Parasite Street

Innispurs

Vital 1st Team Regular
Looking forward to this new C4 documentary series! Follow the link for an interactive guide to the main players.

http://www.parasite-street.co.uk/

If we could get these spongers to pay what they should, we'd be out of debt in one fell swoop (which is why the programme will probably never get made!)

 
Still wouldn't solve the problems highlighted with how the feckless, the lazy and how thieves that prey on those in the same boat (street) as them are supported by state handouts..

It would just mean that if labour where in power they'd give them even more money with no strings attached.

Innis, you should know better; two wrongs don't make a right and you shouldn't try and defend (deflect?) the indefensible.
 
Joey wades in:


Benefits Street: Joey Barton sparks outrage over claims stars of TV show should be banned from having kids

Jan 17, 2014 00:11
By Jonny Greatrex


Barton, who plays for QPR, sent a string of shocking tweets saying residents should only have kids if they get a licence

Controversial: Footballer Joey Barton sparked a Twitter storm after saying the stars of Channel 4’s Benefits Street should be banned from having children Controversial: Footballer Joey Barton sparked a Twitter storm after saying the stars of Channel 4’s Benefits Street should be banned from having children
Getty


Controversial footballer Joey Barton has sparked a Twitter storm after saying the stars of Channel 4’s Benefits Street should be banned from having children.

Barton, who plays for QPR, sent a string of shocking tweets saying residents should only have kids if they get a licence.

In a tirade of tweets on the social network site, he wrote: “Strong evidence to support the breeding licence theory. What chance do these kids have?

"World is f****d sometimes. Surely you should have to pass a test or at least show you are capable of looking after kids. Surely?

“They don’t even keep their own homes clean. I didn’t grow up in the best place but people cared about their homes and the way they looked.

"These people don’t give two f***s. Pile rubbish up in the street. Houses are manky.

"They expect the council to sort everything for them. Clean the street up.

“Don’t sit on walls all day drinking white lightening or sit on the couch moaning. Get to work on your house. That’s a start.”

He also hit out at Romanians who appeared on the show and blasted: “Romanians. If you don’t like it here. You know what to do. Imagine me going to Romania trying this sh*t on? Interesting they all have cars, gold chains, mobile phones, a roof over their heads and are fat. Can’t be that bad now can it.”

And yesterday morning, Barton sent another tweet refusing to backtrack on his comments.

He tweeted: “Really interesting how #benefitstreet polarises opinion. Slept on it. Still as sickened as before.”

A number of Twitter users hit back at the footballer.

A woman called Cia tweeted: "Joey Barton kicks a ball for tens of thousands a week and is outraged that some people get £50 a week off the government #legit”

Local councillor Chaman Lal was appalled by Barton's comments

He added: “These are sickening comments and absolutely disgusting.

"To say people on benefits shouldn’t have children is outrageous. People fall into benefits for many different reasons but it is everyone’s human right to have kids. This Joey Barton is just a joke.”


Check out all the latest News, Sport & Celeb gossip at Mirror.co.uk http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/benefits-street-joey-barton-sparks-3030576#ixzz2qf9mmqv6
Follow us: @DailyMirror on Twitter | DailyMirror on Facebook
 
For those interested; it's also worth noting what sectors of society and where the estimated 'tax gap' is emanating from:

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/statistics/tax-gaps/mtg-2012.pdf

It makes for sobering reading.
 
Spursex - 17/1/2014 13:43

Still wouldn't solve the problems highlighted with how the feckless, the lazy and how thieves that prey on those in the same boat (street) as them are supported by state handouts..

It would just mean that if labour where in power they'd give them even more money with no strings attached.

Innis, you should know better; two wrongs don't make a right and you shouldn't try and defend (deflect?) the indefensible.

Ex, you really are either blind or in denial. Two wrongs don't make a right and the post I put up here says so: 'Yes, benefit fraud is bad news and we should seek to reduce it'. The scandal is that all the propaganda, all the publicity, all the front page news (and sycophantic television coverage) is on the benefit fraudsters while none is on the much greater scandal of tax fraud. As this post goes on to say: 'But shouldn't our priority be on eliminating subsidies to the rich that cost us 54x as much?'

Remember as well that the garbage that is 'Benefits Street' implies that all on benefits are (as you put it) 'the feckless, the lazy and ... thieves' This, however, is a tiny minority. Most on benefits are the low paid in work and the unending propaganda about benefit cheats is a gross insult to their hard -working endeavours to provide.

This is not either/or, not defend/deflect; this is a matter of priorities and we surely should be honest enough and politically brave enough to address the major problem rather than fixating on the relatively (comparatively) minor issue. I'll help you hunt out the 1.2billion of benefit fraud if you help me hunt down the £65 billion worth of tax fraud, and evasion?

Deal?
 
Innispurs - 17/1/2014 14:38

Spursex - 17/1/2014 13:43

Still wouldn't solve the problems highlighted with how the feckless, the lazy and how thieves that prey on those in the same boat (street) as them are supported by state handouts..

It would just mean that if labour where in power they'd give them even more money with no strings attached.

Innis, you should know better; two wrongs don't make a right and you shouldn't try and defend (deflect?) the indefensible.

Ex, you really are either blind or in denial. Two wrongs don't make a right and the post I put up here says so: 'Yes, benefit fraud is bad news and we should seek to reduce it'. The scandal is that all the propaganda, all the publicity, all the front page news (and sycophantic television coverage) is on the benefit fraudsters while none is on the much greater scandal of tax fraud. As this post goes on to say: 'But shouldn't our priority be on eliminating subsidies to the rich that cost us 54x as much?'

Remember as well that the garbage that is 'Benefits Street' implies that all on benefits are (as you put it) 'the feckless, the lazy and ... thieves' This, however, is a tiny minority. Most on benefits are the low paid in work and the unending propaganda about benefit cheats is a gross insult to their hard -working endeavours to provide.

This is not either/or, not defend/deflect; this is a matter of priorities and we surely should be honest enough and politically brave enough to address the major problem rather than fixating on the relatively (comparatively) minor issue. I'll help you hunt out the 1.2billion of benefit fraud if you help me hunt down the £65 billion worth of tax fraud, and evasion?

Deal?

Innis,

you've used benefit street to highlight tax fraud - you did that, not me.

If you can't see what you've done, then you're purposely being obtuse and just as 'blind' as you accuse me of being..

Benefit fraud is the tip of anti-social behaviour which is why a better more nuanced debate about state benefits and how and when and for how long they're paid has to be had (but I've said that again and again)..

Tax fraud/avoidance, when you look at the breakdown is a huge issue, but it's also an issue that affects us all, not just one segment of society.

We have agreed that tax fraud has and is being addressed; the question is (or as you seem to imply) that it isn't being addressed with the same vigour as social and benefit fraud..

If the vast majority on benefits are law abiding, then I'm delighted as it means that they are those that warrant support, but this doesn't lesson the need to address those who cheat the system, in some cases for generations.

I repeat, conjoining the two issues doesn't do you or the campaign to simplify and control our tax regime one single iota of good.

Obfuscating an issue with another issue doesn't help in the clarity of debate we should be having about how either issue is being tackled.

Click the link I provided, read the report - there is a much bigger debate to be had; but not at the expense of ignoring another.

The problem I have with your approach is that you don't or refuse to see the highly visible effect that benefit fraud and the culture of state benefits per se has on the working person.

Both must be addressed and both need more to be done, the attempt to counter balance one against another simply doesn't wash, and that is and always has been my fundamental point.
 
Innispurs - 17/1/2014 13:38

Looking forward to this new C4 documentary series! Follow the link for an interactive guide to the main players.

http://www.parasite-street.co.uk/

If we could get these spongers to pay what they should, we'd be out of debt in one fell swoop (which is why the programme will probably never get made!)


It's a nice try mate but the easily manipulated of these islands have long been condition into a Pavlovian response where kicking down is all they do. None of the disproportionate thieving of the above matter, because these people are wealth creators and speak proper. Be nice to them or they will leave!!!!!!!
 
It seems I am talking to a closed door - or maybe a plank of wood !

You say: 'The problem I have with your approach is that you don't or refuse to see the highly visible effect that benefit fraud and the culture of state benefits per se has on the working person'.

Now that is a choice statement! Benefit fraud AND the culture of state benefits? Now, are these the same thing? The effects on the working person? Ex, get out more, you do not live in the real world. The effects of the 'benefit culture' on the working person? Only the poorest working person is on benefits and the effect is to lift them out of abject misery. The working poor, on benefits should NOT be likened to benefit fraud. This is an insult and you , sir, should be ashamed of yourself.

Let me try to be as precise as I can be. If we leave aside pensions, most benefits go to the working poor. It supplements their poor earnings by bringing them up to a living wage, it helps pay the rent in areas where rents have soared, it helps feed their children with some tax credits. BUT IT IS NOT ENOUGH! Nearly 13million people in the UK live below the poverty line - a figure that has leapt up since this pointless austerity programme was introduced. Benefits are the safety net that keeps the problem manageable - just - but can't sort it out. We need to introduce a living wage that employers are forced to adhere to, we need to build more public housing to stop parasites like Charles Gow living off misery and profiting from one of the most disastrous privatisations of recent years - the council house right-to-buy (that most sensible people now see was a social catastrophe).

It was this appalling government that launched the austerity programme with the slogan 'We are all in this together' If we are, get off the fence and go after the tax frauds as well as the benefit frauds, Go after 'the culture of privilege' that sees itself above the fray of sacrifice, as well as the 'benefits culture'. Go after the bankers, the loan sharks, rack-rent landlords (who are the recipients of most housing benefit).

I know nothing about you Ex, other than the team you support, but I wonder about the world you inhabit that you can't recognise the basic injustice of this government's priorities.

Are we all in this together?


 
You've done it again innis; don't warp what I've said.

I've said many times that those that genuinely warrant benefits should get them, those that don't, shouldn't.

You are now making silly speculative conjunctions that I've never made. You are the one who should now be ashamed at yourself.

Austerity was entirely necessary, 50% of this governments income now comes on interest payments; in stops dead any major investment or support of our essential services - yet your answer is 'LETS JUST KEEP BORROWING!!!

It's dumb, utterly dumb and counter productive.

France elected Hollande simply because he promised everyone everything and thought he could revive their moribund mess by NOT making cuts...

..Well it's all turned into a disaster for him and it's getting worse, whereas we can now see the light at the end of the tunnel.

It's clear from what you've said your an old left wing dinosaur who's policies have long since been discredited, because one by one they simply failed.

I've built many businesses, I've worked all over the world, I've created literally thousands of direct and indirect jobs...

As I've said, and as you should well know, I am a supporter of a higher minimum wage and of a living wage - which even now the chancellor is also saying...

Pay for things you can afford to pay for; borrowing money which has always been the lefts raison d'etre is the fast root to economic ruin...

If we hadn't allowed a net influx of around 6.5 million under labour, perhaps we wouldn't now need to concrete over the SE of England.

The left's policies all look good in the short term when someone else is paying for them, but in their wake all they mostly ever leave is for someone else to sort out the mess.
 
The Opinion Pages|Op-Ed Columnist
Scandal in France

JAN. 16, 2014

[Paul Krugman]

Paul Krugman


I haven't paid much attention to François Hollande, the president of France, since it became clear that he wasn't going to break with Europe's destructive, austerity-minded policy orthodoxy. But now he has done something truly scandalous.

I am not, of course, talking about his alleged affair with an actress, which, even if true, is neither surprising (hey, it's France) nor disturbing. No, what's shocking is his embrace of discredited right-wing economic doctrines. It's a reminder that Europe's ongoing economic woes can't be attributed solely to the bad ideas of the right. Yes, callous, wrong headed conservatives have been driving policy, but they have been abetted and enabled by spineless, muddleheaded politicians on the moderate left.

Right now, Europe seems to be emerging from its double-dip recession and growing a bit. But this slight uptick follows years of disastrous performance. How disastrous? Consider: By 1936, seven years into the Great Depression, much of Europe was growing rapidly, with real G.D.P. per capita steadily reaching new highs. By contrast, European real G.D.P. per capita today is still well below its 2007 peak and rising slowly at best.

Doing worse than you did in the Great Depression is, one might say, a remarkable achievement. How did the Europeans pull it off? Well, in the 1930s most European countries eventually abandoned economic orthodoxy: They went off the gold standard; they stopped trying to balance their budgets; and some of them began large military build-ups that had the side effect of providing economic stimulus. The result was a strong recovery from 1933 onward.

Modern Europe is a much better place, morally, politically, and in human terms. A shared commitment to democracy has brought durable peace; social safety nets have limited the suffering from high unemployment; coordinated action has contained the threat of financial collapse. Unfortunately, the Continent's success in avoiding disaster has had the side effect of letting governments cling to orthodox policies. Nobody has left the euro, even though it's a monetary straitjacket. With no need to boost military spending, nobody has broken with fiscal austerity. Everyone is doing the safe, supposedly responsible thing - and the slump persists.

In this depressed and depressing landscape, France isn't an especially bad performer. Obviously it has lagged behind Germany, which has been buoyed by its formidable export sector. But French performance has been better than that of most other European nations. And I'm not just talking about the debt-crisis countries. French growth has outpaced that of such pillars of orthodoxy as Finland and the Netherlands.

It's true that the latest data show France failing to share in Europe's general uptick. Most observers, including the International Monetary Fund, attribute this recent weakness largely to austerity policies. But now Mr. Hollande has spoken up about his plans to change France's course and it's hard not to feel a sense of despair.

For Mr. Hollande, in announcing his intention to reduce taxes on businesses while cutting (unspecified) spending to offset the cost, declared, "It is upon supply that we need to act", and he further declared that "supply actually creates demand."

Oh, boy. That echoes, almost verbatim, the long-debunked fallacy known as Say"s Law - the claim that overall shortfalls in demand can't happen, because people have to spend their income on something. This just isn't true, and it's very much not true as a practical matter at the beginning of 2014. All the evidence says that France is awash in productive resources, both labor and capital, that are sitting idle because demand is inadequate. For proof, one need only look at inflation, which is sliding fast. Indeed, both France and Europe as a whole are getting dangerously close to Japan-style deflation.

So what's the significance of the fact that, at this of all times, Mr. Hollande has adopted this discredited doctrine?

As I said, it's a sign of the haplessness of the European center-left. For four years, Europe has been in the grip of austerity fever, with mostly disastrous results; it's telling that the current slight upturn is being hailed as if it were a policy triumph. Given the hardship these policies have inflicted, you might have expected left-of-center politicians to argue strenuously for a change in course. Yet everywhere in Europe, the center-left has at best (for example, in Britain) offered weak, half-hearted criticism, and often simply cringed in submission.

When Mr. Hollande became leader of the second-ranked euro economy, some of us hoped that he might take a stand. Instead, he fell into the usual cringe - a cringe that has now turned into intellectual collapse. And Europe's second depression goes on and on.

 
Spursex - 17/1/2014 16:09

You've done it again innis; don't warp what I've said.

I've said many times that those that genuinely warrant benefits should get them, those that don't, shouldn't.

You are now making silly speculative conjunctions that I've never made. You are the one who should now be ashamed at yourself.

Austerity was entirely necessary, 50% of this governments income now comes on interest payments; in stops dead any major investment or support of our essential services - yet your answer is 'LETS JUST KEEP BORROWING!!!

It's dumb, utterly dumb and counter productive.

France elected Hollande simply because he promised everyone everything and thought he could revive their moribund mess by NOT making cuts...

..Well it's all turned into a disaster for him and it's getting worse, whereas we can now see the light at the end of the tunnel.

It's clear from what you've said your an old left wing dinosaur who's policies have long since been discredited, because one by one they simply failed.

I've built many businesses, I've worked all over the world, I've created literally thousands of direct and indirect jobs...

As I've said, and as you should well know, I am a supporter of a higher minimum wage and of a living wage - which even now the chancellor is also saying...

Pay for things you can afford to pay for; borrowing money which has always been the lefts raison d'etre is the fast root to economic ruin...

If we hadn't allowed a net influx of around 6.5 million under labour, perhaps we wouldn't now need to concrete over the SE of England.

The left's policies all look good in the short term when someone else is paying for them, but in their wake all they mostly ever leave is for someone else to sort out the mess.

:1: :1:
 
Ex, please enlighten me:
You say: "I've said many times that those that genuinely warrant benefits should get them, those that don't, shouldn't." Okay, what criteria do you use to decide who 'warrant' them. I assume you agree that pensioners do and the unemployed. What about the low-paid in work? The disabled? You will grant that the vast majority of those in benefits are these kinds of people and are NOT feckless, lazy or thieves. We agree, let's go after the real benefit cheats, actually statistically a minute percentage. But no matter, £1.2 billion is big money, let's get them!

National debt and a national deficit is not the same thing as personal or household debt. Read your basic economics and see that in a recession you DON'T cut ; that just makes the problem worse. This is not good economics , not to mention the sheer misery it inflicts upon millions of ordinary people. This lesson was learnt in the 1930s but of course we know from Michael Gove how historically-challenged this shower are!

This recession was not caused by public spending or the feckless benefit fraudsters in the UK - even more of a statistically insignificant number back in 2007. It was caused by the failure of neo-liberal economics globally, banking irresponsibility, creative investors, digital entrepreneurs and a hopelessly out of control international finance system - and it was a world wide slump. We punished the poor instead of those who caused the crisis and continue to do so while the guilty get off scot free.

You say: 'The left's policies all look good in the short term when someone else is paying for them ..." That is about as meaningfulness and pointless a statement as I have ever read. We ALL pay for them, every working man and woman - there is no 'someone else' out there being asked to pay for the welfare state we set up and support. It's ours, we paid for it and we pay for it. Most people, the vast, vast majority of people are honest and pay their taxes. When they grow old, get sick, lose their job they expect what they have paid for to sustain them through the hard times. But they PAID for it. That is why, when ordinary people are suffering, it is doubly odious that so many wealthy corporations and individuals DO NOT PAY THEIR SHARE. Sure, I am linking tax fraud and evasion with benefit cheats - both are reprehensible. I merely make the point that it's time this so-called 'in it all together' government did something about the tax fraud and went after it with the same vim and vigour that they have gone after the benefit cheats.

I actually don't think this is an unreasonable position. Food bank Britain has suffered enough, time to tackle tax haven Britain for a bit!




 
With all that the rich pay into the system, I don't begrudge a small amount of benefits, which is trifling amount compared with what they've paid in. Surely they've earned it? Whether they need it or not is irrelevant. They have worked hard, made fortunes that have been well taxed, provided jobs, added well to the economy, that's really PARASITIC isn't it? - A parasite that gives back to its subject far more than it took?

There's more than one way to look at things, with a begrudging eye or with an eye to justice. The welfare system in this country is based on paying in to get out. The rich already pay an enormous amount into the system. If people are hounded to pay more and more, they will eventually leave and go to another country and take their 'benefits' to the country with them. To make them pay more, THAT'S CALLED, 'Cutting off your nose to spite your face'. It's a mean attitude that will eventually come back bite your bum.
 
Welsh, I'm talking about the wealthy corporations and individuals who DO NOT pay into the system, who avoid and evade their legal and moral responsibilities - they are basically scroungers. I am talking about Tax fraud, not wealthy people - or wealth creators - who pay their way. The difference here is crucial and depending on which figures you believe, it costs us any thing between £32 and £75 billion per year. This is money we are losing - you me and every man and woman in the UK. It's a scandal and should be addressed with the same urgency that benefits fraud is. I am looking at this with an eye to justice and doing what is moral and right and to the benefit of everyone.
 
spurdon - 17/1/2014 15:35

Innispurs - 17/1/2014 13:38

Looking forward to this new C4 documentary series! Follow the link for an interactive guide to the main players.

http://www.parasite-street.co.uk/

If we could get these spongers to pay what they should, we'd be out of debt in one fell swoop (which is why the programme will probably never get made!)


It's a nice try mate but the easily manipulated of these islands have long been condition into a Pavlovian response where kicking down is all they do. None of the disproportionate thieving of the above matter, because these people are wealth creators and speak proper. Be nice to them or they will leave!!!!!!!


I think Welshtel didn't see your dose of sarcasm, judging by his post above!

:83:
 
Innispurs - 17/1/2014 22:20

Welsh, I'm talking about the wealthy corporations and individuals who DO NOT pay into the system, who avoid and evade their legal and moral responsibilities - they are basically scroungers. I am talking about Tax fraud, not wealthy people - or wealth creators - who pay their way. The difference here is crucial and depending on which figures you believe, it costs us any thing between £32 and £75 billion per year. This is money we are losing - you me and every man and woman in the UK. It's a scandal and should be addressed with the same urgency that benefits fraud is. I am looking at this with an eye to justice and doing what is moral and right and to the benefit of everyone.

The tax gap is £32 billion as estimated by HMRC, unless of course we also decide that the true amount of social fraud and benefit fraud is around £5.5 billion, not the £1.2 billion you quote...

"Welcome to this website about the scandal of benefit fraud.

Benefit fraud is rife in the UK. The government pretends it costs us £1.2bn annually. But the real figure is probably at least £5.5bn a year.

Government figures show there were 5.80m working age benefit claimants at February 2009 - this is 15.7% of the working age population!

The number of working age claimants of Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) and incapacity benefits totalled 2.60m. 736,000 people were claiming lone parent benefit.

In the year to February there were 422,000 new claims to working age incapacity benefits, and 549,000 new claims for Income Support.

These huge numbers cannot be policed effectively for fraudulent claims. They only emphasise the case for deterrent punishments for those few who do get caught. Indeed, the DWP's boast is that they have over 3,000 fraud investigators. How could they hope to police millions of claims? They can't, of course."

Of course a really good place to start is delaing with Tax Avoidance and all those who help it happen...

Margaret Hodge the labour stalwart who is determined to bring these global corporations to book and who has been privately scathing about the 'support' offered by tax havens in the EU i.e. Ireland, who because of their stance may well have cost the UK treasury an estimated (to date) £100 billion in 'avoidable' taxes because of it's corporate tax rates and laws..(essentially it allows corprorates to have a brass plate operation in Ireland that they can then wash revenues through and pay minimal, if any tax)...

Of course, this is all laudable by Hodge, except of course her own family business is also at it....

" The Labour MP has been one of the fiercest critics of tax avoidance by companies such as Starbucks, Google and Amazon. However, she is likely to face questions over the limited tax paid by Stemcor, the steel trading company in which she owns shares and which was founded by her father and is run by her brother.

Analysis of Stemcor’s latest accounts show that the business paid tax of just £163,000 on revenues of more than £2.1bn in 2011. However. it is not known whether the company – which made profits of £65m – used similar controversial tax avoidance measures criticised in the past by Mrs Hodge.

Stemcor’s tax bill to the exchequer equates to just 0.01pc of the revenues it booked through its UK-based business. In accounts filed with Companies House, Stemcor revealed that despite generating about one third of its revenues in Britain, its UK tax contribution made up only 2.7pc of the tax the company paid globally.

Stemcor was founded by Mrs Hodge’s father Hans Oppenheimer more than 60 years ago.

Today, the business claims to be the sixth largest private UK company by turnover. Last year the company, which employs 2,000 people in 45 countries, generated sales of £6bn from trading about 20m tonnes of steel.

The majority of Stemcor’s shares are still controlled by the Oppenheimer family and Mrs Hodge declares a “registrable shareholding” in the company, which is run by her brother Ralph Oppenheimer, executive chairman.

Speaking to The Daily Telegraph, Mrs Hodge defended Stemcor’s behaviour and said that the company had “assured” her it paid “every penny of tax that is owed”, adding that she was only “a very small shareholder”. .."

So as closing the Tax avoidance stance of Ireland is actually a low hanging fruit and could be closed tomorrow, perhaps now you're back you could take a slow stroll to the Dáil Éireann and tell them to be good Europeans and display a proper sense of what's right and wrong..

It would be a great start, wouldn't it...
 
<p>
Innispurs - 17/1/2014 17:13<br /><br />The Opinion Pages|Op-Ed Columnist<br />Scandal in France<br /><br />JAN. 16, 2014<br /><br />[Paul Krugman]<br /><br />Paul Krugman<br /><br /> <br />I haven't paid much attention to Fran&ccedil;ois Hollande, the president of France, since it became clear that he wasn't going to break with Europe's destructive, austerity-minded policy orthodoxy. But now he has done something truly scandalous.<br /><br />I am not, of course, talking about his alleged affair with an actress, which, even if true, is neither surprising (hey, it's France) nor disturbing. No, what's shocking is his embrace of discredited right-wing economic doctrines. It's a reminder that Europe's ongoing economic woes can't be attributed solely to the bad ideas of the right. Yes, callous, wrong headed conservatives have been driving policy, but they have been abetted and enabled by spineless, muddleheaded politicians on the moderate left.<br /><br />Right now, Europe seems to be emerging from its double-dip recession and growing a bit. But this slight uptick follows years of disastrous performance. How disastrous? Consider: By 1936, seven years into the Great Depression, much of Europe was growing rapidly, with real G.D.P. per capita steadily reaching new highs. By contrast, European real G.D.P. per capita today is still well below its 2007 peak and rising slowly at best.<br /><br />Doing worse than you did in the Great Depression is, one might say, a remarkable achievement. How did the Europeans pull it off? Well, in the 1930s most European countries eventually abandoned economic orthodoxy: They went off the gold standard; they stopped trying to balance their budgets; and some of them began large military build-ups that had the side effect of providing economic stimulus. The result was a strong recovery from 1933 onward.<br /><br />Modern Europe is a much better place, morally, politically, and in human terms. A shared commitment to democracy has brought durable peace; social safety nets have limited the suffering from high unemployment; coordinated action has contained the threat of financial collapse. Unfortunately, the Continent's success in avoiding disaster has had the side effect of letting governments cling to orthodox policies. Nobody has left the euro, even though it's a monetary straitjacket. With no need to boost military spending, nobody has broken with fiscal austerity. Everyone is doing the safe, supposedly responsible thing - and the slump persists.<br /><br />In this depressed and depressing landscape, France isn't an especially bad performer. Obviously it has lagged behind Germany, which has been buoyed by its formidable export sector. But French performance has been better than that of most other European nations. And I'm not just talking about the debt-crisis countries. French growth has outpaced that of such pillars of orthodoxy as Finland and the Netherlands.<br /><br />It's true that the latest data show France failing to share in Europe's general uptick. Most observers, including the International Monetary Fund, attribute this recent weakness largely to austerity policies. But now Mr. Hollande has spoken up about his plans to change France's course and it's hard not to feel a sense of despair.<br /><br />For Mr. Hollande, in announcing his intention to reduce taxes on businesses while cutting (unspecified) spending to offset the cost, declared, &quot;It is upon supply that we need to act&quot;, and he further declared that &quot;supply actually creates demand.&quot;<br /><br />Oh, boy. That echoes, almost verbatim, the long-debunked fallacy known as Say&quot;s Law - the claim that overall shortfalls in demand can't happen, because people have to spend their income on something. This just isn't true, and it's very much not true as a practical matter at the beginning of 2014. All the evidence says that France is awash in productive resources, both labor and capital, that are sitting idle because demand is inadequate. For proof, one need only look at inflation, which is sliding fast. Indeed, both France and Europe as a whole are getting dangerously close to Japan-style deflation.<br /><br />So what's the significance of the fact that, at this of all times, Mr. Hollande has adopted this discredited doctrine?<br /><br />As I said, it's a sign of the haplessness of the European center-left. For four years, Europe has been in the grip of austerity fever, with mostly disastrous results; it's telling that the current slight upturn is being hailed as if it were a policy triumph. Given the hardship these policies have inflicted, you might have expected left-of-center politicians to argue strenuously for a change in course. Yet everywhere in Europe, the center-left has at best (for example, in Britain) offered weak, half-hearted criticism, and often simply cringed in submission.<br /><br />When Mr. Hollande became leader of the second-ranked euro economy, some of us hoped that he might take a stand. Instead, he fell into the usual cringe - a cringe that has now turned into intellectual collapse. And Europe's second depression goes on and on.<br /><br />
<br /><br />Afraid all of the above just sounds like a long winge that the poster-boy of anti-austerity has now done a complete about face!! LOL!</p><p>&nbsp;Now, let's think, I wonder what made him do that?....oh it's that little thing called 'reality' - it's a real bugger when that bites.<br /></p><p>The president&rsquo;s words sounded good to all those who think that France has to make a definite turn towards more markets and less regulation to avoid economic relegation, if not calamity.</p><p><em><strong>&nbsp;M Hollande spoke of the <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/10572654/Francois-Hollande-vows-supply-side-assault-on-French-state-doubles-down-on-EMU-austerity-agenda.html">absolute necessity to cut public spending and of the need to switch from demand-side to supply-side policies</a>. That is code for a switch from policies that centre on more public borrowing to policies that centre on structural reform.</strong></em></p><p>He announced that the &ldquo;family welfare&rdquo; tax on firms would be scrapped. This would cut payroll taxes by &euro;30bn (&pound;24.8bn), which would reduce firms&rsquo; labour costs by about 5pc. And he restated his commitment to reduce state spending by &euro;50bn in 2015-17, simplifying the tax system, putting social security on a firmer footing and reducing layers of public administration. In the circumstances, I am surprised that he did not also commit himself to the abolition of the baguette and the croissant. &quot;</p>
 
Ex, I work off the government's own figures. Tax pundits like Paul Murphy would argue that fraud and evasion costs as much as £120 billion, not the measly £32 billion that the government claims. I use the £1.2 billion that the government claims, not the £5.5 billion that your unattributed website claims. But even if this latter figure were true, and we accept the government's figure for fraud and evasion, rather than the higher estimates being bandied around, 32billion versus £5.5 billion is still a huge differential so I am not sure what your point is.

If you honestly think that I would differentiate Tax evasion from a company in which a Labour party member is a shareholder from any other, you fail to appreciate my point. There should be no excuses, no exceptions, no weaselling out when ordinary people are suffering so much in food bank Britain and this includes any of the companies in which MPs of any persuasion own shares in. Fraud and evasion is the greater crime and it should be pursued with the full rigour of the law.

No sure what you're saying about me and Dáil Eireann but surely you are not asking me to support the equally appalling 'gombeen' capitalist class that got Ireland bankrupted only to land on their feet again. I would support a EU-wide drive against tax evasion - I would support a worldwide drive against tax havens - but I don't think there would be much political will for it, given the close affinity of the monied elite with the political elite. I support country-by-country reporting and the Tax Justice Network - and if you are interested in tax justice, rather than merely trying to score points, you might want to read their latest blog here

http://www.taxjustice.net/2014/01/20/week-tax-justice-jan-20/

 
Innis have you seen the stories about residents in Grimsby rallying to stop a network attempting to make a similar piece of gratuitous propaganda on their street. Perhaps people are at last waking up to the medias right wing agenda. This nasty minded poverty porn is a simple incitement to hate.