Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Labour insider, Henry G Manson, on the changed mood within

1235»

Comments

  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736

    Earlier today when bigjohnwls was having a go at Starbucks I asked about how much tax they'd paid as a percentage of their profits under the Lab government compared to since under the coalition. He seamlessly switched to going at Vodafone.

    Haven't read the intervening posts so don't know if it's been asked, but does he think that the pretty huge costs of 3G & 4G licenses should count against their uk profits?

    In answer to your first question its too little and too little ie Zero until customer boycotts started to bite in 2013.

    Re Vodaphone as with other companies uk arm is loss making due to extortionate charges for services from overseas divisions.

    Do you really think its ok?
    I think that they should pay the tax that they're legally obliged to pay. Do you disagree with that?

    Have the laws that allow them to pay tax elsewhere at a lower rate been formulated by this government? Did the labour government address it?

    And you haven't answered the simple question I asked you.
    Yes i have

    I said Ed would have more balls to sort out the zero/zero economy.

    Previous and current Govts haven't done and i also think companies have an obligation to pay taxes rather than doing everything they can get away with to avoid them.

    You really think the attached is OK?

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/vodafones-84bn-tax-avoidance-bonanza-nothing-for-taxpayers-in-verizon-deal-while-bankers-share-500m-in-fees-8794169.html
    "does he think that the pretty huge costs of 3G & 4G licenses should count against their uk profits?"

    No you haven't.

    Have you got an ISA?
    OMG my ISA saves me pennies.

    I get 5% on my non isa investments and 4% on my cash ISA so actually the bank has taken 100% of the tax saving.

    Vodaphone is taking the piss if you cant see it thats fine
  • oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 5,844



    An £8 minimum wage.

    An end to the exploitation of zero hours contracts.

    Freezing energy bills until 2017.

    Putting our young people back to work.

    Paying down the deficit and doing it fairly.

    Reforming our banks so that they work for small businesses.

    Cutting business rates.

    Apprenticeships alongside every government contract.

    Building 200,000 homes a year.

    Abolishing the bedroom tax.

    Tackling tax avoidance.

    Hiring more doctors, nurses, midwives and careworkers, and putting the right values back at the heart of the NHS and repealing the Health and Social Care Act.

    And absolutely no economic plans to say how this will be paid for - or indeed when they will each be implemented.

    Lots of promises of jam - which are always going to be popular at first hearing. But there is no detail as to how all of this will be paid for.

    Without a credible economic plan, there is no way you can be credible with any other policy. And there is no economic plan - credible or otherwise.
  • JohnLoonyJohnLoony Posts: 1,790
    CD13 said:


    I'm no fan of the Blades but there is an element of hypocrisy here.

    You may remember Lee Hughes. "In August 2004, he was sentenced to six years imprisonment for causing death by dangerous driving following a fatal crash on 23 November 2003. He returned to the professional game after being released half-way through his sentence in August 2007."

    I don't remember a similar outcry.

    Did Lee Hughes deny his guilt? Did he fail to express remorse? That is the point. Ched Evans is not qualified to do the job of being a professional footballer because part of the job is to be a role-model for young people. Therefore he should not be employed as such until he expresses remorse and admits his guilt, or until his conviction is quashed.

  • MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,584

    new thread

  • JonnyJimmyJonnyJimmy Posts: 2,548

    Have Lab supporters really been convinced by that half-arsed speech today?

    If any have, can they please summarise the main points from that speech that have enthused them thus?

    I heard it and I've reread it and all he seems to say is "I'm not crap, Labour aren't crap, but Con & UKIP are, and this country is unjust and unequal and unfair"

    What did I miss?

    I liked this part of his speech

    An £8 minimum wage.

    An end to the exploitation of zero hours contracts.

    Freezing energy bills until 2017.

    Putting our young people back to work.

    Paying down the deficit and doing it fairly.

    Reforming our banks so that they work for small businesses.

    Cutting business rates.

    Apprenticeships alongside every government contract.

    Building 200,000 homes a year.

    Abolishing the bedroom tax.

    Tackling tax avoidance.

    Hiring more doctors, nurses, midwives and careworkers, and putting the right values back at the heart of the NHS and repealing the Health and Social Care Act.

    That’s a plan to build a country that works for everyday people, and not just a privileged few.

    A recovery that works for you and your family.

    The next generation doing better than the last.

    The NHS there when you need it.

    We’re less than six months from the general election.

    We’re in a fight but it is our fight to win.

    Millions of people in this country are resting their hopes on us.

    We can’t let them down.
    That looked like an impressive list until I read it..

    "That’s a plan to build a country that works for everyday people, and not just a privileged few."

    What does he actually mean?

    "Millions of people in this country are resting their hopes on us."

    That would be truer if he said "me" rather than "us". The Tories are certainly resting some of their hopes on him.

    "Tackling tax avoidance"

    Is he going to pay back the IHT he avoided?

    I can't be bothered to address any of the others. It's mostly dross, or just bad policy.
  • FlightpathFlightpath Posts: 4,012

    Have Lab supporters really been convinced by that half-arsed speech today?

    If any have, can they please summarise the main points from that speech that have enthused them thus?

    I heard it and I've reread it and all he seems to say is "I'm not crap, Labour aren't crap, but Con & UKIP are, and this country is unjust and unequal and unfair"

    What did I miss?

    I liked this part of his speech

    An £8 minimum wage.

    An end to the exploitation of zero hours contracts.

    Freezing energy bills until 2017.

    Putting our young people back to work.

    Paying down the deficit and doing it fairly.

    Reforming our banks so that they work for small businesses.

    Cutting business rates.

    Apprenticeships alongside every government contract.

    Building 200,000 homes a year.

    Abolishing the bedroom tax.

    Tackling tax avoidance.

    Hiring more doctors, nurses, midwives and careworkers, and putting the right values back at the heart of the NHS and repealing the Health and Social Care Act.

    That’s a plan to build a country that works for everyday people, and not just a privileged few.

    A recovery that works for you and your family.

    The next generation doing better than the last.

    The NHS there when you need it.

    We’re less than six months from the general election.

    We’re in a fight but it is our fight to win.

    Millions of people in this country are resting their hopes on us.

    We can’t let them down.
    That looked like an impressive list until I read it..

    "That’s a plan to build a country that works for everyday people, and not just a privileged few."

    What does he actually mean?

    "Millions of people in this country are resting their hopes on us."

    That would be truer if he said "me" rather than "us". The Tories are certainly resting some of their hopes on him.

    "Tackling tax avoidance"

    Is he going to pay back the IHT he avoided?

    I can't be bothered to address any of the others. It's mostly dross, or just bad policy.
    A shopping list of typical socialist spending. And typically he wants other organisations to take the cost. We can imagine it means higher tax rates and more NI for employers as well.
    As for the NHS - it was labour in their manifesto that committed to 20 billion efficiency savings because they said the budget was now adequate.
    Endless hypocricy.
This discussion has been closed.