Snap General Election called

[Mellsblue]

Labour’s Brexit policy beautifully summed up in one interview:

[Puja]

This fake website thing by the Tories is astounding. Have they completely lost the plot? What do they think any undecided voter is going to think of them now?

That's the who do you trust? question settled.

- No mention of this on the BBC. More bias?

It's on the BBC - that's where I found out about it.

Puja

Do you have a link to it on the BBC website? I can't find it. It's certainly not headline news!

I'm sure I read it on there, but I can't for the life of me find it now.

Also not headline news on the BBC today - Boris ducking out of the second head-to-head debate with Corbyn. Surely that's news?!

Puja

[Stom]

It's on the BBC - that's where I found out about it.

Puja

Do you have a link to it on the BBC website? I can't find it. It's certainly not headline news!

I'm sure I read it on there, but I can't for the life of me find it now.

Also not headline news on the BBC today - Boris ducking out of the second head-to-head debate with Corbyn. Surely that's news?!

Puja

I find it quite astounding how little the press talk about the lies Johnson and other members of the Tory party tell.

I mean, for me it should be headline news that a PM and potential PM could not tell the truth at all. I can forgive an occasional slip up if corrections are made, but the press don't push it.

Except for pushing certain Conservative Party set agendas on Corbyn. Which is quite incredible.

[Son of Mathonwy]

It's on the BBC - that's where I found out about it.

Puja

Do you have a link to it on the BBC website? I can't find it. It's certainly not headline news!

I'm sure I read it on there, but I can't for the life of me find it now.

Also not headline news on the BBC today - Boris ducking out of the second head-to-head debate with Corbyn. Surely that's news?!

Puja

Well it's nice to see Kuenssberg and the BBC sparing the Tories' blushes. She probably thought the public don't really need to see another story about the Tories being deceptive - they might start to suspect the terrible truth.

The BBC's review of Labour's manifesto was great though - SUPER EXPENSIVE, with just a one-line admission that it was actually a pretty normal amount of government spending for a European country.

[Son of Mathonwy]

Labour’s Brexit policy beautifully summed up in one interview:

No. What we have there is a candidate who doesn't understand what the word referendum means. Other than that, he seems to understand the policy.

[Mellsblue]

Labour’s Brexit policy beautifully summed up in one interview:

No. What we have there is a candidate who doesn't understand what the word referendum means. Other than that, he seems to understand the policy.

Interesting take. Regardless, you’re taking my point too literally. It’s more the point that Labour’s Brexit policy had to be dragged out of them, makes no logical sense and means different things to different people.
Could just be media bias, I suppose.

[Stom]

Just to set something straight...

The VAT on tampons has nothing to do with the EU. The UK could cut it to 0 if it wanted.

Why the hell does the interviewer not call him out on his lies?

That list of things he can do "after Brexit" is almost exclusively things he could do without Brexit. None of them are determined by the EU except Free Ports, as I understand. And that's an iffy subject on its own!

[Stom]

Labour’s Brexit policy beautifully summed up in one interview:

No. What we have there is a candidate who doesn't understand what the word referendum means. Other than that, he seems to understand the policy.

Interesting take. Regardless, you’re taking my point too literally. It’s more the point that Labour’s Brexit policy had to be dragged out of them, makes no logical sense and means different things to different people.
Could just be media bias, I suppose.

Why does it make no logical sense?

We will make a deal that makes sense for the British people and then we will give the British people the choice "The deal or Remain".

What is confusing about that?

Seriously. I don't understand the confusion. It's super simple!

[Mellsblue]

No. What we have there is a candidate who doesn't understand what the word referendum means. Other than that, he seems to understand the policy.

Interesting take. Regardless, you’re taking my point too literally. It’s more the point that Labour’s Brexit policy had to be dragged out of them, makes no logical sense and means different things to different people.
Could just be media bias, I suppose.

Why does it make no logical sense?

We will make a deal that makes sense for the British people and then we will give the British people the choice "The deal or Remain".

What is confusing about that?

Seriously. I don't understand the confusion. It's super simple!

We’re going to negotiate a deal and campaign against it. Simple and very logical!!!

[Son of Mathonwy]

Also not headline news on the BBC today - Boris ducking out of the second head-to-head debate with Corbyn. Surely that's news?!

Puja

And why are C4 cancelling the debate? Why aren't they empty chairing him?

Perhaps scared of retribution, post-election?

[Mellsblue]

Labour’s Brexit policy beautifully summed up in one interview:

No. What we have there is a candidate who doesn't understand what the word referendum means. Other than that, he seems to understand the policy.

Doesn’t understand what the word referendum means?!?! Nothing to see here. That’s absolutely normal. Either he’s as thick as pig shite or he’s lying.

[Son of Mathonwy]

Interesting take. Regardless, you’re taking my point too literally. It’s more the point that Labour’s Brexit policy had to be dragged out of them, makes no logical sense and means different things to different people.
Could just be media bias, I suppose.

Why does it make no logical sense?

We will make a deal that makes sense for the British people and then we will give the British people the choice "The deal or Remain".

What is confusing about that?

Seriously. I don't understand the confusion. It's super simple!

We’re going to negotiate a deal and campaign against it. Simple!!

They haven't said they're going to campaign against it.

But even if they did, I still don't understand your confusion. They are going to negotiate a deal which (unlike Boris's) is not particularly harmful to the UK. Then they'll give the electorate the choice of whether they want that specific Brexit (as opposed to the whatever-you-want-it-to-be Brexit of the original referendum) or not. Whether they take a position during the "final say" referendum or not is not relevant. It's for the people to decide.

[Son of Mathonwy]

Labour’s Brexit policy beautifully summed up in one interview:

No. What we have there is a candidate who doesn't understand what the word referendum means. Other than that, he seems to understand the policy.

Doesn’t understand what the word referendum means?!?! Nothing to see here. That’s absolutely normal. Either he’s as thick as pig shite or he’s lying.

Don't ask me. I know nothing about this candidate.

But his confusion (or whatever it is - I can't read minds) does not reflect on the clarity of Labour's policy.

[Digby]

They are going to negotiate a deal which (unlike Boris's) is not particularly harmful to the UK.

Then that means staying in the Single Market, and that runs into a problem that many on the left specifically want out of the Single Market, including Corbyn. I think you could reasonably say a Labour deal might be less harmful than the deal Boris has put forward, I doubt you'd be able to say it's not still particularly harmful

[Digby]

In theory I agree that taxing the individual is better than taxing companies. There are some problems with this idea in practice, however:

1) It only really works if there is joined up thinking across the whole tax system in the long term, as follows. If companies aren't taxed then an owner can build up great amounts of value in them (capital gains) over time. This is ok only if these gains are taxed before they are paid (by whatever means) to the owner (or their estate, should it come to that). And if the system is watertight, they will be. But if there's a loophole, or if a certain government decides to make an exception, a tax break, etc then these gains will be funnelled through this route and will never be taxed. This is bad news, and there's nothing one government can do to prevent a future government (Trump-style) from enabling this tax-avoiding. So it's much safer to tax the capital gains the moment they arise (ie as profits).

2) Tax is raised from a variety of sources. In any given year, the amount taken from each source cannot be precisely predicted. So it's less risky to take income from lots of places - the total will be less volatile.

3) It's politically easier to take revenue from many sources - the pain is shared out.

I'm open to a number of approaches on things like witholding tax. And I'd also note you could combine the current HMRC split on corp. tax and individual tax and just process (go after) the individual. And whilst there are some very rich individuals in the main individuals will not retain teams of lawyers and accountants as do companies to seek to (legally or otherwise) avoid as much tax as possible

Yes, I can see why putting the corp and income tax take all into income tax would be simpler and better in some ways in theory, but I can't see past those 3 objections of mine, particularly the first.

Also, another point that occurs to me is that (at least for owner-run companies)) the tax take is smoother over time if it's taken as the profit arises rather than when dividends happen to be paid.

I do understand the concern. I am advocating a huge change in how taxation works, and it's a fair concern that political concerns could well derail such an overhaul, and too simply getting the detail righting such a change and not falling foul of the law of unintended consequences is another wholly reasonable concern.

Nonetheless just because it's the way we always do it is a poor reason imo to carry on doing something that is actually designed to stifle productivity, especially because there is anyway seemingly a race to push corp tax rates ever further down and I'd much prefer a considered approach in advance about how tax should be levied fairly than suddenly at some later point in time trying to bolt on new tax levies to recover lower corp tax revenues.

Also it'd remove it as a political tool for the various parties, the Tories often suggest they'll cut rates, Labour suggest they'll bump the back up to cover a number of social spending programmes, and none of that volatility is useful to business, although when even the Tories take the stance of 'fuck business' there's a problem across the board

[Mellsblue]

Why does it make no logical sense?

We will make a deal that makes sense for the British people and then we will give the British people the choice "The deal or Remain".

What is confusing about that?

Seriously. I don't understand the confusion. It's super simple!

We’re going to negotiate a deal and campaign against it. Simple!!

They haven't said they're going to campaign against it.

But even if they did, I still don't understand your confusion. They are going to negotiate a deal which (unlike Boris's) is not particularly harmful to the UK. Then they'll give the electorate the choice of whether they want that specific Brexit (as opposed to the whatever-you-want-it-to-be Brexit of the original referendum) or not. Whether they take a position during the "final say" referendum or not is not relevant. It's for the people to decide.

They have said they will campaign to Remain, which is to campaign against their own deal. I’m not confused. I understand it perfectly. I just think it’s an illogical position for the party to take and the MP in car crash is either incredibly thick or completely disingenuous.
Thanks for explaining how a referendum works, but your time may be better spent on the thick/disingenuous MP. If you think that the position Labour takes in a referendum is not relevant then you’ve swallowed a load of bunkum. If you think negotiating a deal and then campaigning against that deal is logical then, well, let’s agree to disagree.
Finally, kudos on knowing what deal Lab will negotiate and it’s potential ramifications years hence. The manifesto isn’t even clear on FoM, for goodness sakes.

[Mellsblue]

Also not headline news on the BBC today - Boris ducking out of the second head-to-head debate with Corbyn. Surely that's news?!

Puja

Perhaps scared of retribution, post-election?

Any other conspiracy theories you want to get out of the way whilst you’re at it?

[Digby]

Also not headline news on the BBC today - Boris ducking out of the second head-to-head debate with Corbyn. Surely that's news?!

Puja

And why are C4 cancelling the debate? Why aren't they empty chairing him?

Perhaps scared of retribution, post-election?

I seem to recall there are some legal problems in proceeding without such a major player for the broadcaster. That said my preference is to go ahead and use the time honoured tub of lard as a stand in

[Mellsblue]

Also not headline news on the BBC today - Boris ducking out of the second head-to-head debate with Corbyn. Surely that's news?!

Puja

And why are C4 cancelling the debate? Why aren't they empty chairing him?

Perhaps scared of retribution, post-election?

I seem to recall there are some legal problems in proceeding without such a major player for the broadcaster. That said my preference is to go ahead and use the time honoured tub of lard as a stand in

Eric Pickles escaped from politics ages ago. Leave the man in peace.

[Puja]

Also not headline news on the BBC today - Boris ducking out of the second head-to-head debate with Corbyn. Surely that's news?!

Puja

And why are C4 cancelling the debate? Why aren't they empty chairing him?

Bit hard to have a head-to-head debate with one person missing.

Puja

[Mikey Brown]

I think whether or not you like/understand Labour’s position there are an awful lot of people that are confused about what it is, and that is a big problem. Stuff like that doesn’t help, regardless of whether it’s because that guy is demented.

[Digby]

And why are C4 cancelling the debate? Why aren't they empty chairing him?

Perhaps scared of retribution, post-election?

I seem to recall there are some legal problems in proceeding without such a major player for the broadcaster. That said my preference is to go ahead and use the time honoured tub of lard as a stand in

Eric Pickles escaped from politics ages ago. Leave the man in peace.

There's no chance that Eric, well known as a strident socialist back in the day, can have made it very far

[Son of Mathonwy]

We’re going to negotiate a deal and campaign against it. Simple!!

They haven't said they're going to campaign against it.

But even if they did, I still don't understand your confusion. They are going to negotiate a deal which (unlike Boris's) is not particularly harmful to the UK. Then they'll give the electorate the choice of whether they want that specific Brexit (as opposed to the whatever-you-want-it-to-be Brexit of the original referendum) or not. Whether they take a position during the "final say" referendum or not is not relevant. It's for the people to decide.

They have said they will campaign to Remain, which is to campaign against their own deal. I’m not confused. I understand it perfectly. I just think it’s an illogical position for the party to take and the MP in car crash is either incredibly thick or completely disingenuous.
Thanks for explaining how a referendum works, but your time may be better spent on the thick/disingenuous MP. If you think that the position Labour takes in a referendum is not relevant then you’ve swallowed a load of bunkum. If you think negotiating a deal and then campaigning against that deal is logical then, well, let’s agree to disagree.
Finally, kudos on knowing what deal Lab will negotiate and it’s potential ramifications years hence. The manifesto isn’t even clear on FoM, for goodness sakes.

Their manifesto does not say which way they will campaign (and nor did Corbyn on Tuesday). In the event, there may well not be a party line on it, although I'm sure many individuals will make their positions clear.

I was explaining what Labour's policy is, not what a referendum is. Sorry if you took it the wrong way. The MP may well be thick or disingenuous. I know nothing about him; I'm not defending him.

Negotiating a deal and then leaving it to the public to decide is a way to bring all the people back into the process to sign it off, rather than siding with either the 52% or the 48% and assuming they couldn't possibly have come to a different conclusion in the last 3 years. I guess, as you say, we'll have to agree to disagree.

Agreed, their manifesto doesn't give perfect clarity on FoM. I assume that this is up for negotiation, but since the intention is to have a customs union and close alignment with the single market, I would expect movement to be very close to the "free" end of the spectrum.

[Son of Mathonwy]

They are going to negotiate a deal which (unlike Boris's) is not particularly harmful to the UK.

Then that means staying in the Single Market, and that runs into a problem that many on the left specifically want out of the Single Market, including Corbyn. I think you could reasonably say a Labour deal might be less harmful than the deal Boris has put forward, I doubt you'd be able to say it's not still particularly harmful

Sure, "not particularly harmful" is my personal opinion; I could of course go into why I think that at great length (main points being avoiding no deal, avoiding Trump deal, keeping free trade with EU, keeping many non-trade links with EU). I still think remaining in the EU would be the least harmful option of all.

[Son of Mathonwy]

I think whether or not you like/understand Labour’s position there are an awful lot of people that are confused about what it is, and that is a big problem. Stuff like that doesn’t help, regardless of whether it’s because that guy is demented.

They're likely to be confused on a lot of matters if they only read the Mail (et al), or the Tories' fake news.

But it certainly doesn't help to have someone going off message and talking rubbish.