Government cuts

[smokingboot]

The Conservative party should change their name; what are they conserving exactly?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/countryside/8082756/Ministers-plan-huge-sell-off-of-Britains-forests.html

Monstrous! And the LibDems,where are they in this?

Cuts necessary, I'm sure. No, I don't want to pay for family generations living on the welfare state. No, I don't want to pay for your baby unless you absolutely need me to. But neither do I want said baby's future, their air and their earth shrunk to shopping malls, while ancient trees that stood for centuries are lost to logging companies and golf courses. Enough climate disruption, enough loss of biodiversity, and the money saved will be lost in medical care for an increasingly unhealthy population - presuming there will still be any such provision made.

I think 50% tax is a steep hike. But I'd gladly pay it rather than see this happen. I've written to Defra at the link below, campaigning for more forest cover across the British isles. If you are concerned about the matter and considering protest, check it out fast - it needs to be done before the 30th.

http://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/en/campaigning/dear-defra/Pages/send-your-message.aspx

The petition's up and running now at:
http://www.38degrees.org.uk/page/share/save-forests-share

Comments

[hybridartifacts.livejournal.com]

With benefits the amount lost through people exploiting the system is tiny compared to the amount lost through tax fiddling - and actually the amount of unclaimed benefits that people are legitimately entitled to is fairly large (far large than the amount being claimed illegitimately). I just feel they have their priorities a bit mixed up - while there are certainly savings that can be made in the benefits system so long as people dont claim the benefits they are entitled to (people claiming those would be a bit of a disaster economically for the nation) the big savings are in addressing tax. The question is, why go for benefits and small savings and tax and big savings? The simple answer is that benefits are an easy target and wont effect political support for them much (and may in some circles improve it), whereas going after tax avoiders would be going after their own party donors and MPs which they dont exactly want to do...and thats pretty much the case for all the big parties.

The issue with the influence of business is that we live in what claims to be a democracy. Political influence is supposed to be something equally shared amongst the electorate in democracies - but in effect your voice or mine is irrelevant, but if you have money you can easily but your way into influence. some members of the electorate, along with some who are not even UK citizens, effectively have more influence than anyone else.