Today I published an article on the Oct20 marches found here https://thebackbencher.co.uk/oct20/
This is the second article on this site – seen in our Tea Room on October 21 – was in support of the #Oct20 movement. I just wanted to reply to that article – seen here – to level the playing field. If you have not read the previous article, I suggest you do before reading my critique.
1) Fevzi claims that we are facing ‘year on year’ of cuts. We are not. Public spending is rising under the Tory party.
2) He talks of the backlash seen, even at the highest estimates 100,000 people who were assisted to London by trade union (tax payer) money is less than 0.5% of the number who voted for more cuts than we are currently facing.
3) He says the Government ‘have got this austerity programme so very wrong’ he is right, but not how he imagines, the OBR have said we need more cuts not less http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18811472
4) He claims the bankers are responsible for the cuts, the structural deficit was high before the bailouts, bank bailouts are a fraction of real national debt, constantly spending more money than we took in caused this crisis, not the bankers (incidentally the banking crisis itself was a fault of Government stemming back to the CRA in America in 1977 and repeated bailouts papering over the cracks)
5) He reports that the average family needs £1,035 per annum to maintain their standard of living from last year. I assume he wants the Government to provide that money to them, taking it from people who earnt it and giving it to people who didn’t. A much cheaper and more efficient way of doing that would be to cut tax.
6) Fevzi claims Ed Miliband would not cut as fast and deep, as my article today shows this is simply false, Labour wanted more cuts than the Coalition are delivering
7) He claims it was the banks not Gordon Brown that got us into the mess, Gordon Brown chose to bail out those banks, he chose to sell of our Gold at historically low prices, he chose to spend more than we took in via tax, it certainly was his fault.
8) He mentions rising gas and electricity prices, indicating that it is the companies themselves that are pushing up prices. However even if every company made 0 profit energy bills would be down 3-4% at most. The rhetoric of greedy companies does not stack up to the truth
9) Fevzi mentions 12 billion of avoided tax. Tax avoidance is legal, when you buy duty free or even buy a cheaper product than another available you are avoiding tax. No company owes HMRC anything if they avoid tax. Even if tax avoidance was made illegal (almost impossible to do) companies wouldn’t pay this 12 billion as you cannot retroactively apply it. Companies avoided similar if not more tax under Labour yet curiously there were no protests
10) He mentions testing for disability welfare. If you are getting tax payer money then the tax payer has every right to be sure that you deserve to receive it.
11) Starbucks was almost empty. Now here is something I do support him on, if you oppose a companies legal practices don’t complain to the government, just don’t use their services. It is a free market method of voting with your wallet and depriving them of your custom. If everyone who opposes Starbucks does it then Starbucks will either pay extra tax it doesn’t have to in order to attract more business or it will go bankrupt, such is the beauty of the free market.