• 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 |OT3| - Strong and Stable Government? No. Coalition Of Chaos!

Status
Not open for further replies.

Goodlife

Member
Hilarious that May, after calling an early election so boost her majority so she wouldn't have to work with anyone, is now begging for others to help her out.

Fcuk that. Keep pushing for the next election Corbyn
 

Uzzy

Member
Evening Standard: David Davis’s dilemma: to stand or not to stand

It was Mrs May who overruled Mr Davis and others in the Cabinet, such as Greg Clarke, to insist that we sacrifice those sensible international arrangements on the altar of the dogmatic purity of Brexit. That rigid approach now faces humiliating defeat in Parliament, as a growing number of Conservative MPs make clear they will rebel.

It is now a truth universally acknowledged among Conservative MPs that the Prime Minister must quit. The only question is when. The public consensus among Conservatives is it would be better to wait for a couple of years, until Brexit has been completed. A leadership election now, they say, would make a general election irresistible and a Corbyn victory inevitable. In private, Tory MPs are not so sure. Two years of leaderless government doesn’t feel to them like a plan for success.

The old adage in Tory leadership contests is that he who wields the knife never wears the crown. A young Mrs Thatcher proved that wasn’t the case when she brought down a leader who called a snap election and fell short. Mr Davis’s dilemma is that if he, or his supporters, don’t wield the knife now he may never wear the crown.

Oh Gideon. You're loving this aren't you?
 

Uzzy

Member
Tory MP Anne Marie Morris recorded saying, "Now we get to the real n****r in the woodpile which is in two years what happens if there is no deal?" during launch of report into financial services post-Brexit.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/tory-mp-racist-brexit-recording_uk_59638608e4b02e9bdb0e2c77

Majority of 17,000, so she might actually get sacked.

This is going to happen with the Unified Patent Court, which we've already said, post-Brexit, that we're going to press on and ratify. No one seems to have noticed / care about it though.

This is the first I've heard of it! That's interesting though, it looks like the Government are arguing that it's not an EU institution so it's fine, and hoping that no one looks further. Guess we'll hear more about it in the future.
 

Spaghetti

Member
Cyclops has a point I think. There will be a core of people like (the majority of) us, who forever associate it with the Tories, and that may well end up being a sizeable group of people as our generation age and start consistently voting more, but there will also be a decent %age of people who will see the referendum as justified (proven by the fact that people voted to leave), and people just made a bad decision.

I'd say "optimistic" rather than "generous", since I'm making a prediction. But I think I'm right. Obviously. This is especially the case when the Tories were in government at the time and used - somewhat questionably, IMO - that position to give an "official" take on the question and sent a pamphlet to everyone in the country saying as much.
Conservative irresponsibility runs through this issue in a huge way and always will. I'm sure this will illicit "bu-bu-but Labour..." responses like always, but it's time to face the fucking facts; Brexit was birthed out of the Conservatives playing their party drama writ large on the public.

I wrote a much larger post with a timeline about why I think this, but fuck it. It's old ground we've already seen in this fairly young thread already. There are two common themes though; putting Conservative party interests ahead of anything else, and not being prepared when everything inevitably goes to shit.

No amount of campaigning or pamphlets are going to make that okay.
 
This is the first I've heard of it! That's interesting though, it looks like the Government are arguing that it's not an EU institution so it's fine, and hoping that no one looks further. Guess we'll hear more about it in the future.

I honestly think that is the tactic, which I find kind of amazing. IP news generally doesn't get much airtime on the news anyway, and "It's not an EU institution" is technically correct and probably enough to put off further questioning.
 
Few Tories calling for her to go now.

Anyone in the Tory ranks calling for her to go is a damn fool. I don't know if Labour would fight it all that hard but the Lib Dems would throw the entire membership at it. That majority could be overturned in a by-election atmosphere.

You have a cocktail of a hideously unpopular Tory party, a worsening economy, Brexit becoming more and more unpopular and you're challenging both an insurgent "I can win anywhere" Corbyn and a Lib Dem machine that badly wants a by-election win.
 

Beefy

Member
Anyone in the Tory ranks calling for her to go is a damn fool. I don't know if Labour would fight it all that hard but the Lib Dems would throw the entire membership at it. That majority could be overturned in a by-election atmosphere.

You have a cocktail of a hideously unpopular Tory party, a worsening economy, Brexit becoming more and more unpopular and you're challenging both an insurgent "I can win anywhere" Corbyn and a Lib Dem machine that badly wants a by-election win.

Some things are more important then winning shit.
 
Some things are more important then winning shit.

I agree actually but I generally take my politics with a Machiavellian bent. I'd love her to step down but at that point her successor has to face not one but possibly two hostile parties that would smell blood in that seat. It's far smarter to take the abuse then step down at the next full election, or weather the storm until everyone forgets about it.

Green is the only one that has taken a pure 'Brexit is dumb let's not' stance!

I thought their policy was a ratification referendum?
 

Horsefly

Member
Anyone in the Tory ranks calling for her to go is a damn fool. I don't know if Labour would fight it all that hard but the Lib Dems would throw the entire membership at it. That majority could be overturned in a by-election atmosphere.

You have a cocktail of a hideously unpopular Tory party, a worsening economy, Brexit becoming more and more unpopular and you're challenging both an insurgent "I can win anywhere" Corbyn and a Lib Dem machine that badly wants a by-election win.

I appreciate your looking at this through the lens of party vs party numbers, but some things are bigger than that surely?

Either because they think it's right, or even if, cynically, they want to help market themselves as friendlier, no one is a damn fool for wanting her gone.

And I'd hope we're past the "what's the harm..."
 

Theonik

Member
I thought their policy was a ratification referendum?
Their policy is unlear. On one hand they state that they wish to remain, on the other they say they will push for a referendum on the final deal. Ultimately Greens are a no-hope party when it comes to governing which one of the two paths they would take is up for debate if they had any real influence.
 
Conservative irresponsibility runs through this issue in a huge way and always will. I'm sure this will illicit "bu-bu-but Labour..." responses like always, but it's time to face the fucking facts; Brexit was birthed out of the Conservatives playing their party drama writ large on the public.

I wrote a much larger post with a timeline about why I think this, but fuck it. It's old ground we've already seen in this fairly young thread already. There are two common themes though; putting Conservative party interests ahead of anything else, and not being prepared when everything inevitably goes to shit.

No amount of campaigning or pamphlets are going to make that okay.

I'm not gonna deny that without the Tories we wouldn't be Brexiting. But this doesn't change the fact that after 30+ years of banging on about it from the backbenches, it's happening now because of a referendum, not an act of parliament. I don't think people are gonna forget that.
 

avaya

Member
I don't think Cyclops is wrong, the referendum absolves the Tories of some of the blame, maybe even immunises them to a great degree.

The MPs most responsible for the reprehensible damage Brexit will cause this country both economically and in global stature are all in safe Tory seats, so the nutters will never be removed. It will coincidentally be the Tories who are the least damaging and the most reasonable who will be at risk.

The Tory party will radicalise further to their eventual GOP state.
 

*Splinter

Member
You shouldn't be offering a referendum on something with a "wrong" answer. The mere fact that people were asked suggests that both sides have their pros and cons.

Conservatives deserve every bit of blame they will get.
 
If there hadn't been 30+ years of Tories creating the EU boogeyman, leave would never have gotten a majority. Of course the blame lies with them.
 

Mr. Sam

Member
I think the point - which we're drifting away from - is whether they will receive the blame whether they are actually to blame (which they are, duh).
 

StayDead

Member
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40561807

The author of a government review into work practices is calling for the end of the "cash-in-hand economy".
Matthew Taylor, whose report is out on Tuesday, said cash jobs like window cleaning and decorating were worth up to £6bn a year, much of it untaxed.
Instead, the work should be paid through "payment platforms", Mr Taylor told BBC economics editor Kamal Ahmed.
The review, commissioned by Theresa May, also tackles low-paid work, zero hours contracts and the gig economy.
Mr Taylor, who is chief executive of the Royal Society of Arts and a former Tony Blair advisor, is set to call for cash jobs to be paid through platforms such as credit cards, contactless payments and PayPal.
This would make it harder for customers and workers to avoid paying tax.

I love this article, they want to stop people like Window Cleaners being paid in cash so it can be taxed.

HOW ABOUT YOU TAX THE CORPORATIONS TERESA. :|
 

TeddyBoy

Member
You shouldn't be offering a referendum on something with a "wrong" answer. The mere fact that people were asked suggests that both sides have their pros and cons.

Conservatives deserve every bit of blame they will get.

The government has a position on everything, Cameron only offered a referendum because he thought he'd win it easily.
 

TimmmV

Member
If there hadn't been 30+ years of Tories creating the EU boogeyman, leave would never have gotten a majority. Of course the blame lies with them.

That's different though - I don't think anyone is actually arguing whether the Tories are responsible for Brexit (they obviously are), but whether the Tories will forever be blamed for it. Which they probably wont, as ultimately it was a public referendum supported by voters from more than just the Tory party
 

Maledict

Member
That's different though - I don't think anyone is actually arguing whether the Tories are responsible for Brexit (they obviously are), but whether the Tories will forever be blamed for it. Which they probably wont, as ultimately it was a public referendum supported by voters from more than just the Tory party

It was overwhelmingly one party and one age group in particular though. I disagree with cyclops here, I think it's definitely branded as a conservative led issue. After all, the fact the campaign turned into a blue on blue fight was one of the big problems according to the analysis.

I also think that as the older generation who voted for this die off, it's going to be natural to blame the party of old people for this.
 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40561807

I love this article, they want to stop people like Window Cleaners being paid in cash so it can be taxed.

HOW ABOUT YOU TAX THE CORPORATIONS TERESA. :|

Yep, they chase this £6b potential pool to be taxed, yet give the top 1% that in tax breaks alone, let alone the billions we lose in corporation tax being so low or simply being avoided.

I don't really see the problem with going after cash in hand workers though? If they're not paying tax they're breaking the law. Also going after these people doesn't prevent them from raising corporation tax, or whatever else it is that you want them to do.
 

Spaghetti

Member
Why are we treating the vote like it happened in a void? Historians definitely won't.

-------------

R.E taxing the cash in hand industries.

Bit rich when (as far as I can tell) corporation tax is still going to a flat 17% as of 2020.
 
Why are we treating the vote like it happened in a void? Historians definitely won't.

-------------

R.E taxing the cash in hand industries.

Bit rich when (as far as I can tell) corporation tax is still going to a flat 17% as of 2020.

How is it a "bit rich"? You can have different opinions on where the tax rates should be set, but I thought everyone would at least agree that people should pay the tax they owe.
 

CCS

Banned
Guys, I'm with Quiche here. It's not like it's an either/or thing, you can make sure cash-in-hand workers pay the tax they should AND do the same for large companies. Not that the government necessarily will, but I don't think they should be presented as mutually exclusive.
 

slider

Member
My dog walker is paid cash in hand (obviously). I'm gonna create a thread on how to broach the subject of paying tax with him. Should be a storm.
 
I'd rather cut taxes for poor people and raise corporation tax and taxes on the rich, they are more able to pay more money anyway so the scale should be higher.
 

theaface

Member
Guys, I'm with Quiche here. It's not like it's an either/or thing, you can make sure cash-in-hand workers pay the tax they should AND do the same for large companies. Not that the government necessarily will, but I don't think they should be presented as mutually exclusive.

Therein lies the issue though. Most people would advocate everyone paying their fair share, and many feel the current system is anything but fair. It's the same old, same old with the Tories - go after the 'pennies' from the benefits scroungers, the window cleaners et al, yet flatly refuse to go after the 'big bucks' from those who can afford to pay; especially the large corporations who have the means to skillfully skirt around taxation law rather than outright break it.

God forbid we should increase corporation tax to a rate that is still less than the rest of the G7. It's the same old trickle-down economics argument from the Tories that time shows us again and again simply doesn't work. No, far more important that the window cleaner declares the £20 he just earned. Just have to make sure the DM readers have someone to 'tut tut' at so they don't notice the gross injustice of it all.

To paraphrase Lyndon B. Johnson - "If you can convince the lowest British man he’s better than <insert 'other'>, he won’t notice you’re picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he’ll empty his pockets for you."
 

Theonik

Member
Yeah Quiche is right here. Screw cash in hand workers tax evading. Screw evading/avoiding corporations too. Not at all mutually exclusive.
 

Protome

Member
I don't really see the problem with going after cash in hand workers though? If they're not paying tax they're breaking the law. Also going after these people doesn't prevent them from raising corporation tax, or whatever else it is that you want them to do.
There's no real issue but it also doesn't serve much purpose given that's such a tiny amount of tax. It's just the usual Tory policies of demonising those who don't earn much as scroungers or not doing their part. There are more pressing matters to be dealt with in relation to tax and its a bad look to be going after the poorer parts of the population than the richer ones.

But I do agree, both should start paying their taxes properly.
 

Spaghetti

Member
How is it a "bit rich"? You can have different opinions on where the tax rates should be set, but I thought everyone would at least agree that people should pay the tax they owe.

Guys, I'm with Quiche here. It's not like it's an either/or thing, you can make sure cash-in-hand workers pay the tax they should AND do the same for large companies. Not that the government necessarily will, but I don't think they should be presented as mutually exclusive.

Yeah Quiche is right here. Screw cash in hand workers tax evading. Screw evading/avoiding corporations too. Not at all mutually exclusive.
Nobody is advocating not paying taxes.

But let's not kid ourselves, if this is implemented in the next few years without a rebalancing of other tax plans, we're going to see HMRC chasing down people in often low-paid, insecure, mercenary-style work at the same time as corporation tax drops to near tax haven levels.
 

Theonik

Member
Does this mean the Tories no longer have a majority without the DUP?

I think there was only one or two votes in it
No, but for all intents and purposes yes. Now only a 1-2 abstentions can ruin the broth.
That is, if she doesn't vote with the Tory whip anyway. Also that's if the DUP abstains. If DUP votes against hey are also screwed.
 

CCS

Banned
Nobody is advocating not paying taxes.

But let's not kid ourselves, if this is implemented in the next few years without a rebalancing of other tax plans, we're going to see HMRC chasing down people in often low-paid, insecure, mercenary-style work at the same time as corporation tax drops to near tax haven levels.

That's not what the report is recommending though? The recommendation is that people be paid electronically instead of in cash so that it's easier to track their earnings and tax them accordingly.

Like, I am not at all a fan of May or the Tories, but there is really nothing wrong with this proposal.
 

Uzzy

Member
Does this mean the Tories no longer have a majority without the DUP?

I think there was only one or two votes in it

It's close. Though, it's not a big concern for them as she'll almost certainly be voting in line with the Tories anyway.

If she resigned and triggered a by-election, then things might get interesting, but she had a majority of 17,000. It'd be a surprise if that got overturned.
 
Guys, I'm with Quiche here. It's not like it's an either/or thing, you can make sure cash-in-hand workers pay the tax they should AND do the same for large companies. Not that the government necessarily will, but I don't think they should be presented as mutually exclusive.

Didn't you say you were a banker the other day? Your agreement is making me rethink my opinion here tbh.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
That's not what the report is recommending though? The recommendation is that people be paid electronically instead of in cash so that it's easier to track their earnings and tax them accordingly.

Like, I am not at all a fan of May or the Tories, but there is really nothing wrong with this proposal.

I don't think there's anything wrong with this proposal in isolation. However, knowing that there are only so many legislative hours in the day, knowing that they chose to prioritise this particular initiative, which will have only minor effect, over an initiative focusing on tax avoidance by large corporations, which would have a significant effect, does stick in the craw a bit. Context matters.
 

Theonik

Member
Greece is starting to get around this issue unintentionally through limiting the amount of cash people are able to legally get. Capital controls have basically meant that a large portion of transactions need to happen by cash!

I don't think there's anything wrong with this proposal in isolation. However, knowing that there are only so many legislative hours in the day, knowing that they chose to prioritise this particular initiative, which will have only minor effect, over an initiative focusing on tax avoidance by large corporations, which would have a significant effect, does stick in the craw a bit. Context matters.
#priorities
 

CCS

Banned
Didn't you say you were a banker the other day? Your agreement is making me rethink my opinion here tbh.

Central banker mate, still a public servant :p

I don't think there's anything wrong with this proposal in isolation. However, knowing that there are only so many legislative hours in the day, knowing that they chose to prioritise this particular initiative, which will have only minor effect, over an initiative focusing on tax avoidance by large corporations, which would have a significant effect, does stick in the craw a bit. Context matters.

I mean, that's fair enough. My point is more that people shouldn't tear down this proposal as being bad in and of itself, which some people seem to be doing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom