Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Government cuts

The Conservative party should change their name; what are they conserving exactly?


Monstrous! And the LibDems,where are they in this?

Cuts necessary, I'm sure. No, I don't want to pay for family generations living on the welfare state. No, I don't want to pay for your baby unless you absolutely need me to. But neither do I want said baby's future, their air and their earth shrunk to shopping malls, while ancient trees that stood for centuries are lost to logging companies and golf courses. Enough climate disruption, enough loss of biodiversity, and the money saved will be lost in medical care for an increasingly unhealthy population - presuming there will still be any such provision made.

I think 50% tax is a steep hike. But I'd gladly pay it rather than see this happen. I've written to Defra at the link below, campaigning for more forest cover across the British isles. If you are concerned about the matter and considering protest, check it out fast - it needs to be done before the 30th.


The petition's up and running now at:


( 4 comments — Leave a comment )
Oct. 27th, 2010 11:58 am (UTC)
Personally I think tax dodging/avoidance and regulation of business/banking are more pressing issues economically and cuts are more likely to negatively impact the economy.
Unfortunately all three of the major political parties seem to pretty much do exactly as big business tells them to when they should be telling to them to piss off because we live in a democracy, not a business oligarchy. Big business should have zero input in the political process or decision making.
Oct. 27th, 2010 02:58 pm (UTC)
I agree that tax dodging issues and business regulation are very important. But I also think the welfare state needs some addressing. I know people on benefits enjoying a quality of life far better than mine. I don't resent that, as long as I don't have to subsidise it. I can't reiterate enough, the care of the vulnerable and those in need is my willing responsibility. Care for Dossers UK ain't the same!

Big business is a big employer. It certainly shouldn't run the country, but it can't be factored out entirely, likewise the unions. We need healthy big business, we need healthy unions - but without a healthy earth beneath our feet, all these other issues will become academic.

Edited at 2010-10-27 02:58 pm (UTC)
Oct. 27th, 2010 03:11 pm (UTC)
With benefits the amount lost through people exploiting the system is tiny compared to the amount lost through tax fiddling - and actually the amount of unclaimed benefits that people are legitimately entitled to is fairly large (far large than the amount being claimed illegitimately). I just feel they have their priorities a bit mixed up - while there are certainly savings that can be made in the benefits system so long as people dont claim the benefits they are entitled to (people claiming those would be a bit of a disaster economically for the nation) the big savings are in addressing tax. The question is, why go for benefits and small savings and tax and big savings? The simple answer is that benefits are an easy target and wont effect political support for them much (and may in some circles improve it), whereas going after tax avoiders would be going after their own party donors and MPs which they dont exactly want to do...and thats pretty much the case for all the big parties.

The issue with the influence of business is that we live in what claims to be a democracy. Political influence is supposed to be something equally shared amongst the electorate in democracies - but in effect your voice or mine is irrelevant, but if you have money you can easily but your way into influence. some members of the electorate, along with some who are not even UK citizens, effectively have more influence than anyone else.
Oct. 27th, 2010 03:23 pm (UTC)
Btw, I agree loss of biodiversity is a big and pressing issue.
( 4 comments — Leave a comment )



Latest Month

April 2017


Powered by LiveJournal.com