Labour & the Conservatives

BACKFRMTHEEDGE

Devon_Sailor wrote: »

Seeing as you still seem obsessed with my view on Tax avoidance, I have saved you the trouble of scrolling up half a page:

You're missing the point - I'm not interested in your view on Tax Avoidance - I'm interested in what the coalition is doing about targeting tax avoidance

I'm wondering why they are targeting the poor relentlessly without targeting the tax avoiders. I wonder why the press are obsessed wth benefit cheats and not tax dodges? I wonder why posters are obsessed with benefit cheats and not tax dodges?

Devon_Sailor

BACKFRMTHEEDGE wrote: »

You're missing the point - I'm not interested in your view on Tax Avoidance - I'm interested in what the coalition is doing about targeting tax avoidance ?

In which case, you needed to alter your messages, and not have them referring directly to wanting to know what I "had to say" or had not apparently mentioned.

BACKFRMTHEEDGE wrote: »

I'm wondering why they are targeting the poor relentlessly without targeting the tax avoiders. I wonder why the press are obsessed wth benefit cheats and not tax dodges? I wonder why posters are obsessed with benefit cheats and not tax dodges?

Again, I agree with you. More should be done at both ends of the spectrum.

The press are obsessed because it is easy for them. Tales of benefits "cheats and scroungers" are good, colourful print for the papers on the Right. Tales of evil Tory poor-bashing scum are easy for those on the Left. They don't have to do any new or difficult thinking for either of these angles, and can churn them out relentlessly.......

I don't think posters are obsessed with benefits cheats on the whole. On a Forum you can only comment on threads in front of you; there is however a hard-core (as in, two or three, tops!) who continually post items with a equally hardcore slant ( "look at these scroungers..." and "Tory scum do it again..." type headings). Most of these end up as bun-fights between said two or three hardcore.

I bet if you do a counted up the number of threads started on benefits by obviously Left-leaning Forumites, it would significantly outweigh the rest.

The simple answer would be, if you want to make more of an issue/discussion about tax avoidance, start a thread on it - im pretty damned sure it would get pretty vigerous and colourful responses

D_S

BACKFRMTHEEDGE

Just wanted to comment on the row over the Daily Mail's headline and GO's contribution and to say how much I agreed wth Ed Balls when he said "George Osborne's calculated decision to use the shocking and vile crimes of Mick Philpott to advance a political argument is the cynical act of a desperate chancellor....For the chancellor to link this wider debate to this shocking crime is nasty and divisive and demeans his office,".

Totally agree with Owen Jones (Independent) when he argued: "The idea he is representative of people on benefits is as absurd as suggesting Harold Shipman is representative of doctors."

The Tories and the Right wing press have reached a new low over the last of couple of days ????

Devon_Sailor

Morning BFTE,

Yes - politically very naïve, clunky and misguided.

However the outrage shown in the Indy and Guardian is somewhat hypocritical, seeing as how both their commentators and opposition spokesmen recently took the staggering gutter step of labelling the Govnt murderers.

As the husband of someone who has suffered from serious mental health problems, I thought it utterly despicable for the Left to use the sick and vulnerable for their own ends to try and link suicides to welfare reform. People who commit suicide have long term and substantial underlying problems; to take one part of the problem and inflate it to make it THE cause is disingenuous, duplicitous and totally political.

regards as ever,

D_S

angrypirate

BACKFRMTHEEDGE wrote: »

Just wanted to comment on the row over the Daily Mail's headline and GO's contribution and to say how much I agreed wth Ed Balls when he said "George Osborne's calculated decision to use the shocking and vile crimes of Mick Philpott to advance a political argument is the cynical act of a desperate chancellor....For the chancellor to link this wider debate to this shocking crime is nasty and divisive and demeans his office,".

Totally agree with Owen Jones (Independent) when he argued: "The idea he is representative of people on benefits is as absurd as suggesting Harold Shipman is representative of doctors."

The Tories and the Right wing press have reached a new low over the last of couple of days ????

GO is not saying that welfare benefits turned Mick into a murderer.

He said that it was now time for Government and society to question whether it was appropriate for lifestyles such as Philpott's to be funded by the taxpayer. His income was equivalent to someone on 100k. He had a pool table in his house. He had his house and his children all paid for by the taxpayer. He had a a very rich lifestyle at the cost of the taxpayer. He certainly wasnt poor thanks to the state. So my question is WHY SHOULD THE STATE PAY FOR THIS SORT OF LIFYSTYLE? I completely agree with GOs comment. If you want 11 kids - PAY FOR THEM YOURSELF. If you want sky TV - pay for it yourself. If you want a pool table - pay for it yourself. And if you are paying for these items yourself then you shouldnt be claiming off the state for your house or food

Jennifer_Jane

I agree with angrypirate. GO was asked a specific question by a reporter. He answered politely that Philpot was a separate issue, a one-off, but that questions should be asked about the lifestyle, etc.

BFTE: I would certainly agree with Ed Balls that had George Osborne actually "Linked this wider debate to this shocking crime" that that would be nasty and divisive and demeaning his office.

But I really don't think he did. I thought he separated it, and it was in answer to the journalist's specific question.

Over the last couple of years, I have spent much time reading posts on this board, reading newspapers online, and listening to Parliament Live and the BBC. The hypocrisy, the holier-than-thou attitude, and political grandstanding of Labour is breathtaking.

I am looking forwad to the Labour manifesto before the next election when we will hear which of the Coalition policies Labour will reverse when they get into power.

angrypirate

angrypirate wrote: »

GO is not saying that welfare benefits turned Mick into a murderer.

He said that it was now time for Government and society to question whether it was appropriate for lifestyles such as Philpott's to be funded by the taxpayer. His income was equivalent to someone on 100k. He had a pool table in his house. He had his house and his children all paid for by the taxpayer. He had a a very rich lifestyle at the cost of the taxpayer. He certainly wasnt poor thanks to the state. So my question is WHY SHOULD THE STATE PAY FOR THIS SORT OF LIFYSTYLE? I completely agree with GOs comment. If you want 11 kids - PAY FOR THEM YOURSELF. If you want sky TV - pay for it yourself. If you want a pool table - pay for it yourself. And if you are paying for these items yourself then you shouldnt be claiming off the state for your house or food

PS - the fact that some people think that GO said benefits turn people into murderers just shows the left wing bias BBC manages to put on everything.

wotsthat

angrypirate wrote: »

PS - the fact that some people think that GO said benefits turn people into murderers just shows the left wing bias BBC manages to put on everything.

He was in Derby and knew he'd be asked this question. There was probably a meeting where he and his advisers calculated the impact of his comments and had to pitch how far along the scale they could use Philpott as a justification for benefit cuts. They calculated that the public would be receptive if they associated (rather than plain linked) people on benefits with the Philpott's. They will have known the likely response from labour and taken this into account.

Whilst I agreed with what Osborne said the correct response should have been 'yes Philpott is responsible for these terrible crimes but I don't want to talk about him in connection with my welfare reforms or benefit cuts'. That way he clearly disassociates the two but does manage to get 'Philpott' and 'benefit cuts' in the same sentence - still a result and with a foot on the moral high ground too.

CLAPTON

so overall, considering all the factors and various views, on balance and taking everything into consideration we MUST NOT discuss any policies that are in any way linked to a current event.

wotsthat

CLAPTON wrote: »

so overall, considering all the factors and various views, on balance and taking everything into consideration we MUST NOT discuss any policies that are in any way linked to a current event.

Six kids were killed by their parents and it so happens they all lived on benefits - it needs to be an artful politician that manages to link this to a policy of welfare reform without looking like an ambulance chaser.