UK General Election - 12th December 2019 | Con 365, Lab 203, LD 11, SNP 48, Other 23 - Tory Majority of 80

[Classical Mechanic]

Definitely pleading in vain.
The NHS is the biggest 'political football' around, its aims and objectives, its running and its funding, 'dwarf' almost everything else for most members of the public. Put quite simply, its too big to be taken out of politics, it affects everybody so it cannot be removed unless or until every political party of whatever description agrees and of course if that happens, there would be no politics!

They're not asking for it to be removed from political discourse, only that the conversation around it is honest and realistic.

 

[Maticmaker]

They're not asking for it to be removed from political discourse, only that the conversation around it is honest and realistic.

Then for me, that means taking it out of politics!

 

[Sweet Square]

Your posting of the three links was clearly aimed at pointing out the number of Tory Landlords. and some were in May's cabinet, shock, horror. You could have mentioned Bliar, but chose not to until prompted.

Because we were talking about how the tories benefits from the poor. There's no need to bring up Tony Blair when talking about the current number of landlords in
parliament(The guardian article also mentioned the number of Labour landlords).

Again your just doing this -

I see this argument quite lot from people - You say the tories are bad, well here's a list of bad things about the labour party........ But we are having a ''discussion'' on how the tories(In this case Tory MP's)benefit from the poor, its literally what Trump voters(e.g. All Republicans) do to deflect criticism away from Trump - ''But the Democrats did this'' or ''Clinton said this''.

What the labour party does isn't really an answer.

As for May's husband, again tenuous to claim you are not trying to discredit Tories - we were discussing whether Tories profit from the poor, not whether they should or shouldnt be employed by Armaments companies. That's something else, totally different, which you have brought into the disussion for reasons which are not clear but can be guessed.

Sorry how is financially benefiting from bombs being drop on Syrians, not benefiting from the poor ?

As I said - I posted the link for balance. I know that usually doesn't go down well here on The Caf, but...you know... But did you see its value ?? £ 135k in 2013. And paid for in cash ?? Should the nation really trust as Chancellor someone who is prepared to pay £135k for a ' crappy little boat house ' Just maybe it's not so crappy. And how does a Marxist justify owning a second home while bleating on about the absence of suitable housing for the homeless ?? And accumulate £135k in cash - very proletarian ! Any posters here on The Caf got £135k in cash for a second home ?? Even the Tory supporters ??

But again we were talking about how THE TORIES benefits from the poor. Have you forgotten the discussion ? Once again this is your argument -

I see this argument quite lot from people - You say the tories are bad, well here's a list of bad things about the labour party........ But we are having a ''discussion'' on how the tories(In this case Tory MP's)benefit from the poor, its literally what Trump voters(e.g. All Republicans) do to deflect criticism away from Trump - ''But the Democrats did this'' or ''Clinton said this''.

What the labour party does isn't really an answer.

As for the he said, she said, etc....I answered a previous common claim about Tories profiteering from the poor with an example of Labour Politicians' hypocricy about the shortage of homes in the UK and the private rented housing sector. Now you do similar about Tory politicians and then moan about such he said, she said arguments. Pot, black, kettle, etc.

Third time's a charm.

I see this argument quite lot from people - You say the tories are bad, well here's a list of bad things about the labour party........ But we are having a ''discussion'' on how the tories(In this case Tory MP's)benefit from the poor, its literally what Trump voters(e.g. All Republicans) do to deflect criticism away from Trump - ''But the Democrats did this'' or ''Clinton said this''.

What the labour party does isn't really an answer.

What ??? I'll have a pull of whatever it is you're smoking tonight. You're seriously suggesting I should be angry that a newspaper ( OK - it's The Mail in this case so we can all be angry at The Mail but not because it ) exposes the hypocricy of a self conferssed but two home owning Marxist ??

MPs as landlords ?? Why not ?? Especially if Miss Piggy and Lammy think it's OK and it doesn't weigh on their conscience, then presumably it must be OK

Christ this would be easier if you just read my last post -

To my knowledge the labour party aren't running on a no second home policy(There is no hypocrisy in McDonnell second home situation)

Honestly if you just said yes to my question in the last post

Is it really just because the MP in the daily mail article is on the red team ?

you could have saved us both a huge amount of time.

 

[Smores]

You mean that 90% of a company is worth the same as 100% of the same company ?

Is that Diane Abbot style maths or alchemy !!

And not wishing to argue, but I'm genuinely interested to know which UK listed companies have handed over 10% of their Share Capital to the Government.

We have probably 00s down here which have the Government as a Shareholder ( it's a French thing, State Ownership whether 10% or 100% ) but I wasn't aware that this now happens in the UK.

The government aren't taking 10% of any company. The proposal is for 1% to go into shares per annum gradually building to a 10% pot that will pay out dividends to employees. Not a transfer of ownership of assets at all.

Beyond all the various share incentive plans that already happen you have the fact that companies tend to put aside a pot of shares for CEOs and staff every year anyway. I'd actually say those that do this kind of scheme put aside more than 10% equity so it will be a replacement gradually.

 

[Sweet Square]

Implying @Sweet Square is somehow defending Tony Blair of all people is...funny to say the least.

I'm not sure why @Full bodied red dislikes Tony, as they seem to shared the same views



must be because of the red tie.

 

[SteveJ]

Blair seems to struggle to recognise sincerity there.

 

[Jippy]

A Revenue Tax takes no account of Profit, but of the amount of sales activity in the country.

Precisely because, and as you say, the actual profit often bears no relation to the Taxable Profit.

A typical example is, say, for the UK subsidiary of, say, Amazon to include in its Taxable Profit a fee which it pays to a non-UK Amazon company for the use of the Amazon Name and Trademark. Not saying Amazon actually do this, I don't know, but it's something most multi-nationals do. This is allowed in most Developed Countries, as they all seem to do it to each other, and certainly is part of the UK's tax allowable cost deductions when calculating UK Taxable Profits.

Hence a Revenue Tax - cuts through some, not all, of this sort of tax chicanery.

It's an interesting idea and clearly something has to be done to ensure the likes of Amazon pay their due tax within individual EU member states and not just load it all up in low tax Ireland. I guess critics would argue that the rules would have to so non-prescriptive, because they are on revenue not profit, that companies can still wangle out of them. Just thinking of the likes of WeWork which had $1.8 billion revenue last year, but posted a loss of $1.9 billion- taxing its revenue might tip it over the edge, causing massive problems in the markets it operates in.

 

[Adisa]

 

[Pexbo]

Absolutely disgraceful. This is going to end up in the Supreme Court as a FOI request. It’s essential people have this information when voting.

 

[11101]

Interesting that on what could probably be renamed Labourcafe.net only 49% will vote Labour this time round. 2 years ago it was almost 60%.

https://www.redcafe.net/threads/gen...ealth-secretary-for-record-third-time.428257/

And 2015 - https://www.redcafe.net/threads/uk-...rvatives-win-with-an-overall-majority.400059/


I have no idea who to vote for this time. I don't agree with much the Tories are doing anymore but Corbyn and McDonnell would be catastrophic for the country. I'll probably vote to keep them out rather than actually for anybody.

 

[Abizzz]

Interesting that on what could probably be renamed Labourcafe.net only 49% will vote Labour this time round. 2 years ago it was almost 60%.

https://www.redcafe.net/threads/gen...ealth-secretary-for-record-third-time.428257/

And 2015 - https://www.redcafe.net/threads/uk-...rvatives-win-with-an-overall-majority.400059/


I have no idea who to vote for this time. I don't agree with much the Tories are doing anymore but Corbyn and McDonnell would be catastrophic for the country. I'll probably vote to keep them out rather than actually for anybody.

How is their hypothetical catastrophe scarier than Boris' actual catastrophe? Bear in mind he has (as PM) said that the parliament has "surrendered" to the EU and that the EU can keep the UK in however long it sees fit because of it. Which is obviously false... but if the British PM says so there must be some truth to it? What happens if the EU call his bluff and say we'd like to keep you a bit longer? Will he oblige despite not having to, just to keep his lie alive?

 

[CassiusClaymore]

How is their hypothetical catastrophe scarier than Boris' actual catastrophe? Bear in mind he has (as PM) said that the parliament has "surrendered" to the EU and that the EU can keep the UK in however long it sees fit because of it. Which is obviously false... but if the British PM says so there must be some truth to it? What happens if the EU call his bluff and say we'd like to keep you a bit longer? Will he oblige despite not having to, just to keep his lie alive?

It's scarier for him personally because it might close his wealth tax loophole.

 

[sammsky1]

Juncker: Boris Johnson told 'so many lies' in EU referendum campaign
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...n-told-so-many-lies-in-eu-referendum-campaign

 

[sammsky1]

Absolutely disgraceful. This is going to end up in the Supreme Court as a FOI request. It’s essential people have this information when voting.

Or hopefully it will be leaked.

 

[horsechoker]

Interesting that on what could probably be renamed Labourcafe.net

Don't you mean Saudicafe.net?

 

[Abizzz]

It's scarier for him personally because it might close his wealth tax loophole.

Even then. Brexit has already cost Britains rich people about 15-20% of their net worth simply by having the pound and anything that is sold in pound plummet (measured against the other rich people of this world, whom they compare themselves with when they go skiing in Switzerland or relaxing in Monaco's harbor). You need to be rich and on the inside of this shitshow to make money out of it (to short the pound, or gain from government contracts afterwards). If I were rich in the UK or owned a lot of property there's no way I'd be interested in economic self harm and ballooning debts (and both go hand in hand with Brexit).

 

[SteveJ]

Of course, the alternatives to Corbyn & McDonnell have been so spectacularly amazing for most British citizens...

 

[CassiusClaymore]

I've noticed that you very rarely (if ever) get a Tory voter simply saying "I'll be voting Conservative because it will be better for me." I can respect that if it's the way you roll but it's amusing to see the hoops people will jump through to not say it.

 

[11101]

How is their hypothetical catastrophe scarier than Boris' actual catastrophe? Bear in mind he has (as PM) said that the parliament has "surrendered" to the EU and that the EU can keep the UK in however long it sees fit because of it. Which is obviously false... but if the British PM says so there must be some truth to it? What happens if the EU call his bluff and say we'd like to keep you a bit longer? Will he oblige despite not having to, just to keep his lie alive?

I'm not arguing that the current lot haven't done an atrocious job, but the country is still standing.

Some of the Labour proposals are just dangerous to the future of the country, especially in the years immediately after Brexit.

 

[SteveJ]

I've noticed that you very rarely (if ever) get a Tory voter simply saying "I'll be voting Conservative because it will be better for me." I can respect that if it's the way you roll but it's amusing to see the hoops people will jump through to not say it.

It's the very mindset that the Party has encouraged since Thatcher.

 

[DavidDeSchmikes]

 

[EwanI Ted]

The government aren't taking 10% of any company. The proposal is for 1% to go into shares per annum gradually building to a 10% pot that will pay out dividends to employees. Not a transfer of ownership of assets at all.

Beyond all the various share incentive plans that already happen you have the fact that companies tend to put aside a pot of shares for CEOs and staff every year anyway. I'd actually say those that do this kind of scheme put aside more than 10% equity so it will be a replacement gradually.

Not quite the whole story, of the money being paid out in dividends each employee would receive a maximum of £500 per year, and the remainder of the money would go to the Government. About 2/3 of the dividend goes to employees and 1/3 goes to Government. Whether you consider this partial Government "ownership" of those shares or just a complex form of taxation is open to debate, but there is a clear Government benefit from it.

 

[11101]

I've noticed that you very rarely (if ever) get a Tory voter simply saying "I'll be voting Conservative because it will be better for me." I can respect that if it's the way you roll but it's amusing to see the hoops people will jump through to not say it.

I'd rather consider what is better for the overall country than what is better for me. That's the kind of politics that allowed people to be swayed by Corbyn's giveaways in 2017.

 

[Fully Fledged]

Bassetlaw wasn’t lost to the Tories though in 2017, and Labour still hold the council too. I’m not saying it’s guaranteed they’ll keep control, but I can’t emphasize enough how much this is deep, deep Labour heartland.

Where I live is deep deep Brexit country. Sometimes I fell like a lone voice in the wilderness.

 

[Abizzz]

I'm not arguing that the current lot haven't done an atrocious job, but the country is still standing.

Some of the Labour proposals are just dangerous to the future of the country, especially in the years immediately after Brexit.

I think it's fair to look at labour's proposals and say they aren't for me (they aren't 100% for me either). Same with the lib dems. But the biggest clusterfeck that currently needs addressing is completely tory made and they are offering nothing to get out of it. Even his current "deal" solves nothing, it will just lead to more of the same with endless discussions about access to the single market and the things the EU-27 will want for it. If his deal had gone through on 31.10 we'd now be discussing how the rest of the UK can have the same N.I has...

Given all that it's just hard for me to understand how the people who delivered it can be called the safe bet.

 

[Kentonio]

This is huge, and they need to be nailed to the wall by the media until they relent and release it.

Which means the media will probably brush over it, and let it be forgotten by tomorrow..

 

[11101]

I think it's fair to look at labour's proposals and say they aren't for me (they aren't 100% for me either). Same with the lib dems. But the biggest clusterfeck that currently needs addressing is completely tory made and they are offering nothing to get out of it. Even his current "deal" solves nothing, it will just lead to more of the same with endless discussions about access to the single market and the things the EU-27 will want for it. If his deal had gone through on 31.10 we'd now be discussing how the rest of the UK can have the same N.I has...

Given all that it's just hard for me to understand how the people who delivered it can be called the safe bet.

Again, I'm not disagreeing with any of that. Politics has come down to picking the least bad option. That's not the voting public's fault.

 

[NWRed]

I find it a strange coincidence that the terrorist threat level was lowered at exactly the same time this news broke.

 

[Fluctuation0161]

If you believe that voting for a Labour Government in the UK next month is going to even start changing Global Poverty ( and I agree with you ) quite simply it won't.

If you believe that voting for a Labour Government in the UK next month is going to reduce the number of people in the UK who are officially living in poverty and homeless, then go ahead and do it. In my experience Labour are actually no better than the Tories when it comes to tackling homelessness and poverty, but maybe this one would break the mould as it's way more left-centric than previous Labour Governments would ever dare to admit or claim.

All political opinion and allegiance is just that. Opinion and allegiance. It really doesn't matter what any of us on here come up with, not one of us would ever be persuaded to change our opinion and allegiance based on what someone else has posted.




It's a whole area of Tax Law called Transfer Pricing. And there's a whole industry of Tax Lawyers and Tax Accountants who specialise in it.

Without it, most multi-nationals would, as you say, peddle inferior products outside their own country of incorporation or simply cease to operate outside those countries. Which would be of no benefit to anyone in the UK if medical drugs made in, say, Germany or Belgium weren't available in the UK because it wasn't profitable for the manufacturer to export them to the UK. So what can and cannot be included in, say, the Tax Deductable costs of, say, Pfizer UK, are its contributions to such things as Pfizer's global R&D spend which might be zero in the UK but without which there would be no Pfizer UK ; Pfizer's global Marketing spend ; establishing and maintaining Pfizer's global Patents and Trademarks ; contribution to the QA systems in the Pfizer factory making the drugs if this is outside the UK; contribution to Pfizer's own Corporate functions in the Corporate HQ in New York. And there are probably quite a few more unique to Pfizer UK.

There's nothing wrong in including some of these costs in the Tax Computation for Pfizer UK - it ensures that cash does, in fact, find its way back to other Pfizer companies outside the UK which, as you say, do the R&D, Marketing, QA, etc, where the costs are actually incurred.

The local Tax Authorities' job is to agree how many of these different types of costs which are not incurred in the UK and how much by value can be claimed by Pfizer UK when calculating Pfizer UK's Taxable Profit. Unfortunately, it seems that there are now too many ' allowable ' non-local costs which are being included in Transfer Pricing these days, around the world, not just the UK, and which allow the Amazons, Starbucks, Googles of the world to take the piss.

Revenue Taxes, such as we have here, are the first step in the fight back against the piss taking.

Of course there is no claim that a Labour government would make significant impact on global poverty. It's the UK where that would happen.

I think you may be over complicating the tax matter. It is just replacing loopholes with new ones. The profit based tax system can work. Surely closing tax loopholes for businesses and taking corporation tax back to 28%, as it was before the Tories dropped it to (soon to be) 20%, would help?

Back on the topic of equality, reducing corporation tax for businesses by 10% while pushing austerity on the poorest in the UK population (bedroom tax, benefit cuts, NHS, social care reduction for the elderly etc.) surely was not helpful?

Ive never seen anyone on here change political opinion. I don't expect to in this exchange either. But I cannot consolidate some of your comments regarding the need for better equality with your lack of desire for the politicians you vote for to do anything about it.

 

[Fluctuation0161]

No doubt they expect to cover this up, win the election without sharing the truth, then bury it.

 

[Fluctuation0161]

. I don't agree with much the Tories are doing anymore but Corbyn and McDonnell would be catastrophic for the country. I'll probably vote to keep them out rather than actually for anybody.

Out of interest, why do you believe that?

 

[MoskvaRed]

Interesting that on what could probably be renamed Labourcafe.net only 49% will vote Labour this time round. 2 years ago it was almost 60%.

https://www.redcafe.net/threads/gen...ealth-secretary-for-record-third-time.428257/

And 2015 - https://www.redcafe.net/threads/uk-...rvatives-win-with-an-overall-majority.400059/


I have no idea who to vote for this time. I don't agree with much the Tories are doing anymore but Corbyn and McDonnell would be catastrophic for the country. I'll probably vote to keep them out rather than actually for anybody.

I’m not a Corbyn fan by any means but, even if you think the current incarnation of Labour would damage the country (as compared to the wonderful stability we have enjoyed under the Tories), you can vote them out in 2024 and overturn their policies. The consequences of a hard Brexit under Johnson, on the other hand, could take a generation or more to put right. To say nothing of the long-term effects of the general debasing of political standards under him and Cummings.

 

[Sweet Square]

The people at channel 4 have lost their minds

thread

 

[Maticmaker]

No doubt they expect to cover this up, win the election without sharing the truth, then bury it.

Is this a 'back to the future' episode, a trip back to the 1950's and "Reds under the bed" or now its "bots on social media"...if so, where is senator McCarthy when you want him... oh yes, his modern day equivalent is attempting to impeach Trump?

Of course, its so logical that the Kremlin would want to see the right wing of the UK's tory party prosper in a post Brexit world and of course their KGB (or whatever the modern equivalent is) are trying to scupper our political processes; I should expect MI6 is doing pretty much the same to bring down Putin... only it seems, less successfully.

This is approaching James Bond on steroids. Who the hell is going to be shocked by anything which tells us our adversary is up to no good, in our backyard at every opportunity? Will it tell us we have caught the culprits and they are now in jail, also that we have sent an exceedingly strongly worded letter to Mr Putin about the whole matter?

 

[DavidDeSchmikes]

 

[Ekkie Thump]

Is this a 'back to the future' episode, a trip back to the 1950's and "Reds under the bed" or now its "bots on social media"...if so, where is senator McCarthy when you want him... oh yes, his modern day equivalent is attempting to impeach Trump?

Of course, its so logical that the Kremlin would want to see the right wing of the UK's tory party prosper in a post Brexit world and of course their KGB (or whatever the modern equivalent is) are trying to scupper our political processes; I should expect MI6 is doing pretty much the same to bring down Putin... only it seems, less successfully.

This is approaching James Bond on steroids. Who the hell is going to be shocked by anything which tells us our adversary is up to no good, in our backyard at every opportunity? Will it tell us we have caught the culprits and they are now in jail, also that we have sent an exceedingly strongly worded letter to Mr Putin about the whole matter?

Sounds like there's no reason not to publish it.

 

[Sweet Square]

 

[CassiusClaymore]

 

[Fluctuation0161]

Is this a 'back to the future' episode, a trip back to the 1950's and "Reds under the bed" or now its "bots on social media"...if so, where is senator McCarthy when you want him... oh yes, his modern day equivalent is attempting to impeach Trump?

Of course, its so logical that the Kremlin would want to see the right wing of the UK's tory party prosper in a post Brexit world and of course their KGB (or whatever the modern equivalent is) are trying to scupper our political processes; I should expect MI6 is doing pretty much the same to bring down Putin... only it seems, less successfully.

This is approaching James Bond on steroids. Who the hell is going to be shocked by anything which tells us our adversary is up to no good, in our backyard at every opportunity? Will it tell us we have caught the culprits and they are now in jail, also that we have sent an exceedingly strongly worded letter to Mr Putin about the whole matter?

If you can put together a more coherent response then I might respond.

 

[Sweet Square]