Facts and figures tell a different tale on politics and poverty

From: Derek Brooks, Bailiff Bridge, Brighouse.

I FELT I had to say something about Max Nottingham’s breathtaking prejudice in his letter (Yorkshire Post, March 1).

He casually writes “Tory governments are traditionally kind to the rich and cruel to the poor” as if it were fact. Yet it has been over 20 years since a Conservative government had a majority in Parliament. More to the point, we have had ample hard evidence with which to examine just how much a Labour government really treats the “rich’ and ‘the poor’, and the consequences, now, for all of us.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Far from being the champion of the poor working classes, the Labour government presided over a record amount of devastating worklessness, despite pouring £170bn into trying to buy a reduction in poverty by 2010 – only by half mind, but failing miserably.

At the “other end of the scale”, you might say, at no time under Labour did the richest one per cent pay more tax than they do now under a Conservative-led government; in fact that one per cent pay a very “fragile” 30 per cent of our total tax revenues, and by “fragile” I mean it could disappear if entrepreneurs walk away from the UK, leaving the much less well off to pick up the tab! Uncomfortable economic facts Mr Nottingham not parrotted slogans.

You go on to say, Mr Nottingham, the coalition is causing misery. Yet every £1 of reduced public spending, whether it be on welfare, tax credits, spare room subsidies etc, barely frees up enough to cover the “interest” we all still have to pay to finance Labour’s borrowing. It’s made for a painful sacrifice by all of us in the short term, of course, but those sacrifices are beginning to pay off, but we still have a long, long way to go, just to clear the “overdraft”.

In the meantime Max, I suggest you open your eyes to the truth about the real “cruelty” here: a Labour government that was prepared to sacrifice the wellbeing of our children and grandchildren for their political gain. Do we want to repeat that awful mistake?

From: Hugh Rogers, Ashby, Scunthorpe.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

IF any government is foolish – or desperate – enough to bring the concept of a ”living wage” into law, it will make large and medium-sized firms unprofitable and kill shops and many other small businesses stone dead, putting the fragile economic recovery at risk and throwing 
tens of thousands of people back on to the dole (Yorkshire Post, March 1). What good is a living wage if you haven’t got a job to go with it?

The right wage for any job depends on whether the business in question can afford what employees and would-be employees demand as the price for their labour.

You can’t artificially skew the market in wages any more than you can realistically freeze energy prices.

A man is worth what he brings to the company which pays him. No less, but certainly no more.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

The irony of it is that distortion of the market always seems to end up hurting the very people whom the distortion was intended to help.

Especially folk on fixed incomes, where there is no wage elasticity to soften the effects of any subsequent downturn in the economy.

Old age pensioners cannot ask for a rise or go on strike – all they can do is turn down their heating and put on another cardigan.

From: Tony Worthington, Northfield Lane, Highburton, Huddersfield.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

SO Jayne Dowle believes that George Osborne becoming slightly overweight is due to his ability (financially) to overfeed himself (Yorkshire Post, February 24).

She claims that she knows quite a few mothers struggling to make ends meet who forgo a proper meal in order to put food on the table to feed their children.

Well Jayne, did you watch the Benefits Street TV programme? White Dee, as she was euphemistically known, also allegedly struggled to make ends meet and while I do not particularly want to comment on her weight, suffice to say by comparison George Osborne would be classed as slender.

I obviously don’t know the mothers to whom Jayne refers.

I would be greatly obliged 
if she can confirm that while they are struggling to feed their kids, they don’t smoke, drink alcohol or buy pet food or lottery tickets.

If you are to allow journalists the freedom to write articles, they should be required to support their assertions with facts.