The Tories are about to get a boost on the economy – here’s why Labour shouldn’t panic

 Ed Miliband conceeded at PMQ’s that a drop in unemployment means all is great. Both sides now agree that the 2 million don’t count.

Hello again Alan.

IDS is today saying that people on benefits can only have two children. Breeding, it seems, is to be a privallage reserved for well off Tories.

What it means to the unemployed and those loosing benefits, the number of children who will be born into poverty, the people who cannot retire due to pension hardships, while so many young people cannot get their first job; these are the things that Labour should be shouting about. In this respect I take your point.

Yes there is also a “squeezed middle” as teachers and other public sector workers have their pay frozen and even cut while the cost of living goes up, and Labour also needs to speak up for them as well. All in all the only people who are doing well are the super-rich who are getting even richer and the shareholders as more of the public sector gets privitised. I don’t think that it is a case of “crocodile tears” for these groups, it is a very real issue for people faced with the possibility of loosing their homes and being squeezed out of their way of life.

Oh yes that’s right it’s all Liam Byrne’s fault……..yadder, yadder yadder

To shoot down IDS’s latest brainwave about limiting child benefit to two children per family you only need to ask one question: If child benefit is to be limited to two children what happens if a poor mother dependent on benefits becomes pregnant with triplets, quads or quins?

Should the pregnant mother choose to abort the pregnancy? Or abort one or more of the foetuses in a more limited fashion? Or should she simply, bravely bring all of her innocent babies into the world even though they might be destined to suffer poverty because support once available when British society was compassionate and civilised had been discontinued due to a Tory “two child” policy? And what about families which are members of religious or other communities which expressly forbid contraceptive methods, e.g., Catholic Christians? Are large Catholic families destined to suffer unacceptable levels of poverty and privation simply because the parents happen to be poor and devout? Is it right to punish the poor for what is, to them at least, a blessed act of God?

This is absolutely vile, contemptible, and brutal stuff from Iain Duncan Smith, who must surely be one of the nastiest, most incompetent, and numbingly stupid Cabinet Ministers of all time; a man whose warped moralistic attitudes encourage him to consider fearful and dangerous programmes tantamount to state sponsored child neglect and cruelty if not abuse.

Labour should not need to think about this twice about this one. 

F*ck the polls, f*ck the sensibilities of squeezed middle, and f*ck Daily Mail.

Forget psephology, focus group, and questionnaires and do what’s right for once.

Labour should immediately and unequivocally state that indiscriminately cruel policies like this are wrong and that under Labour no innocent child would ever be made to suffer for anything that his (or her) parents did before or after he (or she) had been born. Labour should say that it stands for a society which protects innocent and helpless children from evil, privation, poverty and harm, whoever their parents happen to be by dint of an accident of birth. Always. Without question. Unconditionally. Because that is what we are to the core, unashamedly, forever, and those who want to be governed by a party committed to increasing child poverty and child neglect, well, they’d best vote for the Tories.

We can do without that support.

Part of the problem, I feel, is that Byrne and especially his predecessor Purnell  either genuinely believe, or like to pretend to believe for convenience,  the tabloid press view that people are unemployed because they choose to be so (indeed Labour has been guilty of the phrase about “being on benefits…a lifestyle choice”).

Of course those of us who live in the real world  know that the young, and the middle aged find it harder to obtain work, and this has been compounded by both major parties choosing to raise the retirement age – which will result in fewer jobs being available for younger workers, and when older workers lose their jobs, but have to soldier on post 60, employers are less likely to take them on.

Just this last few days, Fords have announced major closures and the “Argos” chain are to close over the next few years at least 75 of their stores, reduce their catalogue and concentrate more on “on line” trading. There are, and will continue to be fewer jobs to be had, something both the right wing of Conservative and Labour either fail to grasp, or choose to ignore.

Better watch yourself or he’ll “flag” you.

Sorry, I’m not saying your polling evidence is wrong what I am saying is that the point you made that Labour was 22 points behind the Tories before the 1997 election, but went onto win a landslide cannot be applied now because back then not only did the Government completely lose its reputation for competence but the economy was third on people’s list of priorities whereas now it is overwhelming at the top. Therefore, there is cause to worry if they do get a bounce.

Labour did inherit strong growth from Ken Clarke after a recession, it’s just that Labour made the growth even stronger.