Does not justify England's governments current attitude or the Scottish Government meekly accepting it.
There is no England government. Which is part of the problem.
Technically you are correct.
In practice, it feels like the "Provinces" have been given their Assemblies and Westminster governs for England. What is good for England is good for the UK, so to speak.
No, as there are still Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs at Westminster.
Personally I have no problem with an English Parliament
Technically you are also correct. But it does not feel like that.
When are you going to grasp the fact that for Ordinary Joe/Joanne, perception is everything and facts are a long way down the list...
The facts are there is a UK Parliament at Westminster, a Scottish Parliament at Holyrood, a Welsh Assembly in Cardiff Bay and a Northern Ireland Assembly at Stormont but no English Parliament or Assembly.
As for perception 41% of English voters and 52% of Leave voters do indeed want an English Parliament
Covid has demonstrated very starkly that in so many areas the Westminster government only governs England. Most notably, Hancock is England's Secretary of State for Health.
@BluestBlue you cannot seperate race from power and wealth. No matter how meritocratic we make our society, and how easy it becomes for a non white person to work hard and secure an upper-middle-class career, its impossible to compete, or catch up, with wealth and power accumulated over 1000 years, predominately in white hands. It’s impossible.
There is no easy solution. I don’t know what the solution is.
'its impossible to compete, or catch up, with wealth and power accumulated over 1000 years, predominately in white hands. It’s impossible.'
I have literally no idea what this means. I have personal experience of first- and second-generation immigrants who have scaled the economic, educational, social, and professional heights of Britain, reaching levels that many of the 'white hands' you mention haven't grasped in the past 1000 years.
This is a state of affairs of which both those 'new Britons' and the old ones should be immensely proud.
What are you talking about? I’m not saying that immigrants cannot scale economic, educational, social, and professional heights. I’m saying that as a whole, it’s impossible to catch up with accumulated wealth. Just look at South Africa for god sake. White South Africans still are, on the whole, the richest.
To deny such a fact is just willful ignorance.
I'm not a socialist - I don't view absolute equality of outcome for every social group as a good, whether a family has been here for a thousand years or for five.
Your idea implies that we would need to bring the material and 'power' assets of the entire population to a level of equality, which is frankly bonkers. Much better to create a free society in which the industrious and talented rise and the rest dip, from generation to generation. That's all that can or should be done.
Talent is an accident of birth. Why should the talented but lazy be rewarded more highly than those who work hard but don't have as much talent?
The problem comes when you have those with neither talent nor energy rising to the top through accident of birth...
Mr. Pioneers, you remember the Scots voted to stay in the UK in a once in a generation vote, right?
That was six years ago.
... a generation in politics is a parliament and many have passed since then ...
@malcolmg - I am sympathetic, but even I think that statement is a stretch.....
Bev, no problem, however each election everything and anything is up for change, this pathetic diversion of trying to say it was written in law that a generation must pass is pathetic and encapsulates everything that is rotten and putrid in the unionists. Bunch of cowards desperate to keep Scotland under the yoke, so unsure of themselves they try to prevent a referendum, it speaks volumes of the cowards they are.
"Once in a generation" was a personal promise by Salmond. If we accept that *parliaments* cannot pass *laws* binding their successors why would we even pretend to think that the personal dicta of FMs can? We live under the rule of law, not the rule of the whims of Big Men. A breach of Salmond's undertaking would be personally dishonourable on the part of Salmond and anyone who adopted it last time round, but constitutionally it is irrelevant.
I agree largely with what your saying, but to be pedantic I don't think Salmond's statement was really framed as a personal promise, or not over and above the standard 'we'll definitely have a world beating app' politicians' bs.
'"In my opinion, and it is just my opinion, this is a once in a generation opportunity for Scotland."
Asked if he could pledge not to bring back another referendum if the Yes campaign does not win on Thursday, he said: "That's my view. My view is this is a once in a generation, perhaps even a once in a lifetime, opportunity for Scotland."'
If it was a promise, he can certainly say has not brought back another referendum. I'd also predict that he will never again be in a position to do so, though that's my opinion, and it is just my opinion.
It was a promise both Nats and Unionists promised to respect in 2014 and most importantly respecting that promise was a Tory manifesto commitment in 2019 the Tories won a majority of 80 to deliver.
As there can be no indyref2 without Westminster consent there will therefore be no indyref2 for the rest of this parliament
Incorrect. There can be indyref2 without Westminster consent. There would however be doubts over its legitimacy.
Thanks to @Casino_Royale for a nice header. It well articulates many sentiments that most people (including me) would agree with. But let's focus on the main message - that we need more and better dialogue about the subject of racism.
We do. Everyone says this. But do they really mean it? Or is it a piece of motherhood and apple pie deflection? You know, along the lines of the notorious platitude, "the way to prevent affluent people using private schools is to make state schools so good that they don't want to."
Because it seems to me that for those who constantly deride anti-racist campaigners as the "woke brigade" more conversation about racism - indeed any conversation about racism - is precisely what they do not want. It exasperates. It bores. Why? Because in truth they feel the problem is at best wildly exaggerated and at worst a grievance narrative invented by a Left obsessed with identity politics.
Either that or they suspect there is a problem but would prefer to shy away from it since it creates queasiness to consider there might - there just might - be a lingering, deep-seated racist legacy from Empire, Slavery & Colonialism which we need to face up to in order to realize the "colour blind" future that almost everyone (I think sincerely) wishes to see.
So rather than put in the hard yards to confront the issue - which could be difficult and unpleasant but would have a chance of paying real dividends - what they seek to do instead is pretend it isn't there. Not so much "let's talk about racism" - it's "let's talk about anything except racism." The desire is to close the subject down. Cards used - invention, extrapolation, deflection, ridicule.
We see it time and time again on here.
The reaction to a statue of a slaver coming down? - The evergreen "Oh FFS what's next?" plus a cry of "Mob rule, lock em up!"
To the N word removed from a TV show? - "Oh FFS, what's next?" plus "How come Kanye West can say it? It's not fair! No consistency!"
To an anti-racist # of Black Lives Matter - "Yeah, so how come they don't talk about all the blacks killing other blacks?"
In other words - long story short - I like the message of more dialogue on racism in this header but I question the good faith of those on here who are probably applauding it the most strongly. Since they are the very people who in practice demonstrate to me the opposite tendency.
Perhaps there's many issues relating to race in the modern world you prefer not to discuss ?
So you keep retreating to your 18th century comfort zone.
Please start such a discussion. I will be pleased to contribute.
Well CR already has but I've also made comments today about the issue and how it affected by class, housing affordability, the specific inequality issues areas of large Afro-Caribbean communities have and what the consequences covid might be.
You'll find them timed at 10:56, 11:18, 11:34 and 11:38.
Another very important thing. I was reflecting on how my career has been boosted by my network.
Much of this resulted from working with people more senior than me and then getting to know them socially and personally better after hours, so we really bonded. When you then reach out for help later they then go out of their way to help you.
Men should socialise far more with women outside the office (still a bit of raised eyebrows goes on about that, with people assuming they must be shagging) and also from different backgrounds.
So you can actually make a difference just by going to the pub with a range of BAME people at work, buying them a drink, having a laugh and getting to know them.
Isn't that great?
It's also something worth bringing into the current discussion of everyone working from home.
The socialisation aspect of work is definitely under-estimated, if the next year is spend with all white-collar staff WFH, companies need to think about social events and team-building a lot more than they do now.
I suspect a VAT cut achieves sod all, as Brown found out (albeit his cut was a lot smaller than being proposed).
If the economy is in the toilet, which it is, people aren't going to spend spend spend and rescue it.
I dunno, I think it makes some sense. VAT is essentially a tax on spending and it seems odd to disincentivise spending in a capitalist economy. I know it’s one of the easiest tax to collect, but still.
I think it makes sense to try it and if it works great - but I don't think it will be the boost the economy needs.
You do it in a targeted manner. Dropping VAT on pubs makes a £6 pint £5. Leave the VAT on off sales though, make the supermarket booze relatively more expensive.
A pint being a £1 cheaper is going to make sod all difference to the economy at large.
Not only will it save you money on your night out, it will also support hundreds of thousands of jobs in the industry most affected by the current epidemic.
Personally I’d drop VAT on most services too, help get the nation back to work.
A few quid saved on a night out isn't going to kick start the economy.
Basically I think the economy is fucked - and I think small things aren't going to save it.
Employer NI next on the list then - literally a tax on jobs.
What distinguishes it from employee NICs?
It’s a hidden tax which means it’s taken the brunt of all hidden tax rises over the past 15 years.
For those in IT IR35 is still only a problem because of the amount of money employer NI now raises it’s something like £40bn.
Oh, and while we are talking of tax cuts, definitely scrap IR35 - perhaps the worst thought through piece of taxation in decades. Government should be encouraging entrepreneurship, not making it more expensive than regular employment.
"You do it in a targeted manner. Dropping VAT on pubs makes a £6 pint £5. Leave the VAT on off sales though, make the supermarket booze relatively more expensive."
I suspect a VAT cut achieves sod all, as Brown found out (albeit his cut was a lot smaller than being proposed).
If the economy is in the toilet, which it is, people aren't going to spend spend spend and rescue it.
I dunno, I think it makes some sense. VAT is essentially a tax on spending and it seems odd to disincentivise spending in a capitalist economy. I know it’s one of the easiest tax to collect, but still.
I think it makes sense to try it and if it works great - but I don't think it will be the boost the economy needs.
You do it in a targeted manner. Dropping VAT on pubs makes a £6 pint £5. Leave the VAT on off sales though, make the supermarket booze relatively more expensive.
A pint being a £1 cheaper is going to make sod all difference to the economy at large.
It will make people happier, a measure that cannot be understated in terms of confidence in the economy I think.
It will certainly make them merrier.
Is a government policy that will promote public drunkenness such a good idea?
Oh great, the predictable immigrant bashing will start now
Are we allowed to ask any questions about what motivated him, or would that be racist to you?
If it was a white English man, would you be implying questions about his religious/cultural background or not?
Given that this is now being classed as terrorism, his religion becomes extremely relevant.
Given that we now know he is a refugee with a criminal record, his ethnicity is likewise extremely relevant.
When an English person commits acts of terror, their religious background never comes into it. Contrast the coverage of how the media reports it for a start.
I have no issue with discussing his religious background for what it's worth - but I do have a great issue with people that will inevitably jump to "it's because he's religious" and this will turn into an immigrant bashing exercise again.
The problem with terrorist incidents like these is that they are never seen in isolation like they would be for a Christian terrorist. It always inevitably leads to attacks on the religion itself and all immigrants.
Anders Breivik? (Yes, I know he’s Norwegian.)
From what I recall, Anders Breivik is a far right racist with a particular obsession with Islam. I don't believe he expressed any interest in Christianity in his manifesto - though he expressed admiration for racist nutters in the Hindu world, among others.
Mr. Pioneers, you remember the Scots voted to stay in the UK in a once in a generation vote, right?
That was six years ago.
... a generation in politics is a parliament and many have passed since then ...
@malcolmg - I am sympathetic, but even I think that statement is a stretch.....
Bev, no problem, however each election everything and anything is up for change, this pathetic diversion of trying to say it was written in law that a generation must pass is pathetic and encapsulates everything that is rotten and putrid in the unionists. Bunch of cowards desperate to keep Scotland under the yoke, so unsure of themselves they try to prevent a referendum, it speaks volumes of the cowards they are.
"Once in a generation" was a personal promise by Salmond. If we accept that *parliaments* cannot pass *laws* binding their successors why would we even pretend to think that the personal dicta of FMs can? We live under the rule of law, not the rule of the whims of Big Men. A breach of Salmond's undertaking would be personally dishonourable on the part of Salmond and anyone who adopted it last time round, but constitutionally it is irrelevant.
I agree largely with what your saying, but to be pedantic I don't think Salmond's statement was really framed as a personal promise, or not over and above the standard 'we'll definitely have a world beating app' politicians' bs.
'"In my opinion, and it is just my opinion, this is a once in a generation opportunity for Scotland."
Asked if he could pledge not to bring back another referendum if the Yes campaign does not win on Thursday, he said: "That's my view. My view is this is a once in a generation, perhaps even a once in a lifetime, opportunity for Scotland."'
If it was a promise, he can certainly say has not brought back another referendum. I'd also predict that he will never again be in a position to do so, though that's my opinion, and it is just my opinion.
It was a promise both Nats and Unionists promised to respect in 2014 and most importantly respecting that promise was a Tory manifesto commitment in 2019 the Tories won a majority of 80 to deliver.
As there can be no indyref2 without Westminster consent there will therefore be no indyref2 for the rest of this parliament
Incorrect. There can be indyref2 without Westminster consent. There would however be doubts over its legitimacy.
Who pays the bill for the mechanics of such a referendum. given that it's a reserved matter?
Oh great, the predictable immigrant bashing will start now
Are we allowed to ask any questions about what motivated him, or would that be racist to you?
If it was a white English man, would you be implying questions about his religious/cultural background or not?
Given that this is now being classed as terrorism, his religion becomes extremely relevant.
Given that we now know he is a refugee with a criminal record, his ethnicity is likewise extremely relevant.
When an English person commits acts of terror, their religious background never comes into it. Contrast the coverage of how the media reports it for a start.
I have no issue with discussing his religious background for what it's worth - but I do have a great issue with people that will inevitably jump to "it's because he's religious" and this will turn into an immigrant bashing exercise again.
The problem with terrorist incidents like these is that they are never seen in isolation like they would be for a Christian terrorist. It always inevitably leads to attacks on the religion itself and all immigrants.
The last English person to commit an act of terror in Britain being.....??
Probably the guy during the referendum? When was his religious background ever brought up? When did that become an attack on all Christians as this will inevitably become about Muslims?
As far as I know Thomas Mair was not a Christian. I’m willing to be corrected on that if anyone knows differently.
Mair was a professed far-right racist. As far as I know, he never talked or write about his actions in any other context than hard core racism, not religion.
Similarly with the Soho bomber, who again as far as I am aware was not religious, and Oklahoma bomber Timothy McVeigh, who described himself as an agnostic (although he did take the last rites).
The problem is that for terrorists committing atrocities in the name of Islam, questions do have to be asked about the way in which their religion influenced them. That holds true even if it is a perverted form of it - arguably, especially true.
As would be the case if there were lots of terrorists belonging to the C of E or the Quakers.
Mr. Pioneers, you remember the Scots voted to stay in the UK in a once in a generation vote, right?
That was six years ago.
... a generation in politics is a parliament and many have passed since then ...
@malcolmg - I am sympathetic, but even I think that statement is a stretch.....
Bev, no problem, however each election everything and anything is up for change, this pathetic diversion of trying to say it was written in law that a generation must pass is pathetic and encapsulates everything that is rotten and putrid in the unionists. Bunch of cowards desperate to keep Scotland under the yoke, so unsure of themselves they try to prevent a referendum, it speaks volumes of the cowards they are.
"Once in a generation" was a personal promise by Salmond. If we accept that *parliaments* cannot pass *laws* binding their successors why would we even pretend to think that the personal dicta of FMs can? We live under the rule of law, not the rule of the whims of Big Men. A breach of Salmond's undertaking would be personally dishonourable on the part of Salmond and anyone who adopted it last time round, but constitutionally it is irrelevant.
I agree largely with what your saying, but to be pedantic I don't think Salmond's statement was really framed as a personal promise, or not over and above the standard 'we'll definitely have a world beating app' politicians' bs.
'"In my opinion, and it is just my opinion, this is a once in a generation opportunity for Scotland."
Asked if he could pledge not to bring back another referendum if the Yes campaign does not win on Thursday, he said: "That's my view. My view is this is a once in a generation, perhaps even a once in a lifetime, opportunity for Scotland."'
If it was a promise, he can certainly say has not brought back another referendum. I'd also predict that he will never again be in a position to do so, though that's my opinion, and it is just my opinion.
It was a promise both Nats and Unionists promised to respect in 2014 and most importantly respecting that promise was a Tory manifesto commitment in 2019 the Tories won a majority of 80 to deliver.
As there can be no indyref2 without Westminster consent there will therefore be no indyref2 for the rest of this parliament
Incorrect. There can be indyref2 without Westminster consent. There would however be doubts over its legitimacy.
No doubts, it would be an illegal referendum and ignored by Westminster exactly as Madrid ignored the illegal referendum in Catalonia.
Though Sturgeon has correctly accepted there can be no indyref2 without Westminster consent anyway
Thanks to @Casino_Royale for a nice header. It well articulates many sentiments that most people (including me) would agree with. But let's focus on the main message - that we need more and better dialogue about the subject of racism.
We do. Everyone says this. But do they really mean it? Or is it a piece of motherhood and apple pie deflection? You know, along the lines of the notorious platitude, "the way to prevent affluent people using private schools is to make state schools so good that they don't want to."
Because it seems to me that for those who constantly deride anti-racist campaigners as the "woke brigade" more conversation about racism - indeed any conversation about racism - is precisely what they do not want. It exasperates. It bores. Why? Because in truth they feel the problem is at best wildly exaggerated and at worst a grievance narrative invented by a Left obsessed with identity politics.
Either that or they suspect there is a problem but would prefer to shy away from it since it creates queasiness to consider there might - there just might - be a lingering, deep-seated racist legacy from Empire, Slavery & Colonialism which we need to face up to in order to realize the "colour blind" future that almost everyone (I think sincerely) wishes to see.
So rather than put in the hard yards to confront the issue - which could be difficult and unpleasant but would have a chance of paying real dividends - what they seek to do instead is pretend it isn't there. Not so much "let's talk about racism" - it's "let's talk about anything except racism." The desire is to close the subject down. Cards used - invention, extrapolation, deflection, ridicule.
We see it time and time again on here.
The reaction to a statue of a slaver coming down? - The evergreen "Oh FFS what's next?" plus a cry of "Mob rule, lock em up!"
To the N word removed from a TV show? - "Oh FFS, what's next?" plus "How come Kanye West can say it? It's not fair! No consistency!"
To an anti-racist # of Black Lives Matter - "Yeah, so how come they don't talk about all the blacks killing other blacks?"
In other words - long story short - I like the message of more dialogue on racism in this header but I question the good faith of those on here who are probably applauding it the most strongly. Since they are the very people who in practice demonstrate to me the opposite tendency.
Perhaps there's many issues relating to race in the modern world you prefer not to discuss ?
So you keep retreating to your 18th century comfort zone.
Please start such a discussion. I will be pleased to contribute.
Well CR already has but I've also made comments today about the issue and how it affected by class, housing affordability, the specific inequality issues areas of large Afro-Caribbean communities have and what the consequences covid might be.
You'll find them timed at 10:56, 11:18, 11:34 and 11:38.
Another very important thing. I was reflecting on how my career has been boosted by my network.
Much of this resulted from working with people more senior than me and then getting to know them socially and personally better after hours, so we really bonded. When you then reach out for help later they then go out of their way to help you.
Men should socialise far more with women outside the office (still a bit of raised eyebrows goes on about that, with people assuming they must be shagging) and also from different backgrounds.
So you can actually make a difference just by going to the pub with a range of BAME people at work, buying them a drink, having a laugh and getting to know them.
Isn't that great?
It's also something worth bringing into the current discussion of everyone working from home.
The socialisation aspect of work is definitely under-estimated, if the next year is spend with all white-collar staff WFH, companies need to think about social events and team-building a lot more than they do now.
In lockdown, we're all dining off relationships we made in the office from before.
That's why we'll always have to go in a little bit, even if it's just a couple of times a week.
'It appears the attack was stopped when a lone sergeant, who responded when the alarm was raised, ran to the scene, saw the attacker running away with a knife and rugby tackled him to the ground.'
This must be more of that unconscionable police brutality we've heard so much about. Let's give free rein to the people spraying 'ACAB' on the Cenotaph, shall we?
Complete and utter shite you must have a very sad mind whilst pretending to be some over educated posho who just likes to stir
Mr. Pioneers, you remember the Scots voted to stay in the UK in a once in a generation vote, right?
That was six years ago.
... a generation in politics is a parliament and many have passed since then ...
@malcolmg - I am sympathetic, but even I think that statement is a stretch.....
Bev, no problem, however each election everything and anything is up for change, this pathetic diversion of trying to say it was written in law that a generation must pass is pathetic and encapsulates everything that is rotten and putrid in the unionists. Bunch of cowards desperate to keep Scotland under the yoke, so unsure of themselves they try to prevent a referendum, it speaks volumes of the cowards they are.
"Once in a generation" was a personal promise by Salmond. If we accept that *parliaments* cannot pass *laws* binding their successors why would we even pretend to think that the personal dicta of FMs can? We live under the rule of law, not the rule of the whims of Big Men. A breach of Salmond's undertaking would be personally dishonourable on the part of Salmond and anyone who adopted it last time round, but constitutionally it is irrelevant.
I agree largely with what your saying, but to be pedantic I don't think Salmond's statement was really framed as a personal promise, or not over and above the standard 'we'll definitely have a world beating app' politicians' bs.
'"In my opinion, and it is just my opinion, this is a once in a generation opportunity for Scotland."
Asked if he could pledge not to bring back another referendum if the Yes campaign does not win on Thursday, he said: "That's my view. My view is this is a once in a generation, perhaps even a once in a lifetime, opportunity for Scotland."'
If it was a promise, he can certainly say has not brought back another referendum. I'd also predict that he will never again be in a position to do so, though that's my opinion, and it is just my opinion.
It was a promise both Nats and Unionists promised to respect in 2014 and most importantly respecting that promise was a Tory manifesto commitment in 2019 the Tories won a majority of 80 to deliver.
As there can be no indyref2 without Westminster consent there will therefore be no indyref2 for the rest of this parliament
Incorrect. There can be indyref2 without Westminster consent. There would however be doubts over its legitimacy.
No doubts, it would be an illegal referendum and ignored by Westminster exactly as Madrid ignored the illegal referendum in Catalonia.
Though Sturgeon has correctly accepted there can be no indyref2 without Westminster consent anyway
Yawn. Are you getting your authoritarian horn again?
Interesting article on VAT in the Sunday Times to boost the economy.
I'd say cut it to 10% for 18 months. When you're £400bn in the hole it's not the time to play it safe for the sake of saving another £40bn, at the cost of staying there forever.
You need to make some big moves.
They need to remove VAT on house extensions and repairs to boost spending and help unemployment. There is no VAT on new housing , so help small building contractors for a change.
My son in law has commissioned an extension and the architect told him if he appoints a builder to just do the basic structure (circa £30,000) it will be vat free
He can then arrange individual contractors for internals, electricians and plumbers himself
I didn't realise this site was so obsessed with Scottish Independence.
Well, if politics is "who governs what, how," it's reasonable that "what" gets an outing from time to time. Obsession doesn't always map to geolocation of poster, but there's other issues where that is also the case.
Oh great, the predictable immigrant bashing will start now
Are we allowed to ask any questions about what motivated him, or would that be racist to you?
If it was a white English man, would you be implying questions about his religious/cultural background or not?
Given that this is now being classed as terrorism, his religion becomes extremely relevant.
Given that we now know he is a refugee with a criminal record, his ethnicity is likewise extremely relevant.
When an English person commits acts of terror, their religious background never comes into it. Contrast the coverage of how the media reports it for a start.
I have no issue with discussing his religious background for what it's worth - but I do have a great issue with people that will inevitably jump to "it's because he's religious" and this will turn into an immigrant bashing exercise again.
The problem with terrorist incidents like these is that they are never seen in isolation like they would be for a Christian terrorist. It always inevitably leads to attacks on the religion itself and all immigrants.
Anders Breivik? (Yes, I know he’s Norwegian.)
From what I recall, Anders Breivik is a far right racist with a particular obsession with Islam. I don't believe he expressed any interest in Christianity in his manifesto - though he expressed admiration for racist nutters in the Hindu world, among others.
Thanks to @Casino_Royale for a nice header. It well articulates many sentiments that most people (including me) would agree with. But let's focus on the main message - that we need more and better dialogue about the subject of racism.
We do. Everyone says this. But do they really mean it? Or is it a piece of motherhood and apple pie deflection? You know, along the lines of the notorious platitude, "the way to prevent affluent people using private schools is to make state schools so good that they don't want to."
Because it seems to me that for those who constantly deride anti-racist campaigners as the "woke brigade" more conversation about racism - indeed any conversation about racism - is precisely what they do not want. It exasperates. It bores. Why? Because in truth they feel the problem is at best wildly exaggerated and at worst a grievance narrative invented by a Left obsessed with identity politics.
Either that or they suspect there is a problem but would prefer to shy away from it since it creates queasiness to consider there might - there just might - be a lingering, deep-seated racist legacy from Empire, Slavery & Colonialism which we need to face up to in order to realize the "colour blind" future that almost everyone (I think sincerely) wishes to see.
So rather than put in the hard yards to confront the issue - which could be difficult and unpleasant but would have a chance of paying real dividends - what they seek to do instead is pretend it isn't there. Not so much "let's talk about racism" - it's "let's talk about anything except racism." The desire is to close the subject down. Cards used - invention, extrapolation, deflection, ridicule.
We see it time and time again on here.
The reaction to a statue of a slaver coming down? - The evergreen "Oh FFS what's next?" plus a cry of "Mob rule, lock em up!"
To the N word removed from a TV show? - "Oh FFS, what's next?" plus "How come Kanye West can say it? It's not fair! No consistency!"
To an anti-racist # of Black Lives Matter - "Yeah, so how come they don't talk about all the blacks killing other blacks?"
In other words - long story short - I like the message of more dialogue on racism in this header but I question the good faith of those on here who are probably applauding it the most strongly. Since they are the very people who in practice demonstrate to me the opposite tendency.
Perhaps there's many issues relating to race in the modern world you prefer not to discuss ?
So you keep retreating to your 18th century comfort zone.
Please start such a discussion. I will be pleased to contribute.
Well CR already has but I've also made comments today about the issue and how it affected by class, housing affordability, the specific inequality issues areas of large Afro-Caribbean communities have and what the consequences covid might be.
You'll find them timed at 10:56, 11:18, 11:34 and 11:38.
Another very important thing. I was reflecting on how my career has been boosted by my network.
Much of this resulted from working with people more senior than me and then getting to know them socially and personally better after hours, so we really bonded. When you then reach out for help later they then go out of their way to help you.
Men should socialise far more with women outside the office (still a bit of raised eyebrows goes on about that, with people assuming they must be shagging) and also from different backgrounds.
So you can actually make a difference just by going to the pub with a range of BAME people at work, buying them a drink, having a laugh and getting to know them.
Isn't that great?
It's also something worth bringing into the current discussion of everyone working from home.
The socialisation aspect of work is definitely under-estimated, if the next year is spend with all white-collar staff WFH, companies need to think about social events and team-building a lot more than they do now.
In lockdown, we're all dining off relationships we made in the office from before.
That's why we'll always have to go in a little bit, even if it's just a couple of times a week.
Indeed. As it persists, and new people join teams, integrating them in the work environment becomes very important, especially as you note from the point of view of making professional relationships and building networks.
Oh great, the predictable immigrant bashing will start now
Are we allowed to ask any questions about what motivated him, or would that be racist to you?
If it was a white English man, would you be implying questions about his religious/cultural background or not?
Given that this is now being classed as terrorism, his religion becomes extremely relevant.
Given that we now know he is a refugee with a criminal record, his ethnicity is likewise extremely relevant.
When an English person commits acts of terror, their religious background never comes into it. Contrast the coverage of how the media reports it for a start.
I have no issue with discussing his religious background for what it's worth - but I do have a great issue with people that will inevitably jump to "it's because he's religious" and this will turn into an immigrant bashing exercise again.
The problem with terrorist incidents like these is that they are never seen in isolation like they would be for a Christian terrorist. It always inevitably leads to attacks on the religion itself and all immigrants.
The last English person to commit an act of terror in Britain being.....??
Probably the guy during the referendum? When was his religious background ever brought up? When did that become an attack on all Christians as this will inevitably become about Muslims?
I guess so, although that guy did not kill a muslim. He killed a member of his own community that he hated, but you have a good point.
Actually I don;t think this will rebound on the British muslim community, as at first sight this guy is not even a British muslim. The British muslim community's record on this in recent times is good.
The attention will probably be on why he is here in the first place, why he hasn;t been deported blah blah blah.
Now in that context, I don't have an issue with the discussion because that's about him as an individual.
Beyond speculating, he deserves to be locked up for murder, deported if necessary. I have no qualms about that.
And you're spot on, the British Muslim community are always rapid to call out these incidents because if they don't, they immediately are told they're condoning it. It's odd the CoE or any other religious organisation doesn't have to apologise for incidents around the world done in their respective names.
When was the last occasion that a Christian committed acts of terrorism, justified by Christian theology?
Interesting article on VAT in the Sunday Times to boost the economy.
I'd say cut it to 10% for 18 months. When you're £400bn in the hole it's not the time to play it safe for the sake of saving another £40bn, at the cost of staying there forever.
You need to make some big moves.
Cut taxes on employment if you want tax cuts.
But cutting taxes on imported consumer tat will just bring forward some spending which was going to happen anyway.
Bringing forward spending is precisely the point because it keeps businesses going whilst the economy is artificially depressed whilst the Coronavirus is still real and present. Those businesses then survive to pay back tax when things recover, and thus part of the economy and tax base is saved.
There might be other measures too. But ultimately businesses need customers and need to make it attractive for them to spend and buy, not horde.
Bringing forward spending on what though.
Its possible to argue that encouraging spending on construction or hospitality by reducing VAT is a good idea.
Oh great, the predictable immigrant bashing will start now
Are we allowed to ask any questions about what motivated him, or would that be racist to you?
If it was a white English man, would you be implying questions about his religious/cultural background or not?
Given that this is now being classed as terrorism, his religion becomes extremely relevant.
Given that we now know he is a refugee with a criminal record, his ethnicity is likewise extremely relevant.
When an English person commits acts of terror, their religious background never comes into it. Contrast the coverage of how the media reports it for a start.
I have no issue with discussing his religious background for what it's worth - but I do have a great issue with people that will inevitably jump to "it's because he's religious" and this will turn into an immigrant bashing exercise again.
The problem with terrorist incidents like these is that they are never seen in isolation like they would be for a Christian terrorist. It always inevitably leads to attacks on the religion itself and all immigrants.
Anders Breivik? (Yes, I know he’s Norwegian.)
From what I recall, Anders Breivik is a far right racist with a particular obsession with Islam. I don't believe he expressed any interest in Christianity in his manifesto - though he expressed admiration for racist nutters in the Hindu world, among others.
Interesting article on VAT in the Sunday Times to boost the economy.
I'd say cut it to 10% for 18 months. When you're £400bn in the hole it's not the time to play it safe for the sake of saving another £40bn, at the cost of staying there forever.
You need to make some big moves.
Cut taxes on employment if you want tax cuts.
But cutting taxes on imported consumer tat will just bring forward some spending which was going to happen anyway.
Bringing forward spending is precisely the point because it keeps businesses going whilst the economy is artificially depressed whilst the Coronavirus is still real and present. Those businesses then survive to pay back tax when things recover, and thus part of the economy and tax base is saved.
There might be other measures too. But ultimately businesses need customers and need to make it attractive for them to spend and buy, not horde.
Bringing forward spending on what though.
Its possible to argue that encouraging spending on construction or hospitality by reducing VAT is a good idea.
Does not justify England's governments current attitude or the Scottish Government meekly accepting it.
There is no England government. Which is part of the problem.
Technically you are correct.
In practice, it feels like the "Provinces" have been given their Assemblies and Westminster governs for England. What is good for England is good for the UK, so to speak.
No, as there are still Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs at Westminster.
Personally I have no problem with an English Parliament
Technically you are also correct. But it does not feel like that.
When are you going to grasp the fact that for Ordinary Joe/Joanne, perception is everything and facts are a long way down the list...
The facts are there is a UK Parliament at Westminster, a Scottish Parliament at Holyrood, a Welsh Assembly in Cardiff Bay and a Northern Ireland Assembly at Stormont but no English Parliament or Assembly.
As for perception 41% of English voters and 52% of Leave voters do indeed want an English Parliament
Covid has demonstrated very starkly that in so many areas the Westminster government only governs England. Most notably, Hancock is England's Secretary of State for Health.
The surest route to Scottish independence is to give the English a vote on it.
Reducing to 1m I think is a mistake. Because at that point people will stop distancing altogether.
We're going to have a second wave due to this Government's incompetence. They obviously assume Coronavirus has now disappeared and the economic agenda will restart. I think that is laughable.
People are already ignoring it.
Yes, it’s been widely ignored down here for several weeks now.
And it’s made no difference.
Why?
Outdoor transmission of the virus is difficult it seems to me.
Oh great, the predictable immigrant bashing will start now
Are we allowed to ask any questions about what motivated him, or would that be racist to you?
If it was a white English man, would you be implying questions about his religious/cultural background or not?
Given that this is now being classed as terrorism, his religion becomes extremely relevant.
Given that we now know he is a refugee with a criminal record, his ethnicity is likewise extremely relevant.
When an English person commits acts of terror, their religious background never comes into it. Contrast the coverage of how the media reports it for a start.
I have no issue with discussing his religious background for what it's worth - but I do have a great issue with people that will inevitably jump to "it's because he's religious" and this will turn into an immigrant bashing exercise again.
The problem with terrorist incidents like these is that they are never seen in isolation like they would be for a Christian terrorist. It always inevitably leads to attacks on the religion itself and all immigrants.
Anders Breivik? (Yes, I know he’s Norwegian.)
From what I recall, Anders Breivik is a far right racist with a particular obsession with Islam. I don't believe he expressed any interest in Christianity in his manifesto - though he expressed admiration for racist nutters in the Hindu world, among others.
Interesting - so he has trying to add in the US Christian Identity stuff into his patchwork?
Such stuff as is there reminds me more than anything of the ramblings of Houston Stewart Chamberlain. But yes, it was part of his far right identity. He seemed to equate Christianity with Europe and everywhere else as non-Christian and therefore barbarian.
(Incidentally this would of course have been a fairly mainstream view in nineteenth century Europe.)
On VAT I'm not sure that a 5% cut would make a difference. It's a tax that has a very poor economic multiplier in the UK because so much of what consumers purchase is imported. I think targeted zero rating of services and for the leisure industry makes a lot more sense. Encouraging people to get out and spend at their local pubs, bars, restaurants will do a lot more for the economy than me getting a 5% reduction on buying a Sony TV.
Does not justify England's governments current attitude or the Scottish Government meekly accepting it.
There is no England government. Which is part of the problem.
Technically you are correct.
In practice, it feels like the "Provinces" have been given their Assemblies and Westminster governs for England. What is good for England is good for the UK, so to speak.
No, as there are still Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs at Westminster.
Personally I have no problem with an English Parliament
Technically you are also correct. But it does not feel like that.
When are you going to grasp the fact that for Ordinary Joe/Joanne, perception is everything and facts are a long way down the list...
The facts are there is a UK Parliament at Westminster, a Scottish Parliament at Holyrood, a Welsh Assembly in Cardiff Bay and a Northern Ireland Assembly at Stormont but no English Parliament or Assembly.
As for perception 41% of English voters and 52% of Leave voters do indeed want an English Parliament
Covid has demonstrated very starkly that in so many areas the Westminster government only governs England. Most notably, Hancock is England's Secretary of State for Health.
The surest route to Scottish independence is to give the English a vote on it.
No, 59% of English voters want to keep Scotland in the UK
A "colour blind" society is a farcical and offensive proposition. It's saying you can you only treat BAME people with respect as long you don't realise they are BAME.
I do agree with @whunter's proposition is that the old order is being swept away and will not return. Unlike them, I give it full throated welcome.
"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." Martin Luther King, 1963
Was he advocating an offensive proposition to black people?
" No amount of gold could provide an adequate compensation for the exploitation and humiliation of the Negro in America down through the centuries. Not all the wealth of this affluent society could meet the bill. Yet a price can be placed on unpaid wages. The ancient common law has always provided a remedy for the appropriation of the labor of one human being by another. This law should be made to apply for American Negroes. The payment should be in the form of a massive program by the government of special, compensatory measures which could be regarded as a settlement in accordance with the accepted practice of common law"
Why is it people can only remember the one bit of King's speeches and writings which they can interpret as meaning they have to do nothing?
Because that second quote falls full-square into the palpable nonsense of material reparations for ancient historical injustices? 'Let us treat one another as equals in the future' is an inspiring message; 'Let us exhume every historical injustice in human history and demand restitution for them all' is a recipe for endless civil war.
Mr. Pioneers, you remember the Scots voted to stay in the UK in a once in a generation vote, right?
That was six years ago.
... a generation in politics is a parliament and many have passed since then ...
@malcolmg - I am sympathetic, but even I think that statement is a stretch.....
Bev, no problem, however each election everything and anything is up for change, this pathetic diversion of trying to say it was written in law that a generation must pass is pathetic and encapsulates everything that is rotten and putrid in the unionists. Bunch of cowards desperate to keep Scotland under the yoke, so unsure of themselves they try to prevent a referendum, it speaks volumes of the cowards they are.
"Once in a generation" was a personal promise by Salmond. If we accept that *parliaments* cannot pass *laws* binding their successors why would we even pretend to think that the personal dicta of FMs can? We live under the rule of law, not the rule of the whims of Big Men. A breach of Salmond's undertaking would be personally dishonourable on the part of Salmond and anyone who adopted it last time round, but constitutionally it is irrelevant.
Exactly , yet you get halfwits like HYFUD trying to make out it is written in Law and can never be changed or even what is a generation. The unionists are running scared and as people like HYFUD get ever more shrill you know they are terrified.
Interesting article on VAT in the Sunday Times to boost the economy.
I'd say cut it to 10% for 18 months. When you're £400bn in the hole it's not the time to play it safe for the sake of saving another £40bn, at the cost of staying there forever.
You need to make some big moves.
Cut taxes on employment if you want tax cuts.
But cutting taxes on imported consumer tat will just bring forward some spending which was going to happen anyway.
Bringing forward spending is precisely the point because it keeps businesses going whilst the economy is artificially depressed whilst the Coronavirus is still real and present. Those businesses then survive to pay back tax when things recover, and thus part of the economy and tax base is saved.
There might be other measures too. But ultimately businesses need customers and need to make it attractive for them to spend and buy, not horde.
Bringing forward spending on what though.
Its possible to argue that encouraging spending on construction or hospitality by reducing VAT is a good idea.
But imported consumer tat ? No.
Well, I want to get my bathroom done. If VAT is cut for a year to 10% then I'll be all over that like a rash as on a £6k refurb I'll pay only £600 tax rather than £1.2k - so it's a big incentive.
That should benefit British manufacturers and fitters more than anyone else, and they can then spend my money in turn.
Does not justify England's governments current attitude or the Scottish Government meekly accepting it.
There is no England government. Which is part of the problem.
Technically you are correct.
In practice, it feels like the "Provinces" have been given their Assemblies and Westminster governs for England. What is good for England is good for the UK, so to speak.
No, as there are still Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs at Westminster.
Personally I have no problem with an English Parliament
Technically you are also correct. But it does not feel like that.
When are you going to grasp the fact that for Ordinary Joe/Joanne, perception is everything and facts are a long way down the list...
The facts are there is a UK Parliament at Westminster, a Scottish Parliament at Holyrood, a Welsh Assembly in Cardiff Bay and a Northern Ireland Assembly at Stormont but no English Parliament or Assembly.
As for perception 41% of English voters and 52% of Leave voters do indeed want an English Parliament
Covid has demonstrated very starkly that in so many areas the Westminster government only governs England. Most notably, Hancock is England's Secretary of State for Health.
The surest route to Scottish independence is to give the English a vote on it.
No, 59% of English voters want to keep Scotland in the UK
Interesting article on VAT in the Sunday Times to boost the economy.
I'd say cut it to 10% for 18 months. When you're £400bn in the hole it's not the time to play it safe for the sake of saving another £40bn, at the cost of staying there forever.
You need to make some big moves.
Cut taxes on employment if you want tax cuts.
But cutting taxes on imported consumer tat will just bring forward some spending which was going to happen anyway.
Bringing forward spending is precisely the point because it keeps businesses going whilst the economy is artificially depressed whilst the Coronavirus is still real and present. Those businesses then survive to pay back tax when things recover, and thus part of the economy and tax base is saved.
There might be other measures too. But ultimately businesses need customers and need to make it attractive for them to spend and buy, not horde.
Bringing forward spending on what though.
Its possible to argue that encouraging spending on construction or hospitality by reducing VAT is a good idea.
But imported consumer tat ? No.
And are you offering to determine what is “tat”?
The stuff people buy which they don't need or rarely use.
Lets all be a bit more environmental and use up what we have for a while and improve our finances at the same time.
Mr. Pioneers, you remember the Scots voted to stay in the UK in a once in a generation vote, right?
That was six years ago.
... a generation in politics is a parliament and many have passed since then ...
@malcolmg - I am sympathetic, but even I think that statement is a stretch.....
Bev, no problem, however each election everything and anything is up for change, this pathetic diversion of trying to say it was written in law that a generation must pass is pathetic and encapsulates everything that is rotten and putrid in the unionists. Bunch of cowards desperate to keep Scotland under the yoke, so unsure of themselves they try to prevent a referendum, it speaks volumes of the cowards they are.
"Once in a generation" was a personal promise by Salmond. If we accept that *parliaments* cannot pass *laws* binding their successors why would we even pretend to think that the personal dicta of FMs can? We live under the rule of law, not the rule of the whims of Big Men. A breach of Salmond's undertaking would be personally dishonourable on the part of Salmond and anyone who adopted it last time round, but constitutionally it is irrelevant.
Exactly , yet you get halfwits like HYFUD trying to make out it is written in Law and can never be changed or even what is a generation. The unionists are running scared and as people like HYFUD get ever more shrill you know they are terrified.
Malc - the door is over there - if the Scottish people have the balls for it.
Interesting article on VAT in the Sunday Times to boost the economy.
I'd say cut it to 10% for 18 months. When you're £400bn in the hole it's not the time to play it safe for the sake of saving another £40bn, at the cost of staying there forever.
You need to make some big moves.
Cut taxes on employment if you want tax cuts.
But cutting taxes on imported consumer tat will just bring forward some spending which was going to happen anyway.
Bringing forward spending is precisely the point because it keeps businesses going whilst the economy is artificially depressed whilst the Coronavirus is still real and present. Those businesses then survive to pay back tax when things recover, and thus part of the economy and tax base is saved.
There might be other measures too. But ultimately businesses need customers and need to make it attractive for them to spend and buy, not horde.
Bringing forward spending on what though.
Its possible to argue that encouraging spending on construction or hospitality by reducing VAT is a good idea.
But imported consumer tat ? No.
And are you offering to determine what is “tat”?
The trick with tax cuts is to target them such that as little as possible of the cut is spent on imports. You cut taxes on employment, on services and on local manufacturing supply chains.
You want to avoid tax cuts on imported complete consumer goods - making next year's iPhone cheaper for Amzon to sell you, simply export the tax cut rather than keeping it within the economy.
I suspect a VAT cut achieves sod all, as Brown found out (albeit his cut was a lot smaller than being proposed).
If the economy is in the toilet, which it is, people aren't going to spend spend spend and rescue it.
I dunno, I think it makes some sense. VAT is essentially a tax on spending and it seems odd to disincentivise spending in a capitalist economy. I know it’s one of the easiest tax to collect, but still.
I think it makes sense to try it and if it works great - but I don't think it will be the boost the economy needs.
You do it in a targeted manner. Dropping VAT on pubs makes a £6 pint £5. Leave the VAT on off sales though, make the supermarket booze relatively more expensive.
A pint being a £1 cheaper is going to make sod all difference to the economy at large.
Not only will it save you money on your night out, it will also support hundreds of thousands of jobs in the industry most affected by the current epidemic.
Personally I’d drop VAT on most services too, help get the nation back to work.
A few quid saved on a night out isn't going to kick start the economy.
Basically I think the economy is fucked - and I think small things aren't going to save it.
Employer NI next on the list then - literally a tax on jobs.
What distinguishes it from employee NICs?
It’s a hidden tax which means it’s taken the brunt of all hidden tax rises over the past 15 years.
For those in IT IR35 is still only a problem because of the amount of money employer NI now raises it’s something like £40bn.
Oh, and while we are talking of tax cuts, definitely scrap IR35 - perhaps the worst thought through piece of taxation in decades. Government should be encouraging entrepreneurship, not making it more expensive than regular employment.
Entrepreneurship? Yeah, right.
The guys who sat in the same office as me every day were not entrepreneurs, they were tax dodgers. And my then employers were complicit in the process.
Does not justify England's governments current attitude or the Scottish Government meekly accepting it.
There is no England government. Which is part of the problem.
Technically you are correct.
In practice, it feels like the "Provinces" have been given their Assemblies and Westminster governs for England. What is good for England is good for the UK, so to speak.
No, as there are still Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs at Westminster.
Personally I have no problem with an English Parliament
Technically you are also correct. But it does not feel like that.
When are you going to grasp the fact that for Ordinary Joe/Joanne, perception is everything and facts are a long way down the list...
The facts are there is a UK Parliament at Westminster, a Scottish Parliament at Holyrood, a Welsh Assembly in Cardiff Bay and a Northern Ireland Assembly at Stormont but no English Parliament or Assembly.
As for perception 41% of English voters and 52% of Leave voters do indeed want an English Parliament
Covid has demonstrated very starkly that in so many areas the Westminster government only governs England. Most notably, Hancock is England's Secretary of State for Health.
The surest route to Scottish independence is to give the English a vote on it.
No, 59% of English voters want to keep Scotland in the UK
Mr. Pioneers, you remember the Scots voted to stay in the UK in a once in a generation vote, right?
That was six years ago.
... a generation in politics is a parliament and many have passed since then ...
@malcolmg - I am sympathetic, but even I think that statement is a stretch.....
Bev, no problem, however each election everything and anything is up for change, this pathetic diversion of trying to say it was written in law that a generation must pass is pathetic and encapsulates everything that is rotten and putrid in the unionists. Bunch of cowards desperate to keep Scotland under the yoke, so unsure of themselves they try to prevent a referendum, it speaks volumes of the cowards they are.
"Once in a generation" was a personal promise by Salmond. If we accept that *parliaments* cannot pass *laws* binding their successors why would we even pretend to think that the personal dicta of FMs can? We live under the rule of law, not the rule of the whims of Big Men. A breach of Salmond's undertaking would be personally dishonourable on the part of Salmond and anyone who adopted it last time round, but constitutionally it is irrelevant.
Exactly , yet you get halfwits like HYFUD trying to make out it is written in Law and can never be changed or even what is a generation. The unionists are running scared and as people like HYFUD get ever more shrill you know they are terrified.
Malc - the door is over there - if the Scottish people have the balls for it.
The governing party of Scotland wants a referendum, the governing party of the UK is intent on blocking it. I think we know who's deficient in the balls department (except for talking them of course).
Interesting article on VAT in the Sunday Times to boost the economy.
I'd say cut it to 10% for 18 months. When you're £400bn in the hole it's not the time to play it safe for the sake of saving another £40bn, at the cost of staying there forever.
You need to make some big moves.
Cut taxes on employment if you want tax cuts.
But cutting taxes on imported consumer tat will just bring forward some spending which was going to happen anyway.
Bringing forward spending is precisely the point because it keeps businesses going whilst the economy is artificially depressed whilst the Coronavirus is still real and present. Those businesses then survive to pay back tax when things recover, and thus part of the economy and tax base is saved.
There might be other measures too. But ultimately businesses need customers and need to make it attractive for them to spend and buy, not horde.
Bringing forward spending on what though.
Its possible to argue that encouraging spending on construction or hospitality by reducing VAT is a good idea.
But imported consumer tat ? No.
Well, I want to get my bathroom done. If VAT is cut for a year to 10% then I'll be all over that like a rash as on a £6k refurb I'll pay only £600 tax rather than £1.2k - so it's a big incentive.
That should benefit British manufacturers and fitters more than anyone else, and they can then spend my money in turn.
Not really, most of our consumer goods are imported so any increase in purchasing is limited to retail and distribution. The majority of the gain in purchasing volumes is made by China, Japan, Europe and South Korea. A zero rating of VAT on consumer services like hairdressing or going to the pub makes the most sense to me, it won't cost a huge amount and we direct the tax cuts towards the part of the economy that needs the biggest boost.
Is Blyth Valley top because it contains Cramlington Hospital? Which is the designated Covid centre for the Greater Newcastle area? Just cos people died there doesn't mean they lived or voted there.
Interesting article on VAT in the Sunday Times to boost the economy.
I'd say cut it to 10% for 18 months. When you're £400bn in the hole it's not the time to play it safe for the sake of saving another £40bn, at the cost of staying there forever.
You need to make some big moves.
Cut taxes on employment if you want tax cuts.
But cutting taxes on imported consumer tat will just bring forward some spending which was going to happen anyway.
Bringing forward spending is precisely the point because it keeps businesses going whilst the economy is artificially depressed whilst the Coronavirus is still real and present. Those businesses then survive to pay back tax when things recover, and thus part of the economy and tax base is saved.
There might be other measures too. But ultimately businesses need customers and need to make it attractive for them to spend and buy, not horde.
Bringing forward spending on what though.
Its possible to argue that encouraging spending on construction or hospitality by reducing VAT is a good idea.
But imported consumer tat ? No.
Well, I want to get my bathroom done. If VAT is cut for a year to 10% then I'll be all over that like a rash as on a £6k refurb I'll pay only £600 tax rather than £1.2k - so it's a big incentive.
That should benefit British manufacturers and fitters more than anyone else, and they can then spend my money in turn.
Not really, most of our consumer goods are imported so any increase in purchasing is limited to retail and distribution. The majority of the gain in purchasing volumes is made by China, Japan, Europe and South Korea. A zero rating of VAT on consumer services like hairdressing or going to the pub makes the most sense to me, it won't cost a huge amount and we direct the tax cuts towards the part of the economy that needs the biggest boost.
stuff like building work too, I guess, although many of the materials used are probably imported.
Mr. Pioneers, you remember the Scots voted to stay in the UK in a once in a generation vote, right?
That was six years ago.
... a generation in politics is a parliament and many have passed since then ...
@malcolmg - I am sympathetic, but even I think that statement is a stretch.....
Bev, no problem, however each election everything and anything is up for change, this pathetic diversion of trying to say it was written in law that a generation must pass is pathetic and encapsulates everything that is rotten and putrid in the unionists. Bunch of cowards desperate to keep Scotland under the yoke, so unsure of themselves they try to prevent a referendum, it speaks volumes of the cowards they are.
"Once in a generation" was a personal promise by Salmond. If we accept that *parliaments* cannot pass *laws* binding their successors why would we even pretend to think that the personal dicta of FMs can? We live under the rule of law, not the rule of the whims of Big Men. A breach of Salmond's undertaking would be personally dishonourable on the part of Salmond and anyone who adopted it last time round, but constitutionally it is irrelevant.
Exactly , yet you get halfwits like HYFUD trying to make out it is written in Law and can never be changed or even what is a generation. The unionists are running scared and as people like HYFUD get ever more shrill you know they are terrified.
I am not Malc and you know that
Indy2 will not win independence, but then we have agreed in the past we are each entitled to our view
Mr. Pioneers, you remember the Scots voted to stay in the UK in a once in a generation vote, right?
That was six years ago.
... a generation in politics is a parliament and many have passed since then ...
@malcolmg - I am sympathetic, but even I think that statement is a stretch.....
Bev, no problem, however each election everything and anything is up for change, this pathetic diversion of trying to say it was written in law that a generation must pass is pathetic and encapsulates everything that is rotten and putrid in the unionists. Bunch of cowards desperate to keep Scotland under the yoke, so unsure of themselves they try to prevent a referendum, it speaks volumes of the cowards they are.
"Once in a generation" was a personal promise by Salmond. If we accept that *parliaments* cannot pass *laws* binding their successors why would we even pretend to think that the personal dicta of FMs can? We live under the rule of law, not the rule of the whims of Big Men. A breach of Salmond's undertaking would be personally dishonourable on the part of Salmond and anyone who adopted it last time round, but constitutionally it is irrelevant.
I agree largely with what your saying, but to be pedantic I don't think Salmond's statement was really framed as a personal promise, or not over and above the standard 'we'll definitely have a world beating app' politicians' bs.
'"In my opinion, and it is just my opinion, this is a once in a generation opportunity for Scotland."
Asked if he could pledge not to bring back another referendum if the Yes campaign does not win on Thursday, he said: "That's my view. My view is this is a once in a generation, perhaps even a once in a lifetime, opportunity for Scotland."'
If it was a promise, he can certainly say has not brought back another referendum. I'd also predict that he will never again be in a position to do so, though that's my opinion, and it is just my opinion.
It was a promise both Nats and Unionists promised to respect in 2014 and most importantly respecting that promise was a Tory manifesto commitment in 2019 the Tories won a majority of 80 to deliver.
As there can be no indyref2 without Westminster consent there will therefore be no indyref2 for the rest of this parliament
Incorrect. There can be indyref2 without Westminster consent. There would however be doubts over its legitimacy.
No doubts, it would be an illegal referendum and ignored by Westminster exactly as Madrid ignored the illegal referendum in Catalonia.
Though Sturgeon has correctly accepted there can be no indyref2 without Westminster consent anyway
Yawn. Are you getting your authoritarian horn again?
I think there may be more granny bashing going on in HYUFD's head than on Pornhub.
Interesting article on VAT in the Sunday Times to boost the economy.
I'd say cut it to 10% for 18 months. When you're £400bn in the hole it's not the time to play it safe for the sake of saving another £40bn, at the cost of staying there forever.
You need to make some big moves.
Cut taxes on employment if you want tax cuts.
But cutting taxes on imported consumer tat will just bring forward some spending which was going to happen anyway.
Bringing forward spending is precisely the point because it keeps businesses going whilst the economy is artificially depressed whilst the Coronavirus is still real and present. Those businesses then survive to pay back tax when things recover, and thus part of the economy and tax base is saved.
There might be other measures too. But ultimately businesses need customers and need to make it attractive for them to spend and buy, not horde.
Bringing forward spending on what though.
Its possible to argue that encouraging spending on construction or hospitality by reducing VAT is a good idea.
But imported consumer tat ? No.
Well, I want to get my bathroom done. If VAT is cut for a year to 10% then I'll be all over that like a rash as on a £6k refurb I'll pay only £600 tax rather than £1.2k - so it's a big incentive.
That should benefit British manufacturers and fitters more than anyone else, and they can then spend my money in turn.
Not really, most of our consumer goods are imported so any increase in purchasing is limited to retail and distribution. The majority of the gain in purchasing volumes is made by China, Japan, Europe and South Korea. A zero rating of VAT on consumer services like hairdressing or going to the pub makes the most sense to me, it won't cost a huge amount and we direct the tax cuts towards the part of the economy that needs the biggest boost.
stuff like building work too, I guess, although many of the materials used are probably imported.
Maybe zero rating on labour costs for 6 months? Again it wouldn't be a huge cost but it would get the sector moving and direct the benefit where it makes the most sense.
I suspect a VAT cut achieves sod all, as Brown found out (albeit his cut was a lot smaller than being proposed).
If the economy is in the toilet, which it is, people aren't going to spend spend spend and rescue it.
I dunno, I think it makes some sense. VAT is essentially a tax on spending and it seems odd to disincentivise spending in a capitalist economy. I know it’s one of the easiest tax to collect, but still.
I think it makes sense to try it and if it works great - but I don't think it will be the boost the economy needs.
You do it in a targeted manner. Dropping VAT on pubs makes a £6 pint £5. Leave the VAT on off sales though, make the supermarket booze relatively more expensive.
A pint being a £1 cheaper is going to make sod all difference to the economy at large.
Not only will it save you money on your night out, it will also support hundreds of thousands of jobs in the industry most affected by the current epidemic.
Personally I’d drop VAT on most services too, help get the nation back to work.
A few quid saved on a night out isn't going to kick start the economy.
Basically I think the economy is fucked - and I think small things aren't going to save it.
Employer NI next on the list then - literally a tax on jobs.
What distinguishes it from employee NICs?
It’s a hidden tax which means it’s taken the brunt of all hidden tax rises over the past 15 years.
For those in IT IR35 is still only a problem because of the amount of money employer NI now raises it’s something like £40bn.
Oh, and while we are talking of tax cuts, definitely scrap IR35 - perhaps the worst thought through piece of taxation in decades. Government should be encouraging entrepreneurship, not making it more expensive than regular employment.
Entrepreneurship? Yeah, right.
The guys who sat in the same office as me every day were not entrepreneurs, they were tax dodgers. And my then employers were complicit in the process.
They also had no employment rights, no pension, could be fired at will and with no notice, and recently had to pay their own travel and accommodation expenses out of taxed income, even if the work was at the other end of the country.
IR35 was a large part in my decision to set up my business abroad.
That's not to say there weren't abuses of contractors, for example companies like Ryanair contracting pilots, but the way government went about fixing the issues caused many more problems than it solved.
I suspect a VAT cut achieves sod all, as Brown found out (albeit his cut was a lot smaller than being proposed).
If the economy is in the toilet, which it is, people aren't going to spend spend spend and rescue it.
I dunno, I think it makes some sense. VAT is essentially a tax on spending and it seems odd to disincentivise spending in a capitalist economy. I know it’s one of the easiest tax to collect, but still.
I think it makes sense to try it and if it works great - but I don't think it will be the boost the economy needs.
You do it in a targeted manner. Dropping VAT on pubs makes a £6 pint £5. Leave the VAT on off sales though, make the supermarket booze relatively more expensive.
A pint being a £1 cheaper is going to make sod all difference to the economy at large.
Not only will it save you money on your night out, it will also support hundreds of thousands of jobs in the industry most affected by the current epidemic.
Personally I’d drop VAT on most services too, help get the nation back to work.
A few quid saved on a night out isn't going to kick start the economy.
Basically I think the economy is fucked - and I think small things aren't going to save it.
Employer NI next on the list then - literally a tax on jobs.
What distinguishes it from employee NICs?
It’s a hidden tax which means it’s taken the brunt of all hidden tax rises over the past 15 years.
For those in IT IR35 is still only a problem because of the amount of money employer NI now raises it’s something like £40bn.
Oh, and while we are talking of tax cuts, definitely scrap IR35 - perhaps the worst thought through piece of taxation in decades. Government should be encouraging entrepreneurship, not making it more expensive than regular employment.
Entrepreneurship? Yeah, right.
The guys who sat in the same office as me every day were not entrepreneurs, they were tax dodgers. And my then employers were complicit in the process.
So did they have holiday and sick pay? Were they on a career path? Were they still there two years later? Or were they brought in because of specific skills for a relatively short period?
If indyref2 is inevitable, thank god Corbyn isn't in charge of the Labour party during it. He'd have given a couple of nonsensical speeches in Glasgow about solidarity and trade unionists in Cuba, and that would literally have been the sum total of Labour's campaign. As much as an irrelevance SLAB seem these days in Scotland, the result of any second indyref I think will depend very much on how hard Labour campaign against indy.
I suspect a VAT cut achieves sod all, as Brown found out (albeit his cut was a lot smaller than being proposed).
If the economy is in the toilet, which it is, people aren't going to spend spend spend and rescue it.
I dunno, I think it makes some sense. VAT is essentially a tax on spending and it seems odd to disincentivise spending in a capitalist economy. I know it’s one of the easiest tax to collect, but still.
I think it makes sense to try it and if it works great - but I don't think it will be the boost the economy needs.
You do it in a targeted manner. Dropping VAT on pubs makes a £6 pint £5. Leave the VAT on off sales though, make the supermarket booze relatively more expensive.
A pint being a £1 cheaper is going to make sod all difference to the economy at large.
Not only will it save you money on your night out, it will also support hundreds of thousands of jobs in the industry most affected by the current epidemic.
Personally I’d drop VAT on most services too, help get the nation back to work.
A few quid saved on a night out isn't going to kick start the economy.
Basically I think the economy is fucked - and I think small things aren't going to save it.
Employer NI next on the list then - literally a tax on jobs.
What distinguishes it from employee NICs?
It’s a hidden tax which means it’s taken the brunt of all hidden tax rises over the past 15 years.
For those in IT IR35 is still only a problem because of the amount of money employer NI now raises it’s something like £40bn.
Oh, and while we are talking of tax cuts, definitely scrap IR35 - perhaps the worst thought through piece of taxation in decades. Government should be encouraging entrepreneurship, not making it more expensive than regular employment.
Entrepreneurship? Yeah, right.
The guys who sat in the same office as me every day were not entrepreneurs, they were tax dodgers. And my then employers were complicit in the process.
So did they have holiday and sick pay? Were they on a career path? Were they still there two years later? Or were they brought in because of specific skills for a relatively short period?
The trouble is it varies so much. I once met a guy who had literally sat at the same desk for nine years writing code for a major telecoms company - as a contractor.
Thanks to @Casino_Royale for a nice header. It well articulates many sentiments that most people (including me) would agree with. But let's focus on the main message - that we need more and better dialogue about the subject of racism.
We do. Everyone says this. But do they really mean it? Or is it a piece of motherhood and apple pie deflection? You know, along the lines of the notorious platitude, "the way to prevent affluent people using private schools is to make state schools so good that they don't want to."
Because it seems to me that for those who constantly deride anti-racist campaigners as the "woke brigade" more conversation about racism - indeed any conversation about racism - is precisely what they do not want. It exasperates. It bores. Why? Because in truth they feel the problem is at best wildly exaggerated and at worst a grievance narrative invented by a Left obsessed with identity politics.
Either that or they suspect there is a problem but would prefer to shy away from it since it creates queasiness to consider there might - there just might - be a lingering, deep-seated racist legacy from Empire, Slavery & Colonialism which we need to face up to in order to realize the "colour blind" future that almost everyone (I think sincerely) wishes to see.
So rather than put in the hard yards to confront the issue - which could be difficult and unpleasant but would have a chance of paying real dividends - what they seek to do instead is pretend it isn't there. Not so much "let's talk about racism" - it's "let's talk about anything except racism." The desire is to close the subject down. Cards used - invention, extrapolation, deflection, ridicule.
We see it time and time again on here.
The reaction to a statue of a slaver coming down? - The evergreen "Oh FFS what's next?" plus a cry of "Mob rule, lock em up!"
To the N word removed from a TV show? - "Oh FFS, what's next?" plus "How come Kanye West can say it? It's not fair! No consistency!"
To an anti-racist # of Black Lives Matter - "Yeah, so how come they don't talk about all the blacks killing other blacks?"
In other words - long story short - I like the message of more dialogue on racism in this header but I question the good faith of those on here who are probably applauding it the most strongly. Since they are the very people who in practice demonstrate to me the opposite tendency.
Perhaps there's many issues relating to race in the modern world you prefer not to discuss ?
So you keep retreating to your 18th century comfort zone.
Please start such a discussion. I will be pleased to contribute.
Well CR already has but I've also made comments today about the issue and how it affected by class, housing affordability, the specific inequality issues areas of large Afro-Caribbean communities have and what the consequences covid might be.
You'll find them timed at 10:56, 11:18, 11:34 and 11:38.
You make some good and interesting points about class and exploitation.
But since your thrust is to argue that racism is - relatively speaking - not a material factor in this I don't know what you meant by suggesting that I wish to avoid discussing "many issues relating to race in the modern world."
You would have to float one or two and see if I avoid responding.
Trump: "When you testing to that extent, you are going find more people, more cases. So I said to my people slow the testing down."
This alone should be enough to end his presidency.
But the crowd roared its approval.
He then went into a riff about testing that could have been a Woody Allen sketch taking the piss out of a person who doesn't want people tested.
Insane.
Did Trump suggest any manifesto for 4 more years of governance, or was it all about how people were mean to him?
To be fair to Trump, neither has Biden
Biden's pitch seems to be he isn't Trump and Trump's seems to be......er.....he isn't Biden.
"It’s a detailed and aggressive agenda that includes doubling the minimum wage and tripling funding for schools with low-income students. He is proposing the most sweeping overhaul of immigration policy in a generation, the biggest pro-union push in three generations, and the most ambitious environmental agenda of all time." https://www.vox.com/2020/5/26/21257648/joe-biden-climate-economy-tax-plans
Is Blyth Valley top because it contains Cramlington Hospital? Which is the designated Covid centre for the Greater Newcastle area? Just cos people died there doesn't mean they lived or voted there.
It also says deaths in May if that means deaths in the month of May then total deaths per constituency is likely to be rather different.
The borough of Newham with its two constituencies was reporting 144 deaths per 100,000 people at the start of May:
If indyref2 is inevitable, thank god Corbyn isn't in charge of the Labour party during it. He'd have given a couple of nonsensical speeches in Glasgow about solidarity and trade unionists in Cuba, and that would literally have been the sum total of Labour's campaign. As much as an irrelevance SLAB seem these days in Scotland, the result of any second indyref I think will depend very much on how hard Labour campaign against indy.
Actually that's an interesting comment. Mr Corbyn's first major speech in Scotland as Labour leader was about renationalising water, doing something about the Bedroom Tax, etc. etc. - all things that applied to England rather than Scotland where, e.g. water has never been privatised. I had great difficulty at the time deciding if Mr Corbyn was senile, ignorant, or maliciously obfusdcating. Today I suspect he was simply taking it as a chance to carry on speaking to his E&W target audience, having abandoned Scotland in the knowledge thatr the SNP weren't the worst rivals to have when dealing with a Tory UK government, and that major SLAB figures had actively advised voters to vote Tory to keep the SNP out of seats.
I suspect a VAT cut achieves sod all, as Brown found out (albeit his cut was a lot smaller than being proposed).
If the economy is in the toilet, which it is, people aren't going to spend spend spend and rescue it.
I dunno, I think it makes some sense. VAT is essentially a tax on spending and it seems odd to disincentivise spending in a capitalist economy. I know it’s one of the easiest tax to collect, but still.
I think it makes sense to try it and if it works great - but I don't think it will be the boost the economy needs.
You do it in a targeted manner. Dropping VAT on pubs makes a £6 pint £5. Leave the VAT on off sales though, make the supermarket booze relatively more expensive.
A pint being a £1 cheaper is going to make sod all difference to the economy at large.
Not only will it save you money on your night out, it will also support hundreds of thousands of jobs in the industry most affected by the current epidemic.
Personally I’d drop VAT on most services too, help get the nation back to work.
A few quid saved on a night out isn't going to kick start the economy.
Basically I think the economy is fucked - and I think small things aren't going to save it.
Employer NI next on the list then - literally a tax on jobs.
What distinguishes it from employee NICs?
It’s a hidden tax which means it’s taken the brunt of all hidden tax rises over the past 15 years.
For those in IT IR35 is still only a problem because of the amount of money employer NI now raises it’s something like £40bn.
Oh, and while we are talking of tax cuts, definitely scrap IR35 - perhaps the worst thought through piece of taxation in decades. Government should be encouraging entrepreneurship, not making it more expensive than regular employment.
Entrepreneurship? Yeah, right.
The guys who sat in the same office as me every day were not entrepreneurs, they were tax dodgers. And my then employers were complicit in the process.
They also had no employment rights, no pension, could be fired at will and with no notice, and recently had to pay their own travel and accommodation expenses out of taxed income, even if the work was at the other end of the country.
IR35 was a large part in my decision to set up my business abroad.
That's not to say there weren't abuses of contractors, for example companies like Ryanair contracting pilots, but the way government went about fixing the issues caused many more problems than it solved.
One week's notice versus 4 week's notice. No big deal.
Claiming their daily commute as a tax deductable expense.
Paying themselves minimum wage and then paying the rest to themselves and their co-director (also known as their wife) as a dividend.
And in one case, borrowing office equipment to take home in order to fool an inspector that this was their place of work.
The system is being abused left, right and centre, certainly in the engineering sector.
If indyref2 is inevitable, thank god Corbyn isn't in charge of the Labour party during it. He'd have given a couple of nonsensical speeches in Glasgow about solidarity and trade unionists in Cuba, and that would literally have been the sum total of Labour's campaign. As much as an irrelevance SLAB seem these days in Scotland, the result of any second indyref I think will depend very much on how hard Labour campaign against indy.
I would assume Starmer would join Gordon Brown to defend the union in any referendum
Along with the conservatives and lib dems joining forces, the SNP would have a fight on their hands and as is well known I do not expect Scotland to leave the union
If indyref2 is inevitable, thank god Corbyn isn't in charge of the Labour party during it. He'd have given a couple of nonsensical speeches in Glasgow about solidarity and trade unionists in Cuba, and that would literally have been the sum total of Labour's campaign. As much as an irrelevance SLAB seem these days in Scotland, the result of any second indyref I think will depend very much on how hard Labour campaign against indy.
I'm assuming Labour will have learned their lesson about being the Tories' patsies in any 2nd referendum, though learning lessons doesn't seem to be SLab's strong point.
'It appears the attack was stopped when a lone sergeant, who responded when the alarm was raised, ran to the scene, saw the attacker running away with a knife and rugby tackled him to the ground.'
This must be more of that unconscionable police brutality we've heard so much about. Let's give free rein to the people spraying 'ACAB' on the Cenotaph, shall we?
Complete and utter shite you must have a very sad mind whilst pretending to be some over educated posho who just likes to stir
As CR article illustrates most people are interested to have a rational discussion on the very complex issues that BLM throws up. BluestBlue and Eadric are only interested in stoking up hatred and division.
Im surprised there isn't more gloating about the empty seats in Oklahoma on here....
To be honest I do not listen to Trump anymore
My son and daughter in law in Vancouver have cancelled their cable subscription and do not listen to anything he says
He is not going to win, but I fear his successor is not going to succeed either even if he becomes POTUS
He IS going to succeed in the crucial area of becoming a President of the United States who is not Donald Trump. This in and of itself is a cause for great joy both here on Earth and in the Kingdom of Heaven.
I suspect a VAT cut achieves sod all, as Brown found out (albeit his cut was a lot smaller than being proposed).
If the economy is in the toilet, which it is, people aren't going to spend spend spend and rescue it.
I dunno, I think it makes some sense. VAT is essentially a tax on spending and it seems odd to disincentivise spending in a capitalist economy. I know it’s one of the easiest tax to collect, but still.
I think it makes sense to try it and if it works great - but I don't think it will be the boost the economy needs.
You do it in a targeted manner. Dropping VAT on pubs makes a £6 pint £5. Leave the VAT on off sales though, make the supermarket booze relatively more expensive.
A pint being a £1 cheaper is going to make sod all difference to the economy at large.
Not only will it save you money on your night out, it will also support hundreds of thousands of jobs in the industry most affected by the current epidemic.
Personally I’d drop VAT on most services too, help get the nation back to work.
A few quid saved on a night out isn't going to kick start the economy.
Basically I think the economy is fucked - and I think small things aren't going to save it.
Employer NI next on the list then - literally a tax on jobs.
What distinguishes it from employee NICs?
It’s a hidden tax which means it’s taken the brunt of all hidden tax rises over the past 15 years.
For those in IT IR35 is still only a problem because of the amount of money employer NI now raises it’s something like £40bn.
Oh, and while we are talking of tax cuts, definitely scrap IR35 - perhaps the worst thought through piece of taxation in decades. Government should be encouraging entrepreneurship, not making it more expensive than regular employment.
Entrepreneurship? Yeah, right.
The guys who sat in the same office as me every day were not entrepreneurs, they were tax dodgers. And my then employers were complicit in the process.
So did they have holiday and sick pay? Were they on a career path? Were they still there two years later? Or were they brought in because of specific skills for a relatively short period?
The trouble is it varies so much. I once met a guy who had literally sat at the same desk for nine years writing code for a major telecoms company - as a contractor.
Yes, there are absuses, and white-collar contractors such as in IT should be hired on a project basis, but the current and proposed IR35 rules are using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. It's great if you're a tax accountant or employment lawyer, but not if you're a contractor or contracting company.
Interesting article on VAT in the Sunday Times to boost the economy.
I'd say cut it to 10% for 18 months. When you're £400bn in the hole it's not the time to play it safe for the sake of saving another £40bn, at the cost of staying there forever.
You need to make some big moves.
Cut taxes on employment if you want tax cuts.
But cutting taxes on imported consumer tat will just bring forward some spending which was going to happen anyway.
Bringing forward spending is precisely the point because it keeps businesses going whilst the economy is artificially depressed whilst the Coronavirus is still real and present. Those businesses then survive to pay back tax when things recover, and thus part of the economy and tax base is saved.
There might be other measures too. But ultimately businesses need customers and need to make it attractive for them to spend and buy, not horde.
Bringing forward spending on what though.
Its possible to argue that encouraging spending on construction or hospitality by reducing VAT is a good idea.
But imported consumer tat ? No.
And are you offering to determine what is “tat”?
The stuff people buy which they don't need or rarely use.
Lets all be a bit more environmental and use up what we have for a while and improve our finances at the same time.
Is Blyth Valley top because it contains Cramlington Hospital? Which is the designated Covid centre for the Greater Newcastle area? Just cos people died there doesn't mean they lived or voted there.
Latest worst areas:
Leicester Cheshire West & Chestre Sheffield Stoke on Trent Rotherham
Off topic: whilst out to get a coffee, I saw two A400Ms inbound to Newcastle Airport. One made what looked to be a hell of an aborted landing. They are foreboding yet majestic aircraft.
I suspect a VAT cut achieves sod all, as Brown found out (albeit his cut was a lot smaller than being proposed).
If the economy is in the toilet, which it is, people aren't going to spend spend spend and rescue it.
I dunno, I think it makes some sense. VAT is essentially a tax on spending and it seems odd to disincentivise spending in a capitalist economy. I know it’s one of the easiest tax to collect, but still.
I think it makes sense to try it and if it works great - but I don't think it will be the boost the economy needs.
You do it in a targeted manner. Dropping VAT on pubs makes a £6 pint £5. Leave the VAT on off sales though, make the supermarket booze relatively more expensive.
A pint being a £1 cheaper is going to make sod all difference to the economy at large.
Not only will it save you money on your night out, it will also support hundreds of thousands of jobs in the industry most affected by the current epidemic.
Personally I’d drop VAT on most services too, help get the nation back to work.
A few quid saved on a night out isn't going to kick start the economy.
Basically I think the economy is fucked - and I think small things aren't going to save it.
Employer NI next on the list then - literally a tax on jobs.
What distinguishes it from employee NICs?
It’s a hidden tax which means it’s taken the brunt of all hidden tax rises over the past 15 years.
For those in IT IR35 is still only a problem because of the amount of money employer NI now raises it’s something like £40bn.
Oh, and while we are talking of tax cuts, definitely scrap IR35 - perhaps the worst thought through piece of taxation in decades. Government should be encouraging entrepreneurship, not making it more expensive than regular employment.
Entrepreneurship? Yeah, right.
The guys who sat in the same office as me every day were not entrepreneurs, they were tax dodgers. And my then employers were complicit in the process.
So did they have holiday and sick pay? Were they on a career path? Were they still there two years later? Or were they brought in because of specific skills for a relatively short period?
Some were there when I joined and still there when I left. Multiple years of continuous work in the same office. And, yes, some were 'promoted' to more senior roles as contractors.
Im surprised there isn't more gloating about the empty seats in Oklahoma on here....
To be honest I do not listen to Trump anymore
My son and daughter in law in Vancouver have cancelled their cable subscription and do not listen to anything he says
He is not going to win, but I fear his successor is not going to succeed either even if he becomes POTUS
He IS going to succeed in the crucial area of becoming a President of the United States who is not Donald Trump. This in and of itself is a cause for great joy both here on Earth and in the Kingdom of Heaven.
I suspect a VAT cut achieves sod all, as Brown found out (albeit his cut was a lot smaller than being proposed).
If the economy is in the toilet, which it is, people aren't going to spend spend spend and rescue it.
I dunno, I think it makes some sense. VAT is essentially a tax on spending and it seems odd to disincentivise spending in a capitalist economy. I know it’s one of the easiest tax to collect, but still.
I think it makes sense to try it and if it works great - but I don't think it will be the boost the economy needs.
You do it in a targeted manner. Dropping VAT on pubs makes a £6 pint £5. Leave the VAT on off sales though, make the supermarket booze relatively more expensive.
A pint being a £1 cheaper is going to make sod all difference to the economy at large.
Not only will it save you money on your night out, it will also support hundreds of thousands of jobs in the industry most affected by the current epidemic.
Personally I’d drop VAT on most services too, help get the nation back to work.
A few quid saved on a night out isn't going to kick start the economy.
Basically I think the economy is fucked - and I think small things aren't going to save it.
Employer NI next on the list then - literally a tax on jobs.
What distinguishes it from employee NICs?
It’s a hidden tax which means it’s taken the brunt of all hidden tax rises over the past 15 years.
For those in IT IR35 is still only a problem because of the amount of money employer NI now raises it’s something like £40bn.
Oh, and while we are talking of tax cuts, definitely scrap IR35 - perhaps the worst thought through piece of taxation in decades. Government should be encouraging entrepreneurship, not making it more expensive than regular employment.
Entrepreneurship? Yeah, right.
The guys who sat in the same office as me every day were not entrepreneurs, they were tax dodgers. And my then employers were complicit in the process.
So did they have holiday and sick pay? Were they on a career path? Were they still there two years later? Or were they brought in because of specific skills for a relatively short period?
Some were there when I joined and still there when I left. Multiple years of continuous work in the same office. And, yes, some were 'promoted' to more senior roles as contractors.
I forgot to mention Pensions. Keeping contractors that long is down to the managers. If the skills are missing then they should recruit and train.
Off topic: whilst out to get a coffee, I saw two A400Ms inbound to Newcastle Airport. One made what looked to be a hell of an aborted landing. They are foreboding yet majestic aircraft.
Wow, yeah. It's done six approaches so far, either go-arounds or touch-and-goes. A400M out of Brize Norton. Some sort of a training mission maybe? https://www.flightradar24.com/ASCOT491/24bf8738
'It appears the attack was stopped when a lone sergeant, who responded when the alarm was raised, ran to the scene, saw the attacker running away with a knife and rugby tackled him to the ground.'
This must be more of that unconscionable police brutality we've heard so much about. Let's give free rein to the people spraying 'ACAB' on the Cenotaph, shall we?
Complete and utter shite you must have a very sad mind whilst pretending to be some over educated posho who just likes to stir
As CR article illustrates most people are interested to have a rational discussion on the very complex issues that BLM throws up. BluestBlue and Eadric are only interested in stoking up hatred and division.
I quite understand your feelings - the left doesn't like the obvious lunacy of its militant wing being pointed out. But point it out I most certainly will.
If indyref2 is inevitable, thank god Corbyn isn't in charge of the Labour party during it. He'd have given a couple of nonsensical speeches in Glasgow about solidarity and trade unionists in Cuba, and that would literally have been the sum total of Labour's campaign. As much as an irrelevance SLAB seem these days in Scotland, the result of any second indyref I think will depend very much on how hard Labour campaign against indy.
I'm assuming Labour will have learned their lesson about being the Tories' patsies in any 2nd referendum, though learning lessons doesn't seem to be SLab's strong point.
If you're from rUK Labour, though, you have a very strong reason to campaign against indy. A SLAB recovery means fuck all for you if it's taking place in an independent country. Starmer needs a SLAB recovery to take place with Scotland as still part of the UK, if it's to help him at all. And I think we both know that if UK Lab comes out strongly against indy, SLAB will follow.
Thanks to @Casino_Royale for a nice header. It well articulates many sentiments that most people (including me) would agree with. But let's focus on the main message - that we need more and better dialogue about the subject of racism.
We do. Everyone says this. But do they really mean it? Or is it a piece of motherhood and apple pie deflection? You know, along the lines of the notorious platitude, "the way to prevent affluent people using private schools is to make state schools so good that they don't want to."
Because it seems to me that for those who constantly deride anti-racist campaigners as the "woke brigade" more conversation about racism - indeed any conversation about racism - is precisely what they do not want. It exasperates. It bores. Why? Because in truth they feel the problem is at best wildly exaggerated and at worst a grievance narrative invented by a Left obsessed with identity politics.
Either that or they suspect there is a problem but would prefer to shy away from it since it creates queasiness to consider there might - there just might - be a lingering, deep-seated racist legacy from Empire, Slavery & Colonialism which we need to face up to in order to realize the "colour blind" future that almost everyone (I think sincerely) wishes to see.
So rather than put in the hard yards to confront the issue - which could be difficult and unpleasant but would have a chance of paying real dividends - what they seek to do instead is pretend it isn't there. Not so much "let's talk about racism" - it's "let's talk about anything except racism." The desire is to close the subject down. Cards used - invention, extrapolation, deflection, ridicule.
We see it time and time again on here.
The reaction to a statue of a slaver coming down? - The evergreen "Oh FFS what's next?" plus a cry of "Mob rule, lock em up!"
To the N word removed from a TV show? - "Oh FFS, what's next?" plus "How come Kanye West can say it? It's not fair! No consistency!"
To an anti-racist # of Black Lives Matter - "Yeah, so how come they don't talk about all the blacks killing other blacks?"
In other words - long story short - I like the message of more dialogue on racism in this header but I question the good faith of those on here who are probably applauding it the most strongly. Since they are the very people who in practice demonstrate to me the opposite tendency.
Perhaps there's many issues relating to race in the modern world you prefer not to discuss ?
So you keep retreating to your 18th century comfort zone.
Please start such a discussion. I will be pleased to contribute.
Well CR already has but I've also made comments today about the issue and how it affected by class, housing affordability, the specific inequality issues areas of large Afro-Caribbean communities have and what the consequences covid might be.
You'll find them timed at 10:56, 11:18, 11:34 and 11:38.
You make some good and interesting points about class and exploitation.
But since your thrust is to argue that racism is - relatively speaking - not a material factor in this I don't know what you meant by suggesting that I wish to avoid discussing "many issues relating to race in the modern world."
You would have to float one or two and see if I avoid responding.
Well here goes:
How are Afro-Caribbean people affected by racism in comparison with those of African background or those of Asian background (Asian generally or type of Asian if more detail is wanted) ?
Are people who migrate more or less successful if they congregate within an immigrant community or if they disperse into the wider community ? Does this also apply to subsequent generations of that immigrant community ? Does the location of the immigrant community matter - expensive cities or cheaper towns ?
Is gender equality driven by racism ? White middle class men giving jobs to white middle class women in preference to black working class men.
Is racism fundamentally tolerated by the urban middle class because of the economic necessity of having an easily exploited workforce ?
I suspect a VAT cut achieves sod all, as Brown found out (albeit his cut was a lot smaller than being proposed).
If the economy is in the toilet, which it is, people aren't going to spend spend spend and rescue it.
I dunno, I think it makes some sense. VAT is essentially a tax on spending and it seems odd to disincentivise spending in a capitalist economy. I know it’s one of the easiest tax to collect, but still.
I think it makes sense to try it and if it works great - but I don't think it will be the boost the economy needs.
You do it in a targeted manner. Dropping VAT on pubs makes a £6 pint £5. Leave the VAT on off sales though, make the supermarket booze relatively more expensive.
A pint being a £1 cheaper is going to make sod all difference to the economy at large.
Not only will it save you money on your night out, it will also support hundreds of thousands of jobs in the industry most affected by the current epidemic.
Personally I’d drop VAT on most services too, help get the nation back to work.
A few quid saved on a night out isn't going to kick start the economy.
Basically I think the economy is fucked - and I think small things aren't going to save it.
Employer NI next on the list then - literally a tax on jobs.
What distinguishes it from employee NICs?
It’s a hidden tax which means it’s taken the brunt of all hidden tax rises over the past 15 years.
For those in IT IR35 is still only a problem because of the amount of money employer NI now raises it’s something like £40bn.
Oh, and while we are talking of tax cuts, definitely scrap IR35 - perhaps the worst thought through piece of taxation in decades. Government should be encouraging entrepreneurship, not making it more expensive than regular employment.
Entrepreneurship? Yeah, right.
The guys who sat in the same office as me every day were not entrepreneurs, they were tax dodgers. And my then employers were complicit in the process.
So did they have holiday and sick pay? Were they on a career path? Were they still there two years later? Or were they brought in because of specific skills for a relatively short period?
Some were there when I joined and still there when I left. Multiple years of continuous work in the same office. And, yes, some were 'promoted' to more senior roles as contractors.
I forgot to mention Pensions. Keeping contractors that long is down to the managers. If the skills are missing then they should recruit and train.
Actually, that would be a reasonable thing to do with IR35 - put a limit on length of contract. Contractors can perform a useful service to organisations, supplying needed skills for a limited amount of time. A flexible workforce that are generally willing to stay away from home or travel long distances.
Im surprised there isn't more gloating about the empty seats in Oklahoma on here....
To be honest I do not listen to Trump anymore
My son and daughter in law in Vancouver have cancelled their cable subscription and do not listen to anything he says
He is not going to win, but I fear his successor is not going to succeed either even if he becomes POTUS
He IS going to succeed in the crucial area of becoming a President of the United States who is not Donald Trump. This in and of itself is a cause for great joy both here on Earth and in the Kingdom of Heaven.
I concur but Biden is no saviour
The mere fact that he believes in Climate Change might mean that he is.
Off topic: whilst out to get a coffee, I saw two A400Ms inbound to Newcastle Airport. One made what looked to be a hell of an aborted landing. They are foreboding yet majestic aircraft.
Wow, yeah. It's done six approaches so far, either go-arounds or touch-and-goes. A400M out of Brize Norton. Some sort of a training mission maybe? https://www.flightradar24.com/ASCOT491/24bf8738
I must have seen the same one twice! It had its landing gear down and was very low. Odd one! Good experience though.
If indyref2 is inevitable, thank god Corbyn isn't in charge of the Labour party during it. He'd have given a couple of nonsensical speeches in Glasgow about solidarity and trade unionists in Cuba, and that would literally have been the sum total of Labour's campaign. As much as an irrelevance SLAB seem these days in Scotland, the result of any second indyref I think will depend very much on how hard Labour campaign against indy.
I'm assuming Labour will have learned their lesson about being the Tories' patsies in any 2nd referendum, though learning lessons doesn't seem to be SLab's strong point.
If you're from rUK Labour, though, you have a very strong reason to campaign against indy. A SLAB recovery means fuck all for you if it's taking place in an independent country. Starmer needs a SLAB recovery to take place with Scotland as still part of the UK, if it's to help him at all. And I think we both know that if UK Lab comes out strongly against indy, SLAB will follow.
Am I right in thinking there are only two elections since 1970 and only three since 1951 where Labour have won the popular vote in England?
I have been trying to confirm but the books I have don’t give the relevant statistics, only the seat numbers.
If so it shows the scale of the challenge facing Labour.
Interesting article on VAT in the Sunday Times to boost the economy.
I'd say cut it to 10% for 18 months. When you're £400bn in the hole it's not the time to play it safe for the sake of saving another £40bn, at the cost of staying there forever.
You need to make some big moves.
Cut taxes on employment if you want tax cuts.
But cutting taxes on imported consumer tat will just bring forward some spending which was going to happen anyway.
Bringing forward spending is precisely the point because it keeps businesses going whilst the economy is artificially depressed whilst the Coronavirus is still real and present. Those businesses then survive to pay back tax when things recover, and thus part of the economy and tax base is saved.
There might be other measures too. But ultimately businesses need customers and need to make it attractive for them to spend and buy, not horde.
Bringing forward spending on what though.
Its possible to argue that encouraging spending on construction or hospitality by reducing VAT is a good idea.
But imported consumer tat ? No.
And are you offering to determine what is “tat”?
The stuff people buy which they don't need or rarely use.
Lets all be a bit more environmental and use up what we have for a while and improve our finances at the same time.
How are you going to define that in the tax code?
I'm not which is why I don't support reducing VAT on goods.
Comments
This alone should be enough to end his presidency.
But the crowd roared its approval.
He then went into a riff about testing that could have been a Woody Allen sketch taking the piss out of a person who doesn't want people tested.
Insane.
The socialisation aspect of work is definitely under-estimated, if the next year is spend with all white-collar staff WFH, companies need to think about social events and team-building a lot more than they do now.
Yes. Yes. Yes.
Is a government policy that will promote public drunkenness such a good idea?
The problem is that for terrorists committing atrocities in the name of Islam, questions do have to be asked about the way in which their religion influenced them. That holds true even if it is a perverted form of it - arguably, especially true.
As would be the case if there were lots of terrorists belonging to the C of E or the Quakers.
Though Sturgeon has correctly accepted there can be no indyref2 without Westminster consent anyway
That's why we'll always have to go in a little bit, even if it's just a couple of times a week.
But I am not an expert but I assume the architect is
https://www.degruyter.com/view/journals/jbr/4/1/article-p147.xml
The one that comes to mind is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Rudolph
His beliefs about Christianity are specifically condemned by all the churches I know of. In older times he would have been condemned as a heretic.
Its possible to argue that encouraging spending on construction or hospitality by reducing VAT is a good idea.
But imported consumer tat ? No.
But if he is a Libyan its likely that he will have an Islamic name and that's the thing which will be noticed.
Definitely a good thing
Biden's pitch seems to be he isn't Trump and Trump's seems to be......er.....he isn't Biden.
(Incidentally this would of course have been a fairly mainstream view in nineteenth century Europe.)
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/scottish-independence/scottish-independence-english-people-overwhelmingly-want-scotland-to-stay-in-the-uk-9679439.html
That should benefit British manufacturers and fitters more than anyone else, and they can then spend my money in turn.
Lets all be a bit more environmental and use up what we have for a while and improve our finances at the same time.
You want to avoid tax cuts on imported complete consumer goods - making next year's iPhone cheaper for Amzon to sell you, simply export the tax cut rather than keeping it within the economy.
The guys who sat in the same office as me every day were not entrepreneurs, they were tax dodgers. And my then employers were complicit in the process.
"He can drink a glass of water with one hand."
Lebanon’s economy is collapsing with the country’s currency losing 70% of its value in the past six months.
Now many of the country’s middle class claim they can no longer afford to pay their domestic maids.
More than 100 Ethiopian migrant workers have been dumped outside their embassy in the capital in recent days.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-53031803/ethiopian-maids-dumped-outside-beirut-embassy
Time for a BLM protest at the Lebanese embassy ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embassy_of_Lebanon,_London
Kensington Palace Gardens - so a nice afternoon out for any London PBers.
Just cos people died there doesn't mean they lived or voted there.
Indy2 will not win independence, but then we have agreed in the past we are each entitled to our view
Multitasking ?
IR35 was a large part in my decision to set up my business abroad.
That's not to say there weren't abuses of contractors, for example companies like Ryanair contracting pilots, but the way government went about fixing the issues caused many more problems than it solved.
My son and daughter in law in Vancouver have cancelled their cable subscription and do not listen to anything he says
He is not going to win, but I fear his successor is not going to succeed either even if he becomes POTUS
Or were they brought in because of specific skills for a relatively short period?
Edit: Not just 2014. They still do.
As much as an irrelevance SLAB seem these days in Scotland, the result of any second indyref I think will depend very much on how hard Labour campaign against indy.
But since your thrust is to argue that racism is - relatively speaking - not a material factor in this I don't know what you meant by suggesting that I wish to avoid discussing "many issues relating to race in the modern world."
You would have to float one or two and see if I avoid responding.
https://www.vox.com/2020/5/26/21257648/joe-biden-climate-economy-tax-plans
The borough of Newham with its two constituencies was reporting 144 deaths per 100,000 people at the start of May:
https://www.newhamrecorder.co.uk/news/health/covid-19-death-rate-in-newham-1-6636990
One week's notice versus 4 week's notice. No big deal.
Claiming their daily commute as a tax deductable expense.
Paying themselves minimum wage and then paying the rest to themselves and their co-director (also known as their wife) as a dividend.
And in one case, borrowing office equipment to take home in order to fool an inspector that this was their place of work.
The system is being abused left, right and centre, certainly in the engineering sector.
Along with the conservatives and lib dems joining forces, the SNP would have a fight on their hands and as is well known I do not expect Scotland to leave the union
Leicester
Cheshire West & Chestre
Sheffield
Stoke on Trent
Rotherham
https://verify-it-c19data.co.uk/ords/verify02/r/covid-19/weekly-2
Keeping contractors that long is down to the managers. If the skills are missing then they should recruit and train.
A400M out of Brize Norton. Some sort of a training mission maybe?
https://www.flightradar24.com/ASCOT491/24bf8738
How are Afro-Caribbean people affected by racism in comparison with those of African background or those of Asian background (Asian generally or type of Asian if more detail is wanted) ?
Are people who migrate more or less successful if they congregate within an immigrant community or if they disperse into the wider community ? Does this also apply to subsequent generations of that immigrant community ? Does the location of the immigrant community matter - expensive cities or cheaper towns ?
Is gender equality driven by racism ? White middle class men giving jobs to white middle class women in preference to black working class men.
Is racism fundamentally tolerated by the urban middle class because of the economic necessity of having an easily exploited workforce ?
Contractors can perform a useful service to organisations, supplying needed skills for a limited amount of time. A flexible workforce that are generally willing to stay away from home or travel long distances.
I have been trying to confirm but the books I have don’t give the relevant statistics, only the seat numbers.
If so it shows the scale of the challenge facing Labour.