• 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.
Between 62 and 89 you didn't pay a penny both fees and maintenance was covered by grants. Between 89 and 98 the cost was covered by grants for most universities with a loan of up to £1400 (off the top of my head) a year for maintenance.

I'm pretty sure that for both of those periods the actual funding for "maintenance" was no where near enough to actually go without either external assistance or saving up before you want, which is why student numbers rocketed after 98.
 

phisheep

NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
I'm pretty sure that for both of those periods the actual funding for "maintenance" was no where near enough to actually go without either external assistance or saving up before you want, which is why student numbers rocketed after 98.

It was plenty enough for me in the 1970s. Not extravagant, but manageable.
 

2700

Unconfirmed Member
JP Morgan, Bank of America Merrill Lynch, Deutsche Bank, Nomura Holdings and Morgan Stanley paid no corporation tax this year.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35166460

But it doesn't matter because THE CITY IS ALL as far as politicians are concerned.

Makes sense. Why would they spend their own money on their bailout slush fund?
Companies of all sizes and industries can carry losses forward (or backwards) to reduce corporation tax. Not one of those banks listed would be bailed out by the British government in the event of another financial crisis.
 

Uzzy

Member
Companies of all sizes and industries can carry losses forward (or backwards) to reduce corporation tax. Not one of those banks listed would be bailed out by the British government in the event of another financial crisis.

Yeah, they get to socialise the losses inflicted during their financial crisis, and privatise the profits now. And when they crash the economy again, they'll just be bailed out again by other poor taxpayers around the world.

Besides, Reuters points out how several of the banks managed to pull this off. JP Morgan made $2.6b in profits in the UK last year, and paid no corporation tax. They had tax liabilities of $524 million, but those were offset by foreign tax credits, overpayments in previous periods and “the benefit of other available tax reliefs”. Goldman Sachs made $2b in profits in the UK and paid a whole $26.6m in corporation due to stock awards for staff. Deutsche Bank, who employ 8,000 people in the UK and have the majority of their European fees generated there, reported a loss of €2.2b in London. But luckily they managed a profit of €500m in Luxembourg, where they employ a whole 600 people. I guess the staff in Luxembourg just work harder! Morgan Stanley also reported a loss in Britain, which eliminated their tax bill. Sure, they generate half their non-US revenues in Britain, but thanks to inter-group charges of $670 million, they can eliminate all profits in the UK and end up losing money. Meanwhile, Bank of America and UBS offset their corporation tax by historic losses. One guess where those losses came from.

Luckily for these banks with their massive losses in the UK, there's plenty of unemployed people we can take money from to cover their losses. Good thing really.
 
Probably should've written "losses". Isn't so much a bailout as (legal) tax avoidance that then forces the administration to look for money elsewhere.
 

Wvrs

Member
Can't wait to see the reactions to the flooding, and only 2 weeks after Angela Eagles dedicated a large portion of her question time to George Osborne regarding his cutting of flood defence spending.

"Well, the strength of the UK economy means we can help..." blah blah blah.
 

Jezbollah

Member
Can't wait to see the reactions to the flooding, and only 2 weeks after Angela Eagles dedicated a large portion of her question time to George Osborne regarding his cutting of flood defence spending.

"Well, the strength of the UK economy means we can help..." blah blah blah.

It's an easy argument to counter though - many of the areas that were flooded had flood defences, but the rain that was experienced beat all records. I think she would have a bigger case if the South West saw similar floods to what they had last year..
 
It's an easy argument to counter though - many of the areas that were flooded had flood defences, but the rain that was experienced beat all records. I think she would have a bigger case if the South West saw similar floods to what they had last year..
That would be a piss poor counter.
 

Mr Git

Member
So tonight in our pub we had a group of bellends in. Nothing too unusual, especially at this time of the year. But then one of them told my workmate that he worked for the NHS and his job was being Jeremy Hunt's lap dog - (my work mate didn't know who this was till I told her, also his words). Anyway, that's fine. They left their table in an absolute shitheap but someone had left some items. One of which was a book titled 'How to dismantle the NHS in 10 easy steps'. This isn't some anti-tory troll, I'm not that shallow. But I did have to spend a while wondering what was real life. Which is something I haven't done since my post-DMT reality complex several years ago.

To clarify - I just thought it was bizarre. Whether he actually had that position is irrelevant. It's weird to me that such a book would even exist, let alone be in someone's possession.
 

phisheep

NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
To clarify - I just thought it was bizarre. Whether he actually had that position is irrelevant. It's weird to me that such a book would even exist, let alone be in someone's possession.

Oh, it exists, but far from being an instruction book it is more of an anti-tory polemic with an ironic title.

On the whole, if the guy does have the position he claims, then his reading this book is probably a Good Thing.
 

Mr. Sam

Member
Oh, it exists, but far from being an instruction book it is more of an anti-tory polemic with an ironic title.

Thanks, saves me having to point it out. The "Jeremy Hunt's lapdog" thing also sounds sarcastic - i.e. it was probably somebody who resented Jeremy Hunt and felt oppressed by him, not his PA.
 
Big Simon Danczuk has had a stinker. With his wife and his ex GF he was punching above his weight but God knows what's happened with sending suggestive texts to a 17 year old. All those articles for The Sun against his own party meant nothing the minute his back was turned. Sleep with the devil and you are going to get burnt.
 

Jezbollah

Member
Big Simon Danczuk has had a stinker. With his wife and his ex GF he was punching above his weight but God knows what's happened with sending suggestive texts to a 17 year old. All those articles for The Sun against his own party meant nothing the minute his back was turned. Sleep with the devil and you are going to get burnt.

I think we can safely categorise Danczuk as "a bit of a bellend"
 

War Peaceman

You're a big guy.
Everyone close to any position in the Labour leadership for quite a while must be rubbing their hands with glee. What a horrible twat.
 

Moosichu

Member
Sadly there are probably a number of MPs who have behaved worse. I'm really conflicted about Simon Danczuck. Some of the time he does stuff and sticks his neck out for good which I applaud. But then he does stuff which is absolutely baffling and seems like nothing more than shit-stirring.

Some times I after he does something, I think 'we really need more MPs like him' and other times I think he should be gone.
 
Hey turns out Danczuk is just a shit! Mail on Sunday tomorrow on him bullying his ex-wife. And had a gagging clause in the divorce to stop her saying:

CXvtuU6W8AA5DwT.jpg
 
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/elections/2016/01/how-jeremy-corbyns-labour-faring-elections

These conclusions are only interim inferences from a limited amount of data. The deluge of numbers we can expect in early May will tell us much, much more. But there can be no doubt now: Labour is weaker than under Ed Miliband. If nothing changes soon, and previous relationships hold, the Party is dicing with a double-digit defeat at the 2020 general election, at which it might attract a vote share some way down into the mid- to high-20s. Everything we know – every last scrap of data – says that the Labour Party as we have known it is in very profound trouble indeed.

Gulp.
 

Jezbollah

Member
Looks like we're in for a Shadow Cabinet reshuffle over the next few days (I do remember seeing news articles denying such a thing over the weekend....).

I suspect we'll see a pattern to the movement of positions..
 
Pointless article with obvious agenda. I mean we all know how well Oldham turned out.
Well he addressed that in the article:

This brings us neatly to the Oldham West parliamentary by-election, where Labour defied widespread expectations of an only narrow win by romping home against a very disappointed and deflated United Kingdom Independence Party. Labour’s majority, at over 10,000, was seven per cent up on May, a result that on the face of it flies in the face of everything we see in polls, polling internals and local by-elections. But any reliance on such a superficial impression would display, once more, a failure to see these things historically. In the Oldham East by-election, held nine months into the last Parliament, Labour’s vote went up by 10 per cent; at Barnsley Central, two months later, the Party’s vote increased by 13.5 per cent; and two months later, its vote went up by more than 12 per cent at Leicester South. In this context, Oldham West once again showed us a Labour Party that is significantly under-performing even its anaemic performance in 2010-15, a Parliament which ended in a dramatic and decisive defeat. Trailing the early by-election successes of 2011 by between about three and six per cent is by no means out of line with an opinion poll performance eight or nine points shy of what it was then, especially when we take into account a slight UKIP decline in polls conducted since the general election.

Is it the analysis you don't like or just the conclusion?
 

Jezbollah

Member
So no Shadow Cabinet announcements tonight, but it's rumored that Diane Abbott is going to land up as Shadow Foreign Secretary with Hilary Benn staying in the cabinet but moving elsewhere. Maria Eagle was also noted by those who saw her as looking upset, so maybe she's out.

Also, for lulz (and, which is in fact true), Douglas Carswell has had to make a statement to say to deny plotting to kill Nigel Farage.....
 
This is going to be a very rough few months for both Labour and the Tories it looks like. Maybe the SNP too if their 2015 crop carries on with this train of less-than-stellar business actions.

Considering how bad a year 2015 was for the LDs, it's interesting to see other parties have trouble instead.
 

Nicktendo86

Member
Hello all, long time no posting. What an absolute clusterfuck of a reshuffle. Big commons statements today and there is still no shadow cabinet. Just imagine if they were in Government!
 
I'd like to give Team Corbyn a benefit of the doubt and think actually why should they be doing stuff at the media's pace, who are basically just upset they're not getting enough leaks quickly. And suddenly they care about Michael Dugher and such a loss he is for being sacked, when before nobody really gave a shit.

But then I remember they seem incapable of running anything so it's probably not deliberate for trying to be at their own pace but just incompetence with no sense of media management (see their train fare protests being overshadowed yesterday). Just seem to be a useless mess.
 

f0rk

Member
Labour really are a mess. They denied anything was happening over the weekend and now it's become clear it is happening they're dragging it out longer than anyone thought possible. It's like whoever is leaking shit to the press knows what Corbyn is going to do before Corbyn does. If they just came out and did everything today Dugher would get drowned out.
 

Walshicus

Member
Chris Ship:



Are we really supposed to take labour seriously?
I mean if the Labour leadership isn't prepared to engage in ghoulish, pointless security theatre rather than focus on real solutions to (in the scale of things rather minor) issues such as terrorism... How can you take that party seriously?

Every time Call Me Dave gets angry on camera a Jihadi cries.
 
Errr Pat's request (to DC) was a little more nuanced than that:


‘Can I ask the Prime Minister to reject the view that sees terrorist acts as always being a response or a reaction to what we in the West do? Does he agree with me that such an approach risks infantilising the terrorists and treating them as children, when the truth is they are adults entirely responsible for what they do. No one forces them to kill innocent people in Paris or Beirut and unless we are clear about that, we will fail even to be able to understand the threat we face, let alone confront it and ultimately overcome it’.

Not exactly a jingoist.
 

Moosichu

Member
Errr Pat's request (to DC) was a little more nuanced than that:




Not exactly a jingoist.

I think the problem is is that no one was saying that terrorists weren't responsible. It's a complete misrepresentation of Corbyn's views. Furthermore, these aren't people that are born evil, theu very much the product of their environment and sticking you fingers in your ears, ignoring that, and bombing the shit out of places won't change that fact.
 

Jezbollah

Member
Some details about Hilary Benn's new position in the Shadow Cabinet from George Eaton:

"Benn has come to agreement with Corbyn which means there will be no more Syria-style splits, Labour sources say." - "Benn will not be able to take alternative positions at the despatch box." - "Threat of mass resignations saved Benn but he's had his wings clipped."

And clarification from Sophy Ridge: "Sources say Hilary Benn forced to sign up to two things: 1. no more "opposition speeches" like Syria, 2. foreign policy agreed with leader" - "John McDonnell confirms to me that if Hilary Benn disagrees with Jeremy Corbyn on future free vote he'll *physically* speak from backbenches".

one last one from Eaton: "There are now six confirmed Trident opponents in the shadow cabinet and at least three sceptics." - "Despite the chaos, reshuffle is a win for Corbyn: Trident opponent at defence, no foreign policy free votes, two critics sacked."


So this reshuffle has got rid of a couple of Corbyn's most vocal critics and set up the Shadow Cabinet on a direct course with some Unions with regards to positions on Trident.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom