JonMc

iTrader: (51)

So it's okay to cut spending in defence but we can ring-fence overseas aid

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23018465

Does he really think that by cutting civilian manpower we won't reduce military capability because of course we aren't going to pull uniformed staff off the front line to cover the gaps left by another cull civilian support staff

Oh, and while we're there we'll have a pop at the benefits pensioners get, no mention of the £1.5million council houses for fat, lazy layabouts who think it's okay to breed like rabbits...

f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

Why are you surprised though? These are politicians.... they will do whatever they need to feather their own nests and little else besides.

Anyway it's all irrelevant as his cuts are just nibbling around the edges of the issue... we are £1.2 TRILION in debt so a few million here and there isn't going to make any difference.

Trouble is not one of the main parties has the spine to tackle this issue properly for fear of losing the next election... so just remember your country was f***ed over so a few people can have a career as politicians and then disappear off to some other part of the world and make a fortune... Tony Blair anyone?

tony de wonderful

Military is a waste of money. I'd cut it much more and scrap the carriers. We can't afford it.

The overseas aid is basically a legal way to bribe other countries for trade deals and military contracts.

There are not £1.5 million council houses. The problem is all the old council houses were sold off (mostly) and the rest are in the hands of QUANGOS. The high cost of housing benefit is because (oddly enough) of housing benefit driving up rents, and the BTL boom on the back of the general property boom. Housing benefit costs for social housing is one of those pseudo-costs because it is basically the government paying itself to provide housing. The REAL cost is just upkeep and administration once the building costs are paid off. This is why the bedroom tax is such a load of BS.

Leslie

It was a pity on the Andrew Marr show that no one had the guts to ask Ed ***** why the Labour treasury secretary felt he had to leave a note to the following Conservative Chancellor to explain that there was "no money left" This of course was after Labour inherited a strong economy from the Conservatives when Billy Boy was elected.

He went on and on about Osborne's inability to reduce our deficit so far but neglected to explain why the Conservatives inherited such an enormous deficit from Labour after they were elected.

He conveniently forgot to mention that Brown as Chancellor went on the most enormous borrowing spree when he took over managing to break borrowing records and using the cash to fool us into thinking the economy was good thus ensuring Billy's continuing electoral success. He also did not mention the enormous deficit which was left by Labour and that he was one of Brown's advisors encouraging all that reckless borrowing!

God save us from letting him from ever becoming Chancellor in the future!

It reminds me of the euphemism that the word "politician" can be taken to mean when the likes of him starting shooting off their mouth!

Les

chopperman

Not how i remember it. As i remember we were on the tail end of a very damaging recession. Unemployment was at an all time record, house repossessions were at an all time record. Interests rates were through the roof. Some parts of the country were left in a derelict state. Sure the rich did very well, but they only account for less than 5% of the population so to say we had a strong economy is far far off the mark its laughable. That's also not forget all the publicly owned services sold off as a quick cash injection to try and buy themselves out of bankruptcy ,at the expense of looting the tax payer. This was the reason the Tory's were voted out and New labour got a 13 year run in office.

pslewis

As long as we replace Trident that's really what matters .....

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

I'm sure I've read somewhere that if the Tories collected all the tax owed them by the likes of Starbucks, Amazon and Vodafone, they could virtually stop all these small cuts that are so damaging their reputation and hurting the man in the street who isn't responsible for this mess.

of course, pensioners, public services and the poor can't offer ex-Tory ministers directorships, so hey...let's hit them.

And since when is a pension a benefit? Surely people a) pay into the pension pot all their lives, and b) if it's benefit STOP THE **** TAXING MINE!!!

The Trooper 1815

iTrader: (31)

The Snivelling Service are going to get cuts and you will be hearing the outcry for months, industrial action, days off to protest (but when it's a working day) not a weekend when hardly any of the fu*kers work, and still the they get annual bonuses for performance .

Let's make 5000 soldiers redundant and place it lower down the news than "the dead donkey" piece. The fighting force of the UK's Army now fit's inside most Premiership footbal grounds, FFS. How's about the military going on strike, switch off GCHQ, ground all the RAF SAR's, pull the Navy back into port and pull the rest military out of every ****e hole around the world be it overt or covert in protest................oh hang on, we can't . So much for the Military Covenant.

And TDW can f**k off as most council houses where bought by the tenants who could afford them and not pikey social security **** wit's living off the benfit state created by Bliar, Brown and the likes of Ed ****ing *****. But I agree with his bit about the Carriers, why not refurb those we had?

Martin2005

Waste of time explaining this (I've tried many times, but he keeps on posting the same old tired and inaccurate line). Les has a pretty fixed view on politics, and as a result he is fairly immune to the facts.

Chip

Maybe if Labour had collected all of this tax in the 13 years they were in power we would not be in such a mess anyway.

urban

iTrader: (1)

Ultimately these companies are not breaking the law, so I can't see how they can be forced into paying more tax.

Chip

That's right Urban, it's the law that needs changing.

urban

iTrader: (1)

I know, but ultimately its always going to be a problem area.

Government will bring in consultants(PWC/Deloitte etc) to help with new tax rules, these consultants invent the rules.
Problem then is the same consultants then sell their knowledge to other companies to 'bend' said rules.

ReallyReallyGoodMeat

It's a global issue though; make the rules too tight and companies will just move their HQs to a tiny building in Ireland.

I haven't read the ins and outs of it, but it looks like the G8 summit has moved to bring in tougher rules at an international level - this would not have been necessary if these multi-national corporations had shown some 'goodwill' in the first place, so they've brought tougher regulation on themselves - Starbucks saw this coming and started paying tax, but seems it's too little too late.

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

And successive governments haven't bothered changing it.

Too easy.
FAR better to leave the door open for lucrative direrctorships when out of power, and rape the poor, the public sector, pensioners etc etc.

Leslie

They were saying that about our defences just before the second World War. We were dreadfully unprepared defensively for that and we only just got away with that...with a lot of help!

You are really very short sighted you know!

Les.

chopperman

Same with the Falklands war.