Oliver Letwin is leading for the Tories in a Commons debate on the relief of poverty - a debate I'm proud to report was initiated by the Conservatives. The debate comes a day after Iain Duncan Smith's 188 recommendations into fighting the social injustices that have got worse under Labour. Speaking yesterday David Cameron said:
"Gordon Brown’s social failure is costing this country over a hundred billion pounds a year. But it is not just the financial cost that should concern us. It is the cost in wasted lives, dashed hopes and disappointment. And the scandal is, this was what the Labour government was supposed to fix. Gordon Brown said he wanted to get Britain back to work. But after ten years of his policies, five million people of working age – over one in ten adults – are out of work and on benefits. Gordon Brown said he wanted to give young people the best start in life. But after ten years of his policies, there are over a million young people not in work, education or training – more than in 1997. Gordon Brown said he wanted to tackle poverty. Yet after ten years of his policies, the poorest people in our society have got poorer – and there are more of them. What on earth was it all about, these last ten years, if it wasn’t about this? With this report as our evidence we will take Gordon Brown to pieces for his devastating social failure. These Labour politicians, they talk about being progressive; they pose as the champions of the poor and the vulnerable... and all the while preside over a Britain where the poorest and most vulnerable sink further and further behind. We’ve got among the worst rates of teenage pregnancy, drug addiction and personal debt in Europe."
The LibDems pose as progressives too but where were they in today's poverty debate? The above screen shot of the Commons chamber from just a few minutes ago shows a respectable number of Tory MPs but empty LibDem benches behind David Laws. Surely their unlikely hopes for a good result in Ealing Southall aren't being put before their commitment to fighting poverty?
Great photo. I'm emailing that to my church friends who think so much of the DimLibs.
Posted by: bluepatriot | July 11, 2007 at 17:19
The Tory benches are not too full considering it is their debate. That said, David Laws does look like a bit of an idiot there on his own. At least he looks like he's awake...
Posted by: Ali Gledhill | July 11, 2007 at 17:37
Utter rubbish! I've just watched David Laws' speech, which was excellent and well thought out, making exactly the right points. Far better than from the Tories, who lets face it are fair weather friends to those on local incomes or facing poverty. When I see that fool IDS on a council estate for the cameras I wonder why he wasn't raising these issues during his doomed Tory leadership.
Posted by: Paul Elgood | July 11, 2007 at 18:14
What is Ali Gledhill talking about? Can he actually see the photo clearly or is he one of these Lib Dems who enjoys reading this excellent site, because there is no Lib Dem equivalent and if there was why would anyone want to read it?
Oh dear, is the fluffy mask of the Lib Dems slipping? They preach that they are the party that cares about the poor and disposed, but when there is a debate they are nowhere to been seen.
Mind you I have to ask the question, will anyone be surprised or even care? The Lib Dems will as we all know do and say anything to seem popular.
Posted by: Ali T | July 11, 2007 at 18:23
David Laws will at least have expected to see Grant Shapps.
Posted by: Henry Mayhew - ukipper | July 11, 2007 at 18:23
'When I see that fool IDS on a council estate for the cameras I wonder why he wasn't raising these issues during his doomed Tory leadership.' - Paul Elgood
I think you'll find he was Paul, but then, don't let facts stand in the way, eh - they haven't stopped you and your Lib Dem pals before, why would they this time?
Posted by: Chris Palmer | July 11, 2007 at 18:42
When you lot ousted IDS (and who can blame you), didn't he claim that the Tory Party rejected him because of his ideas on social justice etc? All seemed like a lame excuse from a loser to me then and his half hearted attempts prove it now. He hasn't a clue.
Posted by: Paul | July 11, 2007 at 18:46
Have you got a picture of stuffed Tory benches the last time the Lib Dems had an opposition debate? Really, I don't think much of them either but this is pot, kettle, black territory this is.
Posted by: Chris Paul | July 11, 2007 at 18:57
"LibDems, Not bovvered here?"
Posted by: Teesbridge | July 11, 2007 at 19:03
Great photo. I'm emailing that to my church friends who think so much of the DimLibs.
It looks pretty much like a standard turnout for a Commons debate to me.
Possibly it is just my eyesight failing with advanced age but I haven't a clue who the people in the picture are. They could be Tories or anybody.
Why would do you think it would have such a devastating effect on your 'church friends' Bluepatriot? If you make a habit of arguing politics with fellow-churchgoers in those snide terms you must be a very popular member of the congregation.
Posted by: Traditional Tory | July 11, 2007 at 19:19
TT: you can tell who belongs to what party by where they are sitting. All those people are Tories, except for the single bloke on the left of the center aisle; he's a LibDem.
Posted by: Tory T | July 11, 2007 at 20:29
Ali T | July 11, 2007 at 18:23
What is Ali Gledhill talking about? Can he actually see the photo clearly or is he one of these Lib Dems who enjoys reading this excellent site, because there is no Lib Dem equivalent and if there was why would anyone want to read it?
It is a shame that no LibDems are there, but I was suggesting that the number of Tories only looks great in comparison to the mass of empty green seats beside them.
The number of Tories present is, as was suggested, "respectable" for a normal post-PMQs debate. But it is hardly something to write home about if a flagship opposition debate on a key policy area for a recoving party can only fill this many seats.
In other words, if it is fair to ask where the LibDems are, surely it is fair to wonder why so many Conservatives failed to attend their own debate?
And no, I'm not a LibDem.
Posted by: Ali Gledhill | July 11, 2007 at 20:39
"The above screen shot of the Commons chamber from just a few minutes ago shows a respectable number of Tory MPs..."
You must be kidding? If that's a respectable number of Tory MPs, I'm affraid of thinking how the Tory benches look usually.
Posted by: Myriam | July 11, 2007 at 22:26
Most House of Commons debates could be held in a 20 seater committee room. It is all rather disgraceful and embarrassing. MPs demand debates on this issue and that at business questions: when they get them almost nobody shows interest. As for adjournment debates........
Posted by: fr | July 12, 2007 at 07:44
IDS started pushing he social justice agenda in 2002, but the media, at that time pre-Iraq totally in thrall to Alastair Campbell and Labour, ensured it was not heard. That's why it is such a shock to Liberal Democrats now that there is such a big emphasis in Conservative ranks on Social Justice.
Liam Fox took up the banner in the leadership election of 2005 and started using the 'broken society' phrase. David Cameron appointed IDS to press ahead towards creating a major policy framework as soon as he was elected leader.
The policies being proposed now from the IDS Social Justice Policy Review Body have been five years in their creating.
If these LD guys above supposedly read CH, how come they don't know the facts? Have they come in to make a bit of trouble and prove their ignorance? Lib Dems might at least listen before dismissing the Social Justice Conservative agenda, and attacking ad hominem on their principle initiator.
Posted by: Tapestry | July 12, 2007 at 08:55
The photo is of the Opposition benches clearly. John Bercow is in the third row back with his left arm out.
I agree over attendances to debates. Its sad that there is such great demand for debates (look at Leader of the House questions for examples of this) but when it comes to the crunch, they just wont turn up. I guess one reason is because ultimately debates are just that and do not lead to action.
Posted by: James Maskell | July 12, 2007 at 10:51
I take it from the thread above that the new way of attacking a fellow poster on this site who disagrees with your view is to instantly brand them a Lib Dem? (true yellow visitors aside of course)
Posted by: Adam Tugwell | July 12, 2007 at 11:08
fr | July 12, 07:44
"Most House of Commons debates could be held in a 20 seater committee room...."
Yet hundreds of MPs magically appear from nowhere to vote on party lines, despite not having heard debates.
A rule enabling voting only by Members who have been in the Chamber for all or most of a debate would be an interesting development!
Posted by: Ken Stevens | July 12, 2007 at 12:10
I have never been able to take the Lib Dems seriously when they posture as champions of social justice. All they ever want to do is confiscate more cash through the tax system. When it comes to solutions, they have no answers other than the non-answers which Labour is already offering.
Posted by: Michael McGowan | July 12, 2007 at 14:16
Very reassuring that Bercow is still on our benches, bearing in mine the fevered speculation of a couple of weeks ago. Eleven members (5.1%) isn't brilliant, albeit better than the Lib Dem's one (under 2%). Is that the lovely Julie Kirkbride on the second bench? With Oliver Letwin, that's only 3 identified so far. I offer a "prize" of a £10 donation to ConHome if anyone can name all the others by midnight tonight. You can crib from earlier posts but one poster has to get them all. Someone expert (the Editor, but then he'll want the £10 so that might not work) will have a adjudicate.
Posted by: Londoner | July 12, 2007 at 15:10
Obviously thats IDS stood up behind Bercow... Thats gotta be worth a quid!
Posted by: James Maskell | July 13, 2007 at 16:07
We have to be a bit careful on comments like this. Whenever I switch on the parliament channel all the benches look quiet.
Posted by: Bexie | July 13, 2007 at 16:47