I have a couple of hours spare this evening and I have reserved them for going through EdM's new policies he announced today ..so excited..no blank piece of paper anymore...
I have a couple of hours spare this evening and I have reserved them for going through EdM's new policies he announced today ..so excited..no blank piece of paper anymore...
New policies? Sounds interesting. What pray tell has he come up with? Will they survive scrutiny or destined to go the way of mansion tax and price controls?
Paternal grandfather died 1966 Paternal grandmother died 1975 Maternal grandmother lived in Israel for a while after the war, date of death unknown Maternal grandfather alleged to have died in Auschwitz, but The Telegraph discovered he died in Czestochowa on May 12, 1945, four days after the end of the war.
So about 5 months after the Red Army reached that area of Poland. Why should anyone believe anything a Labourite says?
I note he's stopped claiming his father joined the Royal Navy during the war...
"What will be the reaction to Ed's "I'm a credible PM really" fightback speech?"
It'll be neutral. I agree with Nick to a point. The negative coverage has gone well over the top and most people are fair so will give him a hearing.
Most people are only marginally interested in politics and won't give him a hearing at all. Many of people who'll vote next year don't even bother to vote at local or Euro-elections, never mind pay attention to unprompted speeches by the LotO. They've had four years to make up their mind as to whether he deserves a hearing and appear to have decided 'no'.
I've tried hard to stay optimistic since his spirited performance during the Syrian bombing episode. It was a worthwhille cause as evnts have shown but that was a long time ago.
Hmm. The effect of Western non-intervention in Syria was that Assad's forces gained the upper hand on one side against the FSA, while ISIS gained on the other. Meanwhile, Putin eyed the opportunity while the West flagged up that it had no desire for foreign adventures, annexed part of a sovereign state and clearly has designs on more. That's Ed's foreign policy legacy.
Putin annexed Crimea because Ed Miliband did what exactly ... ? Even if we buy your analysis, Miliband is not running the United States, NATO or even HMG.
There is a link between Ed's posturing on Syria and the Crimea (and let's remember, it wasn't principled opposition but a desire to have parliament support his motion rather than the government's that led to the defeat of both).
The vote in the Commons stiffened resistance in Congress. That sapping of confidence on both sides of the Atlantic was a factor in both Putin's aggression in the Crimea and Ukraine more generally and the lack of resolve in the response.
I am not saying that the one is directly responsible for the other, and more than Versailles was directly responsible for WWII, but nor can the consequences be ignored.
And now I must be off for the day.
There is really no excuse for being so dreadfully misinformed.
You mean like FalseFlag's belief that the Crimea voted to be part of Russia in 1994? I swear he has a tactic of posting so much nonsense that those interested in facts get tired of tearing his lies apart and let him go unchallenged.
I see at the BBC that Ed is going to attack 'vested interests'. I assume that MUST include public sector vested interests - this is a One Nation Labour Party after all and we have a massive deficit he is promising to address. I expect to see a powerful policy programme denouncing the unions, Pilgrims, political levy, six figure salary council leaders, etc, etc very soon.
I have a couple of hours spare this evening and I have reserved them for going through EdM's new policies he announced today ..so excited..no blank piece of paper anymore...
What are you doing with the spare 119 minutes ?
Greetings, JackW! Good to see you fully functional again!
I was worried that my fellow PBers would be unable to discern your ARSE from my ELBOW
'Labour MPs cheered jokes about killing the Royal Family and lynching a Tory Cabinet minister at a tasteless Remembrance Sunday event, it emerged last night'
But Ed's already condemned them and withdrawn the whip,right?
Just imagine. Substitute Tories/UKIP and Nelson Mandela. Cue mass outrage on the BBC and the usual media. Wall to wall coverage. Police investigating... Resignations demanded... Shame on Britain... Dave/Nigel need to have a clearout of members...
Tories on here love distasteful jokes about dead South Africans, and no one criticises it
That's because Saffas are a load of arrogant bastards who smell like baboons.
I see at the BBC that Ed is going to attack 'vested interests'. I assume that MUST include public sector vested interests - this is a One Nation Labour Party after all and we have a massive deficit he is promising to address. I expect to see a powerful policy programme denouncing the unions, Pilgrims, political levy, six figure salary council leaders, etc, etc very soon.
Only to be believed by people that have had a happy pill today or believe in magic money trees etc.
Ed Miliband finally getting his act together? His speech today certainly hit on a much stronger theme than some of the recent banal, bland, vacuous nonsense he's been spouting about "unity" or "together we can".
I have a couple of caveats though:
1. They need to make sure the language is something that normal people who aren't Oxford PPE students can bloody well understand. I'm not sure "zero-zero economy" really will work as a soundbite (even leaving aside the fact it leaves open some obvious gags at Ed's expense).
2. They need to avoid saying "these problems are all the Tories' fault". Even if it might be true, at this point people just get really turned off when parties just start flinging mud at eachother and hysterically claim the other guys are evil sods who are deliberately trying to screw over people. Things like that will just mean people switching off from "the system" altogether and drifting to UKIP or another small party. Labour need to be a bit more sophisticated and say, while the Tory government might have contributed to the gross inequality we have and the super-rich getting away with murder, it's mainly a complex problem which has grown over about 30 years.
Paternal grandfather died 1966 Paternal grandmother died 1975 Maternal grandmother lived in Israel for a while after the war, date of death unknown Maternal grandfather alleged to have died in Auschwitz, but The Telegraph discovered he died in Czestochowa on May 12, 1945, four days after the end of the war.
So about 5 months after the Red Army reached that area of Poland. Why should anyone believe anything a Labourite says?
I note he's stopped claiming his father joined the Royal Navy during the war...
[He joined the Belgian Royal Navy!]
Would love to read an expose on the Milibands and their role in the Bolshevik Terror but I doubt we will get one.
I have a couple of hours spare this evening and I have reserved them for going through EdM's new policies he announced today ..so excited..no blank piece of paper anymore...
What are you doing with the spare 119 minutes ?
Greetings, JackW! Good to see you fully functional again!
I was worried that my fellow PBers would be unable to discern your ARSE from my ELBOW
Thank you.
However I should warn you PBers are well able to discern the real thing from pale and untested imitations.
Has the "Sunil on Sunday" finally collapsed into obscurity ?
Just listening to EdM on R4. There is probably a technical fault with the recording as he sounds like he was talking and drinking water at the same time. The BBC should check their technical standards for a fault in their systems as this is unfair to EdM.
For a man who claims that he is more interested in substance than image/perception, Miliband appears to have given a substance-free relaunch. Where is the policy? Where is the detail?
It is all very well complaining about vested interests - but where is the acknowledgement that the Unions are very much part of that structure? Indeed he would not be LOTO without the support of the unions (which probably explains why he won't take them on)
This is at least his second relaunch this year. The first didn't seem to improve matters. I can see nothing in the content of his speech that shows any reason why this one will do any better.
People have stopped listening to him. And that includes his own party.
Many if them probably said they voted Ukip... In my opinion this is more likely to mean they voted for Reckless than DNV
I think that is already covered. 28 out of 254 Reckless supporters said they voted 'Other' (i.e. not Con/Lab/LD). You might be right that some of those actually voted Conservative, but I've included them as 2010 voters anyway, so it doesn't matter from the point of view of the argument I was making.
I also wonder to what extent Kelly Tolhurst is attracting switchers back to the Tories as the campaign progresses and she becomes better known. The Tory candidate in Clacton didn't seem to make any real impact which I'm not sure is true this time. Obviously Kelly's twitter feed will present her in a good light but she does seem to connect well in quite a natural way with the schoolkids and with a whole host of people and businesses she has visited in what looks like quite an energetic campaign. With another week to go that could reasonably chip another couple of percentage points off the lead. One more poll next week without any pre-prompting might be interesting.
The Tory candidate in Clacton was in fact pretty good, Norm.
Nothing wrong with Ms Tolhurst either, except perhaps a little inexperience. As I posted earlier, LA's prompted poll produced a similar result to other pollsters, all within the 10%/15% range.
The Parties will have their own House polls, canvass returns and other feedback. We can have a good guess at what they are saying from the number of visits Dave has made to the area - five in the early days of the campaign, none since. That corresponds to a swift change in tone from Conservative HQ; the kitchen-sink strategy has given way to it's-only-a-by-election (we'll win it back in May.)
The punters have smelt the coffee and Reckless is now 18/1 on. Doesn't look like much of a betting heat to me. The vote percentage market might throw up an odd result though, especially if turnout is low (as I expect it will be.) Might be worth backing the outside ranges, but only to small stakes.
Been a bit of a disappointment, this election. Never mind. Plenty of punting opportunities at Cheltenham this weekend....and I have my Fuel Allowance to spend! :-)
Fair enough re the Clacton Tory but I'd question your third para - Cameron was there on Tuesday and Theresa May yesterday.
'Labour MPs cheered jokes about killing the Royal Family and lynching a Tory Cabinet minister at a tasteless Remembrance Sunday event, it emerged last night'
But Ed's already condemned them and withdrawn the whip,right?
Just imagine. Substitute Tories/UKIP and Nelson Mandela. Cue mass outrage on the BBC and the usual media. Wall to wall coverage. Police investigating... Resignations demanded... Shame on Britain... Dave/Nigel need to have a clearout of members...
Tories on here love distasteful jokes about dead South Africans, and no one criticises it
That's because Saffas are a load of arrogant bastards who smell like baboons.
If you are referring to whites that's amusing and oh so witty. If you are referring to those who live in townships that is racist and the thought police will come round to arrest you.
Ed Miliband finally getting his act together? His speech today certainly hit on a much stronger theme than some of the recent banal, bland, vacuous nonsense he's been spouting about "unity" or "together we can".
I have a couple of caveats though:
1. They need to make sure the language is something that normal people who aren't Oxford PPE students can bloody well understand. I'm not sure "zero-zero economy" really will work as a soundbite (even leaving aside the fact it leaves open some obvious gags at Ed's expense). ....
Like you and Ed I am in favour of motherhood and apple pie. Even on Eds own terms 'zero zero' is just a gimick sound bite and means nothing.
Basically its 'Vote for me I'm a Scoialist'. Where is the surprise in that?
I see at the BBC that Ed is going to attack 'vested interests'. I assume that MUST include public sector vested interests - this is a One Nation Labour Party after all and we have a massive deficit he is promising to address. I expect to see a powerful policy programme denouncing the unions, Pilgrims, political levy, six figure salary council leaders, etc, etc very soon.
Only to be believed by people that have had a happy pill today or believe in magic money trees etc.
Indeed! This seems a repolishing of the producer / predator turd. So he doesn't like banks or energy companies (but seems entirely happy about public sector vested interests and screw the taxpayer). Ok - we get that. WHAT. IS. HE. GOING. TO. DO. ABOUT. IT? What are the policies? Is he going to deliver quicker than Ozzy on resplitting the banks into utility/casino? Banker bonus caps (with attendant crash of tax receipts)? Is he going to intervene in the pricing of energy (and thereby destroy investment)? (Remind me who was Energy Secretary for years and years under New Labour and delivered precisely zero new generation capacity in a decade? MP for Doncaster North if I recall correctly). What are the policies? What? What?
I think Redward is actually not that bad at feeling your pain and voicing issues. He just has precisely no clue whatever how the world works and what to do about it. Who is going to vote for a hand wringing Islington metrosexual gimp who has no endpoint in mind let alone a route to getting there?
I'll own to not being predisposed to Ed, but did he actually say _anything_ meaningful in that speech? It seems to be completely content free apart from vapid platitudes.
But does France actually have a system that works? How long do you wait if you need, for example, a hip replacement?
The French NHS has the same financial pressures as every one else's. Its running a big deficit, paid for by the govt, and is thus in debt. What Farage said was that he wantd to be able to pay for his own health insurance (because he could afford to on his MEPs pay). He was proposing to be able to jump the queue. Of course he says different things to different people, but the point is that 'common sense' speech was indicative of what he thinks and wants. And typically the traditional kipper wants that as well, but the neo kippers (the lefty anti immigrant kippers as opposed to your regular BNP/ English Nationalist kippers) of course don't. He can't be telling the truth to them all. Personally I would rather buy a used car off Arthur Daley than Farage.
After at least the 2nd re-launch of EdM - does anyone recall how many the Blessed GordonB had before the GE? I thought at least four. PS - is it just 2 so far for Ed or is it just 2 this year? It feels like there have been other re-launches in previous years. PPS - If you have 2 in one year is it a BOGOF package of re-launches?
I have a couple of hours spare this evening and I have reserved them for going through EdM's new policies he announced today ..so excited..no blank piece of paper anymore...
What are you doing with the spare 119 minutes ?
Greetings, JackW! Good to see you fully functional again!
I was worried that my fellow PBers would be unable to discern your ARSE from my ELBOW
Thank you.
However I should warn you PBers are well able to discern the real thing from pale and untested imitations.
Has the "Sunil on Sunday" finally collapsed into obscurity ?
If you read PB on Sundays or Mondays you will get a weekly update on how my ELBOW's developing. I have also Tweeted graphs which I link to on here. The latest update from Sunday 9th is as follows:
I see at the BBC that Ed is going to attack 'vested interests'. I assume that MUST include public sector vested interests - this is a One Nation Labour Party after all and we have a massive deficit he is promising to address. I expect to see a powerful policy programme denouncing the unions, Pilgrims, political levy, six figure salary council leaders, etc, etc very soon.
Only to be believed by people that have had a happy pill today or believe in magic money trees etc.
Indeed! This seems a repolishing of the producer / predator turd. So he doesn't like banks or energy companies (but seems entirely happy about public sector vested interests and screw the taxpayer). Ok - we get that. WHAT. IS. HE. GOING. TO. DO. ABOUT. IT? ..... Who is going to vote for a hand wringing Islington metrosexual gimp who has no endpoint in mind let alone a route to getting there?
Shush this is most unhelpful for the KeepEdMCampaign.
Yes awful, but the good news is that not many voters saw it live, those that were watching had probably dozed off before the questions. (Fingers crossed).
Can you help me out trying to read the Ashcroft poll tables please?
On table 3 the unweighted base is 571, but everywhere else is 1002, why is that?
Also, Richard Nabavi says that table 3 provides evidence that the UKIP winning margin will be less than Ashcroft says, but in that table its is 16% (47/31) rather than the headline figures of 12% (44/32)
Q How much UK tax does Vodaphone pay on its £9.5Bn profits
A minus £4m
Why do Kippers and Tories try to defend this scandal?
Vodaphone are not paying any employers NICs in the Uk ? Now that is a story.
How much Nics and IT are their employees paying ?
In your own time BJO..
Speaking up for tax avoiders. Pathetic.
Largely agree - but it's a bit more nuanced than that Mike.
Alistair was earlier talking of companies lying about their tax structure. What about the vast majority of tax efficient companies that are not lying? In fact can anyone name a single one that is actually lying (an imprisonable offence for the directors)? AFAIK all simply have tax efficient structures (maybe a parent company or technology licensing company or brand use recharge company or group financing company in Ireland) and declare them openly everywhere. Stabucks, Google, etc fall in this bracket. Their directors have a legal and fiduciary duty to optimise value for their employer - not a moral obligation towards a host nation's public finances.
This is what it means to have a single market - it is entrenched in EU law. Arguing for an end to tax efficient corporate structuring is, if you don't realise it, arguing for the end of the single market in the EU. A reasonable argument in my view if the express objective is to squeeze more tax out of large corporations in countries where they operate but don't necessarily make alot of taxable profit. They do pay too little tax. But make the argument with eyes WIDE OPEN to the EU implications. If we have a single EU market companies will domicile their profits in the low tax regimes. Forcing EU tax harmonisation is in fact forcing the end of nation states - music to some ears, poison to others. Forcing a harmonised tax rate at the lefty spendy socialist end of the spectrum will push economic activity further out of the EU altogether. We have offered companies a single market of competing nation states and fiduciary obligations and they respond accordingly. Don't like the response then change the incentives. This is a wonderful example of a problem that is presented as a 'them / us' problem but is in fact an EU driven one.
Q How much UK tax does Vodaphone pay on its £9.5Bn profits
A minus £4m
Why do Kippers and Tories try to defend this scandal?
Vodaphone are not paying any employers NICs in the Uk ? Now that is a story.
How much Nics and IT are their employees paying ?
In your own time BJO..
Speaking up for tax avoiders. Pathetic.
I really wish the strong EU nations would push through reform on this. But given Junckers carries substantial blame for the mess, I can't see him helping to clean it up. Not sure why there isn't more appetite to fix this, given how desparately additional tax income is neede through the Euro Zone. Still, as long as it keeps Luxembourg happy...
Sadly, the quickest way to get money out of these globomegacorps is to leave the EU and have our own tax legislation.
Q How much UK tax does Vodaphone pay on its £9.5Bn profits
A minus £4m
Why do Kippers and Tories try to defend this scandal?
Vodaphone are not paying any employers NICs in the Uk ? Now that is a story.
How much Nics and IT are their employees paying ?
In your own time BJO..
Speaking up for tax avoiders. Pathetic.
Agreed and a good example of one of the reasons why I'm still a Lib Dem rather than a Tory. Tories sucking up to multinationals and big business is every bit as objectionable as Labour pandering to trades unions and their own public sector vested interests.
Q How much UK tax does Vodaphone pay on its £9.5Bn profits
A minus £4m
Why do Kippers and Tories try to defend this scandal?
Vodaphone are not paying any employers NICs in the Uk ? Now that is a story.
How much Nics and IT are their employees paying ?
In your own time BJO..
Speaking up for tax avoiders. Pathetic.
Agreed and a good example of one of the reasons why I'm still a Lib Dem rather than a Tory. Tories sucking up to multinationals and big business is every bit as objectionable as Labour pandering to trades unions and their own public sector vested interests.
Except the truth is a bit more balanced that that characterisation given this Tory Chancellorship has collected more from Tax Avoidance cases than any other and has passed new tough laws this year re having to pay tax up front from tax avoidance schemes
Ed is most definitely not crap! He is merely misunderstood, and I put it to you that is the chief reason why he is so maligned and ridiculed by the evil right-wing media.
I am certain you will agree with me that Ed is magnificently charismatic and eloquent. He is an inspiring and refreshing standard bearer for the social democratic tradition in our great nation. Yes, indeed: One Nation. Nay, his performance this morning must surely have been amongst the greatest (if not the greatest) ever given by a leader of the Labour Party, or indeed of any party leader! Such magnificence, such poise, such alacrity. Wow! And his wonderful repertoire of jokes would put even Harry Hill to shame!
He is articulate, passionate, an accomplished orator, and I think a real progressive alternative to the smarmy Bullingdon posh-boy Cameron.
Q How much UK tax does Vodaphone pay on its £9.5Bn profits
A minus £4m
Why do Kippers and Tories try to defend this scandal?
Vodaphone are not paying any employers NICs in the Uk ? Now that is a story.
How much Nics and IT are their employees paying ?
In your own time BJO..
Speaking up for tax avoiders. Pathetic.
Presumably you make a bit of money from gambling and hence enjoy really do enjoy that zero rate of tax that people have suddenly invented for the 'rich'
Classical Economists would argue that QE causes inflation, but as much of the money has simply gone to improve the balance sheets of banks and not into the larger economy it seems not to have had that effect.
I'll own to not being predisposed to Ed, but did he actually say _anything_ meaningful in that speech? It seems to be completely content free apart from vapid platitudes.
I missed it - did he explain how Labour were going to be wealth creators? That ŵoukd be worth hearing!
"What will be the reaction to Ed's "I'm a credible PM really" fightback speech?"
It'll be neutral. I agree with Nick to a point. The negative coverage has gone well over the top and most people are fair so will give him a hearing.
Most people are only marginally interested in politics and won't give him a hearing at all. Many of people who'll vote next year don't even bother to vote at local or Euro-elections, never mind pay attention to unprompted speeches by the LotO. They've had four years to make up their mind as to whether he deserves a hearing and appear to have decided 'no'.
I've tried hard to stay optimistic since his spirited performance during the Syrian bombing episode. It was a worthwhille cause as evnts have shown but that was a long time ago.
Hmm. The effect of Western non-intervention in Syria was that Assad's forces gained the upper hand on one side against the FSA, while ISIS gained on the other. Meanwhile, Putin eyed the opportunity while the West flagged up that it had no desire for foreign adventures, annexed part of a sovereign state and clearly has designs on more. That's Ed's foreign policy legacy.
Putin annexed Crimea because Ed Miliband did what exactly ... ? Even if we buy your analysis, Miliband is not running the United States, NATO or even HMG.
There is a link between Ed's posturing on Syria and the Crimea (and let's remember, it wasn't principled opposition but a desire to have parliament support his motion rather than the government's that led to the defeat of both).
The vote in the Commons stiffened resistance in Congress. That sapping of confidence on both sides of the Atlantic was a factor in both Putin's aggression in the Crimea and Ukraine more generally and the lack of resolve in the response.
I am not saying that the one is directly responsible for the other, and more than Versailles was directly responsible for WWII, but nor can the consequences be ignored.
And now I must be off for the day.
There is really no excuse for being so dreadfully misinformed.
You mean like FalseFlag's belief that the Crimea voted to be part of Russia in 1994? I swear he has a tactic of posting so much nonsense that those interested in facts get tired of tearing his lies apart and let him go unchallenged.
Q How much UK tax does Vodaphone pay on its £9.5Bn profits
..
In fact can anyone name a single one that is actually lying (an imprisonable offence for the directors)? AFAIK all simply have tax efficient structures (maybe a parent company or technology licensing company or brand use recharge company or group financing company in Ireland) and declare them openly everywhere. Stabucks, Google, etc fall in this bracket. Their directors have a legal and fiduciary duty to optimise value for their employer - not a moral obligation towards a host nation's public finances.
This is what it means to have a single market - it is entrenched in EU law. Arguing for an end to tax efficient corporate structuring is, if you don't realise it, arguing for the end of the single market in the EU. A reasonable argument in my view if the express objective is to squeeze more tax out of large corporations in countries where they operate but don't necessarily make alot of taxable profit. They do pay too little tax. But make the argument with eyes WIDE OPEN to the EU implications. If we have a single EU market companies will domicile their profits in the low tax regimes. Forcing EU tax harmonisation is in fact forcing the end of nation states - music to some ears, poison to others. Forcing a harmonised tax rate at the lefty spendy socialist end of the spectrum will push economic activity further out of the EU altogether. We have offered companies a single market of competing nation states and fiduciary obligations and they respond accordingly. Don't like the response then change the incentives. This is a wonderful example of a problem that is presented as a 'them / us' problem but is in fact an EU driven one.
A very good post.
People like being able to buy books at a low price from Amazon but then don't like the fact that Amazon base themselves in a low-tax jurisdiction like Luxembourg.
There is certainly a perception (however unfair or based on a misunderstanding) that companies - and indeed very rich people (like him and his brother and their entirely legitimate IHT arrangements) - are getting away with it and EdM is good at capturing this mood. But where he falls down is in his remedies and in not realising that he - and people like him - are part of the privileged elite who seem to think that they should be exempt from the laws and taxes affecting the rest of us.
For instance, the mansion tax: I don't think that £2 mio is the price of an "average family home" and those who say so sound ridiculous. But when Labour propose a tax which will affect a significant number of people in London but which their own MPs living in the same place will have paid for by the taxpayer then it really grates. One law for us, one for them.
Q How much UK tax does Vodaphone pay on its £9.5Bn profits
A minus £4m
Why do Kippers and Tories try to defend this scandal?
Vodaphone are not paying any employers NICs in the Uk ? Now that is a story.
How much Nics and IT are their employees paying ?
In your own time BJO..
Speaking up for tax avoiders. Pathetic.
Everyone who has an ISA is a tax avoider.
I have an ISA, a child ISA and I use nursery vouchers paid for out of my GROSS salary.
Burn me at the stake !
I was making the point that it is a bit pathetic to accuse someone of speaking up for tax avoiders when pretty much all of us - not just the wicked Vodafones of this world - are tax avoiders.
Q How much UK tax does Vodaphone pay on its £9.5Bn profits
A minus £4m
Why do Kippers and Tories try to defend this scandal?
Vodaphone are not paying any employers NICs in the Uk ? Now that is a story.
How much Nics and IT are their employees paying ?
In your own time BJO..
Speaking up for tax avoiders. Pathetic.
Everyone who has an ISA is a tax avoider.
I have an ISA, a child ISA and I use nursery vouchers paid for out of my GROSS salary.
Burn me at the stake !
The smart way to think about this is not tax avoidance vs non-tax avoidance, but tax avoidance within the spirit of the law versus tax avoidance that aggressively seeks out unintentional loopholes in the law.
Classical Economists would argue that QE causes inflation, but as much of the money has simply gone to improve the balance sheets of banks and not into the larger economy it seems not to have had that effect.
Q How much UK tax does Vodaphone pay on its £9.5Bn profits
A minus £4m
Why do Kippers and Tories try to defend this scandal?
Vodaphone are not paying any employers NICs in the Uk ? Now that is a story.
How much Nics and IT are their employees paying ?
In your own time BJO..
Speaking up for tax avoiders. Pathetic.
Everyone who has an ISA is a tax avoider.
I have an ISA, a child ISA and I use nursery vouchers paid for out of my GROSS salary.
Burn me at the stake !
The smart way to think about this is not tax avoidance vs non-tax avoidance, but tax avoidance within the spirit of the law versus tax avoidance that aggressively seeks out unintentional loopholes in the law.
I can see the difference (although think its amusing that professional gamblers or people who at least make profits from it moan about tax avoidance from trading companies when they pay zero tax on gambling) but its this government that has done more than any other to close tax loopholes and frustrate tax avoidance schemes -see laws passed this year for instance re paying tax up front if using such schemes
The Telegraph appears to be leading with "Paranoid" Miliband, while the Mirror has "Tiger on the loose in Disneyland". I'm not sure if that's golf related.
FIFA trump Miliband in the Guardian, though the Independent gives him a big splash. Shame nobody actually reads it.
You mean like FalseFlag's belief that the Crimea voted to be part of Russia in 1994? I swear he has a tactic of posting so much nonsense that those interested in facts get tired of tearing his lies apart and let him go unchallenged.
So the Scots voted for independence when they elected Alex Salmond First Minister? Good to know.
I don't see the relevance, but Scotland got a referendum after Salmond was elected first minister which they lost. The Crimeans got three votes which they overwhelmingly won, Yeltsin and Kiev colluded to ensure that was as far as it went.
Q How much UK tax does Vodaphone pay on its £9.5Bn profits
A minus £4m
Why do Kippers and Tories try to defend this scandal?
Vodaphone are not paying any employers NICs in the Uk ? Now that is a story.
How much Nics and IT are their employees paying ?
In your own time BJO..
Speaking up for tax avoiders. Pathetic.
Everyone who has an ISA is a tax avoider.
I think I have this the right-way round, but tax avoidance is not tax evasion. (I also have an ISA!)
Agreed: but too many- including on the left - have sought to blur the distinction - and it is an important one. Tax avoidance - such as an ISA - is legal whereas evasion - not declaring income - is a crime.
Why OGH should think it pathetic to defend tax avoiders, such as the likes of you and I with our ISAs, is not for me to say.
I can see the difference (although think its amusing that professional gamblers or people who at least make profits from it moan about tax avoidance from trading companies when they pay zero tax on gambling) but its this government that has done more than any other to close tax loopholes and frustrate tax avoidance schemes -see laws passed this year for instance re paying tax up front if using such schemes
I agree: this government has clearly been on the right side of this divide, unlike some of the defenders of Amazon etc on here.
I can see the difference (although think its amusing that professional gamblers or people who at least make profits from it moan about tax avoidance from trading companies when they pay zero tax on gambling) but its this government that has done more than any other to close tax loopholes and frustrate tax avoidance schemes -see laws passed this year for instance re paying tax up front if using such schemes
I agree: this government has clearly been on the right side of this divide, unlike some of the defenders of Amazon etc on here.
Amazon like other online retailers can too easily take advantage of the borderless internet. How do you solve that? It hard but I would suggest a more level playing field could be established within certain industries that it affects (like bookshops etc) by imposing a sales tax on each transaction whether by bricks and mortar or internet based on the buyer's residence and doing away with corporation tax for these industries.
Q How much UK tax does Vodaphone pay on its £9.5Bn profits
A minus £4m
Why do Kippers and Tories try to defend this scandal?
Vodaphone are not paying any employers NICs in the Uk ? Now that is a story.
How much Nics and IT are their employees paying ?
In your own time BJO..
Speaking up for tax avoiders. Pathetic.
Everyone who has an ISA is a tax avoider.
I think I have this the right-way round, but tax avoidance is not tax evasion. (I also have an ISA!)
Agreed: but too many- including on the left - have sought to blur the distinction - and it is an important one. Tax avoidance - such as an ISA - is legal whereas evasion - not declaring income - is a crime.
Why OGH should think it pathetic to defend tax avoiders, such as the likes of you and I with our ISAs, is not for me to say.
You know perfectly well OGH is referring to multi nationals like Vodafone, Amazon and the rest. ISAs are an incentive to save primarily unlike pro-actively locating your tax affairs in Luxembourg which is a deliberate and aggressive tax avoidance strategy. The fact you seek to make light of it suggests you are happy for these companies to continue undisturbed which rather proves his and my points.
I think the Labour party is now so infested with luvvies and champagne socialists that even a no brainer policy like raising some tax from people in £2 million pound houses causes many influential supporters to grumble ( as it may affect them) .
In a way that is a ridiculous state for a working person's party to get itself into.
Ever since TB replaced the late John Smith, it became quite apparent that he and his clique were hi-jacking the Labour party and its wwc for their own benefit by controlling the press and finding safe seats for their friends.
TB was happy to leave when he saw that his route to personal wealth and glory was advanced and open and others have followed in his wake.
Now to those left behind and their surprise, the support of the wwc is unraveling and that same support is looking elsewhere for succour and representation (e.g. UKIP and Green), as slowly some of them come to realise that their support has been used and their representations ignored..
So in the coming GE, whilst Labour may still get loyal support form the economically poor NE and Wales and other parts of the N, there is a big question mark over the destination of their traditional support in the Midlands.
Q How much UK tax does Vodaphone pay on its £9.5Bn profits
A minus £4m
Why do Kippers and Tories try to defend this scandal?
Vodaphone are not paying any employers NICs in the Uk ? Now that is a story.
How much Nics and IT are their employees paying ?
In your own time BJO..
Speaking up for tax avoiders. Pathetic.
Everyone who has an ISA is a tax avoider.
I think I have this the right-way round, but tax avoidance is not tax evasion. (I also have an ISA!)
Agreed: but too many- including on the left - have sought to blur the distinction - and it is an important one. Tax avoidance - such as an ISA - is legal whereas evasion - not declaring income - is a crime.
Why OGH should think it pathetic to defend tax avoiders, such as the likes of you and I with our ISAs, is not for me to say.
You know perfectly well OGH is referring to multi nationals like Vodafone, Amazon and the rest. ISAs are an incentive to save primarily unlike pro-actively locating your tax affairs in Luxembourg which is a deliberate and aggressive tax avoidance strategy. The fact you seek to make light of it suggests you are happy for these companies to continue undisturbed which rather proves his and my points.
I don't make light of anything. I take rather seriously the importance of having the rule of law and if the law - which as Patrick has pointed out - permits companies or individuals to do something then it is juvenile, frankly, to pretend that a lucid criticism is being made simply by using the words "deliberate" and "aggressive" or, indeed, "pathetic". Anyone who chooses an ISA is being deliberate. The motive is irrelevant. Anyone who has an ISA every single year could be described as "aggressive". You have no more idea of Amazon's motive than I do. They could be doing it for any number of reasons. But they are acting lawfully. Just as those who have ISAs are. If we are really concerned about raising more tax then get rid of ISAs. They are, after all, more likely to be held by those with more rather than less money so why not?
The criticism should be best directed at the politicians who make the laws. In this case, much of the law which permits the likes of Amazon to do what they do comes from the EU and Labour are one party who are pledged to stay in the EU and have never, to my knowledge, suggested changing the rules on the single market and the consequential effects on tax law to ensure that Amazon cannot do what they are currently doing.
Classical Economists would argue that QE causes inflation, but as much of the money has simply gone to improve the balance sheets of banks and not into the larger economy it seems not to have had that effect.
Should have tried the helicopter option.
Exactly, and it may still happen if deflation takes hold.
'Labour MPs cheered jokes about killing the Royal Family and lynching a Tory Cabinet minister at a tasteless Remembrance Sunday event, it emerged last night'
But Ed's already condemned them and withdrawn the whip,right?
Just imagine. Substitute Tories/UKIP and Nelson Mandela. Cue mass outrage on the BBC and the usual media. Wall to wall coverage. Police investigating... Resignations demanded... Shame on Britain... Dave/Nigel need to have a clearout of members...
Tories on here love distasteful jokes about dead South Africans, and no one criticises it
That's because Saffas are a load of arrogant bastards who smell like baboons.
If you are referring to whites that's amusing and oh so witty. If you are referring to those who live in townships that is racist and the thought police will come round to arrest you.
You didn't get the Spitting Image reference, did you?
Comments
There was a time in your absence when people thought Ed Miliband might be Prime Minister....
'I'm feeling much better now....'
[He joined the Belgian Royal Navy!]
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26681653
"Just what do you think you're doing, Dave?"
I was worried that my fellow PBers would be unable to discern your ARSE from my ELBOW
I have a couple of caveats though:
1. They need to make sure the language is something that normal people who aren't Oxford PPE students can bloody well understand. I'm not sure "zero-zero economy" really will work as a soundbite (even leaving aside the fact it leaves open some obvious gags at Ed's expense).
2. They need to avoid saying "these problems are all the Tories' fault". Even if it might be true, at this point people just get really turned off when parties just start flinging mud at eachother and hysterically claim the other guys are evil sods who are deliberately trying to screw over people. Things like that will just mean people switching off from "the system" altogether and drifting to UKIP or another small party. Labour need to be a bit more sophisticated and say, while the Tory government might have contributed to the gross inequality we have and the super-rich getting away with murder, it's mainly a complex problem which has grown over about 30 years.
However I should warn you PBers are well able to discern the real thing from pale and untested imitations.
Has the "Sunil on Sunday" finally collapsed into obscurity ?
It is all very well complaining about vested interests - but where is the acknowledgement that the Unions are very much part of that structure? Indeed he would not be LOTO without the support of the unions (which probably explains why he won't take them on)
This is at least his second relaunch this year. The first didn't seem to improve matters. I can see nothing in the content of his speech that shows any reason why this one will do any better.
People have stopped listening to him. And that includes his own party.
Good luck at Cheltenham - any tips welcome!
If you are referring to whites that's amusing and oh so witty.
If you are referring to those who live in townships that is racist and the thought police will come round to arrest you.
Even on Eds own terms 'zero zero' is just a gimick sound bite and means nothing.
Basically its 'Vote for me I'm a Scoialist'. Where is the surprise in that?
The public are far more angry at big businesses than they are at unions.
If he had given this speech at party conference, he might not be in this much trouble
WHAT. IS. HE. GOING. TO. DO. ABOUT. IT? What are the policies? Is he going to deliver quicker than Ozzy on resplitting the banks into utility/casino? Banker bonus caps (with attendant crash of tax receipts)? Is he going to intervene in the pricing of energy (and thereby destroy investment)? (Remind me who was Energy Secretary for years and years under New Labour and delivered precisely zero new generation capacity in a decade? MP for Doncaster North if I recall correctly). What are the policies? What? What?
I think Redward is actually not that bad at feeling your pain and voicing issues. He just has precisely no clue whatever how the world works and what to do about it. Who is going to vote for a hand wringing Islington metrosexual gimp who has no endpoint in mind let alone a route to getting there?
I do, however, think that it was mean of the BBC to give the interview with Nick Robinson the headline "Ed Miliband is going nowhere".
What Farage said was that he wantd to be able to pay for his own health insurance (because he could afford to on his MEPs pay). He was proposing to be able to jump the queue.
Of course he says different things to different people, but the point is that 'common sense' speech was indicative of what he thinks and wants. And typically the traditional kipper wants that as well, but the neo kippers (the lefty anti immigrant kippers as opposed to your regular BNP/ English Nationalist kippers) of course don't. He can't be telling the truth to them all.
Personally I would rather buy a used car off Arthur Daley than Farage.
Posts will be removed.
PS - is it just 2 so far for Ed or is it just 2 this year? It feels like there have been other re-launches in previous years.
PPS - If you have 2 in one year is it a BOGOF package of re-launches?
https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/531584914605764609
On table 3 the unweighted base is 571, but everywhere else is 1002, why is that?
Also, Richard Nabavi says that table 3 provides evidence that the UKIP winning margin will be less than Ashcroft says, but in that table its is 16% (47/31) rather than the headline figures of 12% (44/32)
Alistair was earlier talking of companies lying about their tax structure. What about the vast majority of tax efficient companies that are not lying? In fact can anyone name a single one that is actually lying (an imprisonable offence for the directors)? AFAIK all simply have tax efficient structures (maybe a parent company or technology licensing company or brand use recharge company or group financing company in Ireland) and declare them openly everywhere. Stabucks, Google, etc fall in this bracket. Their directors have a legal and fiduciary duty to optimise value for their employer - not a moral obligation towards a host nation's public finances.
This is what it means to have a single market - it is entrenched in EU law. Arguing for an end to tax efficient corporate structuring is, if you don't realise it, arguing for the end of the single market in the EU. A reasonable argument in my view if the express objective is to squeeze more tax out of large corporations in countries where they operate but don't necessarily make alot of taxable profit. They do pay too little tax. But make the argument with eyes WIDE OPEN to the EU implications. If we have a single EU market companies will domicile their profits in the low tax regimes. Forcing EU tax harmonisation is in fact forcing the end of nation states - music to some ears, poison to others. Forcing a harmonised tax rate at the lefty spendy socialist end of the spectrum will push economic activity further out of the EU altogether. We have offered companies a single market of competing nation states and fiduciary obligations and they respond accordingly. Don't like the response then change the incentives. This is a wonderful example of a problem that is presented as a 'them / us' problem but is in fact an EU driven one.
Sadly, the quickest way to get money out of these globomegacorps is to leave the EU and have our own tax legislation.
Agreed and a good example of one of the reasons why I'm still a Lib Dem rather than a Tory. Tories sucking up to multinationals and big business is every bit as objectionable as Labour pandering to trades unions and their own public sector vested interests.
**Oh I see, related to Holocaust denial!
Can you help out here? I am a bit of an amateur at looking at these tables... the numbers don't seem to be adding up correctly
http://order-order.com/2014/11/13/miliband-calls-for-debate-with-ukip/
Inflation set to go below 1%.
Burn me at the stake !
Ed is most definitely not crap! He is merely misunderstood, and I put it to you that is the chief reason why he is so maligned and ridiculed by the evil right-wing media.
I am certain you will agree with me that Ed is magnificently charismatic and eloquent. He is an inspiring and refreshing standard bearer for the social democratic tradition in our great nation. Yes, indeed: One Nation. Nay, his performance this morning must surely have been amongst the greatest (if not the greatest) ever given by a leader of the Labour Party, or indeed of any party leader! Such magnificence, such poise, such alacrity. Wow! And his wonderful repertoire of jokes would put even Harry Hill to shame!
He is articulate, passionate, an accomplished orator, and I think a real progressive alternative to the smarmy Bullingdon posh-boy Cameron.
Roll on 2015!
FIFA trump Miliband in the Guardian, though the Independent gives him a big splash. Shame nobody actually reads it.
And the Mail include this image
You do talk some nonsense.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26681653
So the Scots voted for independence when they elected Alex Salmond First Minister? Good to know.
I don't see the relevance, but Scotland got a referendum after Salmond was elected first minister which they lost. The Crimeans got three votes which they overwhelmingly won, Yeltsin and Kiev colluded to ensure that was as far as it went.
Why OGH should think it pathetic to defend tax avoiders, such as the likes of you and I with our ISAs, is not for me to say.
The criticism should be best directed at the politicians who make the laws. In this case, much of the law which permits the likes of Amazon to do what they do comes from the EU and Labour are one party who are pledged to stay in the EU and have never, to my knowledge, suggested changing the rules on the single market and the consequential effects on tax law to ensure that Amazon cannot do what they are currently doing.
This is 2014 not 1984
It seems the 'neutral' position in the chattering classes at the moment is to try and ignore what is happening in front of them.