“There may be no direct evidence, but there are circumstantial ones.” The floor’s most-respected Yes argument set the terms: this was less a claim of a written plot than a verdict that repeated outcomes can begin to look purposeful. On a self-selected platform vote, voters were willing to infer intent from the cumulative pressure on SMEs.
The Yes case ran from high taxes, complicated laws and inflation favouring large international companies to lobbying and ownership concentration. One voice argued that politicians were “lobbied, seduced, funded by big businesses”, while another, in a darker summary, saw “a trail of destruction. So yes.” The argument was about whose interests policy reliably serves, not merely whether ministers make mistakes.
The No side accepted much of the damage while rejecting the charge of design. Its best-rated formulation was blunt: “Policies have undoubtedly harmed SMEs, but ‘on purpose’? Surely not.” Other No voters put the blame on “incompetent governments”, or described the outcome as a consequence rather than a deliberate act; the two sides largely talked past each other on whether foreseeable harm amounts to intent.
The wider argument here is about tax-and-spend, lobbying and the state’s willingness to make large firms carry more of the burden as automation changes employment. One No voice said big corporations may “eat or destroy competition”, but called the difficulty for SMEs “a by product not the purpose”; another argued that AI-driven job losses should bring a greater tax contribution from companies. The room’s real division was over whether capture and incompetence are distinguishable in practice.
The verdict therefore landed less as a conspiracy theory than as a charge of culpable indifference: if the result keeps favouring the biggest players, intent becomes harder for voters here to dismiss.
7 Opinions
Maybe a consequence of their decisions, but I wouldn't say it's deliberate.
Big companies are the end result of capitalism, and they will eat or destroy competition, or anything else in their path. The government is cowed or compromised by the power and money that the lobbyists wield but making it hard for SMEs is a by product not the purpose.
Governments have allowed big corporations to dictate tax policy by scaremongeringmeaning governments have placed unequal burden on SMEs. As AI leaves more jobless. the salary cost saved by companies must be paid by them in tax.
Its always a key question to be asked about Labour Govts - " Are they just incompetent or actually malicious?". Hard to tell. But the result is the same - a trail of destruction. So yes.
There may be no direct evidence, but there are circumstantial ones. High taxes, complicated laws, high inflation preferer big, international companies, rather than SME. Change of the ownership into the service (software, multimedia etc). Do you remember WEF and "you own nothing and are happy" - IMO world elites plan/dream is to have all assets and business ownership - gathered in hands of big corporations.
NO I suspect it more to do with incompetent governments run be people who have never done anything outside the political sphere Look at so many of the MP's in ALL parties today. Degree in political science(or similar) Petiod of time as a researcher for a political party/MP(or similar) Position in/on/at council level Stand in a few no chance of winning seats in local/national level Then your time served & have kissed the right backsides you get a shot at a winnable seat
I don’t think Governments aim to shut down SME’s - but it’s a consequence of politicians being lobbied, seduced, funded by big businesses to increase their wealth / control and thus reduce costs to levels SME’s cannot match.