PB Tories love a good tax loophole its what put the Great in Britain.
How greedy does global capitalism have to get before PB Tories recognise something needs to be done?
Jobs create tax revenue.
Only if they pay enough for tax revenues to exceed tax credits (another subsidy to global capitalist tax dodgers IMO)
Tax credits cover employer NICs, employee NICs and employee IT ? Who knew...
Be nice. BJO is still struggling with the idea of private businesses having to make a profit, the benefits of a life in public "service", well, half a life anyway
Sourby backers like me must be clutching those bets lips more fondly this morning. Boots HQ under threat from Ed.
Still no LibDem candidate in Broxtowe though. Those voters - reduced as they be - will have to go somewhere if LDs don't find someone.
They didn't vote for the red candidate in 2010 - I don't see many reasons to rethink.
Not sure you're the perfect guide to Broxtowe LibDem thinking, TGOHF. We are in coalition with the LibDems locally; they have been constantly attacked by the MP since 2010; the demography of the local LibDems is heavily middle-class public sector (teachers, NHS). They will have a candidate but the late selection is not an accident. Their campaign will focus on defending council seats.
As for Mr Pessina, I asked canvassers out of curiosity what the reaction was, but he wasn't mentioned in any of the 500+ doorstep encounters. We did meet more switchers than usual in both directions (5 each Lab<->Con), but for random-seeming reasons - one blamed poor health treatment of a relative on Cameron; one credited AS for something that I'd done in 2010 (he didn't believe me, sigh). I do get the impression that people are starting to polarise away from the smaller parties, though - only met a couple of Kippers and zero LibDems or Greens.
I'll predict a tie in Populus, +/-2, as usual. But yes, the Scottish polls will be grim for us.
If I ran a bookie that made exactly 0 profit, turnover tax would mean I (effectively) make a loss. [I don't think VAT affects bookies].
Yes, but sales revenue and turnover are the same thing.
But with VAT you can reclaim most of your costs as a business. As you're not paying over just the turnover element, you're reducing it by offsetting your costs.
PB Tories love a good tax loophole its what put the Great in Britain.
How greedy does global capitalism have to get before PB Tories recognise something needs to be done?
Jobs create tax revenue.
Only if they pay enough for tax revenues to exceed tax credits (another subsidy to global capitalist tax dodgers IMO)
Tax credits cover employer NICs, employee NICs and employee IT ? Who knew...
Be nice. BJO is still struggling with the idea of private businesses having to make a profit, the benefits of a life in public "service", well, half a life anyway
Careful, he'll going crying to Mummy and accuse you of being a troll.
Are Labour going to attack every business leader who speaks out against them? Or just the first half dozen or so?
The asset stripping, debt leveraging, low salary paying, job cutting, tax avoiding, non-dom, billionaire boss of a poor service providing business is a bit too much of a gift to walkaway from.
Far more worrying from Labour's perspective is the university criticism they are deservedly getting today. There's one sector where we really do have a global advantage. It needs to be treasured and nurtured. A great deal of damage has already been done over the last few years, threatening more is just sheer stupidity.
A possible compromise over the Greek debt crisis seems to be in the offing. This is still *very* early days, but it looks like there could be a deal along the following lines:
The non-private sector (IMF/ECB/EU) portion of Greek debt will be divided into two tranches. One tranche will remain as it is now, with the same coupon (although the maturites may be pushed out somewhat). The other will have an interest rate linked to Greek GDP, with the rate rising as Greece's GDP increases. Maturities will also be determined by the GDP level, with - essentially - the private sector (theoretically) stepping in to replace public sector debt as various milestones are reached. The troika will claim that all the money will be repaid, and that the average interest rate is actually unchanged (which is true under certain circumstances), while Greece will claim that they have cut the bill in half (true in the short term), and that they'll all have to be a lot richer before they do any repaying.
There are two big issues. Firstly, the Greeks want the ECB to backstop their banks during a four month negotiation process. This is a recipe for massive capital flight, and as every Euro exits Greece through the TARGET-2 system, it makes it more expensive for Europe to let Greece go. Effectively, Greece is trying to use ELA/TARGET-2 as a stick to beat the rest of the Eurozone with. Secondly, Greece is still resistant to allowing the troika to 'supervise' its economic policy.
Last week, I said that the probability of Greece leaving the Euro was above 50%. It's probably back down to 50% right now. The IMF simply will not compromise on the supervision issue - it's the key condition for any loans that come from them. They might - potentially - allow the Greeks to get away with their previous "re-hire" so long as they remain in the driving seat in future, but that's as good as its going to get for the Greeks. And the Germans and the Dutch and the Finns (and others) will not go beyond what the IMF offers.
Sourby backers like me must be clutching those bets lips more fondly this morning. Boots HQ under threat from Ed.
Still no LibDem candidate in Broxtowe though. Those voters - reduced as they be - will have to go somewhere if LDs don't find someone.
They didn't vote for the red candidate in 2010 - I don't see many reasons to rethink.
Not sure you're the perfect guide to Broxtowe LibDem thinking, TGOHF. We are in coalition with the LibDems locally; they have been constantly attacked by the MP since 2010; the demography of the local LibDems is heavily middle-class public sector (teachers, NHS). They will have a candidate but the late selection is not an accident. Their campaign will focus on defending council seats.
As for Mr Pessina, I asked canvassers out of curiosity what the reaction was, but he wasn't mentioned in any of the 500+ doorstep encounters. We did meet more switchers than usual in both directions (5 each Lab<->Con), but for random-seeming reasons - one blamed poor health treatment of a relative on Cameron; one credited AS for something that I'd done in 2010 (he didn't believe me, sigh). I do get the impression that people are starting to polarise away from the smaller parties, though - only met a couple of Kippers and zero LibDems or Greens.
I'll predict a tie in Populus, +/-2, as usual. But yes, the Scottish polls will be grim for us.
PB Tories love a good tax loophole its what put the Great in Britain.
How greedy does global capitalism have to get before PB Tories recognise something needs to be done?
How greedy do public sector early-retirees have to get before PB Tories recognise something needs to be done?
It's only bad when other people use the existing legislation to their advantage. When BJO does it, it's a very sensible personal decision, that just coincidentally benefits him personally.
If I ran a bookie that made exactly 0 profit, turnover tax would mean I (effectively) make a loss. [I don't think VAT affects bookies].
Yes, but sales revenue and turnover are the same thing.
But with VAT you can reclaim most of your costs as a business. As you're not paying over just the turnover element, you're reducing it by offsetting your costs.
So your analogy doesn't work.
You can reclaim VAT paid on goods/services received.
You posted something with a picture of Messrs Milburn and Hutton and their directorships a couple of days ago. I'm trying to find it. Do you have a link?
PB Tories love a good tax loophole its what put the Great in Britain.
How greedy does global capitalism have to get before PB Tories recognise something needs to be done?
How greedy do public sector early-retirees have to get before PB Tories recognise something needs to be done?
It's only bad when other people use the existing legislation to their advantage. When BJO does it, it's a very sensible personal decision, that just coincidentally benefits him personally.
Is BJO leveraging debt and milking the NHS to enrich himself while avoiding paying hundreds of millions of pounds in corporation tax? Wow!
Are Labour going to attack every business leader who speaks out against them? Or just the first half dozen or so?
The asset stripping, debt leveraging, low salary paying, job cutting, tax avoiding, non-dom, billionaire boss of a poor service providing business is a bit too much of a gift to walkaway from.
Will they say that about the next three or four too, while simultaneously vehemently denying that they're anti-business?
A possible compromise over the Greek debt crisis seems to be in the offing. This is still *very* early days, but it looks like there could be a deal along the following lines:
The non-private sector (IMF/ECB/EU) portion of Greek debt will be divided into two tranches. One tranche will remain as it is now, with the same coupon (although the maturites may be pushed out somewhat). The other will have an interest rate linked to Greek GDP, with the rate rising as Greece's GDP increases. Maturities will also be determined by the GDP level, with - essentially - the private sector (theoretically) stepping in to replace public sector debt as various milestones are reached. The troika will claim that all the money will be repaid, and that the average interest rate is actually unchanged (which is true under certain circumstances), while Greece will claim that they have cut the bill in half (true in the short term), and that they'll all have to be a lot richer before they do any repaying.
There are two big issues. Firstly, the Greeks want the ECB to backstop their banks during a four month negotiation process. This is a recipe for massive capital flight, and as every Euro exits Greece through the TARGET-2 system, it makes it more expensive for Europe to let Greece go. Effectively, Greece is trying to use ELA/TARGET-2 as a stick to beat the rest of the Eurozone with. Secondly, Greece is still resistant to allowing the troika to 'supervise' its economic policy.
Last week, I said that the probability of Greece leaving the Euro was above 50%. It's probably back down to 50% right now. The IMF simply will not compromise on the supervision issue - it's the key condition for any loans that come from them. They might - potentially - allow the Greeks to get away with their previous "re-hire" so long as they remain in the driving seat in future, but that's as good as its going to get for the Greeks. And the Germans and the Dutch and the Finns (and others) will not go beyond what the IMF offers.
Greece will get it's way.
The reason ?
It's too close to the Middle East and Russia (Via the Black Sea) to allow it to become a complete basket case (Its a long way off that for all it's woes yet)
This is why the Greek strategy of courting the Russians is smart. The west is terrified of seeing Thessaloniki as a port for the Red fleet.
That being said, we will see Ecuador and Venezuela go bust this year - and the latter of these owes something like $300bn vs only $90bn of private sector Greek debt.
I know I'm cynical about politics but I'm even more cynical about it as an academic subject.
Simplistically, and applying Occam's Razor, political attitudes can be based on how you think people should be comparatively rewarded. If you pay everyone the same, the complaint will be that some work a lot harder than others. Fine, but how much more do you pay them?
At one extreme, we have the cry that those at the bottom are being victimised, they are victims of circumstances, and should get the same. It's not their fault as they are doing their best.
At the other extreme, we have the cry that the CE is far more important, possibly a thousand times more important and must be rewarded adequately. But merit, however you measure it, can be a slippery subjective thing. Roger may argue that advertising is a worthwhile career, others may have reservations.
The political arguments seem to be about where on this spectrum the voters lie.
Politicians are just advertising wonks and the 'best' ones get elected.
@BBCNormanS: Labour say "lot of public resentment" over Boots boss 'catastrophe' comments and "this is an argument we can win"
Really?
He said Ed would be a disaster. That is not an argument that is readily winnable...
Agreed..
"Lots of public resentment" falls in the same league as "everyone knows" the "British public recognises" etc etc for when Labour haven't got a clue let alone any proof that anyone supports there point being put forward but have to make it seem like everyone is behind them so they can big up what they saying. Most commonly used when the NHS is mentioned used a lot by Miliband and also by Burnham. Link to any speech on anything by Ed and most stuff by Burnham.
I think Lab could have turned this very quickly to their advantage by applying an extremely honed response and focussing on it and no other comment. They should have said, "as an individual he is entitled to his opinion - but why is his company HQ in Switzerland?" Just keep hammering on this question. The problem is you have 100s of Labour MPs and Spads who can twitter any old response which the news picks up.
"Why is his company in Switzerland"? Er, because taxes in the the UK are too f>cking high perchance?
If I ran a bookie that made exactly 0 profit, turnover tax would mean I (effectively) make a loss. [I don't think VAT affects bookies].
Yes, but sales revenue and turnover are the same thing.
But with VAT you can reclaim most of your costs as a business. As you're not paying over just the turnover element, you're reducing it by offsetting your costs.
So your analogy doesn't work.
You can reclaim VAT paid on goods/services received.
A couple of comments on Electoral Calculus in relation to likely Lib Dem seat numbers. First he uses UNS. Many Lib Dems reject this method as they say that it does non reflect the incumbancy factor which is the basis of the LD's fortress strategy.However the 2010 GE results using UNS v 2005 were remarkably close to the actual LD seat numbers. Second Martin Baxter uses a mean of poll results.The mean is heavily influenced by the number of pools by each polling company.Therefore frequent pollsters like You Gov as opposed to the monthly ICM weight the vote sharss he uses.On the whole You gov tend st o under record Lib Dems.Thus the seat results maybe a little on the low side from this factor. Personally my approach will be to use ICM the gold standard shares for the GE, and use UNS calculated seperately for England and Scotland.
ICM is usually good for Con and Lab accuracy but usually overstates the LD polling.
Are Labour going to attack every business leader who speaks out against them? Or just the first half dozen or so?
The asset stripping, debt leveraging, low salary paying, job cutting, tax avoiding, non-dom, billionaire boss of a poor service providing business is a bit too much of a gift to walkaway from.
Will they say that about the next three or four too, while simultaneously vehemently denying that they're anti-business?
No idea. Business does not equal asset stripping and tax avoidance. Big companies that do it, while depending on the state to subsidise the low wages they offer mean small companies like mine have to pay more tax than might otherwise be the case. Being opposed to the business model Mr Pessina practises is not being anti-business. I am opposed to it and I am the co-owner of a business thoroughly wedded to capitalism and profit.
I feel a Labour poster campaign coming on based on the multi award winning Economist ads of the early 2000's......................
"I DONT READ THE ECONOMIST"
(management trainee aged 42)
Perhaps something like
"LABOUR ARE BAD FOR BRITAIN"
(72 year old tax exile owner of Boots living in Monaco)
Regardless of Stefano's personal tax structure, the idea that the owner of a business that employs 70,000 people in the UK and forms a critical part of the national healthcare infrastructure (I'm thinking of Alliance UniChem not Boots) should have no right to voice his opinions is extraordinary.
Nick, do you tend to find any LD to Con switchers? If it's happening anywhere, Broxtowe is the right type of constituency I'd guess.
Sure - haven't checked the figures but rough estimate is that around 1 in 10 former LibDems are going Tory, 1 in 10 are going Green, 4 in 10 are coming to us, 1 in 10 is sticking with them, and the rest say they don't know, and many of these perhaps will default back to them once they have a candidate. Earlier on we were meeting former LDs going UKIP, but that seems to have largely dried up.
BTW, interesting new RedBox poll shows that most people think Big Government is a good thing and they'd like to have more of it. Very un-American!
PB Tories love a good tax loophole its what put the Great in Britain.
How greedy does global capitalism have to get before PB Tories recognise something needs to be done?
Labour supporter rewrites history again oh the irony...
Labour had 13 years of absolute massive majorities and could have done anything. They chose to do nothing.... Nothing whatsoever in this area.
They instead played up to these people even stayed in their Caribbean holiday homes so please BJO spare us the lies and the hypocriscy about your beloved "party for the luvvies" and as for "Tory bankers" . Labour wooded them from the prawn cocktail circuit until the 2008 implosion. That's the point they suddenly overnight became "Tory bankers" again.
Mr. Pulpstar, but if they do a deal for the Greeks, why not Spain? And what if Greece kicks up a fuss again, to try and change not only their own situation but the eurozone-wide situation?
It's too close to the Middle East and Russia (Via the Black Sea) to allow it to become a complete basket case (Its a long way off that for all it's woes yet)
This is why the Greek strategy of courting the Russians is smart. The west is terrified of seeing Thessaloniki as a port for the Red fleet.
The IMF doesn't care.
The IMF is looking at South America right now and is very, very scared. The collapse in oil, coal, iron ore, etc. prices puts Venezuela, Colombia, Chile, Brazil, Ecuador and others directly in the firing line. And these countries borrowed dollars. Lots and lots of dollars.
Greece might be scary for Europe, but it's a pimple on the world financial stage.
And the IMF can't fold on Greece just before it hands over $300bn (5x its exposure to Greece) to Venezuela and $100bn to Ecuador.
It's too close to the Middle East and Russia (Via the Black Sea) to allow it to become a complete basket case (Its a long way off that for all it's woes yet)
This is why the Greek strategy of courting the Russians is smart. The west is terrified of seeing Thessaloniki as a port for the Red fleet.
The IMF doesn't care.
The IMF is looking at South America right now and is very, very scared. The collapse in oil, coal, iron ore, etc. prices puts Venezuela, Colombia, Chile, Brazil, Ecuador and others directly in the firing line. And these countries borrowed dollars. Lots and lots of dollars.
Greece might be scary for Europe, but it's a pimple on the world financial stage.
And the IMF can't fold on Greece just before it hands over $300bn (5x its exposure to Greece) to Venezuela and $100bn to Ecuador.
Well which fools lent them the dollars in the first place.
Buying ecuadorian bonds is, like any investment... one that carries a level of risk.
I feel a Labour poster campaign coming on based on the multi award winning Economist ads of the early 2000's......................
"I DONT READ THE ECONOMIST"
(management trainee aged 42)
Perhaps something like
"LABOUR ARE BAD FOR BRITAIN"
(72 year old tax exile owner of Boots living in Monaco)
Regardless of Stefano's personal tax structure, the idea that the owner of a business that employs 70,000 people in the UK and forms a critical part of the national healthcare infrastructure (I'm thinking of Alliance UniChem not Boots) should have no right to voice his opinions is extraordinary.
He is very clearly a huge stakeholder in the UK.
He sure is. We have helped to make him extremely rich.
I feel a Labour poster campaign coming on based on the multi award winning Economist ads of the early 2000's......................
"I DONT READ THE ECONOMIST"
(management trainee aged 42)
Perhaps something like
"LABOUR ARE BAD FOR BRITAIN"
(72 year old tax exile owner of Boots living in Monaco)
Regardless of Stefano's personal tax structure, the idea that the owner of a business that employs 70,000 people in the UK and forms a critical part of the national healthcare infrastructure (I'm thinking of Alliance UniChem not Boots) should have no right to voice his opinions is extraordinary.
He is very clearly a huge stakeholder in the UK.
I'm always puzzled by this 'no right to express opinions' malarkey. Of course Pessina has a right (he just did), just as everyone has a right to vigorously express opinions on those opinions.
Are Labour going to attack every business leader who speaks out against them? Or just the first half dozen or so?
The asset stripping, debt leveraging, low salary paying, job cutting, tax avoiding, non-dom, billionaire boss of a poor service providing business is a bit too much of a gift to walkaway from.
Will they say that about the next three or four too, while simultaneously vehemently denying that they're anti-business?
No idea. Business does not equal asset stripping and tax avoidance. Big companies that do it, while depending on the state to subsidise the low wages they offer mean small companies like mine have to pay more tax than might otherwise be the case. Being opposed to the business model Mr Pessina practises is not being anti-business. I am opposed to it and I am the co-owner of a business thoroughly wedded to capitalism and profit.
I'm sure that Labour are going to find other good reasons to attack the next three or four. All the while claiming not to be anti-business.
If they intend running against business, they would be better doing so explicitly.
Sourby backers like me must be clutching those bets lips more fondly this morning. Boots HQ under threat from Ed.
Still no LibDem candidate in Broxtowe though. Those voters - reduced as they be - will have to go somewhere if LDs don't find someone.
They didn't vote for the red candidate in 2010 - I don't see many reasons to rethink.
Not sure you're the perfect guide to Broxtowe LibDem thinking, TGOHF. We are in coalition with the LibDems locally; they have been constantly attacked by the MP since 2010; the demography of the local LibDems is heavily middle-class public sector (teachers, NHS). They will have a candidate but the late selection is not an accident. Their campaign will focus on defending council seats.
As for Mr Pessina, I asked canvassers out of curiosity what the reaction was, but he wasn't mentioned in any of the 500+ doorstep encounters. We did meet more switchers than usual in both directions (5 each Lab<->Con), but for random-seeming reasons - one blamed poor health treatment of a relative on Cameron; one credited AS for something that I'd done in 2010 (he didn't believe me, sigh). I do get the impression that people are starting to polarise away from the smaller parties, though - only met a couple of Kippers and zero LibDems or Greens.
I'll predict a tie in Populus, +/-2, as usual. But yes, the Scottish polls will be grim for us.
I can't speak for the people of Broxtowe - but in Cambridge, Labour have also put up the losing candidate from 2010 - actually he eveb finished 3rd behind the Cons.
I feel insulted frankly - what part of "we don't want you mate " didn't Labour understand in Cambridge ? Did our silly little heads get it wrong and well we've seen the light now what with the booming economy, loads more jobs, a new railway station and the A14 finally getting upgraded ?
I feel a Labour poster campaign coming on based on the multi award winning Economist ads of the early 2000's......................
"I DONT READ THE ECONOMIST"
(management trainee aged 42)
Perhaps something like
"LABOUR ARE BAD FOR BRITAIN"
(72 year old tax exile owner of Boots living in Monaco)
Regardless of Stefano's personal tax structure, the idea that the owner of a business that employs 70,000 people in the UK and forms a critical part of the national healthcare infrastructure (I'm thinking of Alliance UniChem not Boots) should have no right to voice his opinions is extraordinary.
He is very clearly a huge stakeholder in the UK.
I'm always puzzled by this 'no right to express opinions' malarkey. Of course Pessina has a right (he just did), just as everyone has a right to vigorously express opinions on those opinions.
No, I'm sure Charles must be correct, and Ed Balls must have advocated prosecuting Pessina for his comments. Otherwise that "no right" comment would have been completely nonsensical.
A couple of comments on Electoral Calculus in relation to likely Lib Dem seat numbers. First he uses UNS. Many Lib Dems reject this method as they say that it does non reflect the incumbancy factor which is the basis of the LD's fortress strategy.However the 2010 GE results using UNS v 2005 were remarkably close to the actual LD seat numbers. Second Martin Baxter uses a mean of poll results.The mean is heavily influenced by the number of pools by each polling company.Therefore frequent pollsters like You Gov as opposed to the monthly ICM weight the vote sharss he uses.On the whole You gov tend st o under record Lib Dems.Thus the seat results maybe a little on the low side from this factor. Personally my approach will be to use ICM the gold standard shares for the GE, and use UNS calculated seperately for England and Scotland.
ICM is usually good for Con and Lab accuracy but usually overstates the LD polling.
9 out of every 10 polls this parliament have overstated the Labour share compared to actual by elections and the Europeans.
Mr. Pulpstar, but if Greece gets its way, won't Spain elect Podemas[sp]?
If so, then it's a choice of what sort of crisis the eurozone wants, rather than whether it wants to avert one.
Mr. 1000, hmm, I wonder if that'll mean Maldonado will leave F1. [There are presumably some other potential consequences as well].
I think - before I get back to work - that there are a couple of fundamental differences between Greece and Spain.
In Spain, 75% of parties (by opinion poll score) are pro-Euro, and pro-austerity.
In Greece, it was the other way around. Only New Democracy (and possibly PASOK) were really pro-austerity. Independent Greeks, Golden Dawn, SYRIZA, the Communists, etc., were all anti-austerity.
I'd also remember something else. Between the beginning of 1999 and now, Spain employment numbers moved from 15.3m 17.4m - a 13.5% increase. Greece, on the other hand, has gone from 4.0m to 3.6m, an 11% decrease. While Spain has terrible unemployment, particularly around the South coast, the number of "no job" families outside the deep south of the country is actually pretty small. This makes the willingness of people to go for "radical" political solutions much lower than in Greece.
Potemas is also not just anti-austerity, it's crazy anti-capitalist, anti-free trade. This makes it hard for it to find either coalition partners, and to break out of its 25% poll range. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that the PP in Spain will be incredibly resistant to giving goodies to the Greeks, as it might increase the popularity of Potemas at home.
Finally, it's worth remembering that Spain can borrow money for 10 years at 1.4% - an all time low. Whatever is offered to the Greeks, it's not going to be at 1.4% per year, so it's not at clear what goodies the IMF could offer Spain, given that straight debt forgiveness is clearly not on the table for anyone.
A turnover tax would distort the market away from high volume, low margin businesses and towards low volume, high margin businesses. Seeing that the former tend to be businesses that serve the mass market, and the latter are businesses that serve HNWI, that's not going to be great for the man on the street.
We do need a clamp down on profit shifting however. Maybe just make corporation tax payable on licensing fees.
I think the real horror for the Labourites is that mr Boots' comments are right. Ed would indeed be a catastrophe - for the UK, for the Labour Party and for himself. The biggest risk is not that he might lose - it's that he might win.
Are Labour going to attack every business leader who speaks out against them? Or just the first half dozen or so?
The asset stripping, debt leveraging, low salary paying, job cutting, tax avoiding, non-dom, billionaire boss of a poor service providing business is a bit too much of a gift to walkaway from.
Will they say that about the next three or four too, while simultaneously vehemently denying that they're anti-business?
No idea. Business does not equal asset stripping and tax avoidance. Big companies that do it, while depending on the state to subsidise the low wages they offer mean small companies like mine have to pay more tax than might otherwise be the case. Being opposed to the business model Mr Pessina practises is not being anti-business. I am opposed to it and I am the co-owner of a business thoroughly wedded to capitalism and profit.
I'm sure that Labour are going to find other good reasons to attack the next three or four. All the while claiming not to be anti-business.
If they intend running against business, they would be better doing so explicitly.
Labour could take a leaf out of Nick Clegg's book on this and start extolling the virtues of British business
The prediction of UKIP is a nonsense, the tories are putting up Kelly Tolhurst against Reckless again in R&S. She stands little or no chance. Carswell is a shoo in.
@rcs1000 Brazil is a very, very different kettle of fish to Venezuela.
Yes, I agree, and I don't think the state will default.
That being said, remember that 60% of Brazil's exports are commodities - and the price of their biggest export (iron ore) has fallen as far as crude oil. Their largest non commodity export is planes (Bombadier) and accounts for just 2% of the total.
Petrobras is a different kettle of fish. Last time it reported it had something like $150bn of debt, and it's increasing at around $2-3bn per month.
Will the Brazilian state be forced to bail it out?
The prediction of UKIP is a nonsense, the tories are putting up Kelly Tolhurst against Reckless again in R&S. She stands little or no chance. Carswell is a shoo in.
As a business decision, the Leader of Boots is just plain stupid to open his mouth. He has a business to protect but he has damaged his company's image amongst a large part of his customers. Madness. Now if he had no large customer group that may recoil at his statement it would be ok for him to speak, but as a business decision it is just plain dumb. If the man at the top of Boots views Ed as a danger he should support democratic means for opposing EdM.
Further if Labour are going to start slamming non dom Swiss incorporated tax dodgers then they need to have a few photo ops with business people who are "doing the right thing", or it will come across as an attack on business.
Labour has been invisible on being seen to be onside of British businesses such as the ones I've linked to in my last post.
Are Labour going to attack every business leader who speaks out against them? Or just the first half dozen or so?
The asset stripping, debt leveraging, low salary paying, job cutting, tax avoiding, non-dom, billionaire boss of a poor service providing business is a bit too much of a gift to walkaway from.
Will they say that about the next three or four too, while simultaneously vehemently denying that they're anti-business?
No idea. Business does not equal asset stripping and tax avoidance. Big companies that do it, while depending on the state to subsidise the low wages they offer mean small companies like mine have to pay more tax than might otherwise be the case. Being opposed to the business model Mr Pessina practises is not being anti-business. I am opposed to it and I am the co-owner of a business thoroughly wedded to capitalism and profit.
I'm sure that Labour are going to find other good reasons to attack the next three or four. All the while claiming not to be anti-business.
If they intend running against business, they would be better doing so explicitly.
Indeed. Thus, we can probably conclude that Labour does not intend to run against business. However, if individual business people want to attack Labour, they may well be attacked back. Depending on the individual, those attacks will be productive or counter-productive. My guess is that hitting back at the chairman of Boots is not likely to damage Labour among its potential supporters. In fact, he is probably a bit of a gift.
If I ran a bookie that made exactly 0 profit, turnover tax would mean I (effectively) make a loss. [I don't think VAT affects bookies].
Yes, but sales revenue and turnover are the same thing.
But with VAT you can reclaim most of your costs as a business. As you're not paying over just the turnover element, you're reducing it by offsetting your costs.
So your analogy doesn't work.
You can reclaim VAT paid on goods/services received.
That is not 'most of your costs'.
So you're agree, VAT isn't a turnover tax.
It's a tax on sales revenue. If you can see a difference between that and turnover you've beaten me.
Are Labour going to attack every business leader who speaks out against them? Or just the first half dozen or so?
The asset stripping, debt leveraging, low salary paying, job cutting, tax avoiding, non-dom, billionaire boss of a poor service providing business is a bit too much of a gift to walkaway from.
Will they say that about the next three or four too, while simultaneously vehemently denying that they're anti-business?
No idea. Business does not equal asset stripping and tax avoidance. Big companies that do it, while depending on the state to subsidise the low wages they offer mean small companies like mine have to pay more tax than might otherwise be the case. Being opposed to the business model Mr Pessina practises is not being anti-business. I am opposed to it and I am the co-owner of a business thoroughly wedded to capitalism and profit.
I'm sure that Labour are going to find other good reasons to attack the next three or four. All the while claiming not to be anti-business.
If they intend running against business, they would be better doing so explicitly.
Indeed. Thus, we can probably conclude that Labour does not intend to run against business. However, if individual business people want to attack Labour, they may well be attacked back. Depending on the individual, those attacks will be productive or counter-productive. My guess is that hitting back at the chairman of Boots is not likely to damage Labour among its potential supporters. In fact, he is probably a bit of a gift.
You don't see that the suggestion might arise that it wasn't the business people, it was Labour, after the fourth or fifth such personal attack?
Are Labour going to attack every business leader who speaks out against them? Or just the first half dozen or so?
The asset stripping, debt leveraging, low salary paying, job cutting, tax avoiding, non-dom, billionaire boss of a poor service providing business is a bit too much of a gift to walkaway from.
Will they say that about the next three or four too, while simultaneously vehemently denying that they're anti-business?
No idea. Business does not equal asset stripping and tax avoidance. Big companies that do it, while depending on the state to subsidise the low wages they offer mean small companies like mine have to pay more tax than might otherwise be the case. Being opposed to the business model Mr Pessina practises is not being anti-business. I am opposed to it and I am the co-owner of a business thoroughly wedded to capitalism and profit.
I'm sure that Labour are going to find other good reasons to attack the next three or four. All the while claiming not to be anti-business.
If they intend running against business, they would be better doing so explicitly.
Labour could take a leaf out of Nick Clegg's book on this and start extolling the virtues of British business
Could not agree more. Labour is not anti-business, it is business-ignorant. It is - yet another - major failing. The Boots boss is a bit of a gift, but that does not excuse Labour's total failure to engage with the business community, or to look outside of the UK to see what makes businesses tick elsewhere. I doubt it has even crossed EdM's mind.
As a business decision, the Leader of Boots is just plain stupid to open his mouth. He has a business to protect but he has damaged his company's image amongst a large part of his customers. Madness. Now if he had no large customer group that may recoil at his statement it would be ok for him to speak, but as a business decision it is just plain dumb. If the man at the top of Boots views Ed as a danger he should support democratic means for opposing EdM.
You think Labour supporters going into Boots to buy their prescriptions will stop and think 'hey he was nasty about us I'll go elsewhere?' Asking out of curiosity.
Are Labour going to attack every business leader who speaks out against them? Or just the first half dozen or so?
The asset stripping, debt leveraging, low salary paying, job cutting, tax avoiding, non-dom, billionaire boss of a poor service providing business is a bit too much of a gift to walkaway from.
Will they say that about the next three or four too, while simultaneously vehemently denying that they're anti-business?
No idea. Business does not equal asset stripping and tax avoidance. Big companies that do it, while depending on the state to subsidise the low wages they offer mean small companies like mine have to pay more tax than might otherwise be the case. Being opposed to the business model Mr Pessina practises is not being anti-business. I am opposed to it and I am the co-owner of a business thoroughly wedded to capitalism and profit.
I'm sure that Labour are going to find other good reasons to attack the next three or four. All the while claiming not to be anti-business.
If they intend running against business, they would be better doing so explicitly.
Indeed. Thus, we can probably conclude that Labour does not intend to run against business. However, if individual business people want to attack Labour, they may well be attacked back. Depending on the individual, those attacks will be productive or counter-productive. My guess is that hitting back at the chairman of Boots is not likely to damage Labour among its potential supporters. In fact, he is probably a bit of a gift.
You don't see that the suggestion might arise that it wasn't the business people, it was Labour, after the fourth or fifth such personal attack?
Of course the suggestion will arise. But that comes with the territory.
Are Labour going to attack every business leader who speaks out against them? Or just the first half dozen or so?
The asset stripping, debt leveraging, low salary paying, job cutting, tax avoiding, non-dom, billionaire boss of a poor service providing business is a bit too much of a gift to walkaway from.
Will they say that about the next three or four too, while simultaneously vehemently denying that they're anti-business?
No idea. Business does not equal asset stripping and tax avoidance. Big companies that do it, while depending on the state to subsidise the low wages they offer mean small companies like mine have to pay more tax than might otherwise be the case. Being opposed to the business model Mr Pessina practises is not being anti-business. I am opposed to it and I am the co-owner of a business thoroughly wedded to capitalism and profit.
I'm sure that Labour are going to find other good reasons to attack the next three or four. All the while claiming not to be anti-business.
If they intend running against business, they would be better doing so explicitly.
Labour could take a leaf out of Nick Clegg's book on this and start extolling the virtues of British business
Could not agree more. Labour is not anti-business, it is business-ignorant. It is - yet another - major failing. The Boots boss is a bit of a gift, but that does not excuse Labour's total failure to engage with the business community, or to look outside of the UK to see what makes businesses tick elsewhere. I doubt it has even crossed EdM's mind.
Now this I agree with completely - business-ignorant is a much better way of putting it. All three major parties have a lack of business experience at the top, but it is particularly acute in Labour.
Listening to politicians talk about business, you sometimes get the impression that they think that the opposite of profit is small profit.
You don't see that the suggestion might arise that it wasn't the business people, it was Labour, after the fourth or fifth such personal attack?
People might also note that Labour was intensely relaxed about people getting stinking rich, and had years of completely bombproof majorities where they could have passed any law they wanted and transformed the country... except they didn't. Having squandered that platinum plated opportunity to make the wrongs right, its a bit rich to come on strong and bitch about other governments in weaker positions not doing things they didn't do.
The prediction of UKIP is a nonsense, the tories are putting up Kelly Tolhurst against Reckless again in R&S. She stands little or no chance. Carswell is a shoo in.
What odds will you offer me for "no chance"?
I guess "no chance" is a euphemism, I know ukip/reckless are very confident (and not a little surprised. I'd certainly have ukip odds on.
It's too close to the Middle East and Russia (Via the Black Sea) to allow it to become a complete basket case (Its a long way off that for all it's woes yet)
This is why the Greek strategy of courting the Russians is smart. The west is terrified of seeing Thessaloniki as a port for the Red fleet.
The IMF doesn't care.
The IMF is looking at South America right now and is very, very scared. The collapse in oil, coal, iron ore, etc. prices puts Venezuela, Colombia, Chile, Brazil, Ecuador and others directly in the firing line. And these countries borrowed dollars. Lots and lots of dollars.
Greece might be scary for Europe, but it's a pimple on the world financial stage.
And the IMF can't fold on Greece just before it hands over $300bn (5x its exposure to Greece) to Venezuela and $100bn to Ecuador.
Well which fools lent them the dollars in the first place.
Buying ecuadorian bonds is, like any investment... one that carries a level of risk.
Those lenders should just have to take their losses. If the taxpayer needs to shore up any British institutions we can take a sizeable equity stake, although I suspect they would be US institutions exposed mostly.
As a business decision, the Leader of Boots is just plain stupid to open his mouth. He has a business to protect but he has damaged his company's image amongst a large part of his customers. Madness. Now if he had no large customer group that may recoil at his statement it would be ok for him to speak, but as a business decision it is just plain dumb. If the man at the top of Boots views Ed as a danger he should support democratic means for opposing EdM.
You think Labour supporters going into Boots to buy their prescriptions will stop and think 'hey he was nasty about us I'll go elsewhere?' Asking out of curiosity.
More likely that a lot more people have a much greater awareness of the Boots debt-based business model and the company's large-scale tax avoidance.
I feel a Labour poster campaign coming on based on the multi award winning Economist ads of the early 2000's......................
"I DONT READ THE ECONOMIST"
(management trainee aged 42)
Perhaps something like
"LABOUR ARE BAD FOR BRITAIN"
(72 year old tax exile owner of Boots living in Monaco)
Regardless of Stefano's personal tax structure, the idea that the owner of a business that employs 70,000 people in the UK and forms a critical part of the national healthcare infrastructure (I'm thinking of Alliance UniChem not Boots) should have no right to voice his opinions is extraordinary.
He is very clearly a huge stakeholder in the UK.
He sure is. We have helped to make him extremely rich.
Do you know anything of the background? I signed several Rule 9 whitewashes for him back in the day so got to know him & his story pretty well.
He's made his money by consistently investing in his business and holding equity. Even now the bulk of his reported wealth is his 18% stake in WBA - so he is absolutely dependent on the performance of his businesses.
He originally took his company public through a merger with UniChem in the mid 90s. From then until 2007 he didn't take any cash dividends - everything was paid in stock. It was only when KKR bought Alliance Boots that he took some capital (I believe it was reported as being £500m) out of the company - and reinvested everything else he had for a 30% stake in the company. It's that investment - that risk - which has made him so wealthy.
Could not agree more. Labour is not anti-business, it is business-ignorant. It is - yet another - major failing. The Boots boss is a bit of a gift, but that does not excuse Labour's total failure to engage with the business community, or to look outside of the UK to see what makes businesses tick elsewhere. I doubt it has even crossed EdM's mind.
What's amazing about Ed is that he seems so ignorant even in areas of policy where he was cabinet secretary. There was a time when Labour were expecting continued rises in wholesale energy market costs, and yet wanted to impose a total freeze on retail market prices.
At the same time, Ed Miliband wanted a 100% renewables target for just fifteen years after he would take office. Of course, these sort of targets get ever more expensive to reach as you increasingly remove the low-hanging and even middle-hanging fruit. So getting to a 100% target would be absurdly expensive.
And all this would happen in a sector where it's widely known that the UK does not have enough capital investment currently to provide for future demand. So in a sector that's already breaking at the seams, Miliband wanted them to operate at a loss, as well as almost entirely replacing the limited supply they did have. This could inevitably only happen with a huge subsidy from central government - and that would then mean greater cuts than the Tories have been doing everywhere else.
And this was in his own area of experience! What on Earth did he do while Energy Secretary? Read the Guardian every day? Because that's the level of depth his policies seem to be based on.
The boss of, say, Next, attacking Labour would be damaging. A UK resident retail business and a eurosceptic to boot.
An attack by an offshore resident boss of a business itself moved offshore is, conversely, a gift.
And Labour have played a blinder in response.
It has shored up its base and, as these are not times conducive to the pontifications of galactically out of touch billionaires, no one but dwindling numbers of ardent Tories will be moved to sympathy for the ramblings of the Boots owner.
Just checked Tories are 1.6 on betfair in R&S, extraordinary
The Tory canvassers found many, many of those voting UKIP at the by-election planned to vote Tory in May. The Tories know who they are. They will all be getting highly personalised letters inviting them to do just that.
The kitchen-sink strategy had two parts. Only one of those has played out so far.
I feel a Labour poster campaign coming on based on the multi award winning Economist ads of the early 2000's......................
"I DONT READ THE ECONOMIST"
(management trainee aged 42)
Perhaps something like
"LABOUR ARE BAD FOR BRITAIN"
(72 year old tax exile owner of Boots living in Monaco)
Regardless of Stefano's personal tax structure, the idea that the owner of a business that employs 70,000 people in the UK and forms a critical part of the national healthcare infrastructure (I'm thinking of Alliance UniChem not Boots) should have no right to voice his opinions is extraordinary.
He is very clearly a huge stakeholder in the UK.
He sure is. We have helped to make him extremely rich.
Do you know anything of the background? I signed several Rule 9 whitewashes for him back in the day so got to know him & his story pretty well.
He's made his money by consistently investing in his business and holding equity. Even now the bulk of his reported wealth is his 18% stake in WBA - so he is absolutely dependent on the performance of his businesses.
He originally took his company public through a merger with UniChem in the mid 90s. From then until 2007 he didn't take any cash dividends - everything was paid in stock. It was only when KKR bought Alliance Boots that he took some capital (I believe it was reported as being £500m) out of the company - and reinvested everything else he had for a 30% stake in the company. It's that investment - that risk - which has made him so wealthy.
"Risk" being a relative term here. He is very good at doing deals, that's not in doubt.
No the one dated 29/1 is from Friday, unless I'm looking at a different page.I think you commented on it when it came out? There will be another one along shortly.
I can't speak for the people of Broxtowe - but in Cambridge, Labour have also put up the losing candidate from 2010 - actually he eveb finished 3rd behind the Cons.
I feel insulted frankly - what part of "we don't want you mate " didn't Labour understand in Cambridge ? Did our silly little heads get it wrong and well we've seen the light now what with the booming economy, loads more jobs, a new railway station and the A14 finally getting upgraded ?
We shall see, but all parties are entitled to put up whoever they like, and you're entitled to vote for whoever you fancy. If we all felt insulted by parties putting up people who we don't support, we'd all have fits. FWIW I'd think Labour has a good shot at Cambridge - exactly the sort of place where you find lots of Red Liberals. But you're there and I'm not...
I feel a Labour poster campaign coming on based on the multi award winning Economist ads of the early 2000's......................
"I DONT READ THE ECONOMIST"
(management trainee aged 42)
Perhaps something like
"LABOUR ARE BAD FOR BRITAIN"
(72 year old tax exile owner of Boots living in Monaco)
Regardless of Stefano's personal tax structure, the idea that the owner of a business that employs 70,000 people in the UK and forms a critical part of the national healthcare infrastructure (I'm thinking of Alliance UniChem not Boots) should have no right to voice his opinions is extraordinary.
He is very clearly a huge stakeholder in the UK.
I'm always puzzled by this 'no right to express opinions' malarkey. Of course Pessina has a right (he just did), just as everyone has a right to vigorously express opinions on those opinions.
Labour's attacks on him have been along the lines of "does he own a mansion; does he vote here; does he pay tax here"
They're (*nb* note TSE) not engaging his criticisms but rather trying to invalidate his right to express an opinion
Just checked Tories are 1.6 on betfair in R&S, extraordinary
The Tory canvassers found many, many of those voting UKIP at the by-election planned to vote Tory in May. The Tories know who they are. They will all be getting highly personalised letters inviting them to do just that.
The kitchen-sink strategy had two parts. Only one of those has played out so far.
I shall be canvassing in Rochester & Strood in April, that's got to be worth at least 5,000 votes.
The boss of, say, Next, attacking Labour would be damaging. A UK resident retail business and a eurosceptic to boot.
An attack by an offshore resident boss of a business itself moved offshore is, conversely, a gift.
And Labour have played a blinder in response.
It has shored up its base and, as these are not times conducive to the pontifications of galactically out of touch billionaires, no one but dwindling numbers of ardent Tories will be moved to sympathy for the ramblings of the Boots owner.
99% of the population wont have noticed the story. Most of the 1% that did will have forgotten about it by tomorrow. Quite a lot of those wont care either way, virtually all those that do care will already have decided who they are voting for. It wont have shored up or damaged anyone, its a bit of froth which will largely have passed the general public by.
As a business decision, the Leader of Boots is just plain stupid to open his mouth. He has a business to protect but he has damaged his company's image amongst a large part of his customers. Madness. Now if he had no large customer group that may recoil at his statement it would be ok for him to speak, but as a business decision it is just plain dumb. If the man at the top of Boots views Ed as a danger he should support democratic means for opposing EdM.
You think Labour supporters going into Boots to buy their prescriptions will stop and think 'hey he was nasty about us I'll go elsewhere?' Asking out of curiosity.
More likely that a lot more people have a much greater awareness of the Boots debt-based business model and the company's large-scale tax avoidance.
Only in the politicos. Ordinary people would not give this a thought, they would be more interested to get the calpol their youngster needs and prescription from the doctor.
You must register for VAT with HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) if your business’ VAT taxable turnover is more than £81,000. You can register voluntarily if it’s below this, unless everything you sell is exempt .https://www.gov.uk/vat-registration/overview.
However your VAT return asks for VAT charged on Sales and other outputs.
Different terminology used as such things as Auction House Commission is Vatable whilst the auction price is not.
The Labour campaign is already more about defining the defeat that its senior personnel expect than it is about pursuing victory. There are many people in the party, of whom I am assuredly one, who think that Labour cannot survive an election campaign with nothing interesting to say on the NHS beyond the pretence that the service is on the edge of destruction.
The child abuse scandal among senior politicians was so widespread both the Americans and the Russians knew about it. After reading about what happened in Belgium recently, and reading about the unexpected deaths of people investigating similar scandals in the US, I have become convinced that the issue is far more endemic in political circles than I ever appreciated.
This could also explain the street grooming gangs issue. Evidence went missing in the local police station. Other officers turned up at the houses of victims in full uniform, signalling to the gangs who the informants were. We also know the local councils in some of these places seemed to be covering up for the gangs. Is it so hard to believe there were participants (maybe not gang members, but people who paid for the services they provided) who were more highly connected in central government? Special Branch seized the files of a Labour MP that was looking into it.
That might explain why you often get lone paedophiles arrested but gangs seem to get prosecuted a lot less often. Criminal enterprises more easily have connections at a higher level.
I can now understand why the victims' groups refuse to have anyone lead the inquiry that's at all connected to someone who's a guilty party. It also makes me wonder why it takes months after one lead has been rejected by the victim's group for the home secretary to find someone else.
I feel a Labour poster campaign coming on based on the multi award winning Economist ads of the early 2000's......................
"I DONT READ THE ECONOMIST"
(management trainee aged 42)
Perhaps something like
"LABOUR ARE BAD FOR BRITAIN"
(72 year old tax exile owner of Boots living in Monaco)
Regardless of Stefano's personal tax structure, the idea that the owner of a business that employs 70,000 people in the UK and forms a critical part of the national healthcare infrastructure (I'm thinking of Alliance UniChem not Boots) should have no right to voice his opinions is extraordinary.
He is very clearly a huge stakeholder in the UK.
I'm always puzzled by this 'no right to express opinions' malarkey. Of course Pessina has a right (he just did), just as everyone has a right to vigorously express opinions on those opinions.
Labour's attacks on him have been along the lines of "does he own a mansion; does he vote here; does he pay tax here"
They're (*nb* note TSE) not engaging his criticisms but rather trying to invalidate his right to express an opinion
What were his criticisms? As far as I can tell he did not make any comments with which anyone could engage.
George Osborne has been asking business leaders for anti-Labour quotes.The man in the Boots debacle has said that his quotes have been taken out of context, devious Gideon Osborne again.
While we await His Lordship's polling on Scotland, here is a little snippet from his National Poll of last week (Table 4). Who do "swing voters" currently say they will vote for?
Conservative 28% Labour 30% Liberal Democrat 9% UKIP 11% Green 14% Other 7%
There's a lot of talk on here about the Tories winning back current UKIP voters, or Labour winning back current Green voters, but a large majority (58%) of those who say they might change their mind before polling day currently say they will vote for one of the big two parties.
In some ways this election is not so different from previous elections - there are lots of voters up for grabs in the centre ground between the two largest parties, and those of them who live in the marginals will decide the identity of the PM.
One other obvious point. Given that UKIP polled at almost twice the level of the Greens in this poll, it is notable that there are more Greens open to being persuaded to vote differently.
Just checked Tories are 1.6 on betfair in R&S, extraordinary
The Tory canvassers found many, many of those voting UKIP at the by-election planned to vote Tory in May. The Tories know who they are. They will all be getting highly personalised letters inviting them to do just that.
The kitchen-sink strategy had two parts. Only one of those has played out so far.
I shall be canvassing in Rochester & Strood in April, that's got to be worth at least 5,000 votes.
To ukip? I think you're being too harsh on yourself for once there
Voters don't want small government. Quite right too.
I love the smell of cratered rightwing ideology in the morning.
Voters will love it just fine after Labour bankrupts the country (again). It would actually have been preferable for Brown to win last time and bury Labour for a generation, as it is, things weren't quite bad enough that the public got the message, still, 5 years of Ed and Ed will do that for sure. If Labour win this time, 2020 will be like 1979.
Voters want lot of services that someone else pays for, someone please pass that bear the toilet paper.
George Osborne has been asking business leaders for anti-Labour quotes.The man in the Boots debacle has said that his quotes have been taken out of context, devious Gideon Osborne again.
Another masterful strategy for George Osborne has Labour on the run.
Wait until he becomes Prime Minister in 2018, he will destroy the Labour party in the 2020 election.
Just checked Tories are 1.6 on betfair in R&S, extraordinary
The Tory canvassers found many, many of those voting UKIP at the by-election planned to vote Tory in May. The Tories know who they are. They will all be getting highly personalised letters inviting them to do just that.
The kitchen-sink strategy had two parts. Only one of those has played out so far.
There'll be no kitchen sink from the tories this time, they'll be too concerned with their own seats. R&S is a key target seat for ukip.
Just checked Tories are 1.6 on betfair in R&S, extraordinary
The Tory canvassers found many, many of those voting UKIP at the by-election planned to vote Tory in May. The Tories know who they are. They will all be getting highly personalised letters inviting them to do just that.
The kitchen-sink strategy had two parts. Only one of those has played out so far.
I shall be canvassing in Rochester & Strood in April, that's got to be worth at least 5,000 votes.
To ukip? I think you're being too harsh on yourself for once there
Criticism from the chap that failed the UKIP candidate test that Natasha Bolter and Kerry Smith passed.
I feel a Labour poster campaign coming on based on the multi award winning Economist ads of the early 2000's......................
"I DONT READ THE ECONOMIST"
(management trainee aged 42)
Perhaps something like
"LABOUR ARE BAD FOR BRITAIN"
(72 year old tax exile owner of Boots living in Monaco)
Regardless of Stefano's personal tax structure, the idea that the owner of a business that employs 70,000 people in the UK and forms a critical part of the national healthcare infrastructure (I'm thinking of Alliance UniChem not Boots) should have no right to voice his opinions is extraordinary.
He is very clearly a huge stakeholder in the UK.
I'm always puzzled by this 'no right to express opinions' malarkey. Of course Pessina has a right (he just did), just as everyone has a right to vigorously express opinions on those opinions.
Labour's attacks on him have been along the lines of "does he own a mansion; does he vote here; does he pay tax here"
They're (*nb* note TSE) not engaging his criticisms but rather trying to invalidate his right to express an opinion
I'd suggest anyone who describes a particular political party forming a prospective government as 'catastrophic' would be naive to expect engagement (except of the 'enemy engaged' type).
That might explain why you often get lone paedophiles arrested but gangs seem to get prosecuted a lot less often. Criminal enterprises more easily have connections at a higher level.
It would also explain why the race angle gets media time. If there is involvement at senior levels of our institutions in this criminality then it is convenient for attention to be deflected onto the race aspect, and away from the potential involvement/collusion of senior people in the police, local council, Westminster, etc.
PB Tories love a good tax loophole its what put the Great in Britain.
How greedy does global capitalism have to get before PB Tories recognise something needs to be done?
Worth noting that it was Labour which introduced tax breaks for film investment, into which all the luvvies poured their money. And it is the Tories who are challenging such companies by claiming that they are little more than tax avoidance schemes.
Had Labour not made the tax code so complicated there would be fewer loopholes around for companies and others to exploit - at the expense of the rest of us.
Quite apart from the merits of what Stefano Pessina said, Labour are mad to pick a fight with Boots. To most people, Boots is a cuddly brand. Labour laying into Boots (which is how even the BBC present it) is not a clever headline for Ed Miliband.
Just checked Tories are 1.6 on betfair in R&S, extraordinary
The Tory canvassers found many, many of those voting UKIP at the by-election planned to vote Tory in May. The Tories know who they are. They will all be getting highly personalised letters inviting them to do just that.
The kitchen-sink strategy had two parts. Only one of those has played out so far.
There'll be no kitchen sink from the tories this time, they'll be too concerned with their own seats. R&S is a key target seat for ukip.
You could, of course, say the same about every LibDem by-election gain of the last 40 years.
And they lost - what - around half of them at the subsequent general election.
I bet on the Conservatives when they were courtesy of isam and PtP on better than evens. I've hedged that out on Betfair now, and am (very slightly) more on UKIP than the Conservatives, but if it gets back to evens, I'm back on the Tories...
Just checked Tories are 1.6 on betfair in R&S, extraordinary
The Tory canvassers found many, many of those voting UKIP at the by-election planned to vote Tory in May. The Tories know who they are. They will all be getting highly personalised letters inviting them to do just that.
The kitchen-sink strategy had two parts. Only one of those has played out so far.
I shall be canvassing in Rochester & Strood in April, that's got to be worth at least 5,000 votes.
To ukip? I think you're being too harsh on yourself for once there
Criticism from the chap that failed the UKIP candidate test that Natasha Bolter and Kerry Smith passed.
Comments
As for Mr Pessina, I asked canvassers out of curiosity what the reaction was, but he wasn't mentioned in any of the 500+ doorstep encounters. We did meet more switchers than usual in both directions (5 each Lab<->Con), but for random-seeming reasons - one blamed poor health treatment of a relative on Cameron; one credited AS for something that I'd done in 2010 (he didn't believe me, sigh). I do get the impression that people are starting to polarise away from the smaller parties, though - only met a couple of Kippers and zero LibDems or Greens.
I'll predict a tie in Populus, +/-2, as usual. But yes, the Scottish polls will be grim for us.
So your analogy doesn't work.
Far more worrying from Labour's perspective is the university criticism they are deservedly getting today. There's one sector where we really do have a global advantage. It needs to be treasured and nurtured. A great deal of damage has already been done over the last few years, threatening more is just sheer stupidity.
A possible compromise over the Greek debt crisis seems to be in the offing. This is still *very* early days, but it looks like there could be a deal along the following lines:
The non-private sector (IMF/ECB/EU) portion of Greek debt will be divided into two tranches. One tranche will remain as it is now, with the same coupon (although the maturites may be pushed out somewhat). The other will have an interest rate linked to Greek GDP, with the rate rising as Greece's GDP increases. Maturities will also be determined by the GDP level, with - essentially - the private sector (theoretically) stepping in to replace public sector debt as various milestones are reached. The troika will claim that all the money will be repaid, and that the average interest rate is actually unchanged (which is true under certain circumstances), while Greece will claim that they have cut the bill in half (true in the short term), and that they'll all have to be a lot richer before they do any repaying.
There are two big issues. Firstly, the Greeks want the ECB to backstop their banks during a four month negotiation process. This is a recipe for massive capital flight, and as every Euro exits Greece through the TARGET-2 system, it makes it more expensive for Europe to let Greece go. Effectively, Greece is trying to use ELA/TARGET-2 as a stick to beat the rest of the Eurozone with. Secondly, Greece is still resistant to allowing the troika to 'supervise' its economic policy.
Last week, I said that the probability of Greece leaving the Euro was above 50%. It's probably back down to 50% right now. The IMF simply will not compromise on the supervision issue - it's the key condition for any loans that come from them. They might - potentially - allow the Greeks to get away with their previous "re-hire" so long as they remain in the driving seat in future, but that's as good as its going to get for the Greeks. And the Germans and the Dutch and the Finns (and others) will not go beyond what the IMF offers.
West of Scotland and Ladbrokes have them 8-11 !!!!
That is not 'most of your costs'.
You posted something with a picture of Messrs Milburn and Hutton and their directorships a couple of days ago. I'm trying to find it. Do you have a link?
The reason ?
It's too close to the Middle East and Russia (Via the Black Sea) to allow it to become a complete basket case (Its a long way off that for all it's woes yet)
This is why the Greek strategy of courting the Russians is smart. The west is terrified of seeing Thessaloniki as a port for the Red fleet.
That being said, we will see Ecuador and Venezuela go bust this year - and the latter of these owes something like $300bn vs only $90bn of private sector Greek debt.
Simplistically, and applying Occam's Razor, political attitudes can be based on how you think people should be comparatively rewarded. If you pay everyone the same, the complaint will be that some work a lot harder than others. Fine, but how much more do you pay them?
At one extreme, we have the cry that those at the bottom are being victimised, they are victims of circumstances, and should get the same. It's not their fault as they are doing their best.
At the other extreme, we have the cry that the CE is far more important, possibly a thousand times more important and must be rewarded adequately. But merit, however you measure it, can be a slippery subjective thing. Roger may argue that advertising is a worthwhile career, others may have reservations.
The political arguments seem to be about where on this spectrum the voters lie.
Politicians are just advertising wonks and the 'best' ones get elected.
If so, then it's a choice of what sort of crisis the eurozone wants, rather than whether it wants to avert one.
Mr. 1000, hmm, I wonder if that'll mean Maldonado will leave F1. [There are presumably some other potential consequences as well].
He is very clearly a huge stakeholder in the UK.
BTW, interesting new RedBox poll shows that most people think Big Government is a good thing and they'd like to have more of it. Very un-American!
http://times-deck.s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/projects/cbcb58ac2e496207586df2854b17995f.html
Labour had 13 years of absolute massive majorities and could have done anything. They chose to do nothing.... Nothing whatsoever in this area.
They instead played up to these people even stayed in their Caribbean holiday homes so please BJO spare us the lies and the hypocriscy about your beloved "party for the luvvies" and as for "Tory bankers" . Labour wooded them from the prawn cocktail circuit until the 2008 implosion. That's the point they suddenly overnight became "Tory bankers" again.
The IMF is looking at South America right now and is very, very scared. The collapse in oil, coal, iron ore, etc. prices puts Venezuela, Colombia, Chile, Brazil, Ecuador and others directly in the firing line. And these countries borrowed dollars. Lots and lots of dollars.
Greece might be scary for Europe, but it's a pimple on the world financial stage.
And the IMF can't fold on Greece just before it hands over $300bn (5x its exposure to Greece) to Venezuela and $100bn to Ecuador.
Buying ecuadorian bonds is, like any investment... one that carries a level of risk.
If they intend running against business, they would be better doing so explicitly.
I feel insulted frankly - what part of "we don't want you mate " didn't Labour understand in Cambridge ? Did our silly little heads get it wrong and well we've seen the light now what with the booming economy, loads more jobs, a new railway station and the A14 finally getting upgraded ?
In Spain, 75% of parties (by opinion poll score) are pro-Euro, and pro-austerity.
In Greece, it was the other way around. Only New Democracy (and possibly PASOK) were really pro-austerity. Independent Greeks, Golden Dawn, SYRIZA, the Communists, etc., were all anti-austerity.
I'd also remember something else. Between the beginning of 1999 and now, Spain employment numbers moved from 15.3m 17.4m - a 13.5% increase. Greece, on the other hand, has gone from 4.0m to 3.6m, an 11% decrease. While Spain has terrible unemployment, particularly around the South coast, the number of "no job" families outside the deep south of the country is actually pretty small. This makes the willingness of people to go for "radical" political solutions much lower than in Greece.
Potemas is also not just anti-austerity, it's crazy anti-capitalist, anti-free trade. This makes it hard for it to find either coalition partners, and to break out of its 25% poll range. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that the PP in Spain will be incredibly resistant to giving goodies to the Greeks, as it might increase the popularity of Potemas at home.
Finally, it's worth remembering that Spain can borrow money for 10 years at 1.4% - an all time low. Whatever is offered to the Greeks, it's not going to be at 1.4% per year, so it's not at clear what goodies the IMF could offer Spain, given that straight debt forgiveness is clearly not on the table for anyone.
We do need a clamp down on profit shifting however. Maybe just make corporation tax payable on licensing fees.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/10260728/Labours-property-firm-paid-no-tax-for-eight-years.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10102190/Donor-John-Millss-gift-to-Labour-avoided-tax-bill-of-1.5m.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-16058254
http://www.britglass.org.uk/news/deputy-prime-minister-champions-manufacturing-in-sheffield
I'm in the glass industry so have noted this.
That being said, remember that 60% of Brazil's exports are commodities - and the price of their biggest export (iron ore) has fallen as far as crude oil. Their largest non commodity export is planes (Bombadier) and accounts for just 2% of the total.
Petrobras is a different kettle of fish. Last time it reported it had something like $150bn of debt, and it's increasing at around $2-3bn per month.
Will the Brazilian state be forced to bail it out?
Labour has been invisible on being seen to be onside of British businesses such as the ones I've linked to in my last post.
I'd better redo all these Year End accounts pronto...
Listening to politicians talk about business, you sometimes get the impression that they think that the opposite of profit is small profit.
I will lay 4/5 the tories there to anyone in any size, roll up
10/11 to the first two respondents
He's made his money by consistently investing in his business and holding equity. Even now the bulk of his reported wealth is his 18% stake in WBA - so he is absolutely dependent on the performance of his businesses.
He originally took his company public through a merger with UniChem in the mid 90s. From then until 2007 he didn't take any cash dividends - everything was paid in stock. It was only when KKR bought Alliance Boots that he took some capital (I believe it was reported as being £500m) out of the company - and reinvested everything else he had for a 30% stake in the company. It's that investment - that risk - which has made him so wealthy.
At the same time, Ed Miliband wanted a 100% renewables target for just fifteen years after he would take office. Of course, these sort of targets get ever more expensive to reach as you increasingly remove the low-hanging and even middle-hanging fruit. So getting to a 100% target would be absurdly expensive.
And all this would happen in a sector where it's widely known that the UK does not have enough capital investment currently to provide for future demand. So in a sector that's already breaking at the seams, Miliband wanted them to operate at a loss, as well as almost entirely replacing the limited supply they did have. This could inevitably only happen with a huge subsidy from central government - and that would then mean greater cuts than the Tories have been doing everywhere else.
And this was in his own area of experience! What on Earth did he do while Energy Secretary? Read the Guardian every day? Because that's the level of depth his policies seem to be based on.
Isam btw I'll get back to you on LD's. Saving it all for my GE projection on May 8th.
An attack by an offshore resident boss of a business itself moved offshore is, conversely, a gift.
And Labour have played a blinder in response.
It has shored up its base and, as these are not times conducive to the pontifications of galactically out of touch billionaires, no one but dwindling numbers of ardent Tories will be moved to sympathy for the ramblings of the Boots owner.
The kitchen-sink strategy had two parts. Only one of those has played out so far.
They're (*nb* note TSE) not engaging his criticisms but rather trying to invalidate his right to express an opinion
However your VAT return asks for VAT charged on Sales and other outputs.
Different terminology used as such things as Auction House Commission is Vatable whilst the auction price is not.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/westminster-child-abuse-scandal-kgb-5080120
The child abuse scandal among senior politicians was so widespread both the Americans and the Russians knew about it. After reading about what happened in Belgium recently, and reading about the unexpected deaths of people investigating similar scandals in the US, I have become convinced that the issue is far more endemic in political circles than I ever appreciated.
This could also explain the street grooming gangs issue. Evidence went missing in the local police station. Other officers turned up at the houses of victims in full uniform, signalling to the gangs who the informants were. We also know the local councils in some of these places seemed to be covering up for the gangs. Is it so hard to believe there were participants (maybe not gang members, but people who paid for the services they provided) who were more highly connected in central government? Special Branch seized the files of a Labour MP that was looking into it.
That might explain why you often get lone paedophiles arrested but gangs seem to get prosecuted a lot less often. Criminal enterprises more easily have connections at a higher level.
I can now understand why the victims' groups refuse to have anyone lead the inquiry that's at all connected to someone who's a guilty party. It also makes me wonder why it takes months after one lead has been rejected by the victim's group for the home secretary to find someone else.
Voters don't want small government. Quite right too.
I love the smell of cratered rightwing ideology in the morning.
Conservative 28%
Labour 30%
Liberal Democrat 9%
UKIP 11%
Green 14%
Other 7%
There's a lot of talk on here about the Tories winning back current UKIP voters, or Labour winning back current Green voters, but a large majority (58%) of those who say they might change their mind before polling day currently say they will vote for one of the big two parties.
In some ways this election is not so different from previous elections - there are lots of voters up for grabs in the centre ground between the two largest parties, and those of them who live in the marginals will decide the identity of the PM.
One other obvious point. Given that UKIP polled at almost twice the level of the Greens in this poll, it is notable that there are more Greens open to being persuaded to vote differently.
Voters want lot of services that someone else pays for, someone please pass that bear the toilet paper.
Wait until he becomes Prime Minister in 2018, he will destroy the Labour party in the 2020 election.
I'm wounded.
Had Labour not made the tax code so complicated there would be fewer loopholes around for companies and others to exploit - at the expense of the rest of us.
In any case, why prolong the story?
And they lost - what - around half of them at the subsequent general election.
I bet on the Conservatives when they were courtesy of isam and PtP on better than evens. I've hedged that out on Betfair now, and am (very slightly) more on UKIP than the Conservatives, but if it gets back to evens, I'm back on the Tories...
'Big companies that do it, while depending on the state to subsidise the low wages'
So the answer is to cut the state subsidy for low wages.