Not particularly subtle coordination. Nobody engages in the argument, it is just a character assassination. Why? Because the argument can't be won. I am sure Faiza Shaheen is a lovely person and caring for the poor is noble, but an economics certificate does not mean your ideas are good economics. Too many of her arguments seem to come from the "this sounds good" school of economics. Winston is right that the best way to help the poor is to create wealth and prosperity. The creation of wealth and prosperity is why people no longer die of starvation in this country, why we get to piss inside our houses and why everyone has a mobile phone. Creating wealth requires the freedom to build businesses, take risks and innovate. Growing prosperity requires productivity gains. Yet the state continues to expand - tax, regulation and welfare spending - as though taking more resources away from productive people has no economic trade-offs. Good intentions are not economics. Every pound the state spends must first be taxed, borrowed or created, and every decision has consequences. If you genuinely care about the poor, you have to care about how wealth is created, not just how it is redistributed. The latter is easy, the former requires hard work and the society we live in is build on the shoulders of generations of hard-working people.