Soo.. what proportion of Boots retail staff claim benefits and use the NHS?

[vinegarandbrownpaper]

Sick of 'business leaders' with businesses propped up by tax breaks, working tax credits and people propping up contracts with benefits when there is no work.. making sure those workers can still come back despite zero hours. Pay your staff properly before you complain about a supportive society you dolt.

Anyhoo, after Miliband's latest PMQT attempt to chose an ideological attack on the wealthy and make up reasons to launch it, let us see if Miliband who smeared this Tory donor today, is MAN ENOUGH to repeat it outside of parliamentary priviliege.

Looks like he was man enough yesterday.

As per my last post on the previous page, no Miliband didn't, he left out the "dodgy" words and intimation that Lord Fink had done something illegal, when Fink admits plain 'vanilla' family tax planning, probably similar to the Miliband family.

Like Hedge Funds the previous week, Miliband at PMQT chose to misinterpret legislation/HSBC events going back several years to attack and try to discredit Conservative donors, the type of which they actively courted in the 2000's with a Capital Gains Tax cut to a tapered 10% - hence the Private Equity fund manager stated (under Labour) his office cleaner pays more tax than him - probably made worse because Brown took away the 10p Tax Rate that helped the lower paid AFTER the financial crash, being concerned about 'the cost of living'.

The hypocrisy goes further, now Balls said he wants to expand the 7-year bank bonus claw back to 10-years as the HSBC case shows it is needed - when the HSBC whistleblower sent the files to the HMRC Tax Evasion section in 2008, and then EMAILED & CALLED that year, with no action taken - when the other day a tax official said any such event would have been told to a government minister at the time.

Labour made over 3,000 laws in 13-years, many to change rubbish earlier laws, so once again Balls wants to legislate to compensate for their incompetence in 2008. Priceless.

I was wondering how Labour will tax bank bonuses with very little cash can be paid with a 7-year clawback, with a 10-year clawback, best they rework their spending plans.

In typical Labour lack of joined up policy thinking, forgetting the encouragement Labour gave to banks to lend more from 1997 made the crash worse for us, on the ONE hand Miliband says he want to 'control' banks to lend more, yet now Balls says he wants to increase the Bank Levy, making less funds available to lend. Dah.

Moreover I wonder what MORE state control on UK banks under Labour will do to prolong the time the UK Taxpayer gets to break-even price on their RBS shares?

Promises of more knee jerk policies, to correct knee jerk governance, full of jerks with no idea what they are doing.

I repeat, IsItMeBut, there was a global financial crash at the end of the Labour government. Official figures show that Labour's fiscal policy during their 13 year term created more surplus years and more equal wealth distribution than the previous Conservative administration in their 18 years, plus Brown managed to mitigate the potential damage with bailouts etc. It could have been a lot worse. The current Coalition have been ineffective at best (not that they've had much "best"), downright destructive at worst.

Is it me but

What are your views on the impact of the global economic recession on the uk economy?

Can't believe I missed the start of this thread.

Boots (Alliance Unichem) was Bought by Stefano in 2007 and became a privately held company. Someone said up thread about Stefano's stock options but that is ridiculous as Stefano owned the company. The HQ moved outside the UK, reflecting the new ownership, rather than tax avoidance.

On 31/12/14, Walgreens bought Alliance Boots and formed a new company, Walgreens Alliance Boots, publicly traded on Nasdaq (WAB). Stefano is the CEO of the new company.

The Boots management are controlling WAB, and the rationale for the takeover was to make Walgreens stores more like Boots stores, and to access the worldwide stretch of Alliance (the pharmaceutical side).

There is absolutely no plan for Walgreens to run Boots into the ground.

As for wages for shop staff, whenever were young people expected to run a household on shop wages? Traditionally retail staff were either very young or mums with a part-time job, both groups supplemented by other family income. If a 45 year old is supporting a family on retail wages, they are doing something wrong or have been extremely unlucky. I suspect the number of Boots employees claiming benefits is actually quite low given the socio-economic profile of their lowest paid employees.

Stefano is right to bring attention to Red Ed's scary policies. They are not good for businesses, and not good for the community at large.

AllThePrettySeahorses ….. re your ”plus Brown managed to mitigate the potential damage with bailouts etc. It could have been a lot worse.”

What does that mean, as every link I gave earlier confirms Brown was too lax with bank regulation, proves this contributed to our bank crisis being worse than other countries - how many other nations had to part nationalise their banks like the UK, and why was northern Rock allowed to go boobs up? – and also left the worst annual deficit in Europe LIMITING the 2010 governments option to reboot the economy, so with NO plans to fix their own mess, HOW could it have been worse?

Re your the Labour Annual Spending Surplus years; if in cash terms the accumulating National Debt was £403 bil in 1996/7 and rose to £1,073 trillion in 2009/10, how COULD there be more ‘surplus years’ under Labour?

If you read the link I gave you on Labour spending, you will see the following quote that makes it even more incompetent Labour governance, having balance the UK’s books in 2001, to then go on a massive spending splurge mainly on fat quango, government somehow NEEDING to overspend each year by deficit/national debt increases.

“During the years 2001-2007, there was a sharp rise in government spending. In real terms, government spending increased from just over £400bn (2009 prices) to £618bn in 2008-09.”

Re your coalition has been ineffective, do you really NOT understand what the Coalition inherited and that it bore no resemblance to what Labour received in 1997, and that whoever took over in 2010 HAD to cut the annual Budget Deficit, even Labour promised to half it I believe, through a combination of cuts and taxes – but were too cowardly to detail either to the electorate until AFTER the election.

The coalition NEVER had a ‘nice’ decade (1997 to 2007) like Labour where THEY with balanced UK annual spending in 2001 to spend how they wanted, the coalition inherited the Labour £157 billion deficit, with an unbalanced economy and no plans shit storm, AND THIS IS WHAT THE POOR HAD TO SHOW FOR IT.

Jan 2010; ”Embarrassment for Brown as major report reveals inequality has increased under Labour”
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245080/Embarrassment-Brown-major-report-reveals-inequality-increased-Labour.html

”The gap between rich and poor has widened under Labour, a major new Government report will say next week.”

”The 450-page study by the National Equality Panel is expected to report that the billions of pounds poured into extra benefits, tax credits and anti-poverty drives over the last 12 years have failed to reverse the rise in inequality.”

”The findings are a major embarrassment for Gordon Brown who has adopted a controversial ‘class war’ election strategy designed to position Labour as the party of equality.”

”Privately, ministers already conceded that Labour will miss its self-imposed targets for reducing both child poverty and fuel poverty.”

The banking crisis was 2009. Of course the deficit went up In 2009/10.

Also labour had to spend to tackle the years of underinvestment left behind by the Tories. The crumbling schools, the creaking hospitals.

Who knows what legacy the Tories will leave behind this time. They're ready talking about cutting education budget. That's wise

Iggly ..... is there any danger of you getting a fact right?

1. The financial crash began around October 2007, the UK LOST around 7% of output (GDP) in 2008, and Manufacturing that was around 23% of the UK economy in 1997, was around 12% in 2010 - with 1 million manufacturing jobs lost by Labour by 2005, in a global boom, how rubbish was that?

By 2010, with Labour concentrating on a fat quango government and making laws/re tape, the UK was exporting more to Ireland, than the 2.4 billion people in the BRIC (Brazil, Russian, India and China) nations.

1. Due to the recession of the early 1990's, there may well have been 'under investment' by the Conservatives, but that is the UK crying shame, that ONCE we balanced the books, the Labour economic halfwits WASTED a golden opportunity (with all the extra tax receipts of the bank/credit boom) TO BUILD homes, power stations, major road and rail and airport projects - but spent it on bloating government employment, while BORROWING to fix the "creaking and crumbling" whatever on RUBBISH terms over 30-years.

www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9356942/Blair-defends-PFI-as-NHS-trusts-face-bankruptcy.html
www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/8779598/Private-Finance-Initiative-where-did-all-go-wrong.html

“Across the public sector, taxpayers are committed to paying £229bn for hospitals, schools, roads and other projects with a capital value of *£56bn.

1. Re the Education Budget, there IS NO budget cut, they will maintain current spending plus add another £7 bil to ensure school places.

In 'real' inflation adjusted terms there might be a 'cut', but look where inflation is now and expected to be over the next few years (clue; they are talking NEGATIVE deflation) so how Labour gets to a 10% cut is anyones guess - scratch that, this is the result under THEIR administration.

www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/10631728/Pupils-cannot-count-out-change-due-to-poor-maths-skills.html

www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/labour-admits-great-crime-on-education-tristram-hunt-says-his-party-encouraged-schools-to-aim-too-low--and-pupils-paid-the-price-9053693.html

AllThePretty & Iggly ..... I have no idea what Labour annual deficit figures you are looking at, but I remember for years, the Private Finance Initiative spending mentioned above, was 'off (UK) balance sheet)' - similar to some "dodgy" hedge fund, using smoke and mirrors financial structuring.

Also apart from cutting the 10p tax rate and raising National Insurance, wasn't one of Labour's few 'cunning plans' to help British manufacturing post crash, to give the car makers in the UK a boost, via the £2,000 'cash for old jalopies' trade in for new - when few of the car makers are British?

Is that why Miliband will make his big economic speech on the economy later via a Jaguar plant, he plans to give the poor ANOTHER £2000 to buy a new Jaguar? lol

Sorry I got the date wrong.

However the Tories will cut education spending in real terms. £1 today is worth more than £1 in five years, so maintaining a cash position means you lose in real terms.

PFI was a Tory initiative. Labour ran with it. But it goes back to the Tories.

I don't disagree - labour completely and utterly messed up but I don't think the Tories are any better.

They have a lot to answer for.

Iggly ….. please correct me if I’m wrong, but if a government department is freezing spending now, for 5-years, the rate of inflation OVER that 5-years is key to whether the buying power is lower over that time - and if UK inflation is (in a technical term) diddly squat – rather than around the 20% I had to cope with in the 1970’s and early 1980’s, there is little erosion of that buying power.

And inflation within the UK is expected to be low over the year or so ahead.

”UK sliding towards first bout of negative inflation in 55 years”
www.theguardian.com/business/2015/feb/12/bank-of-england-warning-over-impending-interest-rate-rise

FYI negative inflation is currently being seen in the EU and I remember when Japan had the mother of financial crashes around 1990, soon after it had mild DEFLATION, which as it affected their economy so they called it ‘the lost decade’, only is lasted even longer, and 20 odd years later (last year) it started turning to mild inflation again only after Japanese government money printing.

Re PFI was a Conservative Policy; come on, blaming ‘bloody Thatcher’, I think you’re better than that, I’d just say that is like blaming Samuel Colt for every revolver death since he invented it – it’s a ‘buyer beware’ for the stupid.

Re what Labour did under NO pressure in their first 10-years, versus what the Conservative economically inherited in 1979 and 2010 off of Labour, I’d agree that there is no comparison – history shows Labour’s policies from 1997 to 2010 did MORE to badly impact the indigenous ‘working man’ or womans education, jobs, wages and homes = futures, across most of the UK, than anything the Conservatives have done, trying to CORRECT the Labour economy of 2010, or 1997.

It would be a tough audience to suggest the UK’s prospects were worse in 1997 than 1979, and in 2015 worse than 2010 – and both times Labour were the previous act on the stage.

Labour does nothing except spend spend spend and handouts to eveyone. If everyone gets a payrise nobody wins as there is rampant inflation and higher prices and then demands for more pay rises. Some people have very short memories.

V….. you forgot Labour’s tax tax tax, which is no doubt while Labour today say they aspire to France’s economy, well Productivity at least, when France still have near record unemployment (around 11%), a huge business failure rate, flat growth and penal taxes (75%) drove most of the wealth/wealth creators out of France.

This is what we saw in the first few years of the Labour administration, but in their 2010 spend more, cut less and tax more promise, we never found out how much tax – as what they keep announcing on the rich, will raise (technical again) £££ diddly, so they have to be bigger and wider across society.
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-389284/The-80-tax-rises-Labour.html

If that's the case then why not tag spending to inflation then?

It is an outright lie to say that spending is being maintained when it isn't.

It adds up over five years.

And if the Tories were for the working man which they arent they would have more active policies for tackling the historic low wages paid by business. But they don't.
They'd do more to tackle the housing crisis instead of pumping money in to inflate prices, taking them out of reach of the ordinary worker.
Look at London. New houses being built which are not affordable on the average wage. It is absurd.

Iggly ....

Re Tory Education Spending: I'm having trouble seeing your point, as apart from the teaching of basics needed by employers suffered under Labour after they DOUBLED the budget/debt (so money is no guarantee of standards), we still have a £90 billion annual deficit, so rather than pretend we have the money tree, they are outlining spending for the next parliament.

So there are no smoke and mirrors here, while protecting the current budget (plus £7 bil available for new school places), they are not prepared to increase it by inflation, whether it was flat, 1%, or 3% a year.

So in theory, if it weren't for the fact children leave school under Labour still not able to count out change for £1, if money is an issue Labour has the BETTER policy as they throw more money into mediocrity.

So while I grant you that policy wise the Conservatives, confident children will get a better education under them, they will 'luck in' if inflation is slightly negative to slightly positive over most of the next parliament and are then seen not to have cut the Education budget by much.

I do however find it politically disingenuous for a 'dodgy' Labour Party to state that (due to inflation) the Conservatives will cut the Education Budget by 10%, when inflation is basically FLAT, and even the Bank of England guvnor Mr Carney has no fricking idea what inflation will total over the next 5-years.

This is an issue for the 2020 General Election, IF our children STILL can't count and can't compete for own own jobs with other EU citizens, and 'the Conservatives had cut spending by ???% in real terms'.

However if education is better and the Conservatives have been seen to get 'more for less', all Labour's core ideological voters, being so fair in assessing their own party's 13-years in power, will rejoice and vote for the Conservatives in 2020. Yeah right lol.

so rather than pretend we have the money tree, they are outlining spending for the next parliament

Oh there is money for things they want to happen. They have billions to waste on the NHS reorganisation - which has not saved anything, for example!

So I fail to believe the austerity line anymore.

Iggly ... Few can say that under 13-years of a Labour government, the size and cost of government had became a major problem, whether rolling in £££ dosh in the mid 2000's or running a £157 billion deficit FUNDING IT in 2010.
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1214001/The-cost-quango-Britain-hits-170bn--seven-fold-rise-Labour-came-power.html

As to the NHS, I suggest you read the NHS thread, as if Labour prioritized managers over front line services, even wasting a few £££billion on doctors in the mid 2000's we apparently didn't need, I'd humbly suggest a honking great TOP DOWN organisation of the NHS in 2010, was desperately needed - and HAS/WILL save money annually.
www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/7520408/Rise-in-NHS-managers-outstrips-doctors-and-nurses.html

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1544307/Doctors-training-system-a-shambles.html
“As much as £2 billion has been spent on the training of up to 8,000 doctors who find themselves without a new job under a Government initiative.”

Iggly ... re your earlier post, on 'the working man', I'm sorry, but when was the Labour expansive non EU immigration policy in addition to EU citizens compressing wage rates, the lack of new house builds under them, the fall in real earnings that began under them during a recession started on their watch, the 2010 log jam in the housing market transactions thanks to the banking crisis started on their watch - all 'FOR the Labour working man'?

No the top down reorganisation of the NHS did not save money as the NAO tells us

The Tories have had five years. What have they done about housing except prop up prices? Not enough.

What have they done about the minimum wage? Not enough.

I want to know which party will help the everyday person. It isn't the Tories.

Iggly .....

NHS 'Top Down' savings; I see nothing in your link dated July 2013 that there have NOT been cost savings which would be ongoing bases on the restructuring, do you have anything more current?

Housing 2010 -2015; Labour left around 5 million people needing council/social housing in 2010 and the Coalition I saw nearly a year ago, had delivered more in 4-years, than loads-a-dosh Labour did in 13-years.
www.gov.uk/government/news/extra-borrowing-powers-for-councils-to-build-10000-affordable-homes

Clearly Labour new shiney multi £billion quangos were more important than housing the 4 million net new citizens English problem passed to the Coalition with a £157 billion overspend and NO budget plans in place to rectify.

If Labour were delivering an average of just over 100,000 new homes a year with their immigration rate, despite being told by their own commissioned report in 2004 they need a minimum of 200,000 (before she knew the extent of immigration) - how can the Conservative led Coalition solve a 13-year housing cock up by Labour, in ONE parliament?
"The (2004) Barker review: key points"
www.theguardian.com/money/2004/mar/17/business.housing

The Minimum Wage: is set by an independent body on what the small, medium and large businesses can afford, the figure set by Miliband (£8?) by the end of the next parliament, could easily be reached if the UK keeps growing the way it is.

"In everyday life", I fail to see how a Labour Party taxing the bejezus out of everyone and spending it on 'the fat few' in government quangos and other management, to give them 6-figure salaries, private healthcare and the ability to send their children to private schools - actually helps the many, the poor, or anyone else 13-years of Labour left behind.

Labour have no idea how to run a balanced economy, so no economic growth with money being thrown at big government Miliband wants to form i.e. regional quangos, a British Investment Bank - can only REDUCE what we spend on services and raise taxes, who is better off with unbalanced economies?

A famous woman once said "the problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other peoples money" and under Labour/SNP, with a National Debt heading for £2,000,000,000,000 being funded by 'other peoples money' - I reiterate, we would be on the road to Greece, first stop France.

Tell me more about these quangos and what is wrong with them?

Isitmebut - the Conservatives has shown again and again that they are completely unable to run a balanced economy and their record is worse than Labour.