Jeremy Hunt Sums Up The Tory Agenda For Britain In A Single Sentence

[blacksunday]

Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt has summed up the Tory agenda for Britain in a single sentence spoken at the Conservative party conference in Manchester.

Speaking of Chancellor and PM-in-waiting George Osborne’s plan to eliminate tax credits for working people, Hunt said:

---

"We have to proceed with these tax credit changes because they are a very important cultural signal. "

---

“My wife is Chinese. We want this to be one of the most successful countries in the world in 20, 30, 40 years’ time.

“There’s a pretty difficult question that we have to answer which is essentially: are we going to be a country that is prepared to work hard in the way that Asian economies are prepared to work hard, in the way that Americans are prepared to work hard? And that is about creating culture where work is at the heart of our success.

---

In short, tax credits for working people are being cut as part of a wider effort to lower the wages and working conditions of the UK to those of China and the U.S.

What an ambition. These two nations not only have some of the worst working conditions among advanced nations, but the lowest productivity too.

This is not news. For several decades now, repeated studies have shown that a law of diminishing returns applies when workers clock up more than 40 hours a week consistently. Furthermore, economists have repeatedly pointed to the social and economic wisdom of people working fewer hours, reducing the average working week to 30 hours.

Many nations have embraced this wisdom and begun transitioning their economies accordingly. Sweden began an experiment in shorter workweeks last Summer, Germany has a policy of kurzarbeit, or shorter working hours, in Denmark workers have shorter days and five-sex weeks of paid annual leave – all to fight unemployment, spread around available work, and ensure that citizens have the time and energy to perform their multitude of other roles in life (parent, friend, carer, etc) well too. In short, to create happier, healthier societies.

The result speak for themselves. These nations are developed, prosperous, innovative, and repeatedly top the OECD’s Better Life index.

Nevertheless, China and the U.S have adopted the brutal employment model of neoliberalism which dictates that the single most important aim for a nation is create the world’s biggest economy. They have produced results accordingly. They are the world’s leading economies, and the quality of life for many working, and non-working people is nowhere near that of the social democracies of Europe.They have higher rates of poverty, ill health, homelessness, and poorer social cohesion than anywhere else in the developed world.

Do you know how many days annual leave employers are mandated to provide their employees by the federal governments of U.S and China? None.

This is what the Tory tax credit cuts will do to the income of working class families over coming years.

SEE CHART ON LINK

Is the economy important? Of course it is. But the only reason it is important, is if better economic performance equals a better quality of life for the country’s citizens. The policies of the U.S and Chinese governments detached the two, and while we have such excellent examples of how to do this better in Scandinavia, the UK government is eager to join the U.S and China in the race to the bottom.

www.scriptonitedaily.com/2015/10/05/jeremy-hunt-sums-up-the-tory-agenda-for-britain-in-a-single-sentence/

[Isitmebut]

Hunt wants us to work like the Chinese, Cameron/Osborne want us to overtake Germany, while 'others' aspire to France, a fat government socialist state penally putting taxes up, then taking them down again when brings in fewer taxes as the wealth/creators leave - with few incentives for those tax revenues to either return or be replaced.

So lets look at a Eurozone with twice our Unemployment, and around half our Economic Growth - as the 'Frenchies' here consume themselves on a 'money tree' welfare state and Zero Hours - that have existed since the late 1990's, employ less than 2% of our workforce, than many employees prefer.

Aug 2015; ”The New World of Work:recovery driven by rise in temp jobs”
www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b2171222-31e4-11e5-8873-775ba7c2ea3d.html

”They call it the “precariat”. In a continent known for strong employee protections, more than half of the eurozone’s young workers are in temporary jobs, churning from one shortlived contract to the next.”

”In France, permanent jobs account for just 16 per cent of new contracts, down from a quarter in 2000. In Spain, almost seven in 10 young workers are on temporary contracts. The share of the eurozone’s 15 to 24-year-old workers who are temps is the highest on record, at 52.4 per cent.”

”Now that the eurozone’s recovery is at last under way, the question facing policymakers and politicians is whether the painful reforms of the last few years will do anything to address this.”

”But in parts of Europe, where temporary and contract work is unusually pervasive, economists say there is a dark side to the trend.”

”A deep fracture has emerged in Spain, France, Italy and Portugal over the past 20 years, with an older generation of highly protected permanent employees on one side and a younger generation forced to settle for insecure jobs on the other. That is one reason why youth unemployment surged when the crisis hit.”

“The rules for open-ended contracts in Europe are considered too stringent by employers and they sidestep those regulations by creating non-regular jobs,”

[Isitmebut]

And this is the Labour alternative at their conference, and what those who would invest, hire, and pay for the UK unlimited benefits welfare state.

"Labour's plans for economy are 'pure fantasy'"

"Business leaders blast shadow Chancellor's speech at Labour Party Conference in Brighton"
www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11897387/Labours-plans-for-economy-are-pure-fantasy.html

Business leaders branded shadow Chancellor John McDonnell an "interventionist" and accused him of taking a "pure fantasy" approach to the UK economy, after he told the Labour Party conference he would review the "entire tax system".

In a wide-ranging speech that singled out multi-nationals including Google and Starbucks for not paying what he said was their fair share in tax, Mr McDonnell said Labour could call for a 60p higher rate of income tax.

Although he steered clear from mentioning some of the more far left policies he is said to favour - including a financial transaction tax and using quantitative easing to fund infrastructure projects - opinion from the business community remained distinctly frosty.

Mark Littlewood, director general of the Institute for Economic Affairs, one of the country's leading economic think tanks, said that Mr McDonnell's rhetoric was "deeply disturbing".

With those policies of uncertainly (other than higher taxes for all) and state intervention, within one parliament we'd aspire to getting back to France currently in its own poop, over the NEXT 10-years (2035).

[AllThePrettySeahorses]

What's wrong with getting rid of tax avoidance? The UK already has one of the lowest CT rates in the developed world (USA, for example, 28% marginal plus local or state tax). Businesses are already getting a pretty good deal and should pay up.

60% IT - well, it's been worse! 75% or summat from the 50s, 83% through most of the 70s (and does anyone remember Supertax?). Higher rate tax was 60% until 1988-89. The current 45% is, historically, unusually low (and, like CT, internationally low, unless there's a lack of investment in the US that I'm missing).

[Isitmebut]

There is nothing wrong with getting rid of tax avoidance, but IT IS ALREADY BEING DONE, Cameron has been working closely with the OECD for a few years now to stop it globally - and Osborne raked in an extra £24 billion of taxes here last year.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27576626

Corporation Tax is just one tax companies pay, so I'd suggest it very misleading to just compare that tax globally without taking other tax burdens of government, or company allowances against tax (the U.S. is famous for), into account.

Yes there were very high taxes, inflation and pay rises in the 1970's here, but we were called 'the sick man of Europe' for a reason which may have had something to do with our manufacturing/brand names, were slowly being flushed down the toilet - so if going to quote the point of HIGH taxes, I suggest you find a prosperous time, not a decade where we called the IMF in (1976) to bail us out.

By 2010 Labour were channelling was left of our wealth into maintaining the fat State/employment they created reliant on the private sector that could not support it, so it is no surprise that the UK businesses recovery/jobs/investment BEGAN once Osborne started to address that suicidal government economic model - by HELPING businesses by tax cuts and freeing up lending.

Businesses always having competition/sales pressures need to plan years ahead and stable government policies not knee jerking around helps them plan their non just staying in business costs/investment/hiring concerns.

Arguably the chancellor could 'fiddle' those taxes annually but I believe he told them his Corporate Tax plans for a few years ahead, which I would suggest has helped their investment plans, still rising and looking to reach record levels by 2019.

And that assurance could help the UK further as the world is threatening another recession.

[blacksunday]

AllThePretty-

Please don't engage with isitmebut. It's nothing but a Tory spambot.

[Isitmebut]

Any country with aspiration of a sustainable welfare state has to ensure it can be paid for, so has to go hand in hand with business friendly policies.

A company competitive UK can do that, pay our annual bills and reduce the National Debt and once all these global businesses have no where to go to avoid paying taxes, they will settle in COMPETITIVE countries, as they have hardly been trying to avoid taxes for years - to then go and pay HIGHER taxes than the UK elsewhere.

Oct 5 2015; Plans unveiled to crack down on corporate tax avoidance
www.ft.com/cms/s/0/307c921a-6b45-11e5-aca9-d87542bf8673.html

Sweeping plans for a global crackdown on corporate tax avoidance were unveiled on Monday, after more than 60 governments agreed the first big overhaul of the rules for taxing profits for nearly a century.

The proposals to improve transparency, close loopholes and restrict the use of tax havens are the culmination of an ambitious international project launched two years ago by G20 governments in response to surging public anger over corporate tax avoidance.

Angel Gurría, secretary-general of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, which has overseen the so-called “base erosion and profits-shifting” (Beps) project, said the degree of consensus achieved was “quite remarkable”.

“It is like building a cathedral, except instead of taking three centuries, it took two years, ” Mr Gurría said.

The package of measures — which will be presented to finance ministers in Lima, Peru this week — contains the OECD’s first estimate for the potential lost revenues from companies employing Beps.

Its calculations, which it said were conservative, indicated that tax revenues lost from Beps were 4-10 per cent of global corporate tax revenues, equivalent to $100bn-$240bn a year. The impact was particularly damaging for developing countries, it added.

Pascal Saint-Amans, the OECD’s top tax official, described the package of measures as “a sea-change which is already having a significant behavioural impacton taxpayers”. About two-thirds of businesses indicated plans to review their structures ahead of the Beps regulations, according to a recent survey across 35 countries by Thomson Reuters, the data provider.

A UK on the tax receiving end of that admittedly wide estimate of $100 billion to $240 billion of tax avoidance above, could seriously help itself to get out of its mess and fund to a high level a sustainable welfare state.

[howtorebuild]

like the Tory spambot attempting to hypnotherapy lies on Victoria Darbyshire viewers earlier.

[Isitmebut]

BlackSunday ... stew in your own socialist ignorance, that builds a honking great State, with promises of ever rising benefits/welfare/tax credits and THEN wonders how it might be paid for - and its 'default' comes back to tax the businesses/wealth to death, like most of our industries in those 'good old days'.

Encouraging businesses just does not compute, neither does trimming back the fat States Labour builds, as the Public Sector unions FUND the Labour Party would NOT allow it, even if it did occur the socialists that their economic model will always go tits up.

You preach for a destruction of the State, not for its prosperity.

[Isitmebut]

howtorebuild .... a person does not need to be a 'spambot' to realise that the private sector always has to pay for the public sector, not the other way around, just a few little grey cells.

[AllThePrettySeahorses]

It's okay, BlackSunday - I might throw in that apparently the true deficit figure in 2010 was 7.7%, compared to the deficit in 1994 (under Tory) being 7.9%. None of the Tory lies about the economy add up, do they?

[Isitmebut]

And I might throw up due to those hiding behind percentage figures, when neither the size, sustainability/competitiveness, or if ANYTHING in 2010 was being done about it, of the UK economy is reflecting in those figures.

In 1994 we were a few years into a European/U.S. recession on the Conservative's watch and something was being done about it.

In 2010 we were a few years into the worst recession in 80-years on Labour's watch and the government plan was sit like a rabbit in headlights and in their last budget or two PUT UP taxes i.e. Fuel Duty, National Insurance and Council Tax.

Please put your money where that bunny was, and SHOW ME what were the measures Labour took to get the UK out of the worst recession in 80-years - or just continue to hide behind near meaningless national stats of Labour built economy?

[AllThePrettySeahorses]

In 2010 we were a few years into the worst recession in 80-years
We were, weren't we? And yet Labour managed it so well that they kept the deficit lower that the Tories did in 94 - after a much smaller recession. You said it yourself.

There was extremely strong growth up to May 2010 until it flatlined under the Tories. And, as you obviously haven't noticed, the 2008 recession was global and started in the US. The root cause was, let's face it, outside Labour's control.

Putting up taxes - current economic criticism says that Labour handled the crash very well but they should have increased taxes more as that would have mitigated some extra borrowing.

Finally, as above, Labour's/Brown's bete noir was an unavoidable global recession. Major's was the ERM debacle; an absolute balls-up for which there are no mitigating circumstances.

[Isitmebut]

AllThePrettySeahorses .... what absolute inaccurate rubbish STILL trying to manipulate figures with NO Labour measures offered to show they had a clue what they were doing ….so answering point by point.

The UK budget deficit figures you are using are as a percentage of GDP when any fool of a government can ‘create’ GDP by overspending (look at the components of GDP)and through the 1990’s to 2001annual government spending in real terms was pretty constant, but by 2009/10 government spending under Brown in money terms was over 50% MORE than that earlier period you mention, which was huge, and through the 2000’s that growth was far far higher than any other European government.

The UK fall in GDP was from 2008 into 2009 losing around 7% of GDP/output, HOW MUCH of that GDP did Labour get back through their continued reckless annual increase in fat government spending to May 2010 – and note that after such a sharp contraction in the economy, a retracement is natural – and how much of that growth COULD be from the private sector still being over taxed when other countries REDUCED taxes to business/citizens e.g. the U.S.

Labour had the option of sustaining the fat State unsustainable or helping businesses and citizens, and chose to maintain that massive increased spending from 2001 on fat government pretending the recession wasn’t happening.

Re Labour’s potential for higher taxes to reduce the budget deficit "handling it very well", the UK under Labour and a Treasury under their control that had massively underestimated the tax receipts for some reason - coming up to an election Brown desperately wanted to win as had been appointed, not elected – was in ‘deficit denial’, with only Chancellor Darling willing to tell the truth so what he called “the forces of hell” was unleashed as Brown tried to fire him.

“Alistair Darling attacks Gordon Brown's election failures”
www.scotsman.com/news/alistair-darling-attacks-gordon-brown-s-election-failures-1-821511

”In a pointed reference to Mr Brown's mantra of "investment over cuts", he will use the same phrase to illustrate how he believes the party lost the support of the electorate. He will say: "Labour lost because we failed to persuade the country that we had a plan for the future. What is important now for our party is we take stock and be honest about what went wrong.”

"By failing to talk openly about the deficit, and our tough plans to halve it within four years, we vacated the crucial space to make the case for the positive role government can play.

June 2010; ”Balls accuses Darling of costing Labour the (2010) election”
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/7825548/Balls-accuses-Darling-of-costing-Labour-the-election.html

”Ed Balls today lays bare his differences with Alistair Darling accusing him of costing Labour the chance of winning the general election with his stubborn refusal to rule out raising VAT.”

The UK with a few other countries did have an ERM crisis e.g. Italy, but Europe and the U.S. was also in recession BUT we were the fastest growing economy in Europe in 1997 after around 24 conseq quarters (the longest expansion on record) of mild but non increased government spending economic growth.

And the 2010 'investment over cuts' mantra Darling mentioned was disingenuous, will STILL be used by Labour/Corbyn in 2020, that together with driving businesses away from the UK, shows they are still clueless has to build a SUSTAINABLE private sector economy.

[AllThePrettySeahorses]

Just thought I'd point this out - opinion isn't the same as fact and all I see is opinion. Also, if you want a smaller state, compare Labour with the previous administration.

[Isitmebut]

AllThePrettySeahorses ….. you are cheeky, continuing to try and manipulate figures to show Labour were competent and not profligate, I then give you the FACTS but because they don’t suit your agenda – they are apparently just my “opinion”.

But please correct me if my FACTS are wrong;

On timelines, the 1994 UK government annual budget deficit (to GDP not in £billions) under the Conservatives that you point to was a sharp peak and then that figure massively DECLINED from that year into the Labour administration - and the spending taps were turned on from around 2001.

Labour’s annual budget deficit debt (again to GDP) that you are clearly so proud of, may have been lower than in 1994, but from 2008/9 it was on a RISING trend with NO FIRM PLANS in place (even by May 2010 by the party in government and running the UK’s books for 13-years) to FIX it.

That is not just MY opinion, reading the quotes in my previous link, that was Chancellor Darlings who should know as it was his job AND his replacement Brown was lining up, Ed Balls, to continue Labour’s policy of ‘deficit denial’.

Finally I am not sure what you mean by the smaller State, as in most of the 1990’s the UK government annual spend was in the £400 billions and by 2008/9 it was in the £600 billions - partially covered by the financial bubble windfall that then burst in late 2007 and more government budget deficit spending that then increased – so whether in government spending terms, or ideologically speaking, where the Conservatives believes it should be as large/expensive as it NEEDS to be rather Labour’s ‘engine of growf’, it will always be larger under Labour.

But where did the money go, what do we have to show for it, as even government departmental spending was all over the place e.g. the NHS, where the Kings Fund while impressed spending went up by 5% in real terms, only 2% got to the front line.

[AllThePrettySeahorses]

No, quite the opposite - I am giving you the facts and you are manipulating the truth for your agenda. You seem to be under the misconception that I am a Labour voter. I am not. I am looking at this from an entirely neutral position.

The deficit was in steep decline in 2010 but that decline drastically slowed under Tory policy. Do you deny that? I know the answer will be yes regardless of real facts but maybe someone else will read this thread, look at the actual stats and story and make their own mind up free from the propaganda.

The Tory government subscribe to this view:
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it" Joseph Goebbels

[Anastasie]

howtorebuild .... a person does not need to be a 'spambot' to realise that the private sector always has to pay for the public sector, not the other way around, just a few little grey cells.

The reason the private sector has to bail out the public sector, is that the public sector hasn't got any fucking money, because the private sector has eaten it all up.

[Isitmebut]

The deficit was in steep decline in 2010 but that decline drastically slowed under Tory policy. Do you deny that?

Let me get this straight, so you believe that the UK annual Budget deficit figure was HIGHER than the £153 billion in 2010 in the PRIOR years; so as you know what they were, please tell me - FYI when Darling put up National Insurance while still in power, he was forecasting a 2010 Budget Deficit around £167 bil I believe.