Friday, April 30, 2010

The Papers Say...

I am surprised that some papers are declaring in the election already; I don't know if this qualifies as "old politics" (because some people believe that newspaper endorsements make no difference) but it does alter the media narrative. What would be interesting is the total readership for each group (now I talking like a teacher...) if anyone has the figures?

Running Tally:
Conservatives 3: The Sun, The Times, The Economist
Labour 0
LibDems 1: The Guardian
Others 0


Anonymous said...

The economist as well

You've got my vote!

oneboyonebunny said...

Have you seen the labour leaflet delivered in the ward today? Full of lies about scrapping child tax credit and WFTC, more lies about sure start (not that I would personally be sad to see that change at the very least as it is interventionalist and "state down" we need to re-empower parents not patronise them) and so on. Unfortunately I know a lot of people round here who believe all that they read. We tell everyone the truth that we meet at the moment, let's hope some sense prevails.

Red Star said...

Lets get back to the issue of Sure start as I have in the past commented on a previous post.

(1) The Conservative Party is committed to redistributing funding away from Surestart which will result in the loss of centres and support. This will hit the most vulnerable (as cuts usually do) and cause less social mobility. Antony is it true that the Conservatives will take money away from Surestart and redistribute it to home visitors? Yes or No?

(2) As for people being concerned - it is not irrational and I have argued in the past that any public service user should be worried at the level of public services they can access.

Red Star said...

I for one agree that parents should not be patronized by the state but why is it the Conservative party who wants to actually discriminates against some people who need more help. Its immoral.

As I would like you to answer these points I have made Antony, I have numbered them and kept them as brief as I can.

(1) The marriage tax allowance does not not help the very poorest - couples where both partners earn under £6,555 don’t pay income tax anyway
(2) Furthermore my grandmother who is a widower. It does not help widows or widowers who have lost their partner. (sadly in this case an unforeseen death).
(3) It would not have helped my single mother trying to give me the best start in life. Which I am thankful for all her support. It does not matter who loves you, but as long as you get the love and support needed; not based on whether you live with a 'Conservative model of a family unit'.
(4) It does not help women or men who have left violent or unhappy relationships, but will make it potentially worse of financially for leaving. (isn't it the logic of the family tax cut to do this).
(5) It does not help couples such where both partners are going out to work to try to do the best for themselves and their families, and to be honest keeping their head above water.

To bring in my closing statement and perhaps some of my own values and principles on the subject, the Conservative marriage tax allowance proposal will hit the poorest members of society the most.

Red Star said...

I really do think £3 per week isn’t enough to bribe people to get married or stay married.

Just ask anyone who’s been divorced, or remain with their unmarried partner and bring up children. It will benefit the divorcee man who remarries and has children with his new partner, while his ex-wife and 3 children will get no support. How fair is that?

You can tell I am really passionate about this issue because I come from a single parent family, and feel I am being treated by Cameron as a second class citizen, from a second class family. This is not how he should make people feel. Everyone is first class, no matter what family structures they come from.

Even if you consultant an independent think-tank it quotes:
“The incentives to marry – or not to divorce – provided by a policy whose maximum benefit is £150 a year must surely be weak relative to the other costs and benefits involved." This is from the Institute for Fiscal Studies, 9th April 2010.

So there you have it I am against the principle and the policy idea if flawed and unrealistic.

Anonymous said...

The Times is Tory again. What about the mail, express, evening standard etc? I think they are too. Observer is now for the LibDems.