Comments on: Jim Murphy’s blog http://www.antoniabance.org.uk/2006/12/17/jim-murphys-blog/ Thoughts of Antonia, Labour activist and feminist in Oxford Thu, 20 Nov 2008 21:43:33 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: Pogovos http://www.antoniabance.org.uk/2006/12/17/jim-murphys-blog/#comment-42464 Pogovos Thu, 21 Dec 2006 12:08:19 +0000 http://www.antoniabance.org.uk/2006/12/17/jim-murphys-blog/#comment-42464 Indeed. The fundamental failure of this Labour government (as well as Iraq). Indeed. The fundamental failure of this Labour government (as well as Iraq).

]]> By: Benjamin http://www.antoniabance.org.uk/2006/12/17/jim-murphys-blog/#comment-42426 Benjamin Thu, 21 Dec 2006 04:17:30 +0000 http://www.antoniabance.org.uk/2006/12/17/jim-murphys-blog/#comment-42426 Not only that, if British society is getting so much richer under Labour, and relative rates of child poverty remain high, then inequality is still rife and widening: labour's failure. Not only that, if British society is getting so much richer under Labour, and relative rates of child poverty remain high, then inequality is still rife and widening: labour’s failure.

]]> By: Benjamin http://www.antoniabance.org.uk/2006/12/17/jim-murphys-blog/#comment-42425 Benjamin Thu, 21 Dec 2006 04:15:08 +0000 http://www.antoniabance.org.uk/2006/12/17/jim-murphys-blog/#comment-42425 <i>Sometimes absolutes are more useful.</i> Certainly are if you're a Labour Party supporter. If you don't like the figures - just change the method of calculation! But when the Tories get in, suddenly there will be no complaints about the relative definition used. And it begs the question, if it's so difficult to reduce child poverty because of the relative definition used, how come civilised countries have much lower rates of relative child poverty? Strange that. Sometimes absolutes are more useful.

Certainly are if you’re a Labour Party supporter. If you don’t like the figures - just change the method of calculation!

But when the Tories get in, suddenly there will be no complaints about the relative definition used.

And it begs the question, if it’s so difficult to reduce child poverty because of the relative definition used, how come civilised countries have much lower rates of relative child poverty? Strange that.

]]> By: Joe S http://www.antoniabance.org.uk/2006/12/17/jim-murphys-blog/#comment-42102 Joe S Tue, 19 Dec 2006 09:23:01 +0000 http://www.antoniabance.org.uk/2006/12/17/jim-murphys-blog/#comment-42102 Official figures for child poverty include children not "able to invite friends to tea once a fortnight." What, like the children of working parents who use after school clubs and the like? The problem is that relativist concepts are increasingly becoming irrelevant as our society generally (thanks in no small part to the Labour government) becomes wealthier. Sometimes absolutes are more useful. Official figures for child poverty include children not “able to invite friends to tea once a fortnight.”

What, like the children of working parents who use after school clubs and the like?

The problem is that relativist concepts are increasingly becoming irrelevant as our society generally (thanks in no small part to the Labour government) becomes wealthier.

Sometimes absolutes are more useful.

]]> By: Benjamin http://www.antoniabance.org.uk/2006/12/17/jim-murphys-blog/#comment-41890 Benjamin Mon, 18 Dec 2006 02:36:00 +0000 http://www.antoniabance.org.uk/2006/12/17/jim-murphys-blog/#comment-41890 Good luck to Mr. Murphy. After nearly 10 years of Labour, Britain still has one of the worst rates of child poverty in the industrialised world. Labour canvassers normally come out with a stock answer on this: "we have lifted X amount out of poverty is 1997". Not sure what figure gets bandied about: 700,000, something like that. All fine and dandy, but its not the figure that counts. What counts is the overall rate - and that remains high. And you won't get that figure cited by Labour people! Good luck to Mr. Murphy.

After nearly 10 years of Labour, Britain still has one of the worst rates of child poverty in the industrialised world.

Labour canvassers normally come out with a stock answer on this: “we have lifted X amount out of poverty is 1997″. Not sure what figure gets bandied about: 700,000, something like that.

All fine and dandy, but its not the figure that counts. What counts is the overall rate - and that remains high. And you won’t get that figure cited by Labour people!

]]>