Letter: Coalition cuts are like Blair’s ‘War on Terror’
Monday 1st November 2010, 6:00AM GMT.
Letter: A terror war is being waged against the poor, women and the vulnerable by this coalition Government. It seems to have adopted the shock and awe strategy used against the, mainly defenceless, Iraqis.
Firstly this government creates an imminent emergency with the appropriate villains.
They want to convince us it was the previous Labour administration that caused this financial crisis and they are having to cut 25 per cent of the public budget for our national salvation.
That is not unlike the way the Blair Government stated unequivocally that we were being threatened by weapons of mass destruction that could be launched in 45 minutes and that there was no solution other than total war – shock and awe.
Likewise, our society is being shocked into accepting an ideologically motivated attack to shrink the state, the effect of which is to create widespread poverty; another half a million on the dole and more inequality.
Only £2.5 billion is being demanded from the banks (and they can keep hold of their bonuses) compared with £18 billion from the welfare budget.
The gilded financiers and bankers who refuse to lend to our businesses and for house purchases are getting off scot-free and yet again it seems that their present intransigent actions are one of the reasons why we are heading for another recession and, when this happens, rather than inflating the economy, this administration will impose further disastrous cuts. Thus we will have created another crisis with the ointment that is meant to cure us.
And we never learn by our mistakes – the July 7 British suicide bombers said in their video explanation of their motives, that they committed their crimes because of the ointment we were applying to Afghanistan and Iraq.
There are always other solutions to social and economic problems. Unfortunately politicians will lie to convince us that there are no other options apart from their self-interested ones.
Cllr Patrick McCarthy
Wellington
Most Commented
- Shropshire Council will face £8m redundancy bill
- Clampdown on Shrewsbury chuggers
- Bishop's gay marriage views do nothing to support bible teachings
- Letter: Alcohol price plans annoy me
- Planners ordered to stay on Newport visit bus
- Letter: Angered by close encounter of the furred kind
- Letter: No sense in overseas job adverts
Shropshire Star on Twitter
Keep updated with the latest breaking news and content on our Twitter feed.
Lifestyle
Interactive Dining Out map
Hundreds of reviews by the Shropshire Star and Express & Star's teams to help you decide where to eat.
Entertainment
All the film reviews
Before you plan a trip to the pictures, get our critics' verdicts on all the latest movie releases.
OUR NEW APP
Get the new Shropshire Star app
Download the Shropshire Star’s new app to your iPad or iPhone to get one week of access to our digital newspapers absolutely FREE.
shropshirestar.com
Popular sections
Useful links
Yes the guy above is probably correct . However we all have now not got a choice as the coalition is in charge and the majority voted tory/libdem although none of us voted for the coalition did we?. The coalition have chosen the departments and section of people they are going to attack.
Most agree the benefits section needed to be dealt with ,especially those of us who are not claiming anything it seems, and some of us in that group do not give a jot about anyone else and as such with that attitude the innocent in the group will suffer.
Some mps in this coalition have agreed a small minority will suffer but but have clearly said a price worth paying .
Report abuse
I have seldom read such a blinkered attitude.
It was the Labour Government – and Gordon Brown, who encouraged the escalation of debt, both personal and national.
It was Brown himself who raided our pensions, hence we now have one of the weakest pension provisions in Europe, instead of what we had, one of the strongest. He sold off gold reserves at a historically low figure, against the best of advice not to do this. He boasted that he had ended the cycle of boom and bust.
It was Brown who abandonded prudence to push borrowing up and up and up. It was the Labour Government which steadily pumped out legislation that inflated the size of the state sector to parastitic levels.
And now the Banks are told on the one hand that they MUST build up their reserves – that is have nmore money stashed away in the valults, AND that they should be lending more as well.
Only a politician could imagine that you can have money in reserves AND lend it at the same time.
If I max out on my credit cards I have eventually to pay that money back. I cannot solve the problem by borrowing more. Nations are the same – there comes a point when no-one will lend anymore, because they know they will not get it back.
How much of all taxation would Cllr McCarthy like to see servicing national debt – 50%, 60% 80%?
And if he actually reads the fine print, he will find that after all the supposed “cuts” the government will still be spending more than they are now!
Report abuse
Brown did not ‘raid’ pensions. He simply stopped giving large companies tax relief at a time when their pension funds were in surplus to such an extent that many of them felt able to take a ‘holiday’ from paying into them, giving that money instead to shareholders and in bonuses to their execs.
You might be interested to know that we still pay more in tax relief for individual pension contributions than we do into the whole of public service pensions.
The reason private sector final salary pension schemes fared so badly was the lack of contributions by employers at a time when they could well afford them.
I understand your credit card analogy, but I’m baffled why you fail to see that this should apply to the banks rather than to the poor – it wasn’t the poor to whom we ‘lent’ over £200bn – it was the banks.
Why have they been let off the hook in only having to pay back £2.5bn per annum in a levy? That’s over 80 year’s worth of repayment by my reckoning – without interest! And bear in mind they are expected to pay out 3 times that amount in bonuses alone this year. Why are the government doing so little to chase the billions that go unpaid in tax by large corporations and the mega-wealthy?
We are to see approx 1 million jobs lost in both public and private sectors over the next four years. It’s more than likely that will drive us deep into recession – all to keep the bankers in their Ferraris, and to protect the personal inhritances of the likes of Cameron and Osborne…
Report abuse
Here we go again with Peter’s rants supporting one of the most childish and factually incorrect letters I have read in this paper for many a year. Councillor McCarthy is in the wrong “occupation” as it seems that he has only just left infants school.
Peter said (amongst much other rubbish), “to protect the personal inheritances of Cameron and Osborne”. Now, let’s see shall we, after Cameron and Osborne stole a march on Gordon Brown when they publicly announced their intention to raise the Inheritance Tax threshold, was it the next day or two days later that Brown increased the threshold from c£300,000 to c£650,000 in the most blatant “crib” of another parties thunder/policy on record. Now we have Peter’s marxist interpretation that it was Cameron and Osborne that did this with no hand from Labour because that does not suit his ultra left stance. It was Labour “what done it”. No Brown did not raid pensions either in Peter’s eyes, the proper truth is, he only utterly destroyed any viability they once had in one feel swoop by taxing them on their interest at a starting rate of £5 Billion the first year until by election time this year, Brown’s Government had taken a total of £85 Billion off them. Peter, you tell those pensioners who are now picking up half or less of their expected pensions, (some are not picking up a pension at all) that it was not Brown who wrecked the private pension schemes in this country but stand back when they reply.
I won’t utter the word that your comments deserve, I will merely be polite and say I think you have made a very large mistake, if deliberate.
Report abuse
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkgoSOSGrx4&feature=player_embedded
Report abuse
Stuart,
Why can you not take the trouble to read the comments before launching into your usual abusive bile?
From my understanding of previous postings from yourself, you are in receipt to some extent at least, of a public sector pension (though you’d also deny this sort of pension to today’s public sector workers!).
Many in the private sector could also have had the sort of pension you enjoy,if only their greedy firms hadn’t creamed off potential contributions for directors and shareholders instead. You’re clearly of the opinion that the general taxpaying public should have continued to subsidise that greed, by way of tax relief. Whilst I’m happy for individual contributions to be subject to tax relief, large companies are so adept at avoiding paying their fair share of tax I’m much less happy that they should be helped in this respect, as they simply can’t be trusted to do the right thing by their employees.
My comments on the matter of inheritance referred to the large personal fortunes that both the Prime Minister and the Chancellor stand to gain in due course. In Osborne’s case, his father avoided paying £1.4 million in inheritance tax for young George’s benefit. I presume you approve of that?
It seems to me that you can set inheitance tax at whatever level you like – as long as the very rich have these avoidance mechanisms available to them, the ordinary taxpayers (you and I for example) will never benefit.
I note that you have no comments on your chosen party’s protectionist policies towards bankers. Why is that I wonder?
Report abuse
More Tommyrot from councillor Patrick “iPod” McCarthy.
Report abuse
So Politicians lie to convince us that there are no other options apart from than their self interested ones ?
What an astute observation by Cllr McCarthy.
One ponders how long he took to reach this understanding of politics in local government however it is very telling that this fellow doesn’t mention names when arguing this seudo labour tosh ! Punitive taxation ! Nation government , history repeating I wonder why ? whose fault is that?
Enough I say stop using this suicide bombers rhetoric to fallaciously support your argument. I personally find this very offensive.Ointment n a smooth greasy substance applied to skin to heal or protect.Its somewhat concerning as to what videos this cllr considers when choosing the language of his correspondence indeed wether he realises the consequences of such vitriolic rhetoric.
Report abuse
I’m under the impression that the situation the Councillor describes is global, that the less wealthy receive blame, whilst the wealthy receive pleasure. This is a lamentable state of affairs.
If only there was a well known musical hall song that captured this sentiment, there would be no need for the Councillor to have penned his letter.
Report abuse
Blimey, very surprised to note the letter was written by a Councillor. Comparing the need to make cuts to a very real spiraling debt interest problem, to the non existent WMD in Iraq, is completely bonkers. I didn’t even bother reading the rest of the letter. Did people elect this chap to do something complicated? Hopefully not.
Report abuse
It annoys me when people use Rich & Poor to describe people – very emotive & useful for political motives. Why not use successful & under achieving? Let’s not forget that these so called “poor” people are largely made up of people who don’t want to help themselves in life and happy to live on handouts.
The budget cuts really won’t affect me as I’m not a scrounger. Indeed the only people who don’t support the cuts are those who are happy to bleed the rest of us dry!
Report abuse
Monkey by name monkey by nature it seems.
” Let’s not forget that these so called “poor” people are largely made up of people who don’t want to help themselves in life and happy to live on handouts”.
Oh dear poor chap has gone through life thinking that and poorly brought up thinking it.
I doubt very much if the cuts will not affect monkey as we can clearly see they will affect us all a as are not talking “all benefits here” , of course if monkey is very wealthy and I doubt it , it will not affect him that much.
I would also say to monkey you clearly see yourself as successful but others may judge you differently you may be judged as a mediocre individual who has kept in work, not become ill, had a hand out of your hard working parents, were born a little brighter than some ?,were able to jump on the housing ladder at the correct time , born at the right time not decades earlier or later,born in to a middle class family who could afford to pay your debts as you attended uni, born in the right country and so on and so on .
Come on monkey stop acting like one , well to be honest I think a monkey could give you a run for your money.
Report abuse
Exactly right, Pat.
Report abuse