British Politics

[Luzh 22]

But, Labours spending policies were a major contributing factor of the deficit widening. For all their faults, the Cons have arrested that decline, and in fact have reversed it somewhat. The deficit has been getting smaller with austerity policies, whether people agree with it or not.

It wouldn't have mattered who came into power at the end of the last Labour government, they were always going to be in more debt today than when they took over. But, if Labour had got back into power, there is no doubt that the deficit would have been wider now, rather than smaller.

The debt was higher in the late eighties under the tories than it is now.

Austerity id ideological.

Read what Est wrote in regard to that time frame. Austerity is not idealogical to a particular party. Austerity is a reaction to debt management. Some economists think it's a good thing, whilst others prefer the spend through crisis approach. Both have their places, and, with the shrinking of the deficit, where the economical outlook for the UK is that we'll be back on an even keel by 2020-2025, you have to say Osbourne was right this time.

The growth throughout the world markets since 2008 (outside of emerging markets like China and India), has not been enough to warrant spending through crisis.

It's ideological in that the effect has been massively disproportionate on people who do not vote Tory or don't vote

Triple lock on pensions if you please

Starbucks paying zero tax

Yep, I agree that the side effects of Austerity have been disproportional to certain social groups, but that is the way it has always been. The poor always pay. Social spending plans don't always benefit the poor either, and when they have been put in place to benefit them, some have exploited the system.

Obviously, you have to look at other factors, like human cost, when weighing up the pro's and con's of certain policies. But, from a purely economical viewpoint, the austerity policies put in place by the the last couple of governments, have been successful and have achieved their aims (almost).

Starbucks paying "zero" tax, has nothing to do with austerity. That is the company using loop holes in tax law to pay very little.

[UFGN]

But, Labours spending policies were a major contributing factor of the deficit widening. For all their faults, the Cons have arrested that decline, and in fact have reversed it somewhat. The deficit has been getting smaller with austerity policies, whether people agree with it or not.

It wouldn't have mattered who came into power at the end of the last Labour government, they were always going to be in more debt today than when they took over. But, if Labour had got back into power, there is no doubt that the deficit would have been wider now, rather than smaller.

The debt was higher in the late eighties under the tories than it is now.

Austerity id ideological.

Read what Est wrote in regard to that time frame. Austerity is not idealogical to a particular party. Austerity is a reaction to debt management. Some economists think it's a good thing, whilst others prefer the spend through crisis approach. Both have their places, and, with the shrinking of the deficit, where the economical outlook for the UK is that we'll be back on an even keel by 2020-2025, you have to say Osbourne was right this time.

The growth throughout the world markets since 2008 (outside of emerging markets like China and India), has not been enough to warrant spending through crisis.

It's ideological in that the effect has been massively disproportionate on people who do not vote Tory or don't vote

Triple lock on pensions if you please

Starbucks paying zero tax

Yep, I agree that the side effects of Austerity have been disproportional to certain social groups, but that is the way it has always been. The poor always pay. Social spending plans don't always benefit the poor either, and when they have been put in place to benefit them, some have exploited the system.

Obviously, you have to look at other factors, like human cost, when weighing up the pro's and con's of certain policies. But, from a purely economical viewpoint, the austerity policies put in place by the the last couple of governments, have been successful and have achieved their aims.

Starbucks paying "zero" tax, has nothing to do with austerity. That is the company using loop holes in tax law to pay very little.

Firstly it doesn't have to be that the poor always pay, that is a choice.

Secondly, the corporation tax issue is 100% part of it. If you're short of money, the first thing you do is call in your debts.

Loopholes are put there on purpose, they are not accidental.

[Est83]

On the contrary, I would say that Austerity is ideological, this doesn't excuse one party or another, it just proves that New Labour have shifted their ideology.

Recessions happened prior to 2008, difference was it was a lot easier to work your way out of recession if you had industries. Enter Thatcher, say good bye to industry, enter the accepted norm that establishment parties protect the one industry we have (financial/corporate) and all you're left with is austerity to prioritise corporate growth over the welfare and living standards of the workers, in the vein and pointless false hope of trickle down bullshit.

[Luzh 22]

But, Labours spending policies were a major contributing factor of the deficit widening. For all their faults, the Cons have arrested that decline, and in fact have reversed it somewhat. The deficit has been getting smaller with austerity policies, whether people agree with it or not.

It wouldn't have mattered who came into power at the end of the last Labour government, they were always going to be in more debt today than when they took over. But, if Labour had got back into power, there is no doubt that the deficit would have been wider now, rather than smaller.

The debt was higher in the late eighties under the tories than it is now.

Austerity id ideological.

Read what Est wrote in regard to that time frame. Austerity is not idealogical to a particular party. Austerity is a reaction to debt management. Some economists think it's a good thing, whilst others prefer the spend through crisis approach. Both have their places, and, with the shrinking of the deficit, where the economical outlook for the UK is that we'll be back on an even keel by 2020-2025, you have to say Osbourne was right this time.

The growth throughout the world markets since 2008 (outside of emerging markets like China and India), has not been enough to warrant spending through crisis.

It's ideological in that the effect has been massively disproportionate on people who do not vote Tory or don't vote

Triple lock on pensions if you please

Starbucks paying zero tax

Yep, I agree that the side effects of Austerity have been disproportional to certain social groups, but that is the way it has always been. The poor always pay. Social spending plans don't always benefit the poor either, and when they have been put in place to benefit them, some have exploited the system.

Obviously, you have to look at other factors, like human cost, when weighing up the pro's and con's of certain policies. But, from a purely economical viewpoint, the austerity policies put in place by the the last couple of governments, have been successful and have achieved their aims.

Starbucks paying "zero" tax, has nothing to do with austerity. That is the company using loop holes in tax law to pay very little.

Firstly it doesn't have to be that the poor always pay, that is a choice.

Secondly, the corporation tax issue is 100% part of it. If you're short of money, the first thing you do is call in your debts.

Loopholes are put there on purpose, they are not accidental.

I'm not disagreeing with you on these matters. It doesn't change the current orders of things though. Funnily enough, most of the loopholes come through European Union Corporate tax law. Just sayin.

Attack the current conservative government on social spending by all means. Attack them on their policies that benefit the prosperous. But be accurate, and don't attack them accumulating more debt since taking over, as they could do nothing about that, and have improved matters in that area (Economically speaking).

[Luzh 22]

On the contrary, I would say that Austerity is ideological, this doesn't excuse one party or another, it just proves that New Labour have shifted their ideology.

Recessions happened prior to 2008, difference was it was a lot easier to work your way out of recession if you had industries. Enter Thatcher, say good bye to industry, enter the accepted norm that establishment parties protect the one industry we have (financial/corporate) and all you're left with is austerity to prioritise corporate growth over the welfare and living standards of the workers, in the vein and pointless false hope of trickle down bullshit.

Idealogical in an Economic sense, not in a party political sense, and that I think is what UFGN was alluding to.

[DiamondGooner]

Firstly it doesn't have to be that the poor always pay, that is a choice.

Secondly, the corporation tax issue is 100% part of it. If you're short of money, the first thing you do is call in your debts.

Loopholes are put there on purpose, they are not accidental.

Yes lets call in our debts from big businesses and watch as they all relocate their main offices abroad and no blue chip company (who employ thousands of people) will ever want to come to England again.

Tax breaks for businesses is what attracts them to come to the country ........... you may not like the idea of Billion ££ businesses getting lenient taxes but they repay the country by bringing 1,000's of jobs, investment and financial muscle to the country.

Typical Left wing views .......... bite the hands that feed you and think there won't be consequences.

[UFGN]

Firstly it doesn't have to be that the poor always pay, that is a choice.

Secondly, the corporation tax issue is 100% part of it. If you're short of money, the first thing you do is call in your debts.

Loopholes are put there on purpose, they are not accidental.

Yes lets call in our debts from big businesses and watch as they all relocate their main offices abroad and no blue chip company (who employ thousands of people) will ever want to come to England again.

Tax breaks for businesses is what attracts them to come to the country ........... you may not like the idea of Billion ££ businesses getting lenient taxes but they repay the country by bringing 1,000's of jobs, investment and financial muscle to the country.

Typical Left wing views .......... bite the hands that feed you and think there won't be consequences.

They've got you good haven't they

You think, for example, Starbucks will close coffee shops if they are made to pay the tax they should be paying? No.

Even if the answer were yes, those shops would be replaced by small cafés who because they are small businesses, do pay their taxes.

[Luzh 22]

Firstly it doesn't have to be that the poor always pay, that is a choice.

Secondly, the corporation tax issue is 100% part of it. If you're short of money, the first thing you do is call in your debts.

Loopholes are put there on purpose, they are not accidental.

Yes lets call in our debts from big businesses and watch as they all relocate their main offices abroad and no blue chip company (who employ thousands of people) will ever want to come to England again.

Tax breaks for businesses is what attracts them to come to the country ........... you may not like the idea of Billion ££ businesses getting lenient taxes but they repay the country by bringing 1,000's of jobs, investment and financial muscle to the country.

Typical Left wing views .......... bite the hands that feed you and think there won't be consequences.

I don't think there is anything wrong with tax breaks in enterprise zones. You have to attract foreign business with tax benefits.

When those companies come in, get all the benefits of being HQ'd in an enterprise zone, then exploit loopholes (purposely put there by the EU/UK government, or not), then I think people have a legitimate reason to be angry at those companies. They know it's not right, and despite billion pound+ gross annual profits, they keep on doing shit like this.

[DiamondGooner]

Firstly it doesn't have to be that the poor always pay, that is a choice.

Secondly, the corporation tax issue is 100% part of it. If you're short of money, the first thing you do is call in your debts.

Loopholes are put there on purpose, they are not accidental.

Yes lets call in our debts from big businesses and watch as they all relocate their main offices abroad and no blue chip company (who employ thousands of people) will ever want to come to England again.

Tax breaks for businesses is what attracts them to come to the country ........... you may not like the idea of Billion ££ businesses getting lenient taxes but they repay the country by bringing 1,000's of jobs, investment and financial muscle to the country.

Typical Left wing views .......... bite the hands that feed you and think there won't be consequences.

They've got you good haven't they

You think, for example, Starbucks will close coffee shops if they are made to pay the tax they should be paying? No.

Even if the answer were yes, those shops would be replaced by small cafés who because they are small businesses, do pay their taxes.

I'm not really referring to Starbucks but the business world in general when you mentioned Corporation tax.

I'm not saying they should get a free pass but we should be competitive, especially post Brexit, all added up with global and Euro trade and business we could actually end up being better off but we now have to offer attractive business deals to companies now we're dealing as a solo nation.
Switzerland do the same thing but obviously they specialise in being a banking haven.

............ and they don't "got me good" this is my own common sense especially as I work in Finance for a major global company.

[GoonerAlexandre]

Johnson hard at work

[Est83]

haha, the numpty! Blatantly trying to figure out minesweeper!!!

[GoonerAlexandre]

[Santi]

wow just seen the appointments...the f**k?


at least osbourne is gone, he was an idiot.

[UFGN]

Cunted off by Uganda

I don't know which century the Little England set think they're living in.

[GoonerAlexandre]

Firstly it doesn't have to be that the poor always pay, that is a choice.

Secondly, the corporation tax issue is 100% part of it. If you're short of money, the first thing you do is call in your debts.

Loopholes are put there on purpose, they are not accidental.

Yes lets call in our debts from big businesses and watch as they all relocate their main offices abroad and no blue chip company (who employ thousands of people) will ever want to come to England again.

Tax breaks for businesses is what attracts them to come to the country ........... you may not like the idea of Billion ££ businesses getting lenient taxes but they repay the country by bringing 1,000's of jobs, investment and financial muscle to the country.

Typical Left wing views .......... bite the hands that feed you and think there won't be consequences.

How do you know that businesses will leave when we increase corporation tax? All those experts are probably lying just to save themselves money. We are the 5th biggest economy in the world, no one will relocate just because they have to pay extra tax. Right?