• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

UK PoliGAF |OT2| - We Blue Ourselves

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yeah but this weekend I'm going on a fact finding mission to California and Vegas where in gonna have loads of fun and I love Americans and I love you all.

I'll be back in three weeks. Three wine-soaked sexy weeks.

Edit: even if you think I hate you, I don't. I love you all.
 

Par Score

Member
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-attempt-to-pave-way-for-a-coup-a6723186.html

I really don't get why Blairites are called 'moderates'. Scheming to get rid of the party leader like that is really not moderate behaviour.

The "Moderates" get called "Moderates" because it's in the interest of the establishment to have two basically pro-capitalist, pro status-quo, barely-differentiated parties competing for government.

Also, they could arguably be called "Moderates" when considering the full political spectrum, but to call them "Labour Moderates" is particularly bullshit, as they're clearly on the far-right of the current Labour membership, less so if considering only the PLP.
 

phisheep

NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Let's keep it simple, as a small business owner who was probably taking dividends to the lower limit which isn't a lot by any stretch of the imagination you are now being asked to find 3-4k extra in tax. This is on top of the Corporation tax, vat, paye, ni, rates you write quarterly cheques for.

The problem I have with this argument, kitch, is that is the exact same argument used by the megacorps to avoid tax. And it's not a good argument however it is spun. Let's look at your own figures here:

My business paid £25k in corporation tax last year and I paid myself a smidge above that.

£7k in rates.
£12kish Paye Employer contributions.
A shit load of vat which I have to pay someone to administer.
NI.


Don't worry, small business owners contribute to the cause.

So, since your business paid £25k in corp tax last year, it had about £100k in net profits to play with. And that's after all the rates, PAYE, VAT, NI stuff. All of which comes with the cost of doing business, so you can't go double-counting that.

Now, there's no particular god-given right for you take any of that profit out of the company without the same taxation regimes that apply to your employees. Never mind if it is "your" company, it is a different thing. If it is that much pain then disincorporate (but no, even more tax!).

Starbucks used the same argument "look how much we are contributing to the government" and then listing all the taxes paid by its employees, but the fact remains that if Starbucks were replaced by 700 independent coffee shops then (a) they wouldn't pay ridiculous licensing fees that extinguish their profits and (b) they'd end up paying more tax in gross.

I know exactly and painfully where you are coming from kitch, but I don't support it,.
 
If Corbyn does somehow make it to PM, I cannot wait for the 'Corbyn's Comprehensive' section the Private Eye.

Also, those Britain In adverts on Facebook really remind of those shitty adverts that used to say stuff like This middle aged mum has discovered the secret to staying young that your Doctor doesn't want you to know.

The Britain In advert being Get the facts Nigel Farage doesn't want you to hear - like our page today.

Eurosceptics hate him!

Man discovers one weird trick to profit from membership of a dying political union.
 

Pie and Beans

Look for me on the local news, I'll be the guy arrested for trying to burn down a Nintendo exec's house.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...rugs-whose-patents-have-expired-a6724526.html
dFV9MQh.jpg
I guess we haven't had a full Tory government for so long that I'd almost forgotten they're chasing America's republicans for supervillain status. I wasn't even aware we had "filibuster" shit permitted in our politics. How sad.
 

Maledict

Member
Jacob Rees-Moggs is an awful, awful human being. He is renowned for doing that sort of thing on behalf of the government to stop private members bills going through.
 

tomtom94

Member
I said to my flatmate yesterday when I saw that it would be interesting to see how many bills had been filibustered over the last decade or so and by whom.

It's especially disappointing to see it making a comeback (Philip Davies keeps doing it as well) considering a couple of years ago there were calls for it to be banned by members of the coalition.

EDIT: In news that is extremely unsurprising, The Voice UK is moving away from the BBC from series 5 onwards. Given that even I will admit the BBC were on shaky ground bringing it in in the first place, this is one instance of privatisation I might get behind.
 

Moosichu

Member
Yeah but this weekend I'm going on a fact finding mission to California and Vegas where in gonna have loads of fun and I love Americans and I love you all.

I'll be back in three weeks. Three wine-soaked sexy weeks.

Edit: even if you think I hate you, I don't. I love you all.

Enjoy CyclopsRock!

Yeah, I don't even now how fillibustering is a thing. What is its purpose meant to be?

Ctrl+F

Phillip Davies

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_member's_bill
 

kitch9

Banned
The problem I have with this argument, kitch, is that is the exact same argument used by the megacorps to avoid tax. And it's not a good argument however it is spun. Let's look at your own figures here:



So, since your business paid £25k in corp tax last year, it had about £100k in net profits to play with. And that's after all the rates, PAYE, VAT, NI stuff. All of which comes with the cost of doing business, so you can't go double-counting that.

Now, there's no particular god-given right for you take any of that profit out of the company without the same taxation regimes that apply to your employees. Never mind if it is "your" company, it is a different thing. If it is that much pain then disincorporate (but no, even more tax!).

Starbucks used the same argument "look how much we are contributing to the government" and then listing all the taxes paid by its employees, but the fact remains that if Starbucks were replaced by 700 independent coffee shops then (a) they wouldn't pay ridiculous licensing fees that extinguish their profits and (b) they'd end up paying more tax in gross.

I know exactly and painfully where you are coming from kitch, but I don't support it,.

The business that goes bust is the business that doesn't retain profit to create an umbrella to weather a storm, the business that doesn't grow is the business that doesn't invest.

With that in mind how much do we as business owners pay ourselves on a profit of net 100k before tax when you consider that the government takes 20k+ of it? 50k retained profit is 2-3 months of overheads for an average small business with 5 staff.

The tax breaks were there in realisation of this and I'm going to have to let someone go now to minimise risk and reset my business plan around the new rules.
 

Maledict

Member
I'm not a huge Corbyn fan, but christ alive the attacks he gets in the press are pushing me more and more to support him out a FU to the establishment.

Latest controversies - he didn't bow enough at the Remembrance ceremony. Then according to the Daily Mail he is (SHOCK HORROR) going to an anti-war meeting later in the day where they will advocate for an end to all war and he will read a world war 1 poem entitled Futility.

Isn't the entire point of Remembrance ceremonies to mark how awful the damn wars were, grieve for the fallen and try to avoid it ever happening again?.
 

Jezbollah

Member
^^ can't argue with that. Saying that he didn't bow enough is just fucking petty. As leader of the opposition I think he did his duty today without any issue.
 

tomtom94

Member
Corbyn's adopted an interesting strategy on Trident and Sir Nicholas Houghton's comments, I'm not sure it's one I agree with but it's certainly a novel line to take.

Gen Sir Nicholas Houghton told the BBC's Andrew Marr that refusing to launch nuclear weapons would "seriously undermine" Britain's "deterrent".

And he said he would be worried if such a view "translated into power".

Mr Corbyn called on the defence secretary to "take action" against Sir Nicholas over his comments.

In a statement, the Labour leader said: "It is a matter of serious concern that the chief of the defence staff has today intervened directly in issues of political dispute.

"It is essential in a democracy that the military remains politically neutral at all times.

"By publicly taking sides in current political arguments, Sir Nicholas Houghton has clearly breached that constitutional principle. Accordingly, I am writing to the defence secretary to ask him to take action to ensure that the neutrality of the armed forces is upheld."

Eagle's said she's not in favour of unilateral disarmament, in other news.
 

Jezbollah

Member
I think Corbyn has not done himself a favour by saying that he's getting political with this - I think Houghton was outlining what the Armed Forces would expect of the approach of the PM on how to utilise the forces. I don't see any kind of political bias shown by Houghton, in fact I thought he came across as quite the opposite - very neutral.
 

Par Score

Member
It's a fairly basic premise of our democracy, and most others, that the armed forces are there to serve the country, not to start trying to set policy.

Having a General saying "It would worry me if that thought was translated into power" is pretty clearly taking a political stance. It's not exactly calling for or suggesting a coup, but it's far from neutral.
 

Jezbollah

Member
Yep, I can see how it would be looked at in such a way, but I think Corbyn has certainly overreacted big time to this.

EDIT: Ok, I've now seen the interview Houghton had with Sky, claiming that Britain was "letting people down" with the lack of military action in Syria. I absolutely think this is out of line and that Corbyn has correctly made a point here. The decision not to participate in this nature was taken with a Parliamentary vote and thus in line with our normal decision making. He should have not said that. I still believe he is right to be emphasising the role that the PM should have with regards to the nature, utilisation and effect of a nuclear deterrent though.
 

Empty

Member
definitely a smart idea to help create a bunch of headlines about how corbyn is attacking the army around remembrance sunday

houghton's comments on trident are actually perfectly sensible. all he is saying, in answer to a very strong political question, is that it's pointless to spend money on a nuclear deterrent if you maintain that you would never use it, as the purpose of a nuclear defense is to defend and that depends on people believing you would use it. which is correct, practical military advice about the military apparatus the country has access to at the moment. he didn't weigh in on whether we should spend money on a nuclear deterrent or if mutually assured destruction creates a less safe world or if nuclear weapons are fundamentally immoral or any of those political questions.
 

curls

Wake up Sheeple, your boring insistence that Obama is not a lizardman from Atlantis is wearing on my patience 💤
I am liking this Corbyn character. :)

We really do not need nukes anyway. It's mad that such an opinion is deemed even remotely controversial. IMO
 

War Peaceman

You're a big guy.
What did I just read. Seriously. If that is an act than that makes the current government (and also some of labour)'s arm-dealer lined pockets a huge pantomime.

And the bit on Trudeau is just as wat inducing.

Yeah it takes a real twist doesn't it.

Although I don't agree I do kind of see the logic to it. It is very simplistic - assuming that soldiers always are pro war is very naive for example - but I kind of get it.

It is worth mentioning that Charles Moore is a weirdo with a strange obsession for Thatcher
 

twobear

sputum-flecked apoplexy
why would anyone think that the 'hard left' (or whatever) wouldn't show respect to our fallen? believing that wars are often unnecessary and that a diplomatic resolution is preferable doesn't mean not caring about the people who laid down their lives during wartime.
 

Jezbollah

Member
In fact I'd say you show them more respect, by refusing to simply allow future generations go off and die fighting.

Unfortunately that's not how it works. The best any PM can do is ensure that their armed forces are deployed for the right reasons, and there are scenarios where not taking action is the wrong decision. And of course you have Blair/Iraq.

This whole "he could be pretending" angle is pathetic. And I do genuinely believe that Corbyn does care about the lives of those lost to previous conflict. But make no mistake, the question still remains if he can effectively execute, with a level head, the right decisions where Armed Forces need to be deployed given his deeply held personal opinions. This is one of the most important duties of the Prime Minister, and if he cant do this, then it's something that will play a major factor in a future election.
 

Moosichu

Member
Unfortunately that's not how it works. The best any PM can do is ensure that their armed forces are deployed for the right reasons, and there are scenarios where not taking action is the wrong decision. And of course you have Blair/Iraq.

This whole "he could be pretending" angle is pathetic. And I do genuinely believe that Corbyn does care about the lives of those lost to previous conflict. But make no mistake, the question still remains if he can effectively execute, with a level head, the right decisions where Armed Forces need to be deployed given his deeply held personal opinions. This is one of the most important duties of the Prime Minister, and if he cant do this, then it's something that will play a major factor in a future election.

The whole reason someone is a pacifist is because they do care about the lives lost in conflict. It's for that reason that if Corbyn came to the decision that deploying troops was necessary, I could have a reasonable level of certainty that it was for the right reasons at least. Whether it would be the right decision is another matter.

The problem is that the track record of Cameron doesn't inspire confidence that he wants to do this for the right reason.
 

Jezbollah

Member
The whole reason someone is a pacifist is because they do care about the lives lost in conflict. It's for that reason that if Corbyn came to the decision that deploying troops was necessary, I could have a reasonable level of certainty that it was for the right reasons at least. Whether it would be the right decision is another matter.

The problem is that the track record of Cameron doesn't inspire confidence that he wants to do this for the right reason.

To be fair, ever since Iraq any such decision (quite rightly in hindsight) has come in for extra scrutisism. I think this will be the case for a long time too, regardless of who is the PM. We shouldnt make the mistakes of the past, but that also includes inaction as well as action.
 

Wvrs

Member
Probably very LTTP with this but started reading Owen Jones' 'The Establishment' yesterday. About halfway through now and it's very eye-opening, especially as a younger member of the electorate for whom Blair and New Labour comprised the first establishment I knew. I'm very ignorant about the history of UK politics and it's something I'm trying to rectify.

You can see a lot of his points surfacing now, what with the constant Corbyn smearing in the media due to his daring to even moderately challenge the status quo. I mean I was always aware that politicians, corporations and the media were all in bed together, but I had no real idea of the extent to which they were going at it.
 

Moosichu

Member
Probably very LTTP with this but started reading Owen Jones' 'The Establishment' yesterday. About halfway through now and it's very eye-opening, especially as a younger member of the electorate for whom Blair and New Labour comprised the first establishment I knew. I'm very ignorant about the history of UK politics and it's something I'm trying to rectify.

You can see a lot of his points surfacing now, what with the constant Corbyn smearing in the media due to his daring to even moderately challenge the status quo. I mean I was always aware that politicians, corporations and the media were all in bed together, but I had no real idea of the extent to which they were going at it.

The private eye is good as well. It is extremely cynical but reading it makes you realise why Ian Hislop has a huge distaste for the Conservative party and Labour.
 

Nicktendo86

Member
The attacks on Corbyn are ridiculous. There are enough genuine sticks to beat him with, not bowing enough at a memorial is just stupid.

I'm also sick of this 'you must wear a poppy and show respect or else' attitude, I'm pretty sure my grandfather didn't fight in the war so people can be made to wear a bit of paper and plastic respect to him. Let people respect the war dead in their own way FFS. /rant.
 

Uzzy

Member
David Cameron's letter to David Tusk outlining the goals for EU reform has been published.

Looks like he wants to stop EU migrants claiming inwork benefits for 4 years, an end to the 'ever closer union' obligation, protection for non-Euro countries and a greater role for national parliaments in possibly opposing EU legislation. He also used his speech today in Chatham House to again call for the scraping of the Human Rights Act and reform the relationship with the European Court of Human Rights.

Very disappointing to hear the scrapping of the HRA brought up again. I had thought that some sense had emerged and they'd shelved that stupid idea, after the scale of the opposition and problems they would have had to resolve came up. But I guess not.

On the inwork benefits, it's clear that that'll be the issue most fiercely opposed by the other EU countries, as that strikes at the heart of freedom of movement. The rest doesn't seem ambitious at all, and is already disappointing the eurosceptics. Though really, anything short of renaming the EU the British Empire and running it from Whitehall would be disappointing to the bulk of them.
 

Nicktendo86

Member
Outside of comedy villain reasons and wanting to set up Victorian style workhouses, why *do* they want to scrap the HRA?

I think it is mainly a public perception thing, that the British courts should be superior on the issues involved, especially with prisoner rights.
 

Kuros

Member
Outside of comedy villain reasons and wanting to set up Victorian style workhouses, why *do* they want to scrap the HRA?

Inability to deport Abu Hamza et al.

Also it would be exceedingly unpopular if the EU try to force the UK to give prisoners the vote.
 

ruttyboy

Member
I think it is mainly a public perception thing, that the British courts should be superior on the issues involved, especially with prisoner rights.

Inability to deport Abu Hamza et al.

Also it would be exceedingly unpopular if the EU try to force the UK to give prisoners the vote.

I see, I don't know much about it, but I'm assuming that the European rulings are pretty much in line with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, are they trying to refute that too?
 

Kuros

Member
I see, I don't know much about it, but I'm assuming that the European rulings are pretty much in line with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, are they trying to refute that too?

In the UDHR there is a line that "elections
shall be by universal and equal suffrage"

The european convention of human rights says "the free expression of the people in the choice of the legislature"

It's from those statements that the ECHR is telling the UK must give prisoners the right to vote. The minority judgement in the case even called it a stretch.

Personally you commit a crime you forfeit your right to vote. Want to vote. Don't commit a crime.

Also, and I'm not saying governments should never enact unpopular legislation as they have to sometimes but the opinion polls for giving prisoners the vote are always very clear which is why the previous governments and this one won't do it.
 

Uzzy

Member
Regarding Prisoners voting, it's the blanket ban that the ECHR objects to. It's disproportionate. No one forfeits their rights simply because they're detained following a conviction. The Government could bring forward legislation that makes the law more selective, giving some prisoners the vote depending on length of sentence or severity of crime, but they choose not to.

I don't think it's really defensible to have a blanket ban in place. Treating someone who's in prison for 6 months for a relatively minor crime in the same manner as you treat a Shipley or Huntley isn't right.

Anyway, I believe that repealing the Human Rights Act would be a breach of the Good Friday Agreement. Breaching that because you don't like giving prisoners the vote would be an act of criminality, and I'd expect those MPs who voted for it to sign up for the PSNI so they can deal with the consequences first.
 

War Peaceman

You're a big guy.
Regarding Prisoners voting, it's the blanket ban that the ECHR objects to. It's disproportionate. No one forfeits their rights simply because they're detained following a conviction. The Government could bring forward legislation that makes the law more selective, giving some prisoners the vote depending on length of sentence or severity of crime, but they choose not to.

I don't think it's really defensible to have a blanket ban in place. Treating someone who's in prison for 6 months for a relatively minor crime in the same manner as you treat a Shipley or Huntley isn't right.

Anyway, I believe that repealing the Human Rights Act would be a breach of the Good Friday Agreement. Breaching that because you don't like giving prisoners the vote would be an act of criminality, and I'd expect those MPs who voted for it to sign up for the PSNI so they can deal with the consequences first.

That was one big reason they quietly dropped opposing the HRA before... I think they are perfectly willing to concede the HRA point in negotiations, it is just a nice juicy looking bargaining chip.
 

tomtom94

Member
On a moral level, I believe that human rights should be maintained by a non-democratic body. Human rights are universal, having them essentially enforced at the whim of democracy* seems deeply concerning (at the risk of sounding like I'm aiming at a slippery slope fallacy). In the same way that we have the Lords to check the power of the Commons.

On a political level... well, you only need to look at the House of Lords to see how well that would go down. Moreover, the ECHR in practice seems to default towards punishing Britain. Example: "You cannot leave Britain because you would be tortured in Jordan". While it's a fair argument, I can't help but feel the Jordanian torture regime might be the bigger issue.

*I'm not entirely clued up on the links between the courts and Parliament but I'm pretty sure the courts have to enforce the legislation passed by Parliament, ergo the government might have the power to take a couple of human rights off the list and the courts would have to enforce it - not that that would happen, UN and all.
 

Moosichu

Member
In the UDHR there is a line that "elections
shall be by universal and equal suffrage"

The european convention of human rights says "the free expression of the people in the choice of the legislature"

It's from those statements that the ECHR is telling the UK must give prisoners the right to vote. The minority judgement in the case even called it a stretch.

Personally you commit a crime you forfeit your right to vote. Want to vote. Don't commit a crime.

Also, and I'm not saying governments should never enact unpopular legislation as they have to sometimes but the opinion polls for giving prisoners the vote are always very clear which is why the previous governments and this one won't do it.

Yes, but laws can be changed by voting. Basic case, legalising certain recreational drugs.

What about encryption, you are a civil rights campaigner that uses encryption and the government deems that illegal. Protesters can no longer vote for change because they are in jail. This isn't hypothetical, this is stuff the government was and could really consider.
 

Jezbollah

Member
It never ceases to surprise me at the reactions shown by a lot of people about what Cameron has come out to say about EU reforms (and we can throw in the Communications act into this too). People should know how the Conservatives negotiate. Just look at how they worked out the TV debates at the election.
 

tomtom94

Member
Wouldn't we effectively be locking in 2015's view of human rights onto future generations though?

Only if you assume the non-democratic body would be intransigent and conservative, whereas I'm pretty sure human rights are debated regularly by philosophers and lawyers (for instance, Theresa May's planned reforms which might well end up being declared illegal).

That is a fair concern, though, the US Supreme Court should tell us that if nothing else...

EDIT: Oh, and in fun news, even Leave.EU have given up on Scotland - apparently David Coburn is head of the Scotland branch.
 
Only if you assume the non-democratic body would be intransigent and conservative, whereas I'm pretty sure human rights are debated regularly by philosophers and lawyers (for instance, Theresa May's planned reforms which might well end up being declared illegal).

That is a fair concern, though, the US Supreme Court should tell us that if nothing else...

EDIT: Oh, and in fun news, even Leave.EU have given up on Scotland - apparently David Coburn is head of the Scotland branch.

But if any changes to it are not based on democratic will, what is informing the change?
 

twobear

sputum-flecked apoplexy
It's a pretty fiddly issue. I'm not sure I really want human rights to be pinned to democratic will, or we'd probably have an 'eye for an eye' retributive justice system.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom