As I mentioned yesterday, I was on the Jeremy Vine show on BBC Radio 2 yesterday in which I was in discussion with a person from the far right Adam Smith Institute on wealth taxation.
This was the discussion, in which my frustration with his belief that tax should not be used to relieve child poverty is apparent:
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
You came across as a spoilt child with all your sighs and tutting..and you seem to include “child poverty” in virtually anything you debate, it’s student politics.
Welcome troll…who I am quite sure is not recognised by anyone as Nigel
The sighs are deliberate. They are non-verbal communication on radio to indicate dissent when that is not otherwise possible.
The Radio 2 producers know I do them – and have always been happy for me to use them, over many years. It adds to the stress of tbe interviww that they seek. I spoke to the producer afterwards and he had no concerns.
And yes, I talk about child poverty a lot. Doesn’t the existence of 1 million or more children in child poverty create moral outrage in you? If not, what was it is that caused your empathy bypass?
Good riposte to Nigel.
That 1 million figure doesn’t seem right.
This file from Parliament Briefings says this at page 23:
https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN07096/SN07096.pdf
3.2 million children (22%) were in relative low income before housing costs
and 4.3 million (30%) were in relative low income after housing costs in
2022/23. This is the highest level of child poverty after housing costs since
HBAI records began in 1994/95.
If you’ve got a budget to relieve child relative income inequality it’s obvious to me that you should focus on housing costs, and not the 2 child rule, which parents can plan for now. If you can go after the housing problem you can tackle the availability as well as the quality issue at the same time. A lot of children are growing up in houses with mould, damp, wood fire pollution, cramped space for studying and small kitchens where you can barely swing a cat let alone teach your children how to cook.
That’s my opinion.
I use the two- child cap figure as a target for now
I think it too small
“you seem to include “child poverty” in virtually anything you debate,”
@Richard –
KEEP UP THE GOOD FIGHT!!!!!!
I will….
Brilliant. Good stuff Richard, thank you.
Once you start claiming that a group on the right of centre (and certainly in the mainstream of economics and politics) is ‘far right’, then you’ve already shown yourself up to be somewhat out of touch with the rest of the country.
You’ve also given yourself nowhere to go when genuine ‘far right’ parties are being discussed.
Given that you are on the left of Labour, the Tories, and probably the Lib Dem’s too, 3 parters who will capture 99% of the seats at the general election), you should probably be classed as ‘far left’, but I doubt you see yourself as such, which just shows how misinformed your understanding of the ‘centre’ really is.
When we have parties promoting racism, otherness and discrimination against those in poverty, all of which are characteristics of the far-right, can you tell me why I should nor use the term ‘far-right’. Please make it a reasoned argument.
And as for far left, I see myself as being very comfortable in the Labour of 1945 – 75. Why was that far left? It created the post war consensus. I grew up in it that era and have not moved. The world has moved far right. I remain soft left.
It’s good to see you finally acknowledge how far out of touch you are with the real world!
I should think the 70% of the country who clearly want competent government that delivers are in my space.
In life rather than politics, left is right and right is wrong. H. Wilson said that the Labour Party is a crusade or it is nothing. So, nothing it is then. But I`m so glad to have Richard`s strong, authoritative and heartfelt voice on our side. The blog is an absolute gem. Thank you.
Thanks
Come off it, the Adam Smith Institute are far right these days.
They’re certainly nowhere near the man himself, who would probably be ashamed of some of the guff put out in his name.
Some of their stuff is as nutty as the Mises Institute.
If you are opposed to measures to eliminate (not reduce – eliminate) child poverty in a country with £15 trillion of assets you are not right wing or middle of the road: you are evil.
You lack empathy, you are in the class of “I’m alright Jack” because, by definition, your kids ain’t hungry.
James Price was very lucky that he faced somebody as reasonable as Richard. I’m not reasonable, at all. I (and others) are getting tired of the lies & blathering bullshit spounted by evil people like Price. What is worse is that in the interests of “balance” (how can have “balance” wrt the problem of hungry kids in a rich country? seriously?) the likes of Price is given platforms to spout garbage. Even more amazing, there are trolls that defend monsters like Price – showing how the country has morally disintegrated. The UK needs to take a bloody good look in a mirror – it won’t like what it sees.
Cynthia Powell,
Could you please give me a good reason why the Adam Smith Institute have any entitlement, or legitimate claim to the name of Adam Smith, beyond the capacity to use the name because it is in the public domain? The only institution with a very good claim to Adam Smith’s name is the University of Glasgow, where Adam Smith was both a student, and Professor of Moral Philosophy. Smith’s great teacher there, was Francis Hutcheson. They both left their mark on the world, and felt grateful to their University. There is now an Adam Smith Chair of Political Economy there; and The Adam Smith Business School, housed in a new £85m building.
The Adam Smith Institute’s claim to Adam Smith’s name? No idea. Prima facie, frankly it just looks cheap. It goes to the nature of what they do. They are a ‘think tank’; because they are. In Britain today, that is all it takes. Perhaps you could tell me what special requirement, what test must be passed to claim to be a ‘think tank’, and use any long dead, famous person’s name you happen to envy or covet?
They used to be called `pressure groups`, even on the BBC.
Adam Smith man -out of touch with the lives of ordinary people? Or don’t give a damn?
Probably both but more the second.
Might it be that the Tufton Street gentleman strictly uses a powerful but unstated premise that economics is entire just to itself and so has no social consequences?
Off mic, did he indicate his perceptions of causes for high levels of child food insufficiencies and/or solutions?
We were not in the same room…..I was in Sheffield on a phone….
Well Richard, I don’t always agree with what you come up with, but I like your blogs – incisive and thought provoking and some I totally support! Regarding left and right, its definitely the case that the three main parties have moved to the right over the years. Views which were seen as pretty right wing in the 70s are now commonplace. I think my politics was formed in the mid to late seventies with I hope a better understanding of things as time went by. I would consider myself centre-left, although some might think some of my views are rather left wing!! I am certainly to the left of Labour and the Lib dems!!!
Much my experience…
That is exactly the point, Richard. The centre ground has moved significantly from 1975 – it’s about time you realised that and were honest with yourself, let alone your readers.
You are nowhere near the centre, no ,tater what you might like to pretend.
And it might actually be more constructive to actually provide some evidence for what you see as ‘far right’ rather than make a blind accusation.
For example. Some of the policies you support / propose – nationalisation of private businesses, without full compensation is certainly consistent with hard left policies.
Since when have I ever proposed nationalisation without fair compensation for true market value?
If you have to make stuff up to call me far-left you have a real problem.
It hardly seems radical or left wing to be offended by the numbers of children growing up in conditions most of us commenting on this blog wouldn’t tolerate for our children. It is a sense of humanity.
Trying to find a mechanism to alleviate this, while not unduly affecting others must be a national priority in a civilised country.
Keep up the good work. A bit more passion and compassion in public debate is a good thing, particularly when backed up by facts and numbers.
Thanks