As if middle and lower earners hadn’t been subjected to class war for the last 30 years…

I’m all for Tories defending the interests of the top 1% class.

You mean like Wayne Rooney? He’s a right toff.

So Sunny are you and indeed the charming Ed indulging in class warfare or not?

In fairness, saying someone doesn’t understand something because “It is not in his DNA” is pretty class-war-ish. Ed’s on the right side of the debate, but that doesn’t mean every single one of his comments is defensible.

Imagine if Labour had a working-class leader, and Cameron said “He doesn’t understand how business works, It’s not in his DNA”. I think we’d play the class war card at that point.

It is only class war when the non elites fight back

The norm is the permanent class war the rich fight aginst the rest throughout history. When the glorious day comes when the guillotines are erected in the streets Conservative home and the other servants and butlers of the elites will be the first ones whoes heads will meet the baskets.

The key points of Montgomerie’s response amounted to a rebuttal of the smear that Cameron/Conservatives served only the interests of the 1%:

blockquote

….relinking the basic state pension to earnings, exempting the low-paid in the public sector from a wage freeze, lifting the income tax threshold or capping council tax there are very many things that this Coalition government has done to help not the 99% but the bottom 20%.

The Coalition could do a lot more if it wasn’t paying £50 billion in annual interest payments on the debts that Labour left behind. Only a fraction of Britain’s debts are the fault of the banks. Most of Britain’s debts are the responsibility of a Labour government that carried on borrowing during the boom years.

Oh look Flowerpower is an elite butler. Always carrying water for his corporate masters. Sucker.

@ Sally:

You seem to have something of a bee in your bonnet about butlers. Mind if I ask why? Did you have some sort of traumatic experience involving a Jeeves and Wooster* novel when you were young?

[* Yes, I know that technically, Jeeves is a valet, rather than a butler.]

But Sunny, identity politics is kind of your ‘thing’. How’s that any different from class war? Anyone remember “Brown people should vote Conservative”?

Anyone who says the Tories and the Tory rich don’t wage class war are living on another planet. The Tory rich always finds it hard to understand why another very rich person would vote Labour. The history of Toryism is riddled with class warfare.

I wont bother with the mandatory Warren Buffet quote here.

Flowerpower, when did this protection for low-wage public sector workers happen? My mum hasn’t had a pay rise in *nominal* terms for two years now. The odd jobs I’ve picked up have only gone up because of minimum wage rises.

What is the source for this claim?

Since both Miliband’s are personally significantly richer than “our Dave” (who was not on the breadline even before he inherited £300k) and inequality increased significantly while Ed was in government and/or advising Gordon Brown, I wonder why he thinks that is David Cameron that is looking after vested interests, the rich and the powerful?

@ 13 John77

Because Cameron’s policies are generally geared towards helping those who are already rich and/or hurting those who are not well off, and Milliband’s aren’t? It all makes sense when you don’t think in terms of ad homs.

Chaise @ 14:

What do you mean by “geared towards helping those already rich”? If you mean “deliberately designed to help the rich”, then I’d quite like some evidence of that (and also a reason why you haven’t already sold it to a newspaper — I’m sure they’d pay very well for such a juicy story…). If you mean “having the unintended consequence of helping the rich”, I’d like to point out that the last Labour government (of which Ed Miliband was a part) saw inequality increasing and social mobility decreasing (in considerably easier economic circumstances, too), which would surely make Ed at least as bad on the hurting the poor front as Dave?

@Sunny – Pfft, why would I help the Tories with hints now 😛

@15 – So you haven’t been following the news then.

And against a rising tide on inequality in the world Labour held the line in some respects and did VERY well on child poverty. Which is now being rolled back. Labour had issues, but that isn’t something they failed hard on!

Mason Dixon @12

Flowerpower, when did this protection for low-wage public sector workers happen?

When the Coalition government came in. They specifically exempted lower paid public sector workers from the freeze applied to the Public Sector Rich List and those in between.

@16 Leon Wolfson

{Labour}….did VERY well on child poverty.

No, they did not.

Labour lifted a large number of children whose families were just below the poverty line just above it. In many cases this amounted to an increase in household income of 50p per week – being trumpeted as “lifting children out of poverty”.

Meanwhile, those families who were already a long way below the poverty line actually were made worse off under Labour, whose hypocrisy and moral posturing in this regard is shameless.

@17 – By both relative and absolute measures. Which the tide has already turned on, under your Coalition.

And the coalition has thrown a few bones to the poor, and has then knifed them in the back by crushing the economy and slashing away at the social services they used, and in-work benefits.

Flowerpower, you are talking utter rubbish. The deficit was higher during 200 out of the last 250 years, so what you are saying is nonsense. An economy always operates that way; it isn’t run like a household budget, dear. Try reading this and educate yourself by some means other than the Daily Mail:
http://falseeconomy.org.uk/cure/how-big-is-the-problem
The Tories are just doing what they always do: cutting the welfare state and public services. Anyone who is still regurgitating the Tory cant of ‘Labour’s recession’ is an idiot. It’s not often I agree with Michael Heseltine, but I’ve seen him being interviewed and snapping at someone for using that expression and correcting them, by saying it is a Global problem.
Exempting the low paid from a wage freeze? Really? Refresh my memory on that one. The Tories are currently trying to abolish the minimum wage and have frozen tax credits, so I find it reprehensible that you would even dare to suggest that they are for the poor.

Flowerpower.

C

@15 XXX

I mean that the Tories seem more concerned about keeping the rich happy than helping the poor – hence them slashing public services instead of increasing taxes on the well-off. I’d call that deliberately helping the rich by leaving them alone while making the less fortunate have to suffer the brunt of the recession’s consequences. If you feel “helping” is too strong a word, substitute “favouring”.

“I’d like to point out that the last Labour government (of which Ed Miliband was a part) saw inequality increasing and social mobility decreasing (in considerably easier economic circumstances, too), which would surely make Ed at least as bad on the hurting the poor front as Dave?”

What? Milliband was part of the government, he wasn’t in charge of it. In any case, I would expect to see financial inequality rising during boom time (more people getting rich) and social mobility generally slowing down after policies to improve social equality have been in place awhile. Why are you focusing on these rather unrevealing issues and not, say, on the fact that the government is ripping up services designed to make the lives of poor people easier – including some created by New Labour (such as Sure Start, IIRC)?

Gabrielle @ 19

Flowerpower, you are talking utter rubbish. The deficit was higher during 200 out of the last 250 years

No, Gabrielle. It is you who are talking utter rubbish. The deficit has not been higher for 200 of the past 250 years. The deficit is at a record level.

I suggest you learn the difference between debt and deficit before you accuse other people of talking rubbish.

Exempting the low paid from a wage freeze? Really? Refresh my memory on that one.

OK. The public sector wage freeze does not apply to staff earning less than £21,000 per year.

(The only people who have tried (unsuccessfully) to block a pay rise were Labour councillors in the Wirral, who voted against a rise for low paid staff, but were outvoted by Conservatives & Liberal Democrats).

Chaise @ 21:

“I mean that the Tories seem more concerned about keeping the rich happy than helping the poor – hence them slashing public services instead of increasing taxes on the well-off.”

Increasing taxes for the well-off isn’t always a good way of raising revenue, since it tends to lead to an increase in tax avoidance, to disincentivise people from trying to increase the size of their businesses, and increases the number of rich people choosing to move abroad.

“What? Milliband was part of the government, he wasn’t in charge of it.”

He was part of the government, which means he gave his support to its policies.

“In any case, I would expect to see financial inequality rising during boom time (more people getting rich) and social mobility generally slowing down after policies to improve social equality have been in place awhile.”

I’ll grant you the inequality thing, but social mobility wasn’t just slowing down or staying still, it was decreasing. So it can’t just be a result of polies succeeding in removing barries to self-improvement.

“Why are you focusing on these rather unrevealing issues and not, say, on the fact that the government is ripping up services designed to make the lives of poor people easier – including some created by New Labour (such as Sure Start, IIRC)?”

“Ripping up services” is a bit of a hyperbolic way of putting it, given that public expenditure is projected to increase over the course of this Parliament (most of the “cuts” are cuts in projected future spending, not cuts in current spending). And as I said above, tax rises aren’t necessarily the best way to cut the deficit, which just leaves spending cuts.

@ 23 XXX

“Increasing taxes for the well-off isn’t always a good way of raising revenue, since it tends to lead to an increase in tax avoidance, to disincentivise people from trying to increase the size of their businesses, and increases the number of rich people choosing to move abroad.”

I’m not saying tax should be increased blindly. But there are ways that the government could get more revenue from the fortunate, such as raising inheritance tax (they wanted to do the exact opposite of that, but were prevented from doing so by the Lib Dems, which kinda reveal’s Cameron’s hand).

“He was part of the government, which means he gave his support to its policies.”

Meh. If you publically oppose the government’s policies you’ll quickly find yourself no longer part of the government. It’s hardly the best way to assess someone’s true feelings.

“I’ll grant you the inequality thing, but social mobility wasn’t just slowing down or staying still, it was decreasing. So it can’t just be a result of polies succeeding in removing barries to self-improvement.”

Yes it can. What does social mobility do? At base, I’d say that it allows people to get jobs based on talent, not background. In other words, it increases the chance that rich people will be talented. However, talented people tend to give birth to talented people. So once social mobility has existed for a few decades, I’d expect it to fall.

Example: Fred and Lucy both get a job much better-paid than their respective parents’ thanks to new social mobility and their natural talent. Fred and Lucy then give birth to Hubert, who inherits their genes for talent (intelligence or whatever), and thus gets a job at a similar level to Fred and Lucy. Repeat that pattern enough, and social mobility starts to decrease while the system remain meritocratic.

““Ripping up services” is a bit of a hyperbolic way of putting it, given that public expenditure is projected to increase over the course of this Parliament (most of the “cuts” are cuts in projected future spending, not cuts in current spending).”

Sure Start’s practically dead. A lot of people who previous got disability benefit now won’t, and that means honest and needy people will be shafted. “Ripping up” might be dramatic, but I wouldn’t call it hyperbole.

“And as I said above, tax rises aren’t necessarily the best way to cut the deficit, which just leaves spending cuts.”

It seems really unlikely to me that the correct choice would be completely one or the other. You seem to be sweeping ALL tax increases under the carpet based on a vague claim that they are sometimes counterproductive.

@23 – “(most of the “cuts” are cuts in projected future spending, not cuts in current spending).”

Patent lies. There’s a MASSIVE amount of cuts going on to basic services.

That money is ALSO being spent on pork-barrel projects and to fund tax cuts for big companies doesn’t mean that there’s a VAST amount of cutting going on, both to Government and government funded Third Sector organisations.

Chaise @ 24:

“I’m not saying tax should be increased blindly. But there are ways that the government could get more revenue from the fortunate, such as raising inheritance tax (they wanted to do the exact opposite of that, but were prevented from doing so by the Lib Dems, which kinda reveal’s Cameron’s hand).”

Depends on how you define “fortunate”. If you inherit a house you’ll have to pay it, even though you might be quite poor in cash terms.

“Meh. If you publically oppose the government’s policies you’ll quickly find yourself no longer part of the government. It’s hardly the best way to assess someone’s true feelings.”

He might have secretly disagreed with the policies (well, he probably did), but he still gave them his support.

“It seems really unlikely to me that the correct choice would be completely one or the other. You seem to be sweeping ALL tax increases under the carpet based on a vague claim that they are sometimes counterproductive.”

No, I’m suggesting that “the Tories are cutting spending and not increasing taxes on the wealthy” is a bad criticism since taxes on the wealthy are unlikely to be effective.

Aso:

“Central government current spending in April-May, the first two months of the new financial year, was 4.1 per cent higher in cash terms than during the same months of 2010. The official inflation rate used for the public sector is just 2.9 per cent (it is lower than the usual consumer or retail price indices) so spending still grew in real terms by over one per cent. So much for the “massive, reckless cuts” that are supposed to have taken place.”

http://www.cityam.com/news-and-analysis/allister-heath/uk-public-finances-still-sorry-state

@27 – Lies, lies, lies.

There are massive, sweeping cuts going on. That the Tories are spending elsewhere on their pet projects and having to spend money to – expensively – paper over the problems they’re causing themselves (which is going to get a LOT worse) doesn’t mean the basic cuts are not happening!

Only someone *deliberately* blinding themselves with ideology would look only at the spending totals! There’s plenty of cash for TORY projects, in TORY areas!

@ 26 XXX

“Depends on how you define “fortunate”. If you inherit a house you’ll have to pay it, even though you might be quite poor in cash terms.”

I would count getting a house for free (even if you have to sell it and buy a smaller house) as “fortunate”.

“He might have secretly disagreed with the policies (well, he probably did), but he still gave them his support.”

I don’t see it as a big deal. Your choice is either a) go along with either the party that you most agree with or b) stick to your guns on every issue and never get elected. Option b may be more “noble”, but it’s less pragmatic; if anything, I think it’s more honourable to accept some losses and fight for what you see as the right side, than insist on fighting an unwinnable fight out of pride.

“No, I’m suggesting that “the Tories are cutting spending and not increasing taxes on the wealthy” is a bad criticism since taxes on the wealthy are unlikely to be effective.”

OK, you’re tarring all taxes on the wealthy with the same brush rather than all taxes. Same deal – maybe increasing the amount paid on high earnings would be ineffective, but what about inheritance tax, council tax, luxuries tax (e.g. an extra rate on new cars, or home appliances that cost over a certain amount)?