.

Tory aides depicted the speech as an "audacious raid" into the Labour territory of fairness.


I was wondering what the Brits on the board thought about this?

[Leo]

It is another view on how to tackle the age old problem of social justice, and not a particularly new or innovative one.

The balance to be struck is between encouraging competition and discouraging exploitation. No party has achieved that to perfection as yet.

Uncontrolled capitalism was master during the Victorian era, and we all know how well that worked in the sociological sense.

Communist dictatorship ran the Soviet Union for many decades, and we all know how ultimately successful that was.

The problem with most -isms lies in an all-or-nothing approach. I think the Scandinavians have come closest to the best balance, and I doubt the Tories are about to copy them.

I am apolitical in the party sense, so this is not a vote for New Labour either. I just think there has to be a better way than what has been done. :)

[Milton Bradley]

Hmmm, any Liberals going to comment?


:ponder:

[Leo]

Hmmm, any Liberals going to comment?


:ponder:

Oi! I'm a liberal in the proper sense of the word (just not the American political sense. :))

liberal (adj)is defined as -
1. a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
2. a. Tending to give freely; generous: a liberal benefactor.
b. Generous in amount; ample: a liberal serving of potatoes.
3. Not strict or literal; loose or approximate: a liberal translation.
4. Of, relating to, or based on the traditional arts and sciences of a college or university curriculum: a liberal education.
5. (Archaic) Permissible or appropriate for a person of free birth; befitting a lady or gentleman.


liberal (noun)is defined as -

1. A person with liberal ideas or opinions.
2. A person who favors an economic theory of laissez-faire and self-regulating markets.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Thanks for your input Leo....

I was really hoping for more input from members across the pond.

[Milton Bradley]

Oi! I'm a liberal in the proper sense of the word (just not the American political sense. :))


Heh, I was refering more to our socialist leaning, wealth redistribution type "Liberals" they're breeding around these parts.


This article being particularly relavent now, as you know, they're trying to get one elected to office right now.


:innocent:

[Muser]

Thanks for your input Leo....

I was really hoping for more input from members across the pond.

I can provide input from someone across the pond - but unfortunately he's not a member here. I know you were hoping for a response from a member you can actually debate with - but thought I'd provide my friend's comments anyway, in the interest of some sort of feedback. While my friend may be rather far left (but isn't everyone in Britain, compared to the US? <g>), he is nonetheless one of the very most intelligent individuals I've ever known (in spite of our ideological differences). Not that I'd ever DARE reveal that to him. :D Anyway, here it is, FWIW:

I have a long-held principle of ignoring any claims made by the Tories. While "New" Labour are a bunch of gits, the Tories are a bunch of really nasty evil gits. Great choice we have, isn't it?

This dates back to before the 1979 election, that brought Thatcher to power. One of the key campaigning points was what was then perceived to be the high level of unemployment. The Tories had a poster showing a line of people queueing up for state benefits with the slogan "Labour isn't working".

Everyone assumed they meant that their wonderful lovely people would lower unemployment. They actually more than doubled it, thanks to economic policies that destroyed whole communities in the poorer parts of the country.

So when the bastards bleat about levels of poverty, I can only assume they think there isn't enough of it around, and that they plan to increase it.

The belief in Free Markets is another faith issue.

As to the numbers quoted, who the hell knows? Government statistics are fiddled with monotonous regularity, and they change definitions and the basis for calculations so often, than comparing from one year to the next is suspect. Once you get over a decade, you can probably prove whatever you want to by picking the right set of numbers.