Blair playing a blinder

[Porty]

NPI seem fine to me, IFS have ususlly been pretty good

Good, unless Dc has some "better" sources she has to stop using poverty as a Blair negative.

On equality IFS had the following to say, (unfortunately its Adobe and I can't export)

"This means that despite a large package of redistributive measures, the net effect of 7 years of this Labour government has left inequality effectively unchanged"

Whereas NPI's report states :

Income

The most commonly used threshold of low income is 60% of median income. In 2002/03, before deducting housing costs, this equated to £194 per week for a couple with no children, £118 for a single person, £283 for a couple with two children and £207 for a lone parent with two children.

In 2002/03, 12.4 million people were living on incomes below this income threshold. This represents a drop of 1½ million since 1996/97.

The numbers of people on relative low incomes remained broadly unchanged during the 1990s after having doubled in the 1980s.

In 2002/03, there were 8 million people on incomes below the fixed threshold of 60% of 1996/97 median income. This represents a drop of 6 million since 1996/97.

Half of all people in social housing are on low incomes compared to one in six of those in other housing tenures. Can't find this graph on website

Child poverty

The number of children living in households below 60% of median income was 3.6 million in 2002/03.

This represents a drop of 0.8 million since 1996/97.

Children are one and a half times more likely to live in a low income household than adults.

2 million children live in workless households.

[dccairns]

Yes, Porty, you have identified the correct post from 10 July. And do you accept that from the information helpfully supplied by xxxx the gap between rich and poor has got wider under the Blair adminstration?

Oh, I see that you have just selected some data to fit your theory that it has not.

What about my other points?

And to go back to my original point, Blair's decision to take us into the Iraq war, which seems to have at least partly motivated the bombings in London (from what has been said about the bombers by those who know them) means that he has to accept some responsibilty.

[ras]

From what has been said - and I am recklessly assuming that the information quoted is correct - is it the case that the gap between rich and poor is indeed wider, but that the number of people living in poverty is much reduced. So in general terms everyone is better off. Surely that is a positive thing regardless of the gap.

[xxxx]

So you don't know who they are, why they did it or what they would do if we withdrew from Iraq but you do know that we can negotiate and reason with them. And you presumably think that we should.

No
Where did I say that?
I said that it was a perfectly logical progression if you hold with the theory that the Invasion and its consequences are the motivations of those who carried out the bombings.

So if it is just a theoryand I agree that it is. Do you agree that any attempt to use the theory as evidence that Blair is to blame is spurious.

Its casually dismissive to call something 'just' a theory. Theories are important, you can't productively seek evidence without them. There are also all kinds of theory, some strong; such as provable scientific ones, some unprovable; such as those found in economics or other social sciences. But both can have their uses. They should never be used as evidence, evidence is used to justify the theory.

For the 'motivation squad', as you call them, if they theorised that the invasion would bring terrorism to the uk, and the surviving bombers confirm this, then the events would provide evidence for their theory. If their theory is proven, then who else is responsible but our dear leader?

This is what I think they are doing and its a perfectly reasonable position to hold. To accept it is up to the individual. Another course is to develop a more compelling theory and collect evidence for it, but I haven't seen too many of those.

They certainly seem to be saying that the events, not their theory, prove them right. So noone seems to be using theory as evidence to me. I'm afraid we differ once more

[Porty]

Yes, Porty, you have identified the correct post from 10 July. And do you accept that from the information helpfully supplied by xxxx the gap between rich and poor has got wider under the Blair adminstration?

I did accept this and i did so immediately, why can't you read or see that? Even although I did accept it, the IFS report,from which I took one excerpt, contradicts the information on equality. I did not glean anything else from the report as I had already sourced NPI, which was acceptable to xxxx.

Whether or not the Gap has widened or stayed the same it is not neccessarily a bad thing. Particularly when taken along with the achievements detailed in the NPI report. You will note that I am not opining and I am quoting two sources, I see you ignored my request to do the same.

Oh, I see that you have just selected some data to fit your theory that it has not.

Edit:

I have not "selected" data I cut and paste the entire key FACTS from the relevant NPI report, (the one where Millions of people are better off as compared to the recognised Measurment of Poverty). The facts happen to substantiate my understanding that Poverty has improved under Blair. Check out www.poverty.org.uk

I did highlight the numbers in bold but I thought it best to leave them in context. Given the empirical analysis of the relevant data as presented by the New Policy Initiative, an independent body, I do not think any reasonable, objective person can say that UK poverty has worsened under Blair. If you have contradictory evidence from a respected source, bring it on. After all it is your contention.

What about my other points?

Well you did invite me to tackle the Poverty issue "for starters".

I will get to the others, as promised. However, I am beginning to question whether I ought to. When I produce evidence to support my argument you accuse me of "selecting data", without even a passing remark on the facts or the source. How can I win?

[Porty]

From what has been said - and I am recklessly assuming that the information quoted is correct - is it the case that the gap between rich and poor is indeed wider, but that the number of people living in poverty is much reduced. So in general terms everyone is better off. Surely that is a positive thing regardless of the gap.

Correct and thank you.

[Porty]

. Theories are important, you can't productively seek evidence without them. There are also all kinds of theory, some strong; such as provable scientific ones, some unprovable; such as those found in economics or other social sciences. But both can have their uses. They should never be used as evidence, evidence is used to justify the theory.

Thank you.

[foxy]

[Porty]

[xxxx]

Thank you.

What are you thanking me for?

[Gemini]

Well balanced article by Hanif Kureishi re religion


http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Stor ... 52,00.html

[moffat]

Given that today it was announced that directors of British companies' pay has increased an average of 16.1% this past year, perhaps the following article has some relevance to the discussion about poverty in Britain.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story ... e_continue

[Cynthia]

Some of you might be interested in the following meeting - be warned it will probably be very packed out given the speakers and the topic so go early to get a seat....also early notice of the Demo in London....demonstrate to get the troops home and end the illegal occupation of Iraq by Br and USA troops.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monday 15 August
Edinburgh Stop the War Coalition Public Meeting with
Tony Benn (President of the Stop the War Coalition),
Rose Gentle (Military Families Against War),
Aamer Anwar (Human Rights lawyer) and
Lindsey German (Convenor of the Stop the War Coalition)
Chaired by Rabia Choudri.
With poetry from Ghazi Hussein and Jim Aitken and an exhibition of photos from Iraq.
7.30pm, Monday 15th August, Lecture Theatre A, David Hume Tower, Edinburgh University. (a short walk from George Square)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sat 24th Sept - Stop the War national demonstration London. see www.stopwar.org.uk http://www.stopwar.org.uk

[Dadaist]

Excellent! My favourite Tony.

[Porty]

Thank you.

What are you thanking me for?

Oh, just for being you.

[Porty]

Dc, before I tackle anything else, where are we on poverty?

[dccairns]

I did not bring up poverty but the gap between rich and poor which you have accepted has widened under the Blair administration. It is not acceptable that whilst the majority are better off materially now there is a significant "underclass" who are worse off and have less opportunity than ever to get themselves out of the situation they are in.

[Porty]

I did not bring up poverty but the gap between rich and poor

And I argued that you cannot isolate that one aspect of poverty to make a case against this Government. It is too narrow. Blair could have introduced policies that left everyone on the same low level income thereby having no Gap but everyone in poverty. Would that be acceptable to you?

which you have accepted has widened under the Blair administration.

Based on the evidence provided by xxxx I accepted the gap had widened. So not my opinion. xxxx then suggested another source (details above) which contradicts that evidence. The upshot being I don't actually know. However, I have pointed out that even if it has widened it is not neccessarily a bad thing.

At the risk of repeating myself the NPI report states:

Income

In 2002/03, 12.4 million people were living on incomes below this income threshold. This represents a drop of 1½ million since 1996/97.

The numbers of people on relative low incomes remained broadly unchanged during the 1990s after having doubled in the 1980s.

In 2002/03, there were 8 million people on incomes below the fixed threshold of 60% of 1996/97 median income. This represents a drop of 6 million since 1996/97.

The number of children living in households below 60% of median income was 3.6 million in 2002/03.

This represents a drop of 0.8 million since 1996/97.

That's what the NPI report has to say. Turning to your statement

It is not acceptable that whilst the majority are better off materially now there is a significant "underclass" who are worse off and have less opportunity than ever to get themselves out of the situation they are in.

Did you make these statements up or can you provide a source to back up:

Comparative numbers that are "worse off"

and

Those who have "less opportunity than ever"?

Do you have a respected source or is it the old Department of anecdotal evidence again.

[wangi]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/08/18/blair_poll/

The poll, conducted (we think) by PR and marketing outfit Taylor Herring in advance of its 2005 "Leaders in London 2005" beano this autumn, asked 1,000 "high profile business executives, Chairmen and Company Directors, the predominant age group being 30-50, 65% of whom were male and all with businesses employing over 500 personnel" to name their favourite political go-getter.

Winston Churchill unsurprisingly emerged as top dog, closely followed by Gandhi and Nelson Mandela, in that order.

Maggie Thatcher, meanwhile, scored a creditable eighth spot, presumably for her simultaneous liberation of the UK from the forces of Scargill-driven tyranny and las islas Malvinas from the forces of corned-beef-driven tyranny, while the ever-popular Hitler ranked 20 on the most impressive leader board, soundly beating Our Tone into 25th place.

[Dadaist]

Quality research, nice one.

[Porty]

Not reallly surprising and not a big enough sample to be meaningful.

The opinions of a marginal group are in fact the opinions of a marginal group, no more, no less. This poll says nothing about who those 1000 people actually vote for.

[wangi]

As surveys go it's not that bad... Compared to some these days. Check out this BBC/MORI poll:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4139594.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/p ... _08_05.pdf

Muslims 'want sermons in English'
A majority of British Muslims say clerics should preach in the English language, a BBC survey suggests.

...

The findings emerged from a survey of 204 Muslims on multiculturalism.

[Gemini]

BLAIR PLAYING A BLINDER!

Never where these words so apt.

He has certainly blinded the UK populice with his lies.

Just as a matter of interest, does anyone know how much
money is being spent on the Iraqi debacle? It would be interesting
to compare this with the money being spent on Health/Education - you know, the stuff that really matters!

[Porty]

As surveys go it's not that bad... Compared to some these days. Check out this BBC/MORI poll:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4139594.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/p ... _08_05.pdf

Muslims 'want sermons in English'
A majority of British Muslims say clerics should preach in the English language, a BBC survey suggests.

...

The findings emerged from a survey of 204 Muslims on multiculturalism.

Fair point. 204!!!!

[Porty]

BLAIR PLAYING A BLINDER!

Never where these words so apt.

He has certainly blinded the UK populice with his lies.

Just as a matter of interest, does anyone know how much
money is being spent on the Iraqi debacle? It would be interesting
to compare this with the money being spent on Health/Education - you know, the stuff that really matters!

Dada, can I trouble you to manufacture a "fact free post" argument card, in the forthcoming Gold series. And then teach Gemini how to use it as a signature.

[Dadaist]

Yeah sure, I'll pair it with a "compassion-free" card if you like.

[Porty]

Why not combine them? "All compassion, No reality"

We also need a serious of evidence based cards for source validation.

"Rhetorical evidence"

"Sense of evidence"

"Completely different circumstance evidence" and of course the cover all

"Anecdotal evidence"

We also need a "Totally made up statement" card. This could be used in cases such as when the Socialist Worker stated (over on the Bus Strike thread)

"Every year around 20 percent of drivers leave because pay is so poor that the only way to make a living is to work masses of overtime. "

How do they know that. Has Des Lynham been advising them?

This card really would be useful to stop Carla et al swallowing fallacious statements.

[Dadaist]

....and a "don't mention the War" card, judging by the way you react whenever we bring it up!!

[Porty]

I have never backed down from a War discussion. I have repeatedly and unreservedly acknowledged that the decision was wrong.

I contest and have used electoral evidence to support my contention that despite this poor decsion the UK still want Blair and Labour as their government. The discussion has been going on for weeks on POL and no credible case against has been made, it can't be.

People keep harping back to Old Labour. They were never a governing force, that is reality.

[Dadaist]

Absolutely correct, just as, using your rationale, the US people want Bush and the Republicans as their government.

People probably harp back to Old Labour because it was the Old Labour types who were the anti-war voice inside the party. As you well know, the left are splintered and you can place people depending on our crude acknowledgement that one's leftism is measured in terms of either idealism or (say) pragmatism, or real-politik.

Fine. That roughly places you as a centrist, reformer, New Labour, moderniser, whatever. Call me/us what you choose.

There's no absolute dividing line between Benn the socialist and Blair the social democrat - and I'm sure both would acknowledge that. Livingstone has been in and out of the party, some would never leave, some have gone for good (leftways, like the SSP, or rightways, like the Lib Dems) etc

I respect where you sit politically, and hope that you reciprocate. Whilst we sit on different parts of the spectrum, I doubt if we will ever agree on things which are subjective - the only measure, as you correctly state, is the vote. Just don't confuse losing with being wrong.

[Porty]

Just don't confuse losing with being wrong.

When the objective is to win. like in an election and one loses then it is very likely that the message, policies and pathway are wrong.

[Dadaist]

Just don't confuse losing with being wrong.

When the objective is to win. like in an election and one loses then it is very likely that the message, policies and pathway are wrong.

Ah, the cold logic of Blairite precis. Do you want to phone Ralph Nader or shall I ?

[Porty]

It is not acceptable that whilst the majority are better off materially now there is a significant "underclass" who are worse off

and have less opportunity than ever to get themselves out of the situation they are in.

It is never too late to substantiate

[dccairns]

Like you I am somewhat weary with all these ding-dongs (will that last word get through the dreaded profanity filter I wonder?). Also, you are in danger of boring me into submission (not you personally, your nit-picking debating style). If I fall upon some appropriate stats I shall report back.

Ciao for now.

[Porty]

If I fall upon some appropriate stats I shall report back.

I won't hold my breath.

Maybe better to source before speak next time.

Ciao and have a good one.