Tuesday, May 06, 2008

Crewe and Nantwich: Tory Lived in Paper Bag in Road

It seems that the Tory candidate in the Crewe and Nantwich by-election is trying to trade on the fact that he "lived with 80 foster children" (Channel 4 News). "You were lucky!" seems to be the idea "I lived in a paper bag in a puddle in the middle of the road." The candidate was in fact the son of a house which welcomed short term foster kids. Trying to excuse Tory showboating on the 10p tax - under Tories of course, with Cam as a Treasury Advisor, it was 22p with no minimum wage, no minimum income guarantees, lower allowances and no step changes in pensions.

And despite the 10p Tax Gaffe there has been a very substantial distribution these last 11 years from the wealthiest to the lowest four deciles in particular.

Lib Dem Voice's Mark Pack made a ridiculous "Joke" about this man here - showing the blog standard level of Lib Dem humour, local fetishism and a very good standard of Dale-baiting - but if Cam's Chester Barrister is going to pretend to be Oliver! at the drop of the Artful Dodger's hat we'll be applauding Lib Dem honesty before the campaign is over.


Anonymous said...

This blog is turning into a recruiting ad for the Conservative Party.

I watched Timpson on TV. He was embarassing. He just couldn't string a word together and those that he managed were clicheed and incoherent.

Your problem is Brown. He's crap. And it ain't going to run that you pile more piss on the Tories than they piss on you.

It is a strong signal that Cameron could turn up with that plonker and be confident enough to roll over the Labour Party.

For fuck's sake, get on the programme.

Chas said...

Yes, "a very substantial distribution these last 11 years from the wealthiest to the lowest four deciles in particular."

And guess what? The poor are poorer and the rich are...probably poorer too. You can't make the poor richer by making the rich poorer. You make the poor richer by making them richer. Like selling them their council homes. Remember Mrs Thatcher? She was the only prime minister who ever made the poor richer.

The only way the poor will get rich is by encouraging them to get rich, not by giving them money to spend. Ancient chinese proverb: Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach him how to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.

We have had 150 years of failed socialist experiments. When will they end?

Chris Paul said...

"Anon" is showing signs of being ... not a Tory ... while "Chas" is just beng silly and trite. The poorest have become quite a lot richer under New Labour 10-15% richer in proportional terms while the richest has only lost a % or two. Which is sad.

Funnily enough from my local observations I think that the still in situ right-to-buy lot could suffer the most from any crunch. But this is a private theory of mine based on close observation.

Obviously Timpson is a muppet. The Lib Dems have sacked their candidate in an attempt to overhaul Timpson-Oliver-muppet.

There is an extraordinarily good chance that Dunwoody will triumph by an increased majority.

GeoffH said...

"There is an extraordinarily good chance that Dunwoody will triumph by an increased majority."

Whistling in the dark.

chuffinwell3 said...

"The poorest have become quite a lot richer under New Labour 10-15% richer in proportional terms while the richest has only lost a % or two"

We have? Then why do myself and my mother, both on low incomes, have less to spend than we did under Thatcher?

Why have our income taxes just doubled?

Why can't we afford a home when my Grandmother managed to buy her's off of Mrs T at a good price?

Why am I now expected to try to be as independant as possible if this fair redistribution has come about? I don't feel materially richer because I'm not. I don't have more money to spend and the taxes on EVERYTHING that now moves or doesn't means I have to genuinely weigh up travelling anywhere.

If Labour wanted to help the poor PROPERLY wouldn't they adopt something akin to Hugo Chavez's fuel prices? Heck, just cutting the tax would make us feel happy.

A distant acquaintance said...

Trying to criticise the Timpson family is borderline impossible.

The family firm is brilliantly run - with powers delegated to shop managers who enjoy an astonishingly generous profit sharing agreement. It is regarded as a model for other firms - in particular how to bring new talent through the ranks.

The family has fostered, as you say, 80 odd kids. They work for charity - believe me Chris, if you are thinking of throwing any mud then hold off. They've practically all got halos. You might as well blow rasperries at Mary Poppins.

Edward Timpson is an honest, hardworking and wonderfully intelligent young man. He's hardly in it for the money or prestige. If he wanted he could be sunning it with Russian chicks in Monaco until his dying day, but he's got a public service ethic a la Hillary Benn.

If it sounds like Brown-nosing, then go and meet the chap. Make your own mind up.

At the very least, check out the family firm, Timpsons. It is run in a way that even a socialist could approve of.

If you end up backing Dunwoody over Timpson in this by-election then you are partisan to the point of absurdity. Sometimes the party is not in the right - and in Timpson v Dunwoody you have the perfect test case to determine your own ability to see past the party rosette.

Chris Paul said...

Thanks "a distant acquaintance", but this post was based on Mr Timpson alongside Mr Cameron when asked how he could speak up for the poor, Mr Timpson claiming basically to have been brought up with 80 orphans and "we had it tough".

Bollocks! They may all have halos. The family firm may be a marvel. But Mr Timpson cannot play the orphan card and expect not to have a few people taking the piss. Now can he? It was hilarious. Dave looked shocked at having such a silly chap as his by-election candidate.

Chris Paul said...

As for the Me and my Mum comment it is hard to come back on that without having your own private financial figures. The redistribution had made the ninth and tenth lowest deciles about 11% better off and the the seventh and eighth about 8% better off.

The 10p tax gaffe has thrown a cat among these pigeons but it is going to be fixed. Hopefully within the next few days. Mrs Thatcher had a higher overall tax burden, loads more civil servants, higher basic tax, much lower pensions and benefits. And it was she who got rid of rent control, planning consent for demolitions, lots of council housing stock, the coal mining industry, lots of other industry, jobs, and so on and so forth. Runaway inflation, humungous interest rates etc etc

It is hard to conceive of anyone in the poorer sections of society who was truly better off under Thatcher. But if you would like to send me some supporting facts and figures I'll blog about it.

The redistribution figures are statistics and aggregate millions of people.

A Friendly Tory said...

You are realy in desperate territory now, Chris. Almost to the point of ranting. Calm down!

Anonymous said...

A word to the wise.

Timpsons is far from a model for other firms and the family do not wear halos - as many former employees and suppliers would tell you.

Most people who do a lot of work for charities keep it pretty quiet. This lot don't, but then maybe they need to "buy nice" more than most?