I listened to the SNP leader Pete Wishart on TWAO.. He is so eager to answer questions himself and then answer questions put to others, that no one else gets a look in.. Time for the BBC to call him to account for his appalling manners.
When the left collectively lose their heads over the word 'bunch', you know they are morally and intellectually lost.
What strikes me is how many of them are so unworldly and insular, ironically enough.
That's what groupthink does to you. In the same way that some people think that twitter or tumblr are representative of public opinion.
Labour making a fuss about "bunch of migrants" shows how divorced the party has become from the average voter, and therefore, how much trouble the party is in.
I think I've worked out why there has been such a visceral reaction. The Labour party is still digesting why the opinion polls were 'bunching' and so the word has a particular negative resonance at the moment.
If ‘swarm’ was supposed to suggest locusts eating all before them, then what’s wrong with using ‘bunch’ ? - Does it imply bananas doing er what exactly?
It’s so hard to keep up with PC bollox these days…
Agreed. And to think some are always complaining about Cameron being too soft. Look what happens when he speaks plainly. Will he get any credit from the naysayers. BTW This should help illustrate why being in opposition should be the easiest thing in the world and opposition parties should always be in the lead right up to when people enter the ballot box. Every thing a government does is wrong. It's inevitable. All is choices have no clear winners, all its problems have no solutions. That's the way of the world. To do is to offend.
That's very comprehensive and shows clearly the issues both now and in the future. One assumes that this was originally a piece written professionally for your clients.
Yes: I don't spend 100 hours in Excel just to enlighten my Politicalbetting friends
Lol, it gives a very global perspective on what is considered by most to be a local problem. Clearly international co-operation in the only way forward, no matter how much the US don't like international agreements.
I think @MaxPB's earlier suggestion (pro-rate global profit margin to local revenues) is more of a runner.
Which assumes that profit margins in different countries is the same, which is clearly not the case.
Of course, but those are the terms at which they can trade in the UK. If they don't like it they can leave. This is an easy one size fits all solution rather than investigating what each company's "true" profits are and taxing it. They can, of course, get their houses in order and pay tax at 20% (soon 18%) like British companies have to. This creates a level playing field where multi-nationals can't pick and choose which taxes they want to pay and British companies play by the rules and eventually get their market share eaten up, or taken over because they aren't able to give as good shareholder returns.
When the left collectively lose their heads over the word 'bunch', you know they are morally and intellectually lost.
They think they are right, and have right on their side. That's why their reaction is so visceral.
The bottom line is that Cameron pointed out that Corbyn went to sympathise with people *in France* who think they have the right to come to England, when they don't.
Raising rhetorical hell over the phraseology strongly implies that they actually think that these migrants should be admitted.
David Cameron's just a pound shop Donald Trump
Well I hope not 'cos Trump scares me: but......" bunch of migrants".............. surely to his (Cameron's) advantage
1) I simply do not see how talking about this in any form is good for Labour. Joe Public knows Corbyn wants to let them in, and also knows that 30,000 more would replace them in days as word spread on the net like wildfire, followed by 300,000 if they, in turn, got in - see Germany for details.
2) I seriously doubt Joe Public wants 30,000 let alone 300,000. Picking orphans and seriously vulnerable folk out of camps is, in my view, by far the better way.
3) What about the "fairness of the queue"? There a plenty of people going through the due process of immigration in a proper way. Are they to be supplanted by anyone who in Darwinian fashion gets to Calais and waves a placard saying "let me in"?
4) Faux outrage is seriously pissing people off these days methinks. (Well me at least)
5) Dead cats. Strikes me Osborne and his bunch (!) at HM Treasury appear at first sight to have dropped the ball on Google compared to Italy and others. Whether they have or haven't in reality is going to be impossibly Byzantine to work out, but the impression left on Joe Public would not be good I feel.
However, who's going to remember boring tax headline details when twitter and Labour MP's come alive and are determined to make sure the headlines are about Calais? It just reminds everyone that at present Corbyn's team seem to be in favour of anybody but the British they are supposed to represent.
Is someone upset, and aren't the Shad Cab a bunch of 'nanas any more?
I prefer green grapes over a bunch of black grapes.
Am I a racist ?
Do you like your women like your coffee ?
Ground up and in my freezer ?
I'm a horrible racist on the women front too. I've only made the beast with two backs with only white females.
What's the Shakespeare line... 'The old black ram is tupping your white ewe.' It was sixteen frozen stiff then of course, old Bill the Quill could get away with it then.
Just watching PMQs now. The PM is still running on about 30%, Corbyn was all over the place again. Apparently Yvette Cooper got shut down by the Speaker when trying to raise a point of order about Cameron's 'bunch of migrants' comments - which to anyone who actually watched PMQs seemed perfectly reasonable.
That's very comprehensive and shows clearly the issues both now and in the future. One assumes that this was originally a piece written professionally for your clients.
Yes: I don't spend 100 hours in Excel just to enlighten my Politicalbetting friends
Lol, it gives a very global perspective on what is considered by most to be a local problem. Clearly international co-operation in the only way forward, no matter how much the US don't like international agreements.
I think that's right.
Nah, the US will never go for it. They still have this inherent American exceptionalist attitude when it comes to their idiotic global tax on US based companies. Pro-rating is going to be the only method that will yield results and it only needs one major nation to do it and others will follow. The UK is one of the largest consumer markets in the world, companies can't threaten to leave because they have to pay a bit of tax. I think shareholders would rather have 75% (or 82% if they get their house in order) of something rather than 100% of nothing.
US GAAP is still a fair way from IFRS iirc too.
I'm not an accountant, but GAAP reporting irritates me when figuring out how much money companies involved in digital subscription businesses actually make. I can't take non-GAAP figures at face value because they, IMO, are cooked and GAAP has stupid reporting rules about spreading out digital revenues received over an arbitrary number of quarters. EA suffer from this phenomenon which is why the board basically only ever talk in non-GAAP terms when discussing financial performance.
Just watching PMQs now. The PM is still running on about 30%, Corbyn was all over the place again. Apparently Yvette Cooper got shut down by the Speaker when trying to raise a point of order about Cameron's 'bunch of migrants' comments - which to anyone who actually watched PMQs seemed perfectly reasonable.
I have just finished watching it as well - and couldn't agree more. Corbyn was just failing to land any point.
And 'bunch of migrants' is a perfectly acceptable description. There is nothing callous or derogatory about it in the slightest.
Mr. Eagles, being serious, a certain proportion of people find those of a different ethnicity very attractive. It's an evolutionary development to help encourage inter-breeding and help avoid in-breeding.
Mr. Slackbladder, aye, had a high elf sorceress in Skyrim I got to level 60 odd.
I do hope Elder Scrolls VI comes out soon. I'd guess 2017 is the very earliest it might.
In comparison with all of the other western nations I think our people are rather less pessimistic. Only Canada and Australia have a better rating than us from western nations. We can dismiss the ratings for China, Russia and Saudi Arabia, while Argentina just got rid of the Peronists which has definitely made people more optimistic.
It still surprises me that there are so many people who think we are heading in the wrong direction as a country.
That's very comprehensive and shows clearly the issues both now and in the future. One assumes that this was originally a piece written professionally for your clients.
Yes: I don't spend 100 hours in Excel just to enlighten my Politicalbetting friends
Lol, it gives a very global perspective on what is considered by most to be a local problem. Clearly international co-operation in the only way forward, no matter how much the US don't like international agreements.
I think @MaxPB's earlier suggestion (pro-rate global profit margin to local revenues) is more of a runner.
Which assumes that profit margins in different countries is the same, which is clearly not the case.
It doesn't assume that; as you say it's clearly not the case. It's just a basis for taxation.
International companies are welcome to leave if they don't like our terms of business.
Indeed and take all the jobs currently here to Italy or France. Google for instance employs shedloads of people here compared to other places. It has built or is building a £650m headquarters in London as well.
BTW ... if Google is such a terrible company (and may be it is I do not know) why do so many people use its search engine and web browser? It's the public who make Google's money.
When the left collectively lose their heads over the word 'bunch', you know they are morally and intellectually lost.
They think they are right, and have right on their side. That's why their reaction is so visceral.
The bottom line is that Cameron pointed out that Corbyn went to sympathise with people *in France* who think they have the right to come to England, when they don't.
Raising rhetorical hell over the phraseology strongly implies that they actually think that these migrants should be admitted.
David Cameron's just a pound shop Donald Trump
Well I hope not 'cos Trump scares me: but......" bunch of migrants".............. surely to his (Cameron's) advantage
1) I simply do not see how talking about this in any form is good for Labour. Joe Public knows Corbyn wants to let them in, and also knows that 30,000 more would replace them in days as word spread on the net like wildfire, followed by 300,000 if they, in turn, got in - see Germany for details.
2) I seriously doubt Joe Public wants 30,000 let alone 300,000. Picking orphans and seriously vulnerable folk out of camps is, in my view, by far the better way.
3) What about the "fairness of the queue"? There a plenty of people going through the due process of immigration in a proper way. Are they to be supplanted by anyone who in Darwinian fashion gets to Calais and waves a placard saying "let me in"?
4) Faux outrage is seriously pissing people off these days methinks. (Well me at least)
5) Dead cats. Strikes me Osborne and his bunch (!) at HM Treasury appear at first sight to have dropped the ball on Google compared to Italy and others. Whether they have or haven't in reality is going to be impossibly Byzantine to work out, but the impression left on Joe Public would not be good I feel.
However, who's going to remember boring tax headline details when twitter and Labour MP's come alive and are determined to make sure the headlines are about Calais? It just reminds everyone that at present Corbyn's team seem to be in favour of anybody but the British they are supposed to represent.
2 - no picking vulnerable people from the Jungle will merely encourage others to go there. The rules need to be made clear we will take refugees from Jordan / Turkey. once you are in Europe you are safe
When the left collectively lose their heads over the word 'bunch', you know they are morally and intellectually lost.
They think they are right, and have right on their side. That's why their reaction is so visceral.
The bottom line is that Cameron pointed out that Corbyn went to sympathise with people *in France* who think they have the right to come to England, when they don't.
Raising rhetorical hell over the phraseology strongly implies that they actually think that these migrants should be admitted.
David Cameron's just a pound shop Donald Trump
Well I hope not 'cos Trump scares me: but......" bunch of migrants".............. surely to his (Cameron's) advantage
1) I simply do not see how talking about this in any form is good for Labour. Joe Public knows Corbyn wants to let them in, and also knows that 30,000 more would replace them in days as word spread on the net like wildfire, followed by 300,000 if they, in turn, got in - see Germany for details.
2) I seriously doubt Joe Public wants 30,000 let alone 300,000. Picking orphans and seriously vulnerable folk out of camps is, in my view, by far the better way.
3) What about the "fairness of the queue"? There a plenty of people going through the due process of immigration in a proper way. Are they to be supplanted by anyone who in Darwinian fashion gets to Calais and waves a placard saying "let me in"?
4) Faux outrage is seriously pissing people off these days methinks. (Well me at least)
5) Dead cats. Strikes me Osborne and his bunch (!) at HM Treasury appear at first sight to have dropped the ball on Google compared to Italy and others. Whether they have or haven't in reality is going to be impossibly Byzantine to work out, but the impression left on Joe Public would not be good I feel.
However, who's going to remember boring tax headline details when twitter and Labour MP's come alive and are determined to make sure the headlines are about Calais? It just reminds everyone that at present Corbyn's team seem to be in favour of anybody but the British they are supposed to represent.
2 - no picking vulnerable people from the Jungle will merely encourage others to go there. The rules need to be made clear we will take refugees from Jordan / Turkey. once you are in Europe you are safe
Yes indeed. I meant from Jordan etc - I just wasn't clear!
That's very comprehensive and shows clearly the issues both now and in the future. One assumes that this was originally a piece written professionally for your clients.
Yes: I don't spend 100 hours in Excel just to enlighten my Politicalbetting friends
Lol, it gives a very global perspective on what is considered by most to be a local problem. Clearly international co-operation in the only way forward, no matter how much the US don't like international agreements.
I think @MaxPB's earlier suggestion (pro-rate global profit margin to local revenues) is more of a runner.
Which assumes that profit margins in different countries is the same, which is clearly not the case.
It doesn't assume that; as you say it's clearly not the case. It's just a basis for taxation.
International companies are welcome to leave if they don't like our terms of business.
Indeed and take all the jobs currently here to Italy or France. Google for instance employs shedloads of people here compared to other places. It has built or is building a £650m headquarters in London as well.
BTW ... if Google is such a terrible company (and may be it is I do not know) why do so many people use its search engine and web browser? It's the public who make Google's money.
Google is a brilliant company. However their tax arrangements are taking the piss (though I would make the same arrangements in their position).
Why would they move the jobs and HQ? I am (or rather @MaxPB is) suggesting taxing them on the basis of their UK sales regardless of jobs etc. In fact you could quite easily build incentives into such a system to encourage multinationals to put down genuine roots in the UK as well.
Of course, but those are the terms at which they can trade in the UK. If they don't like it they can leave. This is an easy one size fits all solution rather than investigating what each company's "true" profits are and taxing it. They can, of course, get their houses in order and pay tax at 20% (soon 18%) like British companies have to. This creates a level playing field where multi-nationals can't pick and choose which taxes they want to pay and British companies play by the rules and eventually get their market share eaten up, or taken over because they aren't able to give as good shareholder returns.
Sounds good, Mr. Max, but would straightforward income tax be even fairer, easier to collect and very difficult to fiddle?
If memory serves, until 1964 companies were treated as individuals and taxed on income (albeit with squillions of exemptions and loopholes). Then the Wilson government introduced an additional "Profits Tax" and that has since morphed into what we now know as Corporation Tax. Perhaps it is time to go back to what corporations and companies were originally set up for - to be treated as individuals in law.
If a company wants to do business in the UK then it wants to take advantage of the physical and legal infrastructure of the UK and so can damn well cough up a percentage of its earnings to pay for those things. A company income tax, set at a suitable level with no exemptions or allowances, would knock all fiddles on the head, Starbucks, Google, Amazon, Apple et al would all be paying their share.
Oh, I'd also make it an offence punishable by a minimum five year term of imprisonment for any CEO and CFO whose company was found guilty of not paying due taxes and the whole board of directors (including non-executives) would be disqualified for life from any UK directorship or position of public office.
I realise there were some honourable exceptions, but I wonder what would be a good collective description for the bunch of expenses-fiddlers, past and present, who've sat in Parliament these last 15 years
I have some sympathies with your argument Mr Llama. However there is something of an international tax tussle going on (ie see Ireland) to attract businesses and their jobs to to one country or another.
In comparison with all of the other western nations I think our people are rather less pessimistic. Only Canada and Australia have a better rating than us from western nations. We can dismiss the ratings for China, Russia and Saudi Arabia, while Argentina just got rid of the Peronists which has definitely made people more optimistic.
It still surprises me that there are so many people who think we are heading in the wrong direction as a country.
41% is a good number as far as our general electiona are concerned.
Comments
Labour making a fuss about "bunch of migrants" shows how divorced the party has become from the average voter, and therefore, how much trouble the party is in.
I'm a horrible racist on the women front too. I've only made the beast with two backs with only white females.
BTW
This should help illustrate why being in opposition should be the easiest thing in the world and opposition parties should always be in the lead right up to when people enter the ballot box. Every thing a government does is wrong. It's inevitable. All is choices have no clear winners, all its problems have no solutions. That's the way of the world. To do is to offend.
1) I simply do not see how talking about this in any form is good for Labour. Joe Public knows Corbyn wants to let them in, and also knows that 30,000 more would replace them in days as word spread on the net like wildfire, followed by 300,000 if they, in turn, got in - see Germany for details.
2) I seriously doubt Joe Public wants 30,000 let alone 300,000. Picking orphans and seriously vulnerable folk out of camps is, in my view, by far the better way.
3) What about the "fairness of the queue"? There a plenty of people going through the due process of immigration in a proper way. Are they to be supplanted by anyone who in Darwinian fashion gets to Calais and waves a placard saying "let me in"?
4) Faux outrage is seriously pissing people off these days methinks. (Well me at least)
5) Dead cats. Strikes me Osborne and his bunch (!) at HM Treasury appear at first sight to have dropped the ball on Google compared to Italy and others. Whether they have or haven't in reality is going to be impossibly Byzantine to work out, but the impression left on Joe Public would not be good I feel.
However, who's going to remember boring tax headline details when twitter and Labour MP's come alive and are determined to make sure the headlines are about Calais? It just reminds everyone that at present Corbyn's team seem to be in favour of anybody but the British they are supposed to represent.
I'm clearly a man-hating bigot
I embrace chocolate diversity, though. White, plain, milk, dark, I'll scoff the lot.
Apparently Yvette Cooper got shut down by the Speaker when trying to raise a point of order about Cameron's 'bunch of migrants' comments - which to anyone who actually watched PMQs seemed perfectly reasonable.
And 'bunch of migrants' is a perfectly acceptable description. There is nothing callous or derogatory about it in the slightest.
Mr. Slackbladder, aye, had a high elf sorceress in Skyrim I got to level 60 odd.
I do hope Elder Scrolls VI comes out soon. I'd guess 2017 is the very earliest it might.
New thread new thread
It still surprises me that there are so many people who think we are heading in the wrong direction as a country.
It has built or is building a £650m headquarters in London as well.
BTW ... if Google is such a terrible company (and may be it is I do not know) why do so many people use its search engine and web browser? It's the public who make Google's money.
Serves them right
Why would they move the jobs and HQ? I am (or rather @MaxPB is) suggesting taxing them on the basis of their UK sales regardless of jobs etc. In fact you could quite easily build incentives into such a system to encourage multinationals to put down genuine roots in the UK as well.
If memory serves, until 1964 companies were treated as individuals and taxed on income (albeit with squillions of exemptions and loopholes). Then the Wilson government introduced an additional "Profits Tax" and that has since morphed into what we now know as Corporation Tax. Perhaps it is time to go back to what corporations and companies were originally set up for - to be treated as individuals in law.
If a company wants to do business in the UK then it wants to take advantage of the physical and legal infrastructure of the UK and so can damn well cough up a percentage of its earnings to pay for those things. A company income tax, set at a suitable level with no exemptions or allowances, would knock all fiddles on the head, Starbucks, Google, Amazon, Apple et al would all be paying their share.
Oh, I'd also make it an offence punishable by a minimum five year term of imprisonment for any CEO and CFO whose company was found guilty of not paying due taxes and the whole board of directors (including non-executives) would be disqualified for life from any UK directorship or position of public office.
However there is something of an international tax tussle going on (ie see Ireland) to attract businesses and their jobs to to one country or another.
George Eaton @georgeeaton
Neil Kinnock: Corbyn may have to resign or face leadership challenge if Labour fails to improve http://bit.ly/1ZSPhUj