Snap General Election called

[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.

[Son of Mathonwy]

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

Agreed that changes to the system should be very carefully considered. Although (as I've said) I don't think corporation tax is done this way just because it's the way we always do it.

And it's not designed to stifle productivity - it's designed to raise revenue from those who can most afford it. I understand this can be taken as punishment for success (as can taking more tax from the better paid). But the alternative will damage the weaker participants and ultimately reduce competition by driving them from the market.

Don't be misled by "survival of the fittest" thinking - it works in nature because the fittest merely get to reproduce more, before dying. Corporate survival of the fittest transcribed to the savannah would lead to a single, immortal, mountain sized lion chomping every wildebeest in sight.

[Mellsblue]

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.

The manifesto doesn’t say which way they’d campaign? Maybe I should be confused!! The Shadow Chancellor, Shadow Foreign Secretary and the Shadow Secretary for Exiting the EU, presumably the bloke overseeing the negotiations, have all said they’ll campaign to Remain, and that’s only the ones I know of. Given the vast majority of Lab membership and voters and most of the Unions are pro-remain, you don’t have to look far beyond the manifesto to see how it will play out.

A second referendum, if only the Remain v Lab deal, will not bring all the people back in to the process. There will be vast swathes of leave voters not catered for by that option (standard point that I voted remain so I’m not some bitter Brexiteer). If the referendum was remain v Lab deal v Johnson deal v no deal then you’d ‘bring all the people back in to the process’.


Aaaarrrgggghhhh. I’ve been sucked back in to the Brexit vortex. Time for a Friday lunchtime drink.

[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?

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

Puja

Fair point. I was mixing it up with the multi-leader debate.

[Mellsblue]

a single, immortal, mountain sized lion chomping every wildebeest in sight.

Is the working title of Labour’s free internet provider? Now. Where is that drink.

[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

Fair point. I was mixing it up with the multi-leader debate.

The next one of which he has also chickened out of...

Puja

[Digby]

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

Agreed that changes to the system should be very carefully considered. Although (as I've said) I don't think corporation tax is done this way just because it's the way we always do it.

And it's not designed to stifle productivity - it's designed to raise revenue from those who can most afford it. I understand this can be taken as punishment for success (as can taking more tax from the better paid). But the alternative will damage the weaker participants and ultimately reduce competition by driving them from the market.

Don't be misled by "survival of the fittest" thinking - it works in nature because the fittest merely get to reproduce more, before dying. Corporate survival of the fittest transcribed to the savannah would lead to a single, immortal, mountain sized lion chomping every wildebeest in sight.

I like that last being a lefty concern, when really you'd be one tiny nationalisation away from nirvana