[Closed] Gideon - a PR disaster!

He wasn't driving....a copper was

Dunno which is worst tbh.

It's more the image it projects of him, no one will care that it was a CPO driving.

This thread is surely mis titled?

Should it not be...

'Gideon, a [i]human[/i] disaster'

To me this is just another non-event non news story just like the train ticket affair.

It is again crummy journalists trying to make a story out of nothing.

In reality it was a copper reversing into the bay but not parking up and not staying in the space, not even worth printing on my toilet roll for my later consumption.

what is interesting is the nonsense about his comments yesterday.

now if you can seperate the comments from the sentencing and the benefits lifestyle which was the intention, then everyone agrees on having a debate its just rubbish reporting and rubbish political posturing from all sides, and none of it allows a proper debate or proper solution to issues around benefits.

@Sancho It was not a comment on the validity of the actions but the inability of him, and his entourage, to manage the sensitivity of any given situation. It's all fuel for the media we have at the moment. It's either a bit dim or completely ambivalent to the effect it will have bearing in mind the way the media currently works.

bearing in mind the way the media currently works.

i missed it. wgaf

It was not a comment on the validity of the actions but the inability of him, and his entourage, to manage the sensitivity of any given situation. It's all fuel for the media we have at the moment. It's either a bit dim or completely ambivalent to the effect it will have bearing in mind the way the media currently works.

how do you suggest the police officer driving the vehicle should be disciplined assuming that he not George Osbourne made the decision to park in the spot?

sacked? suspended without pay, formal warning?

I don't, the Police Officer is not the one who should be looking after the public perception of Gideon, he has a ruck of pr professionals who seem incapable of doing so. I am assuming his job is to get Gideon to and from places in one piece, which he seems to be doing.

You know he's in the mire when Iain Dale defends him. It happeed on his watch, he takes the blame. For like any politician he'd be quick enough to take any credit.

everyone agrees on having a debate

I don't. I think we should be having a debate about the billions of pounds hidden away in British tax havens, we should be having a debate about how the financial crisis was caused by rich bankers not the poor, and we should be having a debate about how the UK isn't going bust by any sensible financial measure.

We don't need a debate on benefits, unless it's a debate on how we can raise them to help more people.

Besides, we all know that a proper debate is the last thing they mean when they say "have a debate" - what they mean is we should listen more to their right-wing newspaper friends.

so yet again a non story not worthy of print.

its just a shame our media is so crap. that this is the garbage they concentrate on.

so why isnt the media concentrating on the debate about tax havens etc instead of this worthless article.

Id like to see a debate about a local business tax instead of rates which are completely killing the high street.

why for example should rates for a shop be four times higer than a office. why should a self employed builder not pay a business tax etc, Im sure thay make more money than a lot of self employed shop keepers.

and why should charities get a discount when that are the only growth sector on the high street - seems they are the only ones making money.
(rant over)

<Bullsh*t>After visiting a nursery, he heads to a well known burger chain for a nutritious snack and parks in the disabled parking bay.</Bullsh*t>

But don't let that get in the way of what was otherwise a very interesting story.

what's worse than non-stories is people talking about non-stories, even if it's to label them as non-stories.
there should be a non-story filter on the internet, where there's an algorithm that has the ability to e-rubber stamp web content such that it, and all reference to it, disappears from the world-wide web.
it's sister algorithm for non-entities could do the same with all reports on non-celebrity non-activity.

As if that chinless **** has enough of a sense of shame for this to be anything more than a blip.

****er.

considering the number of twunts who can't park then I am assuming he is just getting down with the people.

Not a story really just some media being bored and not being able to find anything useful to report on (or working hard enough to find something interesting)

so why isnt the media concentrating on the debate about tax havens etc instead of this worthless article.

Who owns the newspapers?

Id like to see a debate about a local business tax instead of rates which are completely killing the high street.

I'd agree with you - except in Scotland small businesses get 100% rate relief, so I don't pay any rates on my shop 😉

I think we need something similar to VAT. VAT is a tax paid by the public as a percentage of stuff they buy - we also need a simple tax as a percentage of stuff sold. Sell something, pay a percentage. The problem with corporation tax etc is it's very easy to shift profits offshore, and make a loss for tax purposes.

Q.

Who owns the newspapers?

A Shareholders.

[img] ?[/img]

cranberry - Member

<Bullsh*t>After visiting a nursery, he heads to a well known burger chain for a nutritious snack and parks in the disabled parking bay.</Bullsh*t>

But don't let that get in the way of what was otherwise a very interesting story.

Just relating what was reported in out wonderful media.

[url= http://www.heraldscotland.com/mobile/news/home-news/osborne-faces-new-welfare-backlash-after-car-parked-in-disabled-bay-at-mcdonalds.1365144461?_=7c51f33f354f6755a5c2d63f4ffb0aa5adbcb825 ]Clickety[/url]

Interestingly, it's the Guardian who have been pushing the tax haven story most.

There is a deeper problem - companies have a duty to their shareholders to minimise the amount of tax they pay, they can actually get in big trouble if they don't. Is it really right to blame the companies for this?

One of the real hallmarks of the current era of british politics (say Gordon Brown to present) seems to be incredibly poor PR work on both sides of the house.

Speech writing seems to be a dead artform, soundbites ("aspiration nation", "downgraded chancellor") have become so utterly banal that they only ever get taken up as a stick with which to beat their issuer and then minor blunders like this seem to be par for the course.

Did Tony Blair steal all the talented stage managers and spin doctors before he left office?

The mighty Biscuit had this covered ages ago.
There the new lolcats, don't you know. 🙂

A dirty rounder, a no-good fraud
A ne'er-do-well of the highest accord
I've got the supermarket sympathy vote
I've got a ten year old doctor's note

'Cos I'm a Blue, Blue Badge Abuser
I'm a Blue, Blue Badge Abuser

I park up in the pouring rain
The space was empty, who's to complain
And if they did, I'd say I'm due for the op
And sprint wilfully off to the shop

'Cos I'm a Blue, Blue Badge Abuser
I'm a Blue, Blue Badge Abuser

(Fetch my stick, Margaret!)

I used to favour Justice and Truth
An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth
One day I know I'll have to face his wrath
A walk in hell for a walk-in bath

so why isnt the media concentrating on the debate about tax havens etc instead of this worthless article

GMG and tax havens?

http://order-order.com/2013/04/04/a-tip-off-for-the-guardian-investigations-team/

what is interesting is the nonsense about his comments yesterday.

now if you can seperate the comments from the sentencing and the benefits lifestyle which was the intention, then everyone agrees on having a debate its just rubbish reporting and rubbish political posturing from all sides, and none of it allows a proper debate or proper solution to issues around benefits.

He cynically tried to exploit a completely unrelated and horrific case to try and bolster support for the government's campaign to demonise/punish the most vulnerable people in society. What on earth does that have to do with a 'proper debate'?

GMG and tax havens?

http://order-order.com/2013/04/04/a-tip-off-for-the-guardian-investigations-team/

Yes the Guardian doesn't practice what it preaches - so would it be best if they just STFU about tax havens then?

Did Tony Blair steal all the talented stage managers and spin doctors before he left office?

@lemonysam - my point in a nutshell.

He cynically tried to exploit a completely unrelated and horrific case to try and bolster support for the government's campaign to demonise/punish the most vulnerable people in society. What on earth does that have to do with a 'proper debate'?

I think what is happening is that all the vested interests in the status quo are cynically demonising anyone who challenges the current way benefits are paid.

Ed & Ed, will not commit to rolling back any of the changes, they just keep on with the defunct class war rhetoric, what policies do they actually have at the moment?

40,000 families have 5 or more kids, at what point does the support from benefits become subsidising life choices?

Yes the Guardian doesn't practice what it preaches - so would it be best if they just STFU about tax havens then?

Well, people in glass houses and all that.

40,000 families have 5 or more kids, at what point does the support from benefits become subsidising life choices?

The fact is that those kids exist, and they haven't 'chosen a life on benefits' etc - so what do you want to do? They should starve while we give £100,000 tax cuts to millionaires?

Ed & Ed, will not commit to rolling back any of the changes, they just keep on with the defunct class war rhetoric, what policies do they actually have at the moment?

Find me an example of anyone in opposition committing to anything at this stage in the electoral cycle. But yes I agree Labour are not much better - that doesn't make what the government is doing right.

I think what is happening is that all the vested interests in the status quo are cynically demonising anyone who challenges the current way benefits are paid.

Who are all these mighty vested interests? You mean the poorest and most vulnerable people in our society? Yes, they have far too much influence don't they. 🙄

Well, people in glass houses and all that.

To my mind it's better that someone is highlighting/campaigning on these issues than not.

The fact is that those kids exist, and they haven't 'chosen a life on benefits' etc - so what do you want to do? They should starve while we give £100,000 tax cuts to millionaires?

I thought that taxation was the government taking your money that you earnt. I would have thought that you would celibrate that the current government is averaging a higher rate of taxation on the highest earners than the previous labour government did for 95% of it's tenure

I suppose you support limitless benefits then, more kids, more need, more cash? Or do you have an alternative proposal?

any more class war rehetoric?

The fact is that those kids exist, and they haven't 'chosen a life on benefits' etc - so what do you want to do? They should starve while we give £100,000 tax cuts to millionaires?

Which is why we should be debating how our welfare system works. If it was simple even the politicos would have sorted it.

Not defending the tax cut by the way. That really was a crass move even it allegedly did raise more tax.

Find me an example of anyone in opposition committing to anything at this stage in the electoral cycle. But yes I agree Labour are not much better - that doesn't make what the government is doing right.

If they had any real political philosophy rather than just "getting into power" they would have policies now.

Who are all these mighty vested interests? You mean the poorest and most vulnerable people in our society? Yes, they have far too much influence don't they

I suppose you support limitless benefits then, more kids, more need, more cash?

Total straw man argument. 🙄

I would have thought that you would celibrate that the current government is averaging a higher rate of taxation on the highest earners than the previous labour government did for 95% of it's tenure

Evidence? Is that before the higher rate tax cut? I've already said I'm no fan of Labour BTW so I don't know why you keep bringing them up.

Which is why we should be debating how our welfare system works.

If only we could have a sensible debate without people constantly bringing up myths half-remembered from wildly slanted Daily Mail articles, or trying to link benefits with completely unrelated crimes.

the vested interests aren't the poor, I don't see them on the the media, instead I see third sector organisations, labour party and others that need the continuation of the status quo to support their existence

AKA people with morality and a conscience - something you and your chums in power seem to be lacking.

And whatever anyone thinks about 'benefits culture' etc - the fact remains the vast majority of people on benefits are pensioners and people who are working and receiving working tax credits. So all the relentless focus on shirkers etc is a total red herring.

Wow so Gideon is a in insensitive person who does not care for the disabled - given his policies he has hidden this well

Who owns the newspapers?
A Shareholders.

In fact a few of the newspapers have a sole owner still and in the case of News International both - iirc Murdoch has 51`% of [voting]shares so always has a majority but may be wrong on that one.

The Guardian is part of the GMG Guardian Media Group of newspapers, radio stations, print media including The Observer Sunday newspaper, The Guardian Weekly international newspaper, and new media—Guardian Abroad website, and guardian.co.uk. All the aforementioned were owned by The Scott Trust, a charitable foundation existing between 1936 and 2008, which aimed to ensure the paper's editorial independence in perpetuity, maintaining its financial health to ensure it did not become vulnerable to take overs by for-profit media groups. At the beginning of October 2008, the Scott Trusts assets were transferred to a new limited company, The Scott Trust Limited, with the intention being that the original trust would be wound up.[86] Dame Liz Forgan, chair of the Scott Trust, reassured staff that the purposes of the new company remained as under the previous arrangements

Total straw man argument

I suppose you support limitless benefits then, more kids, more need, more cash? Or do you have an alternative proposal?

AKA people with morality and a conscience

so no financial interest in it at all? Who pays them? Where do your third sector friends get their money from? what would they do if there was no "need"?

morality and a conscience - something you and your chums in power seem to be lacking.

any more class war rehetoric?

Wow so Gideon[b]s police CPO driver is a in insensitive person who does not care for the disabled[/b] - [s]given his policies he has hidden this well[/s] [b]he'll get a promotion when the dust settles down[/b]

FIFY 😉

so no financial interest in it at all? Who pays them? Where do your third sector friends get their money from? what would they do if there was no "need"?

Maybe, but do you truly believe all those people, church leaders etc, are motivated only by personal greed - and not because they have a social conscience, and actually care about vulnerable people? Really? Perhaps you shouldn't judge others by your own cynical standards.

I suppose you support limitless benefits then, more kids, more need, more cash? Or do you have an alternative proposal?

I don't buy the argument that the level of extra benefits you get from having extra children really encourages significant numbers of people to have lots of children purely to 'milk' the system. Do you have some evidence that this is the case (please try to avoid using Daily Mail articles as a reference)?

I don't have any children so perhaps I should demand no tax breaks/tax credits for the people that do eh?

any more class war rehetoric?

How about trying to engage the arguments, rather than just resorting to meaningless sub-Richard Littlejohn soundbites?

straw man argument

extrapolated

hyperbole

non-sequitor

is there an app that pumps out these phrases?
there seems to be an abundance of them lately.

Surely these police protection bods are selected because they're above reproach, aren't they?

[url= http://www.basildonrecorder.co.uk/news/10331479.Royal_security_chief_found_guilty_of_downloading_child_porn ]http://www.basildonrecorder.co.uk/news/10331479.Royal_security_chief_found_guilty_of_downloading_child_porn[/url]

[i]Former Home Office security chief, David Tracey, 48, admitted accessing more than 60,000 photos and 30,000 movies of children[/i]

Former Home Office security chief, David Tracey, 48, admitted accessing more than 60,000 photos and 30,000 movies of children

To be fair he was training for the Priesthood.....

How about trying to engage the arguments,

OK

I suppose you support limitless benefits then, more kids, more need, more cash? Or do you have an alternative proposal?

I don't buy the argument that the level of extra benefits you get from having extra children really encourages significant numbers of people to have lots of children purely to 'milk' the system. Do you have some evidence that this is the case (please try to avoid using Daily Mail articles as a reference)?

is your alternative proposal in there?

Maybe, but do you truly believe all those people, church leaders etc, are motivated only by personal greed - and not because they have a social conscience, and actually care about vulnerable people?

I'm certain the expenses fiddling and tax avoidance that Ed and Ed have demonstrated over the years clearly shows their social conscience

it seems there is no possible way to have a reasoned debate about benefits its too emotive on the one hand the social side of things looking to help the poor further v the cost analysis side of things from the tory side.

it all seems to just implode.

I suppose you support limitless benefits then, more kids, more need, more cash? Or do you have an alternative proposal?

I support innocent children not being punished for the perceived sins of their parents. I'll repeat, do you have some evidence that the so-called 'limitless' benefit system actually encourages people to have more children?

the vested interests aren't the poor, I don't see them on the the media, instead I see third sector organisations, labour party and others that need the continuation of the status quo to support their existence

I am a trustee of a 'third sector organisation' which deals with such issues - we have had the same funding from the local council for 3 years i.e. a decrease in real terms due to cost increases such as electricity. We have up to 80 volunteers providing their time for free to help society's most vulnerable and those who are facing difficult life situations e.g. redundancy, unfair dismissal. We see around 8,000 clients a year, but demand is increasing so much that people are queueing 2 hours before we open just to get an appointment. This will get even worse as the Government has cut Legal Aid for most areas of law meaning many people won't be able to access appropriate legal representation, and agencies such as the one I am involved with will have to pick up the pieces with no extra funding.

Frankly we don't need to the continuation of the status quo - we want the government to take on its responsibilities for everyone on society, but particularly to provide support to its most vulnerable members, and support an economy which provides real sustainable jobs which enable employees to come off benefits.

I would hate to see the impact on society if organisations, such as the one I am a trustee of, no longer exist.

"support an economy which provides real sustainable jobs which enable employees to come off benefits. "

Could I ask what kind of jobs that people could do in a global economy in the private sector.

I am thinking working in a factory somewhere making something.
but what, when we are competing with China, etc and their labour costs are so low, what company in the world will open up a factory in the uk to pay minimum wage etc to make goods to sell. when they can buy direct from China. (just like people on here do so easily).

Im not knocking buying from China, its so easy to do, but we cant make things in the uk cheap enough to sell in the UK never mind across the world. Never mind that the quality and work ethics in China are far exceeding what we could possbily hope to achieve.

so where is this next big employment sector going to come from?

It's easy to knock the politicians for failing etc but how do you change an economy like ours and employ everyone?

Could I ask what kind of jobs that people could do in a global economy in the private sector.

Never mind that the quality and work ethics in China are far exceeding what we could possbily hope to achieve.

It's easy to knock the politicians for failing etc but how do you change an economy like ours and employ everyone?

I support innocent children not being punished for the perceived sins of their parents.

for the benefit of the rest of us could you add more detail into your alternative proposal?

could you also explain how potentially giving people incrimentally less unearned cash as the number of children increases is [b]punishing them[/b]?

sensible answer please you seem to turn into Owen Jones at times 😉

I'll repeat, do you have some evidence that the so-called 'limitless' benefit system actually encourages people to have more children?

I haven't alledged that, I asked you at what point does support from benefits become subsidisation of a lifestyle choice?

any thoughts on this?

or is it the case

it seems there is no possible way to have a reasoned debate about benefits its too emotive on the one hand the social side of things looking to help the poor further v the cost analysis side of things from the [s]tory[/s] [b]tax payer [/b]
side.

is there an app that pumps out these phrases?

*nearly*

http://www.tomforth.co.uk/guardiancomments/

"unemployment is a price worth paying"

no one wants to see people out of work, but where are the jobs coming from. it dosent matter what your politics are, its just not going to happen soon.
do we enforce a mass re-education scheme?
a re-skilling of the unemployed?
benefit payments to enable people to move for work?

but it all comes down to encouraging companies to employ people and I know from experience that most companies prefer poaching people from a current position than employing someone out of work. so the unemployed are the last on the list and they have it hardest to get work.

Big n daft looks l;ike the tory here ask him as I have no idea

looks can be deceiving

Not sure anyone has the answers but we can be sure they are not trying to do this as "unemployment is a price worth paying"

it's not. But how do you stop creating a unemployable underclass when your pool of people available to work can expand, as demonstrated by the numbers of people who chose to move here from other countries and then seem to successfully find work.

this is why the class war rhetoric is completely pointless, times have moved on, the arguments it seems have not

and working with the Chinese is a revelation.

service, quality, support, follow up of calls and emails, a gulf in working with uk companies (I am talking about the cycle trade that's all)

Im not knocking buying from China, its so easy to do, but we cant make things in the uk cheap enough to sell in the UK never mind across the world. Never mind that the quality and work ethics in China are far exceeding what we could possbily hope to achieve.

Never heard of high value added manufacturing? With the largest aerospace industry in the world after the US and some of the most productive car plants in Europe we're actually quite good at. We just need to do more of it 🙂

And as for china - they only 'beat' us on labour rates. Quality and productivity (in efficiency terms) are lower than the UK.

Another advantage of high tech manufacturing are that the wages don't generally require topping up thru tax credits, unlike the thousands of part time jobs Starbucks, tescos et al seem to be 'creating'

Gideon went to Burger King - isn't he supposed to be a toff? OP, you are correct, what a PR disaster. And on top of dropping Estuary English into his latest speeches a la Blair! These toffs aren't what they used to be, are they? 😉 Now if he had pulled out a .410 from the RR and bagged a brace of pheasant from some farmer's field, we could have been on to something!

But seriously, of all the legit reasons to have a crack at Osbourne, the Mirror chooses this. Bizarre?

for the benefit of the rest of us could you add more detail into your alternative proposal?

In a nutshell my alternative proposal is the current benefits system, but with a higher minimum wage/lower taxes for low earners to make it more worthwhile to work - funded by higher taxes on the better off (including me).

could you also explain how potentially giving people incrimentally less unearned cash as the number of children increases is punishing them?

The current benefits system is hardly generous (unless you believe the Daily Mail of course) - asking people to try and survive on even less is pushing thousands of children further into poverty. How is that not punishing them?

I haven't alledged that, I asked you at what point does support from benefits become subsidisation of a lifestyle choice?

any thoughts on this?

I don't know, do you? All benefits are 'subsidisation of a lifestyle choice' to some extent - shall we get rid of them all?

Personally though, I am comfortable with the idea that a statistically insignificant number of people might be exploiting the system or 'having their lifestyle choices subsidised', if it means that the people that need help get it.

Whereas seemingly you would rather make sure no-one gets 'too much' in benefits, and never mind if that means some deserving people get screwed over.

this is why the class war rhetoric is completely pointless, times have moved on, the arguments it seems have not

Just repeating the phrase 'class war rhetoric' over and over again isn't actually an argument, you do know that right?

Never heard of high value added manufacturing?

yes and work in it daily.

but this isnt going to employ lots of people who are unemployed.

its high value add because the people add the high value and they are highly skilled and not unemployed.

In a nutshell my alternative proposal is the current benefits system, but with a higher minimum wage/lower taxes for low earners to make it more worthwhile to work - funded by higher taxes on the better off (including me).

ahhh, TINA 😉

Personally though, I am comfortable with the idea that a statistically insignificant number of people might be exploiting the system or 'having their lifestyle choices subsidised', if it means that the people that need help get it.

can you please subsidise my lifestyle choices, as an individual I'm statistcally insignificant. I'll send you my 29er wish list 😉

I'll then support your TINA policy

Gideon went to Burger King - isn't he supposed to be a toff? OP, you are correct, what a PR disaster. And on top of dropping Estuary English into his latest speeches a la Blair! These toffs aren't what they used to be, are they? Now if he had pulled out a .410 from the RR and bagged a brace of pheasant from some farmer's field, we could have been on to something!

ahhh, TINA

can you please subsidise my lifestyle choices, as an individual I'm statistcally insignificant. I'll send you my 29er wish list

Why goad someone into an answer to then refuse to engage - a rather odd technique in a discussion

Grum, from your last post you may find the following article interesting (genuinely!)

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2e2102de-9c8b-11e2-9a4b-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2PaujkN9D

When you shamelessly and cynically use your friendly attack dogs in the press to blame the deaths of 6 kids on the benefit system - thus furthering your own toxic agenda - you can't then have any complaints when other sections of the press get a bit hysterical about your own misdemeanours.

You reap what you sow you nasty chinless ****!!!

O did you see the bit about higher taxes rather than cutting costs

hmmmm

In a nutshell my alternative proposal is the current benefits system, but with a higher minimum wage/lower taxes for low earners to make it more worthwhile to work - funded by higher taxes on the better off (including me).

so no change to benefits system.... so £60k+ p.a. tax free effective income for some families in specific circumstances unconstrained from future growth. Paid for by at least 10 people on average income paying ever increasing taxation.

O did you see the bit about higher taxes rather than cutting costs

it is clearly an alternative to your beloved view - perhaps you could engage and explain why it wont work or something slightly more difficult that pointless sarcasm?

you can't then have any complaints when other sections of the press get a bit hysterical about your own misdemeanours

remote control parking of a car whilst queuing in Burger King

is that the James Bond feature, what page in the brochure is that? 😉

I read the article THM - not sure it's really saying anything beyond 'I have a somewhat right-wing outlook on the current economic situation, people with a more left-wing outlook are wrong'.

so no change to benefits system.... so £60k+ p.a. tax free effective income for some families in specific circumstances unconstrained from future growth.

How many families does this apply to, and what is their significance to the overall cost of the welfare system? Or are you just picking on largely irrelevant Daily Mail tropes without any real evidence?

Why does this seemingly bother you so much more than the massively higher amount we lose in unpaid taxes (avoidance and evasion)? Or the amount we spend on working tax credits, subsidising the profits of major companies who pay their staff a pittance.

I did, lower taxes, higher taxes.... is that Brownenomics?

Lower taxes on low earners, higher taxes on higher earners is what I said. Which bit of that don't you understand?

Ok, Grum, it was a genuine link to something that I read differently and which I thought would appeal to you. We obviously read it, and view the author, differently. I won't bother with the why raising thresholds is better than lowering tax rates link!

How many families does this apply to, and what is their significance to the overall cost of the welfare system? Or are you just picking on largely irrelevant Daily Mail tropes without any real evidence?

it's the principle that you can manufacture need without constraint

Why does this seemingly bother you so much more than the massively higher amount we lose in unpaid taxes (avoidance and evasion)?

the debate hasn't gone there yet. Personally I believe that we should be working hard to crack down on tax avoidance/ evasion. I'm an adovcate of flat taxation and minimal allowances. I think that the rich shouldn't be able to choose where there tax goes (tax allowances for charity donations should be massively constrained). I think the civil service pay structure means that we lose the best people to the evadors and needs to be changed. International tax law nees to be grappled with and an efficient way of making sure tax is paid where earnings are made should be a priority.

Lower taxes on low earners, higher taxes on higher earners is what I said. Which bit of that don't you understand?

I understand it, a big tax hike on the high earners pays for a small tax reduction on the low earners. What are your proposed rates and tax bands?

THM - Sorry that came across as a bit more dismissive than I intended. Post the link. 🙂

it's the principle that you can manufacture need without constraint

Right, so you don't have any evidence that this is actually a problem worth bothering about then?

I'm glad you agree re tax evasion - my point is that this gets much less government/media attention, despite the amounts of money it could potentially bring in being many many times greater.

I understand it, a big tax hike on the high earners pays for a small tax reduction on the low earners. What are your proposed rates and tax bands?

I'm not sure TBH, I'm not an economist - not getting rid of the 50p tax band would be a start though. And before the 'it brings in more money when you reduce the tax rate' argument:

1) evidence?
2) Just because people evade complying with something doesn't mean you get rid of it - you should make them. This principle isn't applied to other areas of government/the law - 'oh dear people are still committing murder even though it's illegal' - 'I know let's make it legal, that will reduce the crime rate'.

Interesting that the Lefties are all referring to George as Gideon again..

I don't remember them referring to Gordon as James!

It's a shocking lapse of judgement.

Anyone who's driven to South Wales knows that Magor Services is a pit of depravity, filth and despair. He'd have been better off stopping at Cardiff Gate or Leigh Delamere instead.

It like they dont respect him or something innit :idea
Imagine that lefties not liking Osborne and being disrespectful to him

He is always so sweet and nice about them as well

Well, it's consistent at least. Using the middle names of both men. 😉

Its not Osbornes middle name as he added it at the front of his name and did not have it till he did this.

Wow I know more about the Tories than you do 😯

So, both men changed their name. Jolly good.

So, why not call Brown "James" then?

The benefit system is in dire need of reform and all the parties agree on that.
It cannot go on as it is for several reasons.
1 Cost
2 The vicious cycle of benefit culture/dependency and all the associated social ills that brings and the apparent disincentives to work-this is not a party political thing all the independent research supports the view that work is better for you

and to a lesser extent
3 Complexity/multiplicity of various benefits,rules,IT systems etc creating overlaps and overpayments and also money going unclaimed-usually pensioners
4 Abuse/misuse-eg the nation has never been healthier yet we have more people of working age claiming sickness related benefits than ever before
5 Impact of European migration-UK benefit regulations historically were drafted to make it easy to claim and some migrants have exploited this hence the government's panic over the Bulgarian/Romanian issue.

The last government had commissioned plenty of research and set the reforms in motion.
The latest Tory punitive cuts are playing to the voting gallery and will have little financial benefit to the treasury but will hit those affected hard.
Benefit reform is as complicated as a complicated thing can be.
AFAIK It is estimated that 600,000 people will be better off under Universal Credit but unfortunately 400,000 will be worse off.
And whilst moving large numbers of people off benefits and into work depends largely on econmic recovery and growth.Even if/when this does happen many of the people will move into low paid ,low skill,low tax(if any) jobs and so will still need taxpayer support for their families/housing costs etc.

So, both men changed their name. Jolly good.

So, why not call Brown "James" then?

Its pretty childish for sure but GO is a fairly odious chap IMHO

Its pretty childish for sure but GO is a fairly odious chap IMHO

Isn't it just, but I think most deserve some equally childish epithet. There are so few, currently in politics, worth anything but contempt.

Its pretty childish for sure but GO is a fairly odious chap IMHO

does he verbally abuse his staff and throw mobile phones?

The benefit system is in dire need of reform and all the parties agree on that

some people on here disagree with you

The latest Tory punitive cuts are playing to the voting gallery and will have little financial benefit to the treasury but will hit those affected hard.

And whilst moving large numbers of people off benefits and into work depends largely on econmic recovery and growth.Even if/when this does happen many of the people will move into low paid ,low skill,low tax(if any) jobs and so will still need taxpayer support for their families/housing costs etc