In the local elections opposition parties should be well ahead, in his first local elections Corbyn did worse than Ed Miliband, Howard and IDS none of whom became PM
In Miliband's first set of local elections as leader - 2011 - Labour lagged the Tories in NEV by 1%. In 2016 , on the same basis Labour led the Tories by 1% - so Corrbyn did manage to outperform Milliband by 2% in terms of party lead.
You do keep on with this line.
The seats being contested in 2011 were not the same as those as in 2016 - and so the comparison fails.
The 2016 seats should have been far more favourable for Labour than a 1% lead in the estimated vote share.
Corbyn lost ground where he should have been making significant gains.
NEV is calculated to remove the distortions created by the various different rounds of seats. Justin is right on that one.
All the same, it doesn't necessarily prove that Corbyn would outperform the polls. We don't know to what extent Labour's reasonably good showing was down to the fact that the country couldn't end up with Corbyn given that these weren't national elections - the equivalent perhaps being Hague winning the 1999 Euroelection. We also have to factor in that the Conservatives were engaged in an almighty row over Brexit at the time and that Cameron's personal ratings were plummeting towards Cleggite levels.
By contrast, the Conservatives are currently about 14% better off in the polls than they were this time last parliament (Con lead of 8.8 vs Lab lead of 5.2 in Aug 2011).
The 2011/2016 comparator was quite an easy one for Corbyn to beat the NEV -1 % was not that high a bar but if we are being fair we can see he beat it by 2%.
For Corbyn to keep up with this, he has quite a task on his hands next year to beat Ed Miliband's 6% NEV lead in the 2012 elections (In 2017). Hence this is the bar he should be judged on of course.
If Corbyn is heading for government, I think he needs to be looking at ~ 7+% NEV lead, and then to sustain that through 2018, 19 and not drop off as Ed did.
6% might be passable but you'd still probably back May et al.
I agree with that. However, Labour under Gaitskell experienced poor local election results in both 1960 and 1961 yet still went on to win the 1964 election!
Apple has sailed very close to the wind on a lot of tax issues. It's hard to feel terribly sympathetic towards them.
Especially when one considers the amount of tax that this nation has lost out on. British consumers buy Apple products and services, the profits are offshored to Ireland and then they do a dirty deal which sees them pay just 1% on it all. No sympathy.
Afternoon all - best part of 3 weeks abroad but have kept up with the death of the Labour Party.
Corbyn can win a general election. In politics all things are possible. But for him to win means doing things that have never been done before. So the party would need to do three things:
1. The PLP would need to solidly unite behind him. At the moment we aren't a shadow government, we don't have sufficient people to fill all the shadow cabinet never mind shadow ministers. So some of the 172 will have to find confidence in him and get on with it. The tricky bit is the Humphries test - "you had no confidence in your leader but now you say you do - what has changed. Is that credible?" - this is the bit I can't get my head around how it can work, but work it would need to do
2. The membership would need to reconcile itself to differences of opinion and perspective. Sat here now its clear that once Corbyn is reelected the purge will be launched and they (Momentum, the shouty angry minority of new members etc) are coming after everyone who doesn't pledge fealty to Jeremy. Not only that I expect Jezbollah top go after anyone who holds non-acceptable jobs. Deselection of MPs and Councillors, removal of party officials, and slate elections for CLPs will split the party asunder, so for Corbyn to win this can't happen
3. Corbyn needs to hire the best PR media spin people in the world. Traingate demonstrated many things - gross incompetence of his media team and a basic lack of understanding how the media works in his inner sanctum. Hysterical "ideology demands I ignore my eyes" memes about how the CCTV images were forged. And then just as the flames start to drop they demand Branson loses his knighthood. Or we can look at Atricle 50-gate. Where the Labour party briefs MPs and hacks on the agreed position - not to invoke A50 immediately - whilst Corbyn goes on live TV to say the direct opposite. Corbyn would need to accept that collective responsibility applies to him as well
None of these things will happen. Corbyn will win the election handsomely. We are sunk.
Don't do this to yourself; it's painful to watch.
What about the LibDems or is the Lab brand too deeply ingrained?
In the local elections opposition parties should be well ahead, in his first local elections Corbyn did worse than Ed Miliband, Howard and IDS none of whom became PM
In Miliband's first set of local elections as leader - 2011 - Labour lagged the Tories in NEV by 1%. In 2016 , on the same basis Labour led the Tories by 1% - so Corrbyn did manage to outperform Milliband by 2% in terms of party lead.
You do keep on with this line.
The seats being contested in 2011 were not the same as those as in 2016 - and so the comparison fails.
The 2016 seats should have been far more favourable for Labour than a 1% lead in the estimated vote share.
Corbyn lost ground where he should have been making significant gains.
NEV is calculated to remove the distortions created by the various different rounds of seats. Justin is right on that one.
All the same, it doesn't necessarily prove that Corbyn would outperform the polls. We don't know to what extent Labour's reasonably good showing was down to the fact that the country couldn't end up with Corbyn given that these weren't national elections - the equivalent perhaps being Hague winning the 1999 Euroelection. We also have to factor in that the Conservatives were engaged in an almighty row over Brexit at the time and that Cameron's personal ratings were plummeting towards Cleggite levels.
By contrast, the Conservatives are currently about 14% better off in the polls than they were this time last parliament (Con lead of 8.8 vs Lab lead of 5.2 in Aug 2011).
The 2011/2016 comparator was quite an easy one for Corbyn to beat the NEV -1 % was not that high a bar but if we are being fair we can see he beat it by 2%.
For Corbyn to keep up with this, he has quite a task on his hands next year to beat Ed Miliband's 6% NEV lead in the 2012 elections (In 2017). Hence this is the bar he should be judged on of course.
If Corbyn is heading for government, I think he needs to be looking at ~ 7+% NEV lead, and then to sustain that through 2018, 19 and not drop off as Ed did.
6% might be passable but you'd still probably back May et al.
I agree with that. However, Labour under Gaitskell experienced poor local election results in both 1960 and 1961 yet still went on to win the 1964 election!
Corbyn needs to pass over the reins in late 2018 for that to work. Who can be Labour's Wilson !
Apple has sailed very close to the wind on a lot of tax issues. It's hard to feel terribly sympathetic towards them.
Especially when one considers the amount of tax that this nation has lost out on. British consumers buy Apple products and services, the profits are offshored to Ireland and then they do a dirty deal which sees them pay just 1% on it all. No sympathy.
Shouldn't you be on the side of the Irish government, prevented by the dastardly EU from setting its own tax rate to attract investment?
''Apple has sailed very close to the wind on a lot of tax issues. It's hard to feel terribly sympathetic towards them.''
The Irish government is in an interesting position. At the moment, they appear to be fighting fiercely not to get an extra 13bn in taxes.
It undermines their whole tax haven posture. Without the sweetheart deal there is no way that Apple would be based on Cork with 5,000 highly paid employees. Surrey, Jony Ive's home, would be a much more likely European base for them as he has been on the edge of giving it all up to come back to the UK. We've directly lost out on tax revenue, but also lost indirectly on a potential HQ and lesser employment by Apple in the UK. Ireland's gain has been the UK's loss.
In the local elections opposition parties should be well ahead, in his first local elections Corbyn did worse than Ed Miliband, Howard and IDS none of whom became PM
In Miliband's first set of local elections as leader - 2011 - Labour lagged the Tories in NEV by 1%. In 2016 , on the same basis Labour led the Tories by 1% - so Corrbyn did manage to outperform Milliband by 2% in terms of party lead.
You do keep on with this line.
The seats being contested in 2011 were not the same as those as in 2016 - and so the comparison fails.
The 2016 seats should have been far more favourable for Labour than a 1% lead in the estimated vote share.
Corbyn lost ground where he should have been making significant gains.
NEV is calculated to remove the distortions created by the various different rounds of seats. Justin is right on that one.
All the same, it doesn't necessarily prove that Corbyn would outperform the polls. We don't know to what extent Labour's reasonably good showing was down to the fact that the country couldn't end up with Corbyn given that these weren't national elections - the equivalent perhaps being Hague winning the 1999 Euroelection. We also have to factor in that the Conservatives were engaged in an almighty row over Brexit at the time and that Cameron's personal ratings were plummeting towards Cleggite levels.
By contrast, the Conservatives are currently about 14% better off in the polls than they were this time last parliament (Con lead of 8.8 vs Lab lead of 5.2 in Aug 2011).
The 2011/2016 comparator was quite an easy one for Corbyn to beat the NEV -1 % was not that high a bar but if we are being fair we can see he beat it by 2%.
For Corbyn to keep up with this, he has quite a task on his hands next year to beat Ed Miliband's 6% NEV lead in the 2012 elections (In 2017). Hence this is the bar he should be judged on of course.
If Corbyn is heading for government, I think he needs to be looking at ~ 7+% NEV lead, and then to sustain that through 2018, 19 and not drop off as Ed did.
6% might be passable but you'd still probably back May et al.
I agree with that. However, Labour under Gaitskell experienced poor local election results in both 1960 and 1961 yet still went on to win the 1964 election!
Corbyn needs to pass over the reins in late 2018 for that to work.
That may well happen - though I believe that Gaitskell would have won in 1964 had he lived.
How is this BBC activity justifiable under the licence fee tax?
“The BBC have told Sir Cliff’s team that they are in no doubt everything was done by the book. “They have said that the journalist who was given the story at the BBC went to the head of news, who contacted BBC legal and head of legal and even consulted an external media lawyer to clarify their position. “This took three full days. It was not a spur of the moment thing to broadcast the raid. "It was planned and strategic for the entire broadcast of the story. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/bbc-tell-cliff-richard-wont-8719274?ref=yfp
Apple has sailed very close to the wind on a lot of tax issues. It's hard to feel terribly sympathetic towards them.
Especially when one considers the amount of tax that this nation has lost out on. British consumers buy Apple products and services, the profits are offshored to Ireland and then they do a dirty deal which sees them pay just 1% on it all. No sympathy.
Shouldn't you be on the side of the Irish government, prevented from setting its own tax rate to attract investment by the dastardly EU?
If they want to set their tax rate to 1% then I'd have no problem with it, but they haven't done that. They've made sweetheart deals with multinationals in a free capital movement zone. It is economic warfare. As I said earlier, it is a rare point of agreement I have with the commission. The rules over state aid exist to stop sweetheart deals as they undermine the free movement of capital within the zone, those in the zone should adhere to the rules. Us voting to leave the EU is completely separate to following the rules.
TSE do bears have foreskins? I ask because my stepmother used to have a piece of jewellery made from a bear's pizzle (penis bone). They're Obviously not constructed quite the same down there as you and me!
On Apple: Presumably once we're free of the EU we can set Corporation Tax to whatever level suits us, no matter how predatory, and undermine Ireland and Luxembourg to ours heart's content.
TSE do bears have foreskins? I ask because my stepmother used to have a piece of jewellery made from a bear's pizzle (penis bone). They're Obviously not constructed quite the same down there as you and me!
On Apple: Presumably once we're free of the EU we can set Corporation Tax to whatever level suits us, no matter how predatory, and undermine Ireland and Luxembourg to ours heart's content.
Undoubtedly the party conventions have shifted the presidential 2016 Election Polls significantly toward Clinton. Trump’s own words goes against him in context of some recent activities. It seems that in this 2016 Election Polls “Clinton vs. Trump” debate Trump himself gave away some points by his harsh words in some sensitive issues. Such as being in a strife with a slain Muslim-American soldier died in an action in Iraq, blundering about Veteran’s right, Provoking speech to Mexican-American and last of all others his recent conflict with a Federal judge concerning his nonfunctional Trump’s University.
Clinton vs. Trump according to 2016 Election Polls
2016 Election Polls “Clinton vs. Trump” has become the new talk in the entire nation as the national polls as well as state polls published few hours earlier. The national polling average has put Clinton ahead of Trump by 7%. As the main rival party is now Democrat Clinton and Republican Trump the National polls has become now the 2016 Election Polls is “Clinton vs. Trump” Polls. The Upshot Forecast is depicting that Clinton has an 84% chance to win the presidency if they held today. Using the Huffington Post’s polling database the national polling average show that polls started from July 29 – August 8 are used to show this result. Polls conducted more recently and polls with a larger sample size are given greater weight in computing the averages, and polls with partisan sponsors are excluded.
Apple has sailed very close to the wind on a lot of tax issues. It's hard to feel terribly sympathetic towards them.
Especially when one considers the amount of tax that this nation has lost out on. British consumers buy Apple products and services, the profits are offshored to Ireland and then they do a dirty deal which sees them pay just 1% on it all. No sympathy.
Shouldn't you be on the side of the Irish government, prevented from setting its own tax rate to attract investment by the dastardly EU?
If they want to set their tax rate to 1% then I'd have no problem with it, but they haven't done that. They've made sweetheart deals with multinationals in a free capital movement zone. It is economic warfare. As I said earlier, it is a rare point of agreement I have with the commission. The rules over state aid exist to stop sweetheart deals as they undermine the free movement of capital within the zone, those in the zone should adhere to the rules. Us voting to leave the EU is completely separate to following the rules.
It's an interesting case. Apple says that the marketing and technology that contribute to their Irish profits are not based in Ireland, only the manufacturing.
The Irish government chose to accept that argument (no one has ever said Apple were evading tax), and yes, the EU has identified that as a sweetheart deal.
But it is still the EU meddling in the affairs of one of its member states which I had imagined would drive you mad with frustration. As you guys have always said, it's not the numbers that matter, it's the principle.
Apple has sailed very close to the wind on a lot of tax issues. It's hard to feel terribly sympathetic towards them.
Especially when one considers the amount of tax that this nation has lost out on. British consumers buy Apple products and services, the profits are offshored to Ireland and then they do a dirty deal which sees them pay just 1% on it all. No sympathy.
Shouldn't you be on the side of the Irish government, prevented by the dastardly EU from setting its own tax rate to attract investment?
It's transfer pricing that is the issue, not corporation tax rates in Ireland. Most people on either side of the EU argument think that a lot of companies take the piss.
Apple has sailed very close to the wind on a lot of tax issues. It's hard to feel terribly sympathetic towards them.
Especially when one considers the amount of tax that this nation has lost out on. British consumers buy Apple products and services, the profits are offshored to Ireland and then they do a dirty deal which sees them pay just 1% on it all. No sympathy.
Shouldn't you be on the side of the Irish government, prevented from setting its own tax rate to attract investment by the dastardly EU?
If they want to set their tax rate to 1% then I'd have no problem with it, but they haven't done that. They've made sweetheart deals with multinationals in a free capital movement zone. It is economic warfare. As I said earlier, it is a rare point of agreement I have with the commission. The rules over state aid exist to stop sweetheart deals as they undermine the free movement of capital within the zone, those in the zone should adhere to the rules. Us voting to leave the EU is completely separate to following the rules.
You need to be a bit careful about that line of argument, mind. There are plenty of people in the EU who use it to argue for complete harmonisation of corporate, direct and indirect tax rates.
On Apple: Presumably once we're free of the EU we can set Corporation Tax to whatever level suits us, no matter how predatory, and undermine Ireland and Luxembourg to ours heart's content.
This would have been possible, because the rest of the EU would have signed an agreement letting British-based companies sell freely to their consumers without it occurring to them to demand restrictions on predatory taxation in return. However, you just went and gave the game away.
Apple has sailed very close to the wind on a lot of tax issues. It's hard to feel terribly sympathetic towards them.
Especially when one considers the amount of tax that this nation has lost out on. British consumers buy Apple products and services, the profits are offshored to Ireland and then they do a dirty deal which sees them pay just 1% on it all. No sympathy.
Shouldn't you be on the side of the Irish government, prevented by the dastardly EU from setting its own tax rate to attract investment?
It's transfer pricing that is the issue, not corporation tax rates in Ireland. Most people on either side of the EU argument think that a lot of companies take the piss.
And indeed they do and transfer pricing by companies based out of Ireland, Luxembourg, etc, is an issue.
But here we have a 25-yr old deal which the EU has noticed and doesn't like and told a member state government has been against the rules, and everyone is cheering on the EU.
Apple has sailed very close to the wind on a lot of tax issues. It's hard to feel terribly sympathetic towards them.
He who skates on thin ice, and all that.
Some of it was clearly a sham arrangement, to use its proper meaning, i.e. with the acquiescence of both sides. The more difficult question is whether that was a valid thing for the Irish government to do.
In the local elections opposition parties should be well ahead, in his first local elections Corbyn did worse than Ed Miliband, Howard and IDS none of whom became PM
In Miliband's first set of local elections as leader - 2011 - Labour lagged the Tories in NEV by 1%. In 2016 , on the same basis Labour led the Tories by 1% - so Corrbyn did manage to outperform Milliband by 2% in terms of party lead.
You do keep on with this line.
The seats being contested in 2011 were not the same as those as in 2016 - and so the comparison fails.
The 2016 seats should have been far more favourable for Labour than a 1% lead in the estimated vote share.
Corbyn lost ground where he should have been making significant gains.
NEV is calculated to remove the distortions created by the various different rounds of seats. Justin is right on that one.
All the same, it doesn't necessarily prove that Corbyn would outperform the polls. We don't know to what extent Labour's reasonably good showing was down to the fact that the country couldn't end up with Corbyn given that these weren't national elections - the equivalent perhaps being Hague winning the 1999 Euroelection. We also have to factor in that the Conservatives were engaged in an almighty row over Brexit at the time and that Cameron's personal ratings were plummeting towards Cleggite levels.
By contrast, the Conservatives are currently about 14% better off in the polls than they were this time last parliament (Con lead of 8.8 vs Lab lead of 5.2 in Aug 2011).
The 2011/2016 comparator was quite an easy one for Corbyn to beat the NEV -1 % was not that high a bar but if we are being fair we can see he beat it by 2%.
For Corbyn to keep up with this, he has quite a task on his hands next year to beat Ed Miliband's 6% NEV lead in the 2012 elections (In 2017). Hence this is the bar he should be judged on of course.
If Corbyn is heading for government, I think he needs to be looking at ~ 7+% NEV lead, and then to sustain that through 2018, 19 and not drop off as Ed did.
6% might be passable but you'd still probably back May et al.
I agree with that. However, Labour under Gaitskell experienced poor local election results in both 1960 and 1961 yet still went on to win the 1964 election!
Gaitskell lost the 1959 election, it was Wilson who won the election in 1964
Apple has sailed very close to the wind on a lot of tax issues. It's hard to feel terribly sympathetic towards them.
Especially when one considers the amount of tax that this nation has lost out on. British consumers buy Apple products and services, the profits are offshored to Ireland and then they do a dirty deal which sees them pay just 1% on it all. No sympathy.
Shouldn't you be on the side of the Irish government, prevented from setting its own tax rate to attract investment by the dastardly EU?
If they want to set their tax rate to 1% then I'd have no problem with it, but they haven't done that. They've made sweetheart deals with multinationals in a free capital movement zone. It is economic warfare. As I said earlier, it is a rare point of agreement I have with the commission. The rules over state aid exist to stop sweetheart deals as they undermine the free movement of capital within the zone, those in the zone should adhere to the rules. Us voting to leave the EU is completely separate to following the rules.
You need to be a bit careful about that line of argument, mind. There are plenty of people in the EU who use it to argue for complete harmonisation of corporate, direct and indirect tax rates.
And labour standards.
And regulatory systems.
etc.
s'ok. It's one of those I agree with that particular rule so it's a good rule regardless of my previous spitting feathers at just such rules situations.
But here we have a 25-yr old deal which the EU has noticed and doesn't like and told a member state government has been against the rules, and everyone is cheering on the EU.
Personally I don't care about Ireland other than how it affects the UK, if they want to let multi-nationals pay bugger all tax that's up to them.
Our problem is that Apple does business in such a way as to make very little money in the UK, by paying Apple Ireland a lot, even though we are Apple's fourth largest market and Apple is an incredibly profitable company. I'd like to see that stopped in or out of the EU, as I assume would most people.
''Apple has sailed very close to the wind on a lot of tax issues. It's hard to feel terribly sympathetic towards them.''
The Irish government is in an interesting position. At the moment, they appear to be fighting fiercely not to get an extra 13bn in taxes.
They're fighting not to have the EU dictate their taxation policy.
I'm not quite sure they've understood how this EU stuff works. Loss of national sovereignty is precisely the point.
I don't think that's the case here. The EU - like NAFTA, and pretty much every FTA - includes rules to limit state subsidies. In other words, we can't enter into an FTA with (picking a random country) Norway, which then uses government funds to subsidise the Norwegian car industry and put the British car industry out of business.
That was the grounds on which this case was fought.
Now, there is a justifiable question about whether 'sweetheart tax deals' are state subsidy, but if they are, then giving preferential tax treatment, i.e. 1% tax rates rather than the Republic's standard 12.5%, was always going to end in trouble.
To my mind, this is a much less interesting case (because other than a couple of US tech companies and a drug company or two have these deals) than the transfer pricing and local content ones coming in the US.
But here we have a 25-yr old deal which the EU has noticed and doesn't like and told a member state government has been against the rules, and everyone is cheering on the EU.
Personally I don't care about Ireland other than how it affects the UK, if they want to let multi-nationals pay bugger all tax that's up to them.
Our problem is that Apple does business in such a way as to make very little money in the UK, by paying Apple Ireland a lot, even though we are Apple's fourth largest market and Apple is an incredibly profitable company. I'd like to see that stopped in or out of the EU, as I assume would most people.
I like the idea of just shedding more light in this area and leaving it up to the customers to vote with their wallets. Apple and others are trashing their brand image in the long term.
Apple has sailed very close to the wind on a lot of tax issues. It's hard to feel terribly sympathetic towards them.
Especially when one considers the amount of tax that this nation has lost out on. British consumers buy Apple products and services, the profits are offshored to Ireland and then they do a dirty deal which sees them pay just 1% on it all. No sympathy.
Shouldn't you be on the side of the Irish government, prevented from setting its own tax rate to attract investment by the dastardly EU?
If they want to set their tax rate to 1% then I'd have no problem with it, but they haven't done that. They've made sweetheart deals with multinationals in a free capital movement zone. It is economic warfare. As I said earlier, it is a rare point of agreement I have with the commission. The rules over state aid exist to stop sweetheart deals as they undermine the free movement of capital within the zone, those in the zone should adhere to the rules. Us voting to leave the EU is completely separate to following the rules.
I think that's pretty much my view too: sweetheart tax deals are state subsidy that disadvantage all other players in the bloc.
But here we have a 25-yr old deal which the EU has noticed and doesn't like and told a member state government has been against the rules, and everyone is cheering on the EU.
Personally I don't care about Ireland other than how it affects the UK, if they want to let multi-nationals pay bugger all tax that's up to them.
Our problem is that Apple does business in such a way as to make very little money in the UK, by paying Apple Ireland a lot, even though we are Apple's fourth largest market and Apple is an incredibly profitable company. I'd like to see that stopped in or out of the EU, as I assume would most people.
Your two points conflict with each other. If you want to see Apple pay more tax then surely you should be unhappy that Ireland is letting Apple have a free pass on its tax bill?
It's an interesting case. Apple says that the marketing and technology that contribute to their Irish profits are not based in Ireland, only the manufacturing.
The Irish government chose to accept that argument (no one has ever said Apple were evading tax), and yes, the EU has identified that as a sweetheart deal.
But it is still the EU meddling in the affairs of one of its member states which I had imagined would drive you mad with frustration. As you guys have always said, it's not the numbers that matter, it's the principle.
I can see what you're saying, but you're missing the point. I'm not saying that the EU should meddle in tax affairs or be involved in setting tax rates for countries. They should, and are in this case, ensure that all countries stick to the rules on state aid. It is patently obvious that the sweetheart deals that Ireland have struck with Apple and others run counter to single market rules so they should be struck down. If Ireland decided that it was now in its interest to formalise the 1% corporation tax rate and backdate it for all companies, then that's up to them, the commission should not interfere, and neither should Ireland be helped when they inevitably go bankrupt.
Ireland have chosen to be part of the single market and should stick to the rules of the single market if they want to continue being part of it. Our choosing to leave is partly because we didn't like sticking to their rules, Ireland are free to choose that path, though their tax haven status might not be as assured outside of the single market so they'd need to weigh up the pros and cons.
Surely if the EU is to be taken seriously they need to fine Ireland a significant sum of money?
That sort of behaviour would lead to many countries rushing for the exit door
The French have been breaking EU rules forever and face few consequences - if they actually had to comply (and pay the fines), they would be out of there like a shot.
It's an interesting case. Apple says that the marketing and technology that contribute to their Irish profits are not based in Ireland, only the manufacturing.
The Irish government chose to accept that argument (no one has ever said Apple were evading tax), and yes, the EU has identified that as a sweetheart deal.
But it is still the EU meddling in the affairs of one of its member states which I had imagined would drive you mad with frustration. As you guys have always said, it's not the numbers that matter, it's the principle.
I can see what you're saying, but you're missing the point. I'm not saying that the EU should meddle in tax affairs or be involved in setting tax rates for countries. They should, and are in this case, ensure that all countries stick to the rules on state aid. It is patently obvious that the sweetheart deals that Ireland have struck with Apple and others run counter to single market rules so they should be struck down. If Ireland decided that it was now in its interest to formalise the 1% corporation tax rate and backdate it for all companies, then that's up to them, the commission should not interfere, and neither should Ireland be helped when they inevitably go bankrupt.
Ireland have chosen to be part of the single market and should stick to the rules of the single market if they want to continue being part of it. Our choosing to leave is partly because we didn't like sticking to their rules, Ireland are free to choose that path, though their tax haven status might not be as assured outside of the single market so they'd need to weigh up the pros and cons.
That is a good summary.
Of course as they did in 1991 I'm sure that Apple's counsel will argue heartily that the exemption should remain.
If I'm reading this right, Ireland seems to be fighting for the right to cheat on obligations they signed up to.
I guess Ireland is fighting in the same way Corbyn campaigned for remain (half heartedly and deliberately making statements that annoy possibly wavering voters)...
Well we tried our hardest to fight that tax demand for you (trying to keep the 5,000 jobs) but thanks for paying off all our debt....
In the local elections opposition parties should be well ahead, in his first local elections Corbyn did worse than Ed Miliband, Howard and IDS none of whom became PM
In Miliband's first set of local elections as leader - 2011 - Labour lagged the Tories in NEV by 1%. In 2016 , on the same basis Labour led the Tories by 1% - so Corrbyn did manage to outperform Milliband by 2% in terms of party lead.
You do keep on with this line.
The seats being contested in 2011 were not the same as those as in 2016 - and so the comparison fails.
The 2016 seats should have been far more favourable for Labour than a 1% lead in the estimated vote share.
Corbyn lost ground where he should have been making significant gains.
NEV is calculated to remove the distortions created by the various different rounds of seats. Justin is right on that one.
All the same, it doesn't necessarily prove that Corbyn would outperform the polls. We don't know to what extent Labour's reasonably good showing was down to the fact that the country couldn't end up with Corbyn given that these weren't national elections - the equivalent perhaps being Hague winning the 1999 Euroelection. We also have to factor in that the Conservatives were engaged in an almighty row over Brexit at the time and that Cameron's personal ratings were plummeting towards Cleggite levels.
By contrast, the Conservatives are currently about 14% better off in the polls than they were this time last parliament (Con lead of 8.8 vs Lab lead of 5.2 in Aug 2011).
The 2011/2016 comparator was quite an easy one for Corbyn to beat the NEV -1 % was not that high a bar but if we are being fair we can see he beat it by 2%.
For Corbyn to keep up with this, he has quite a task on his hands next year to beat Ed Miliband's 6% NEV lead in the 2012 elections (In 2017). Hence this is the bar he should be judged on of course.
If Corbyn is heading for government, I think he needs to be looking at ~ 7+% NEV lead, and then to sustain that through 2018, 19 and not drop off as Ed did.
6% might be passable but you'd still probably back May et al.
I agree with that. However, Labour under Gaitskell experienced poor local election results in both 1960 and 1961 yet still went on to win the 1964 election!
Gaitskell lost the 1959 election, it was Wilson who won the election in 1964
Gaitskell didn't just lose the 1959 election, Labour got absolutely hammered with the Tories picking up their third-biggest majority since the war.
Apple has sailed very close to the wind on a lot of tax issues. It's hard to feel terribly sympathetic towards them.
Especially when one considers the amount of tax that this nation has lost out on. British consumers buy Apple products and services, the profits are offshored to Ireland and then they do a dirty deal which sees them pay just 1% on it all. No sympathy.
Shouldn't you be on the side of the Irish government, prevented by the dastardly EU from setting its own tax rate to attract investment?
It's transfer pricing that is the issue, not corporation tax rates in Ireland. Most people on either side of the EU argument think that a lot of companies take the piss.
It's amazing that one of the most successful retail operations in the entire world, with extraordinary sales per square foot, basically makes no money.
Apple has sailed very close to the wind on a lot of tax issues. It's hard to feel terribly sympathetic towards them.
Especially when one considers the amount of tax that this nation has lost out on. British consumers buy Apple products and services, the profits are offshored to Ireland and then they do a dirty deal which sees them pay just 1% on it all. No sympathy.
Shouldn't you be on the side of the Irish government, prevented from setting its own tax rate to attract investment by the dastardly EU?
If they want to set their tax rate to 1% then I'd have no problem with it, but they haven't done that. They've made sweetheart deals with multinationals in a free capital movement zone. It is economic warfare. As I said earlier, it is a rare point of agreement I have with the commission. The rules over state aid exist to stop sweetheart deals as they undermine the free movement of capital within the zone, those in the zone should adhere to the rules. Us voting to leave the EU is completely separate to following the rules.
You need to be a bit careful about that line of argument, mind. There are plenty of people in the EU who use it to argue for complete harmonisation of corporate, direct and indirect tax rates.
And labour standards.
And regulatory systems.
etc.
Not really, this is a state aid issue rather than tax harmonisation. The commission are not forcing Ireland to raise their tax rate from 12.5% to 20% to bring it in line with the EU average, they are in fact recognising Ireland's 12.5% rate and enforcing it. If Ireland reduced their headline rate to 1% for all companies they'd have no issue going forwards, but one imagines the EU might not look kindly on their continued membership of the single market.
What about the LibDems or is the Lab brand too deeply ingrained?
The LibDems? Another sunken party - naah. There is still a battle to fight for Labour's soul.
Putting it simply the membership can crudely be split into pre-2015 members (anti-Corbyn) and post-2015 (pro-Corbyn). The latter seem to be a blend of the young/idealistic, anti-Blairites rejoining the party, or older people with very firm worldviews astonished to find a mainstream politician who talks like them.
Corbyn will win. But large numbers of the people voting for him aren't activists or participants. They just want to pay their membership and protect their man. So although there will be an attempt to purge the pre-2015 party (they're banging on about a purge against them to give them pretext) I expect it to struggle. For example, they expect that seat with Red Tory MP where CLP endorses Corbyn means they get to deselect the MP. They won't get a majority of members to do so - it won't happen in almost all cases.
So I and my sane left and centre-left friends intend to stay and fight. Because we know that a Corbyn infused party where Jezbollah representatives run everything would suffer the worst electoral collapse in history (numerically - Clegg had fewer MPs to bin off).
They insist Labour will win due to non-voters. But we don't need to do traditional voter ID canvassing. We won't therefore have the data to do a get out the vote operation. Which means most non-voters will remain non-voters. They insist Corbyn is only down in the polls because the PLP/MSM/Portland/Establishment/Murdoch conspiracy has distorted His truth.And #wearehismedia will counter that - because everyone in the UK makes political decisions and forms opinions based on bullshit memes on Facebook apparently.
We can avoid all this. Corbyn will win. But the party can jettison him and Jezbollah followers - before my holiday I talked up the idea of a divorce where the party keeps the name and offices and staff and the new members keep Corbyn as one way to split but not split. The story about MPs joining the Co-op Party and taking a Co-op whip demonstrates that all such options are being looked at. As a Co-op Party member I'd be quite happy to see mutualism pushed much higher up the UK political agenda and more MPs would help.
Either way. Get the popcorn in. We are the car that keeps crashing.
Apple has sailed very close to the wind on a lot of tax issues. It's hard to feel terribly sympathetic towards them.
Especially when one considers the amount of tax that this nation has lost out on. British consumers buy Apple products and services, the profits are offshored to Ireland and then they do a dirty deal which sees them pay just 1% on it all. No sympathy.
Shouldn't you be on the side of the Irish government, prevented from setting its own tax rate to attract investment by the dastardly EU?
If they want to set their tax rate to 1% then I'd have no problem with it, but they haven't done that. They've made sweetheart deals with multinationals in a free capital movement zone. It is economic warfare. As I said earlier, it is a rare point of agreement I have with the commission. The rules over state aid exist to stop sweetheart deals as they undermine the free movement of capital within the zone, those in the zone should adhere to the rules. Us voting to leave the EU is completely separate to following the rules.
You need to be a bit careful about that line of argument, mind. There are plenty of people in the EU who use it to argue for complete harmonisation of corporate, direct and indirect tax rates.
And labour standards.
And regulatory systems.
etc.
Not really, this is a state aid issue rather than tax harmonisation. The commission are not forcing Ireland to raise their tax rate from 12.5% to 20% to bring it in line with the EU average, they are in fact recognising Ireland's 12.5% rate and enforcing it. If Ireland reduced their headline rate to 1% for all companies they'd have no issue going forwards, but one imagines the EU might not look kindly on their continued membership of the single market.
I think Ireland would go bust (again) if they went to 1%...
Your two points conflict with each other. If you want to see Apple pay more tax then surely you should be unhappy that Ireland is letting Apple have a free pass on its tax bill?
I want Apple to pay more tax in the UK, I don't care what they pay in Ireland.
TSE do bears have foreskins? I ask because my stepmother used to have a piece of jewellery made from a bear's pizzle (penis bone). They're Obviously not constructed quite the same down there as you and me!
On Apple: Presumably once we're free of the EU we can set Corporation Tax to whatever level suits us, no matter how predatory, and undermine Ireland and Luxembourg to ours heart's content.
I don't think Luxembourg's corporate tax rate is particularly low. Isn't in 29 or 30%?
It's an interesting case. Apple says that the marketing and technology that contribute to their Irish profits are not based in Ireland, only the manufacturing.
The Irish government chose to accept that argument (no one has ever said Apple were evading tax), and yes, the EU has identified that as a sweetheart deal.
But it is still the EU meddling in the affairs of one of its member states which I had imagined would drive you mad with frustration. As you guys have always said, it's not the numbers that matter, it's the principle.
I can see what you're saying, but you're missing the point. I'm not saying that the EU should meddle in tax affairs or be involved in setting tax rates for countries. They should, and are in this case, ensure that all countries stick to the rules on state aid. It is patently obvious that the sweetheart deals that Ireland have struck with Apple and others run counter to single market rules so they should be struck down. If Ireland decided that it was now in its interest to formalise the 1% corporation tax rate and backdate it for all companies, then that's up to them, the commission should not interfere, and neither should Ireland be helped when they inevitably go bankrupt.
Ireland have chosen to be part of the single market and should stick to the rules of the single market if they want to continue being part of it. Our choosing to leave is partly because we didn't like sticking to their rules, Ireland are free to choose that path, though their tax haven status might not be as assured outside of the single market so they'd need to weigh up the pros and cons.
That is a good summary.
Of course as they did in 1991 I'm sure that Apple's counsel will argue heartily that the exemption should remain.
I'm not sure that will hold much water, Ireland were in the EEC at the time.
''Apple has sailed very close to the wind on a lot of tax issues. It's hard to feel terribly sympathetic towards them.''
The Irish government is in an interesting position. At the moment, they appear to be fighting fiercely not to get an extra 13bn in taxes.
They're fighting not to have the EU dictate their taxation policy.
I'm not quite sure they've understood how this EU stuff works. Loss of national sovereignty is precisely the point.
I don't think that's the case here. The EU - like NAFTA, and pretty much every FTA - includes rules to limit state subsidies. In other words, we can't enter into an FTA with (picking a random country) Norway, which then uses government funds to subsidise the Norwegian car industry and put the British car industry out of business.
That was the grounds on which this case was fought.
Now, there is a justifiable question about whether 'sweetheart tax deals' are state subsidy, but if they are, then giving preferential tax treatment, i.e. 1% tax rates rather than the Republic's standard 12.5%, was always going to end in trouble.
To my mind, this is a much less interesting case (because other than a couple of US tech companies and a drug company or two have these deals) than the transfer pricing and local content ones coming in the US.
You may well be right. I'm not a tax expert. I was speculating as to why Ireland was appealing the decision. I think - though I have no inside knowledge on this, obviously - that they are worried that pressure is going to be put on them to raise their tax rates so that they lose, as they see it, one of their competitive advantages. They may feel that if they lose the right to do deals such as this, corporate tax rates will be the next target of the EU. There may not be a logical connection between the two.
Your two points conflict with each other. If you want to see Apple pay more tax then surely you should be unhappy that Ireland is letting Apple have a free pass on its tax bill?
I want Apple to pay more tax in the UK, I don't care what they pay in Ireland.
Then you'll be keen to see the result of some of the upcoming transfer pricing cases (albeit none are - to be knowledge - coming in the UK).
Apple has sailed very close to the wind on a lot of tax issues. It's hard to feel terribly sympathetic towards them.
Especially when one considers the amount of tax that this nation has lost out on. British consumers buy Apple products and services, the profits are offshored to Ireland and then they do a dirty deal which sees them pay just 1% on it all. No sympathy.
Shouldn't you be on the side of the Irish government, prevented from setting its own tax rate to attract investment by the dastardly EU?
If they want to set their tax rate to 1% then I'd have no problem with it, but they haven't done that. They've made sweetheart deals with multinationals in a free capital movement zone. It is economic warfare. As I said earlier, it is a rare point of agreement I have with the commission. The rules over state aid exist to stop sweetheart deals as they undermine the free movement of capital within the zone, those in the zone should adhere to the rules. Us voting to leave the EU is completely separate to following the rules.
You need to be a bit careful about that line of argument, mind. There are plenty of people in the EU who use it to argue for complete harmonisation of corporate, direct and indirect tax rates.
And labour standards.
And regulatory systems.
etc.
Not really, this is a state aid issue rather than tax harmonisation. The commission are not forcing Ireland to raise their tax rate from 12.5% to 20% to bring it in line with the EU average, they are in fact recognising Ireland's 12.5% rate and enforcing it. If Ireland reduced their headline rate to 1% for all companies they'd have no issue going forwards, but one imagines the EU might not look kindly on their continued membership of the single market.
I think Ireland would go bust (again) if they went to 1%...
Especially as they would have to back date it for every corporation for 25 years in order to let Apple off the hook!
''Apple has sailed very close to the wind on a lot of tax issues. It's hard to feel terribly sympathetic towards them.''
The Irish government is in an interesting position. At the moment, they appear to be fighting fiercely not to get an extra 13bn in taxes.
They're fighting not to have the EU dictate their taxation policy.
I'm not quite sure they've understood how this EU stuff works. Loss of national sovereignty is precisely the point.
I don't think that's the case here. The EU - like NAFTA, and pretty much every FTA - includes rules to limit state subsidies. In other words, we can't enter into an FTA with (picking a random country) Norway, which then uses government funds to subsidise the Norwegian car industry and put the British car industry out of business.
That was the grounds on which this case was fought.
Now, there is a justifiable question about whether 'sweetheart tax deals' are state subsidy, but if they are, then giving preferential tax treatment, i.e. 1% tax rates rather than the Republic's standard 12.5%, was always going to end in trouble.
To my mind, this is a much less interesting case (because other than a couple of US tech companies and a drug company or two have these deals) than the transfer pricing and local content ones coming in the US.
You may well be right. I'm not a tax expert. I was speculating as to why Ireland was appealing the decision. I think - though I have no inside knowledge on this, obviously - that they are worried that pressure is going to be put on them to raise their tax rates so that they lose, as they see it, one of their competitive advantages. They may feel that if they lose the right to do deals such as this, corporate tax rates will be the next target of the EU. There may not be a logical connection between the two.
But are they wrong to feel like that?
Ireland was under incredible pressure at the height of the Eurozone crisis to raise corporate tax rates. The country was bust and the French were keen to extract concessions in return for Ireland being bailed out.
The Irish refused to blink.
If they couldn't be 'persuaded' then, I don't think they will be now. The treaties are explicit that countries set their own rates; it's not an issue for majority voting. It could be changed, but only with the consent of the Irish government.
What about the LibDems or is the Lab brand too deeply ingrained?
The LibDems? Another sunken party - naah. There is still a battle to fight for Labour's soul.
Putting it simply the membership can crudely be split into pre-2015 members (anti-Corbyn) and post-2015 (pro-Corbyn). The latter seem to be a blend of the young/idealistic, anti-Blairites rejoining the party, or older people with very firm worldviews astonished to find a mainstream politician who talks like them.
Corbyn will win. But large numbers of the people voting for him aren't activists or participants. They just want to pay their membership and protect their man. So although there will be an attempt to purge the pre-2015 party (they're banging on about a purge against them to give them pretext) I expect it to struggle. For example, they expect that seat with Red Tory MP where CLP endorses Corbyn means they get to deselect the MP. They won't get a majority of members to do so - it won't happen in almost all cases.
So I and my sane left and centre-left friends intend to stay and fight. Because we know that a Corbyn infused party where Jezbollah representatives run everything would suffer the worst electoral collapse in history (numerically - Clegg had fewer MPs to bin off).
They insist Labour will win due to non-voters. But we don't need to do traditional voter ID canvassing. We won't therefore have the data to do a get out the vote operation. Which means most non-voters will remain non-voters. They insist Corbyn is only down in the polls because the PLP/MSM/Portland/Establishment/Murdoch conspiracy has distorted His truth.And #wearehismedia will counter that - because everyone in the UK makes political decisions and forms opinions based on bullshit memes on Facebook apparently.
We can avoid all this. Corbyn will win. But the party can jettison him and Jezbollah followers - before my holiday I talked up the idea of a divorce where the party keeps the name and offices and staff and the new members keep Corbyn as one way to split but not split. The story about MPs joining the Co-op Party and taking a Co-op whip demonstrates that all such options are being looked at. As a Co-op Party member I'd be quite happy to see mutualism pushed much higher up the UK political agenda and more MPs would help.
Either way. Get the popcorn in. We are the car that keeps crashing.
How many Lab voters do you think support Corbyn? Must be some, I would have thought. Which will determine whether a splittist party would succeed. Membership is not quite a rounding error but what, 5%-ish of the total?
The anti-Trump Republicans are running ads in swing states under the headline "Keep Your Word", calling on Trump to quit because he's low in the polls. The WSJ has set him a deadline of Labo[u]r Day, next Monday. If he's still in the race by then, presumably they will remember what they said.
It seems improbable he'll quit before the TV debates start on 26 September. Given the likelihood that Roger Stone and Steve Bannon will pull an October Surprise or two out of their hat, it seems unlikely that he'll quit at all.
But what if he does? As we all know, our learned friends would get some juicy work in several states, and in some states perhaps his name would have to stay on the ballot paper and Republicans would tell people that a formal vote for Trump will actually be for whoever their chosen replacement is. If he does quit, then the later the date the greater such complications.
Where does this leave the betting market? Betfair's position has a big gap in it. They say
"This market will be settled according to the candidate that has the most projected Electoral College votes won at the 2016 presidential election. Any subsequent events such as a ‘faithless elector’ will have no effect on the settlement of this market. In the event that no Presidential candidate receives a majority of the projected Electoral College votes, this market will be settled on the person chosen as President in accordance with the procedures set out by the Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution."
It's possible that there will be a majority for Trump in the EC but the next president will still be chosen by the House. If Trump quits late and his name stays on in several states, the Republicans say a vote for him is a vote for Pence, and Trump then gets the most "projected" votes, will Betfair pay out on him? Will the answer be the same, regardless of whether Pence wins as a result of the EC vote as assisted by the SC, or as a result of a Congressional decision as per the 12th amendment?
If Trump does quit before 8 November, the later he does it the better for Paul Ryan; the earlier, the better for Mike Pence or John Kasich.
Apple has sailed very close to the wind on a lot of tax issues. It's hard to feel terribly sympathetic towards them.
Especially when one considers the amount of tax that this nation has lost out on. British consumers buy Apple products and services, the profits are offshored to Ireland and then they do a dirty deal which sees them pay just 1% on it all. No sympathy.
Shouldn't you be on the side of the Irish government, prevented from setting its own tax rate to attract investment by the dastardly EU?
If they want to set their tax rate to 1% then I'd have no problem with it, but they haven't done that. They've made sweetheart deals with multinationals in a free capital movement zone. It is economic warfare. As I said earlier, it is a rare point of agreement I have with the commission. The rules over state aid exist to stop sweetheart deals as they undermine the free movement of capital within the zone, those in the zone should adhere to the rules. Us voting to leave the EU is completely separate to following the rules.
You need to be a bit careful about that line of argument, mind. There are plenty of people in the EU who use it to argue for complete harmonisation of corporate, direct and indirect tax rates.
And labour standards.
And regulatory systems.
etc.
Not really, this is a state aid issue rather than tax harmonisation. The commission are not forcing Ireland to raise their tax rate from 12.5% to 20% to bring it in line with the EU average, they are in fact recognising Ireland's 12.5% rate and enforcing it. If Ireland reduced their headline rate to 1% for all companies they'd have no issue going forwards, but one imagines the EU might not look kindly on their continued membership of the single market.
I think Ireland would go bust (again) if they went to 1%...
Especially as they would have to back date it for every corporation for 25 years in order to let Apple off the hook!
''Apple has sailed very close to the wind on a lot of tax issues. It's hard to feel terribly sympathetic towards them.''
The Irish government is in an interesting position. At the moment, they appear to be fighting fiercely not to get an extra 13bn in taxes.
They're fighting not to have the EU dictate their taxation policy.
I'm not quite sure they've understood how this EU stuff works. Loss of national sovereignty is precisely the point.
I don't think that's the case here. The EU - like NAFTA, and pretty much every FTA - includes rules to limit state subsidies. In other words, we can't enter into an FTA with (picking a random country) Norway, which then uses government funds to subsidise the Norwegian car industry and put the British car industry out of business.
That was the grounds on which this case was fought.
Now, there is a justifiable question about whether 'sweetheart tax deals' are state subsidy, but if they are, then giving preferential tax treatment, i.e. 1% tax rates rather than the Republic's standard 12.5%, was always going to end in trouble.
To my mind, this is a much less interesting case (because other than a couple of US tech companies and a drug company or two have these deals) than the transfer pricing and local content ones coming in the US.
You may well be right. I'm not a tax expert. I was speculating as to why Ireland was appealing the decision. I think - though I have no inside knowledge on this, obviously - that they are worried that pressure is going to be put on them to raise their tax rates so that they lose, as they see it, one of their competitive advantages. They may feel that if they lose the right to do deals such as this, corporate tax rates will be the next target of the EU. There may not be a logical connection between the two.
But are they wrong to feel like that?
I think it's more to do with the recognition of the constituent of Apple's profit than tax rate. Apple says only the manufacturing occurs in Ireland and hence that is what should be taxed.
Your two points conflict with each other. If you want to see Apple pay more tax then surely you should be unhappy that Ireland is letting Apple have a free pass on its tax bill?
I want Apple to pay more tax in the UK, I don't care what they pay in Ireland.
Then you'll be keen to see the result of some of the upcoming transfer pricing cases (albeit none are - to be knowledge - coming in the UK).
I do believe that our diverted profits tax is the answer to that question. Not sure how well it has worked in practice.
''Apple has sailed very close to the wind on a lot of tax issues. It's hard to feel terribly sympathetic towards them.''
The Irish government is in an interesting position. At the moment, they appear to be fighting fiercely not to get an extra 13bn in taxes.
They're fighting not to have the EU dictate their taxation policy.
I'm not quite sure they've understood how this EU stuff works. Loss of national sovereignty is precisely the point.
I don't think that's the case here. The EU - like NAFTA, and pretty much every FTA - includes rules to limit state subsidies. In other words, we can't enter into an FTA with (picking a random country) Norway, which then uses government funds to subsidise the Norwegian car industry and put the British car industry out of business.
That was the grounds on which this case was fought.
Now, there is a justifiable question about whether 'sweetheart tax deals' are state subsidy, but if they are, then giving preferential tax treatment, i.e. 1% tax rates rather than the Republic's standard 12.5%, was always going to end in trouble.
To my mind, this is a much less interesting case (because other than a couple of US tech companies and a drug company or two have these deals) than the transfer pricing and local content ones coming in the US.
You may well be right. I'm not a tax expert. I was speculating as to why Ireland was appealing the decision. I think - though I have no inside knowledge on this, obviously - that they are worried that pressure is going to be put on them to raise their tax rates so that they lose, as they see it, one of their competitive advantages. They may feel that if they lose the right to do deals such as this, corporate tax rates will be the next target of the EU. There may not be a logical connection between the two.
But are they wrong to feel like that?
Ireland was under incredible pressure at the height of the Eurozone crisis to raise corporate tax rates. The country was bust and the French were keen to extract concessions in return for Ireland being bailed out.
The Irish refused to blink.
If they couldn't be 'persuaded' then, I don't think they will be now. The treaties are explicit that countries set their own rates; it's not an issue for majority voting. It could be changed, but only with the consent of the Irish government.
Yeah but back then they had the support of a much bigger member, bow that we are leaving the dynamics will be different.
''Apple has sailed very close to the wind on a lot of tax issues. It's hard to feel terribly sympathetic towards them.''
The Irish government is in an interesting position. At the moment, they appear to be fighting fiercely not to get an extra 13bn in taxes.
They're fighting not to have the EU dictate their taxation policy.
I'm not quite sure they've understood how this EU stuff works. Loss of national sovereignty is precisely the point.
I don't think that's the case here. The EU - like NAFTA, and pretty much every FTA - includes rules to limit state subsidies. In other words, we can't enter into an FTA with (picking a random country) Norway, which then uses government funds to subsidise the Norwegian car industry and put the British car industry out of business.
That was the grounds on which this case was fought.
Now, there is a justifiable question about whether 'sweetheart tax deals' are state subsidy, but if they are, then giving preferential tax treatment, i.e. 1% tax rates rather than the Republic's standard 12.5%, was always going to end in trouble.
To my mind, this is a much less interesting case (because other than a couple of US tech companies and a drug company or two have these deals) than the transfer pricing and local content ones coming in the US.
You may well be right. I'm not a tax expert. I was speculating as to why Ireland was appealing the decision. I think - though I have no inside knowledge on this, obviously - that they are worried that pressure is going to be put on them to raise their tax rates so that they lose, as they see it, one of their competitive advantages. They may feel that if they lose the right to do deals such as this, corporate tax rates will be the next target of the EU. There may not be a logical connection between the two.
But are they wrong to feel like that?
I think it's more to do with the recognition of the constituent of Apple's profit than tax rate. Apple says only the manufacturing occurs in Ireland and hence that is what should be taxed.
TSE do bears have foreskins? I ask because my stepmother used to have a piece of jewellery made from a bear's pizzle (penis bone). They're Obviously not constructed quite the same down there as you and me!
On Apple: Presumably once we're free of the EU we can set Corporation Tax to whatever level suits us, no matter how predatory, and undermine Ireland and Luxembourg to ours heart's content.
All mammals (pretty much) have foreskins. Humans are, however, unusual in large mammals in not having a penis bone. There has been some speculation as to the evolutionary advantages to this.
''Apple has sailed very close to the wind on a lot of tax issues. It's hard to feel terribly sympathetic towards them.''
The Irish government is in an interesting position. At the moment, they appear to be fighting fiercely not to get an extra 13bn in taxes.
They're fighting not to have the EU dictate their taxation policy.
I'm not quite sure they've understood how this EU stuff works. Loss of national sovereignty is precisely the point.
I don't think that's the case here. The EU - like NAFTA, and pretty much every FTA - includes rules to limit state subsidies. In other words, we can't enter into an FTA with (picking a random country) Norway, which then uses government funds to subsidise the Norwegian car industry and put the British car industry out of business.
That was the grounds on which this case was fought.
Now, there is a justifiable question about whether 'sweetheart tax deals' are state subsidy, but if they are, then giving preferential tax treatment, i.e. 1% tax rates rather than the Republic's standard 12.5%, was always going to end in trouble.
To my mind, this is a much less interesting case (because other than a couple of US tech companies and a drug company or two have these deals) than the transfer pricing and local content ones coming in the US.
You may well be right. I'm not a tax expert. I was speculating as to why Ireland was appealing the decision. I think - though I have no inside knowledge on this, obviously - that they are worried that pressure is going to be put on them to raise their tax rates so that they lose, as they see it, one of their competitive advantages. They may feel that if they lose the right to do deals such as this, corporate tax rates will be the next target of the EU. There may not be a logical connection between the two.
But are they wrong to feel like that?
I think it's more to do with the recognition of the constituent of Apple's profit than tax rate. Apple says only the manufacturing occurs in Ireland and hence that is what should be taxed.
It's amazing that one of the most successful retail operations in the entire world, with extraordinary sales per square foot, basically makes no money.
Ah, but it's not a retail operation, it seems:
Nature of business (SIC)
82990 - Other business support service activities not elsewhere classified
It's amazing that one of the most successful retail operations in the entire world, with extraordinary sales per square foot, basically makes no money.
Ah, but it's not a retail operation, it seems:
Nature of business (SIC)
82990 - Other business support service activities not elsewhere classified
Really? ONE BILLION POUNDS of business support services, huh?
It's amazing that one of the most successful retail operations in the entire world, with extraordinary sales per square foot, basically makes no money.
Ah, but it's not a retail operation, it seems:
Nature of business (SIC)
82990 - Other business support service activities not elsewhere classified
I don't think I've bought anything from an apple store. It's always been my go to place for support issues....
Also its gross margins aren't much different from Carphone Dixons. The only thing different is far higher staff and other costs...
The anti-Trump Republicans are running ads in swing states under the headline "Keep Your Word", calling on Trump to quit because he's low in the polls. The WSJ has set him a deadline of Labo[u]r Day, next Monday. If he's still in the race by then, presumably they will remember what they said.
It seems improbable he'll quit before the TV debates start on 26 September. Given the likelihood that Roger Stone and Steve Bannon will pull an October Surprise or two out of their hat, it seems unlikely that he'll quit at all.
But what if he does? As we all know, our learned friends would get some juicy work in several states, and in some states perhaps his name would have to stay on the ballot paper and Republicans would tell people that a formal vote for Trump will actually be for whoever their chosen replacement is. If he does quit, then the later the date the greater such complications.
Where does this leave the betting market? Betfair's position has a big gap in it. They say
"This market will be settled according to the candidate that has the most projected Electoral College votes won at the 2016 presidential election. Any subsequent events such as a ‘faithless elector’ will have no effect on the settlement of this market. In the event that no Presidential candidate receives a majority of the projected Electoral College votes, this market will be settled on the person chosen as President in accordance with the procedures set out by the Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution."
It's possible that there will be a majority for Trump in the EC but the next president will still be chosen by the House. If Trump quits late and his name stays on in several states, the Republicans say a vote for him is a vote for Pence, and Trump then gets the most "projected" votes, will Betfair pay out on him? Will the answer be the same, regardless of whether Pence wins as a result of the EC vote as assisted by the SC, or as a result of a Congressional decision as per the 12th amendment?
If Trump does quit before 8 November, the later he does it the better for Paul Ryan; the earlier, the better for Mike Pence or John Kasich.
i assume if trump quits, pence will takeover the ticket. saying 'vote trump, congress will chose someone else' wont be able to beat clinton
Is that why Apple Retail Ltd, with its ONE BILLION POUND annual turnover somehow fails to actually make meaningful amounts of money?
[/Innocent Face]
I've always been in favour of a simple solution, charge the diverted profits tax on the global net profit margin applied to the national revenue of the subsidiary. That way no one gets to argue against such a simple principle.
It's amazing that one of the most successful retail operations in the entire world, with extraordinary sales per square foot, basically makes no money.
Ah, but it's not a retail operation, it seems:
Nature of business (SIC)
82990 - Other business support service activities not elsewhere classified
It's amazing that one of the most successful retail operations in the entire world, with extraordinary sales per square foot, basically makes no money.
Ah, but it's not a retail operation, it seems:
Nature of business (SIC)
82990 - Other business support service activities not elsewhere classified
Really? ONE BILLION POUNDS of business support services, huh?
In the local elections opposition parties should be well ahead, in his first local elections Corbyn did worse than Ed Miliband, Howard and IDS none of whom became PM
In Miliband's first set of local elections as leader - 2011 - Labour lagged the Tories in NEV by 1%. In 2016 , on the same basis Labour led the Tories by 1% - so Corrbyn did manage to outperform Milliband by 2% in terms of party lead.
You do keep on with this line.
The seats being contested in 2011 were not the same as those as in 2016 - and so the comparison fails.
T By contrast, the Conservatives are currently about 14% better off in the polls than they were this time last parliament (Con lead of 8.8 vs Lab lead of 5.2 in Aug 2011).
The 2011/2016 comparator was quite an easy one for Corbyn to beat the NEV -1 % was not that high a bar but if we are being fair we can see he beat it by 2%.
For Corbyn to keep up with this, he has quite a task on his hands next year to beat Ed Miliband's 6% NEV lead in the 2012 elections (In 2017). Hence this is the bar he should be judged on of course.
If Corbyn is heading for government, I think he needs to be looking at ~ 7+% NEV lead, and then to sustain that through 2018, 19 and not drop off as Ed did.
6% might be passable but you'd still probably back May et al.
I agree with that. However, Labour under Gaitskell experienced poor local election results in both 1960 and 1961 yet still went on to win the 1964 election!
Gaitskell lost the 1959 election, it was Wilson who won the election in 1964
Gaitskell didn't just lose the 1959 election, Labour got absolutely hammered with the Tories picking up their third-biggest majority since the war.
Yes - the Tories won the 1959 election with a majority of 101 overall - 107 over Labour.A bit flattering for Macmillan's Tories in that at the time the 12 Ulster Unionists took the Tory whip which would have implied a Tory majority of 77 on the basis of present day party groupings. Worth pointing out that despite Macmillan's landslide, in GB terms the Tories led Labour by less than 5%. Labour led in the polls for nearly 18 months before Gaitskell's sudden death, and many commentators believe he would have won more comfortably in 1964 than Wilson had he survived.
So he going to spend 25bn of our money on the interweb upgrade. Is he just going to hand that over to BT & tell them to get on with it?
Edit - sorry he is also threatening to renationise BT .
Part of my contract with SG was dealing with rural broadband. I worked with the WA on their rollout in Pembrokshire and Powys. My rural broadband policy is a bit embittered by that experience. It goes something like this. If you've decided to plonk yourself down in the arse end of nowhere, and you're not a farmer, no broadband for you. In Scotland, I decided it was just cheaper and easier to bribe some islanders to relocate .
It's amazing that one of the most successful retail operations in the entire world, with extraordinary sales per square foot, basically makes no money.
Ah, but it's not a retail operation, it seems:
Nature of business (SIC)
82990 - Other business support service activities not elsewhere classified
Really? ONE BILLION POUNDS of business support services, huh?
Not only that, but one billion pounds of business support services which aren't covered by any other SIC code. Completely bizarre.
The anti-Trump Republicans are running ads in swing states under the headline "Keep Your Word", calling on Trump to quit because he's low in the polls. The WSJ has set him a deadline of Labo[u]r Day, next Monday. If he's still in the race by then, presumably they will remember what they said.
It seems improbable he'll quit before the TV debates start on 26 September. Given the likelihood that Roger Stone and Steve Bannon will pull an October Surprise or two out of their hat, it seems unlikely that he'll quit at all.
But what if he does? As we all know, our learned friends would get some juicy work in several states, and in some states perhaps his name would have to stay on the ballot paper and Republicans would tell people that a formal vote for Trump will actually be for whoever their chosen replacement is. If he does quit, then the later the date the greater such complications.
Where does this leave the betting market? Betfair's position has a big gap in it. They say
"This market will be settled according to the candidate that has the most projected Electoral College votes won at the 2016 presidential election. Any subsequent events such as a ‘faithless elector’ will have no effect on the settlement of this market. In the event that no Presidential candidate receives a majority of the projected Electoral College votes, this market will be settled on the person chosen as President in accordance with the procedures set out by the Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution."
It's possible that there will be a majority for Trump in the EC but the next president will still be chosen by the House. If Trump quits late and his name stays on in several states, the Republicans say a vote for him is a vote for Pence, and Trump then gets the most "projected" votes, will Betfair pay out on him? Will the answer be the same, regardless of whether Pence wins as a result of the EC vote as assisted by the SC, or as a result of a Congressional decision as per the 12th amendment?
If Trump does quit before 8 November, the later he does it the better for Paul Ryan; the earlier, the better for Mike Pence or John Kasich.
i assume if trump quits, pence will takeover the ticket. saying 'vote trump, congress will chose someone else' wont be able to beat clinton
The problem is that there are 51 tickets, and it won't be equally easy for the Republican Party's lawyers to achieve a formal Pence takeover of every one of them.
Ireland Brussels Rep Ireland's Minister for Finance Michael Noonan disagrees profoundly with Commission on Apple. See statement here: https://t.co/B3Oxmpcqdk
Part of my contract with SG was dealing with rural broadband. I worked with the WA on their rollout in Pembrokshire and Powys. My rural broadband policy is a bit embittered by that experience. It goes something like this. If you've decided to plonk yourself down in the arse end of nowhere, and you're not a farmer, no broadband for you. In Scotland, I decided it was just cheaper and easier to bribe some islanders to relocate .
Why stop at broadband, applying Corbyn-think to all public and commercial services a couple of dozen people on an island off the west coast of Scotland should have exactly the same access to motorways, airports, hospitals, schools, and so on, as a resident of one of our major cities.
It's amazing that one of the most successful retail operations in the entire world, with extraordinary sales per square foot, basically makes no money.
Ah, but it's not a retail operation, it seems:
Nature of business (SIC)
82990 - Other business support service activities not elsewhere classified
Really? ONE BILLION POUNDS of business support services, huh?
Not only that, but one billion pounds of business support services which aren't covered by any other SIC code. Completely bizarre.
So he going to spend 25bn of our money on the interweb upgrade. Is he just going to hand that over to BT & tell them to get on with it?
Edit - sorry he is also threatening to renationise BT .
Part of my contract with SG was dealing with rural broadband. I worked with the WA on their rollout in Pembrokshire and Powys. My rural broadband policy is a bit embittered by that experience. It goes something like this. If you've decided to plonk yourself down in the arse end of nowhere, and you're not a farmer, no broadband for you. In Scotland, I decided it was just cheaper and easier to bribe some islanders to relocate .
I sometimes live in a remote part of the Eden valley, surrounded by sheep. At the beginning of the year contractors started laying about 2 miles of cable from the main road to bring internet to a few properties. The few properties were already well served by a cheaper private service provider, and so there were no takers for the new supply. End result the cable lies unterminated in a coil at the side of the road,it took nearly 4 weeks to lay the cable.
@TheScreamingEagles Have only just joined the thread but as it seems likely a new one will be up very shortly, just wanted to say thanks for another really intriguing thread header.
So he going to spend 25bn of our money on the interweb upgrade. Is he just going to hand that over to BT & tell them to get on with it?
Edit - sorry he is also threatening to renationise BT .
Part of my contract with SG was dealing with rural broadband. I worked with the WA on their rollout in Pembrokshire and Powys. My rural broadband policy is a bit embittered by that experience. It goes something like this. If you've decided to plonk yourself down in the arse end of nowhere, and you're not a farmer, no broadband for you. In Scotland, I decided it was just cheaper and easier to bribe some islanders to relocate .
John_M Hereabouts, we get a related issue. Townies buy up land and build their McMansions in the middle of nowhere, then demand that a shopping mall be built to service their needs. Locals ask WTF did you move here? We like the isolation and want to keep it that way.
That said, I type this from a farm within the agricultural preserve that has Fios and up to 500Mbs/500Mbs should I be prepared to pay for it.
Comments
08/8 - 14/8 poll: Clinton +6
15/8 - 21/8 poll: Clinton +5
22/8 - 28/8 poll: Clinton +4
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-5952.html
The Irish government is in an interesting position. At the moment, they appear to be fighting fiercely not to get an extra 13bn in taxes.
What about the LibDems or is the Lab brand too deeply ingrained?
I'm not quite sure they've understood how this EU stuff works. Loss of national sovereignty is precisely the point.
“The BBC have told Sir Cliff’s team that they are in no doubt everything was done by the book.
“They have said that the journalist who was given the story at the BBC went to the head of news, who contacted BBC legal and head of legal and even consulted an external media lawyer to clarify their position.
“This took three full days. It was not a spur of the moment thing to broadcast the raid.
"It was planned and strategic for the entire broadcast of the story.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/bbc-tell-cliff-richard-wont-8719274?ref=yfp
Of course I would rephrase it that Ireland agreed to join a club in which this was one of the rules but the principle is exactly one of sovereignty.
Question, as we know all too well, is whether it is worth accepting the rules when material advantage can be gained by breaking them. Or leaving..
On Apple: Presumably once we're free of the EU we can set Corporation Tax to whatever level suits us, no matter how predatory, and undermine Ireland and Luxembourg to ours heart's content.
2016 Election Polls: Clinton vs. Trump
Undoubtedly the party conventions have shifted the presidential 2016 Election Polls significantly toward Clinton. Trump’s own words goes against him in context of some recent activities. It seems that in this 2016 Election Polls “Clinton vs. Trump” debate Trump himself gave away some points by his harsh words in some sensitive issues. Such as being in a strife with a slain Muslim-American soldier died in an action in Iraq, blundering about Veteran’s right, Provoking speech to Mexican-American and last of all others his recent conflict with a Federal judge concerning his nonfunctional Trump’s University.
Presidential Polls 2016
Clinton vs. Trump according to 2016 Election Polls
2016 Election Polls “Clinton vs. Trump” has become the new talk in the entire nation as the national polls as well as state polls published few hours earlier. The national polling average has put Clinton ahead of Trump by 7%. As the main rival party is now Democrat Clinton and Republican Trump the National polls has become now the 2016 Election Polls is “Clinton vs. Trump” Polls. The Upshot Forecast is depicting that Clinton has an 84% chance to win the presidency if they held today. Using the Huffington Post’s polling database the national polling average show that polls started from July 29 – August 8 are used to show this result. Polls conducted more recently and polls with a larger sample size are given greater weight in computing the averages, and polls with partisan sponsors are excluded.
The Irish government chose to accept that argument (no one has ever said Apple were evading tax), and yes, the EU has identified that as a sweetheart deal.
But it is still the EU meddling in the affairs of one of its member states which I had imagined would drive you mad with frustration. As you guys have always said, it's not the numbers that matter, it's the principle.
hmmmm. its still a clear lead by clinton coming into labour day. and she has a lead in money, state polls, adverts on tv and on the ground operations.
And labour standards.
And regulatory systems.
etc.
But here we have a 25-yr old deal which the EU has noticed and doesn't like and told a member state government has been against the rules, and everyone is cheering on the EU.
Some of it was clearly a sham arrangement, to use its proper meaning, i.e. with the acquiescence of both sides. The more difficult question is whether that was a valid thing for the Irish government to do.
Our problem is that Apple does business in such a way as to make very little money in the UK, by paying Apple Ireland a lot, even though we are Apple's fourth largest market and Apple is an incredibly profitable company. I'd like to see that stopped in or out of the EU, as I assume would most people.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3764729/Kim-Jong-uses-anti-aircraft-gun-execute-one-high-ranking-official-SLEEPING-meeting-coming-idea.html
That was the grounds on which this case was fought.
Now, there is a justifiable question about whether 'sweetheart tax deals' are state subsidy, but if they are, then giving preferential tax treatment, i.e. 1% tax rates rather than the Republic's standard 12.5%, was always going to end in trouble.
To my mind, this is a much less interesting case (because other than a couple of US tech companies and a drug company or two have these deals) than the transfer pricing and local content ones coming in the US.
Ireland have chosen to be part of the single market and should stick to the rules of the single market if they want to continue being part of it. Our choosing to leave is partly because we didn't like sticking to their rules, Ireland are free to choose that path, though their tax haven status might not be as assured outside of the single market so they'd need to weigh up the pros and cons.
The French have been breaking EU rules forever and face few consequences - if they actually had to comply (and pay the fines), they would be out of there like a shot.
Of course as they did in 1991 I'm sure that Apple's counsel will argue heartily that the exemption should remain.
Well we tried our hardest to fight that tax demand for you (trying to keep the 5,000 jobs) but thanks for paying off all our debt....
It's amazing that one of the most successful retail operations in the entire world, with extraordinary sales per square foot, basically makes no money.
Putting it simply the membership can crudely be split into pre-2015 members (anti-Corbyn) and post-2015 (pro-Corbyn). The latter seem to be a blend of the young/idealistic, anti-Blairites rejoining the party, or older people with very firm worldviews astonished to find a mainstream politician who talks like them.
Corbyn will win. But large numbers of the people voting for him aren't activists or participants. They just want to pay their membership and protect their man. So although there will be an attempt to purge the pre-2015 party (they're banging on about a purge against them to give them pretext) I expect it to struggle. For example, they expect that seat with Red Tory MP where CLP endorses Corbyn means they get to deselect the MP. They won't get a majority of members to do so - it won't happen in almost all cases.
So I and my sane left and centre-left friends intend to stay and fight. Because we know that a Corbyn infused party where Jezbollah representatives run everything would suffer the worst electoral collapse in history (numerically - Clegg had fewer MPs to bin off).
They insist Labour will win due to non-voters. But we don't need to do traditional voter ID canvassing. We won't therefore have the data to do a get out the vote operation. Which means most non-voters will remain non-voters. They insist Corbyn is only down in the polls because the PLP/MSM/Portland/Establishment/Murdoch conspiracy has distorted His truth.And #wearehismedia will counter that - because everyone in the UK makes political decisions and forms opinions based on bullshit memes on Facebook apparently.
We can avoid all this. Corbyn will win. But the party can jettison him and Jezbollah followers - before my holiday I talked up the idea of a divorce where the party keeps the name and offices and staff and the new members keep Corbyn as one way to split but not split. The story about MPs joining the Co-op Party and taking a Co-op whip demonstrates that all such options are being looked at. As a Co-op Party member I'd be quite happy to see mutualism pushed much higher up the UK political agenda and more MPs would help.
Either way. Get the popcorn in. We are the car that keeps crashing.
But are they wrong to feel like that?
The Irish refused to blink.
If they couldn't be 'persuaded' then, I don't think they will be now. The treaties are explicit that countries set their own rates; it's not an issue for majority voting. It could be changed, but only with the consent of the Irish government.
It seems improbable he'll quit before the TV debates start on 26 September. Given the likelihood that Roger Stone and Steve Bannon will pull an October Surprise or two out of their hat, it seems unlikely that he'll quit at all.
But what if he does? As we all know, our learned friends would get some juicy work in several states, and in some states perhaps his name would have to stay on the ballot paper and Republicans would tell people that a formal vote for Trump will actually be for whoever their chosen replacement is. If he does quit, then the later the date the greater such complications.
Where does this leave the betting market? Betfair's position has a big gap in it. They say
"This market will be settled according to the candidate that has the most projected Electoral College votes won at the 2016 presidential election. Any subsequent events such as a ‘faithless elector’ will have no effect on the settlement of this market. In the event that no Presidential candidate receives a majority of the projected Electoral College votes, this market will be settled on the person chosen as President in accordance with the procedures set out by the Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution."
It's possible that there will be a majority for Trump in the EC but the next president will still be chosen by the House. If Trump quits late and his name stays on in several states, the Republicans say a vote for him is a vote for Pence, and Trump then gets the most "projected" votes, will Betfair pay out on him? Will the answer be the same, regardless of whether Pence wins as a result of the EC vote as assisted by the SC, or as a result of a Congressional decision as per the 12th amendment?
If Trump does quit before 8 November, the later he does it the better for Paul Ryan; the earlier, the better for Mike Pence or John Kasich.
Good article uk.businessinsider.com/how-apple-managed-to-get-its-tax-deal-in-ireland-in-1991-2016-8
Is Google too big to get challenged, or what?
Is that why Apple Retail Ltd, with its ONE BILLION POUND annual turnover somehow fails to actually make meaningful amounts of money?
[/Innocent Face]
Nature of business (SIC)
82990 - Other business support service activities not elsewhere classified
Also its gross margins aren't much different from Carphone Dixons. The only thing different is far higher staff and other costs...
And of course the Irish heartily voted with France against that bigger member at every opportunity. Idiots.
i assume if trump quits, pence will takeover the ticket. saying 'vote trump, congress will chose someone else' wont be able to beat clinton
I have seen $216bn as the rough number.
Why would they (financial journalist) have said that?
Ireland's Minister for Finance Michael Noonan disagrees profoundly with Commission on Apple. See statement here: https://t.co/B3Oxmpcqdk
Clinton 48 .. Trump 42
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/poll-donald-trump-chips-away-hillary-clinton-s-national-lead-n639591
http://www.lemonde.fr/referendum-sur-le-brexit/video/2016/08/30/hollande-le-brexit-doit-etre-conclu-d-ici-2019_4989944_4872498.html
I love the way this is all getting set up so that May gets to stick it to Johnny Foreigner by faffing around for a while and not leaving the EU.
NEW THREAD
The 10 factors driving US polarisation. From Jonathan Haidt's speech https://t.co/u263U5BoUp https://t.co/f66eTotinM
Good afternoon, everyone.
That said, I type this from a farm within the agricultural preserve that has Fios and up to 500Mbs/500Mbs should I be prepared to pay for it.