RugbyRebels

Puja wrote:You know, I've heard Max Clark is Welsh qualified...

Puja

Of interest to Plaid Cymru would you think?

It’s almost like Jezza is trying to deflect from troubles elsewhere. The NHS is always a good go to on that front.
Might have been more pertinent to point out that Branson should probable sell off most of his assets and hand the proceeds to charity if ‘stuff’ really doesn’t bring happiness.
Imagine your own island not bringing you happiness.

Indeed. I'm not thrilled about lectures on the unimportance of stuff from someone who has more of it than they could ever possibly use.

Puja

Yes stuff doesn't matter when you have the means to acquire pretty much anything you want.

People who say these kind of things should have the courage of their convictions and give everything bar the essentials away and live on the average salary for a year.

Couldn’t agree more. Obviously, being a horrible Tory, I have no issues with people making silly amounts of money if they create jobs, pay their taxes and behave in good conscience (ie, not P Green) but if you go around spouting virtue signalling BS like this then actually walk the walk.

Puja wrote:Indeed. I'm not thrilled about lectures on the unimportance of stuff from someone who has more of it than they could ever possibly use.

Puja

Heard someone put a different spin on it that I liked.

Stuff does not bring happiness. But the ability to get stuff certainly helps!

Mellsblue wrote:Couldn’t agree more. Obviously, being a horrible Tory, I have no issues with people making silly amounts of money if they create jobs, pay their taxes and behave in good conscience (ie, not P Green) but if you go around spouting virtue signalling BS like this then actually walk the walk.

By the way, I've been thinking about my political position recently. I've always found it difficult to label my beliefs. Maybe because until I was 20, I was a Conservative, and after 20 I was very much "anti-capitalist".

But I believe in capitalism. Quite strongly. I don't believe what we see in the world now is capitalism. For me, the point of capitalism is to produce opportunity by having competitive markets with rules against monopoly.

We don't have that, as shown by "mega-corps".

But I also strongly believe in the idea that society should be nurtured. That we need to create a system whereby everyone has the opportunity to succeed.

I think, most likely, this would be called "Social Capitalism".

The idea of creating education opportunities, providing grants and subsidies to let families educate their children, improving the standard of education itself, providing opportunities for sole traders and small businesses (as I understand, this is pretty OK in the UK, but I may be wrong) and creating a hard market cap for huge companies to prevent the large scale mergers and acquisitions that occur, as well as the squeezing out of small businesses.

For business tax, the main thing is a leveling of the playing field. Small businesses cannot create headquarters in Ireland, Luxembourg or Malta. So there needs to be rules in place to prevent situations like Starbucks, Amazon, or Apple.

I still don't understand how the government was able to create a "point of consumption" tax for gambling companies, but not for tech companies.

Stom wrote:I still don't understand how the government was able to create a "point of consumption" tax for gambling companies, but not for tech companies.

Unwilling, not unable

Stom wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:Couldn’t agree more. Obviously, being a horrible Tory, I have no issues with people making silly amounts of money if they create jobs, pay their taxes and behave in good conscience (ie, not P Green) but if you go around spouting virtue signalling BS like this then actually walk the walk.

By the way, I've been thinking about my political position recently. I've always found it difficult to label my beliefs. Maybe because until I was 20, I was a Conservative, and after 20 I was very much "anti-capitalist".

But I believe in capitalism. Quite strongly. I don't believe what we see in the world now is capitalism. For me, the point of capitalism is to produce opportunity by having competitive markets with rules against monopoly.

We don't have that, as shown by "mega-corps".

But I also strongly believe in the idea that society should be nurtured. That we need to create a system whereby everyone has the opportunity to succeed.

I think, most likely, this would be called "Social Capitalism".

The idea of creating education opportunities, providing grants and subsidies to let families educate their children, improving the standard of education itself, providing opportunities for sole traders and small businesses (as I understand, this is pretty OK in the UK, but I may be wrong) and creating a hard market cap for huge companies to prevent the large scale mergers and acquisitions that occur, as well as the squeezing out of small businesses.

For business tax, the main thing is a leveling of the playing field. Small businesses cannot create headquarters in Ireland, Luxembourg or Malta. So there needs to be rules in place to prevent situations like Starbucks, Amazon, or Apple.

I still don't understand how the government was able to create a "point of consumption" tax for gambling companies, but not for tech companies.

Agree with virtually all of this.
As for the final paragraph, sit down everyone, I agree with WT. The problem is that the govt are courting tech companies to create jobs here (well, London) and don’t want to piss them off, and I can see the validity of that argument*, there is also a push towards a multi-state solution and I’m sure we’d all agree that is always the best solution.

*everyone concentrates on headline corporation tax but doesn’t take really take in to account jobs created equals income tax, national insurance, VAT income, more jobs and then the cycle continues.

Is there a metric whereby contribution relative to tax relief can be objectively assessed? Or is it "too complicated" for public consumption?

Mellsblue wrote: there is also a push towards a multi-state solution

other than say Brexit

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: there is also a push towards a multi-state solution

other than say Brexit

Imagine inter-state solutions that don’t require a political union. Radical.

Mellsblue wrote:

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: there is also a push towards a multi-state solution

other than say Brexit

Imagine inter-state solutions that don’t require a political union. Radical.

It would be looking at how much slower progress tends to be

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Digby wrote:

other than say Brexit

Imagine inter-state solutions that don’t require a political union. Radical.

It would be looking at how much slower progress tends to be

The EU being known for its fast paced decision making? Given a previous post of yours, I’m surprised we’re having this discussion.

Mellsblue wrote:

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: Imagine inter-state solutions that don’t require a political union. Radical.

It would be looking at how much slower progress tends to be

The EU being known for its fast paced decision making? Given a previous post of yours, I’m surprised we’re having this discussion.

Actually they are quite fast, though comparable institutions are not easy to find which leaves me the luxury of comparing them with the UN

No early election I suspect, though Bozza must now be at even bigger risk of a no confidence vote.

Banquo wrote:No early election I suspect, though Bozza must now be at even bigger risk of a no confidence vote.

I'm not so sure. It depends how Dominic interprets the data. The tories lost 9.6% of their vote, but that could be explained by them standing the same chancer whose fraudulent activity forced the by-election in the first place. The bigger eye-opener is Labour losing 12.5%. Now, that could just tempt them into going for it.

Stones of granite wrote:

Banquo wrote:No early election I suspect, though Bozza must now be at even bigger risk of a no confidence vote.

I'm not so sure. It depends how Dominic interprets the data. The tories lost 9.6% of their vote, but that could be explained by them standing the same chancer whose fraudulent activity forced the by-election in the first place. The bigger eye-opener is Labour losing 12.5%. Now, that could just tempt them into going for it.

Libdems are the big risk in many Tory seats in the sarf, so Pro-remain deals like this one would see them stuffed.

Banquo wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:

Banquo wrote:No early election I suspect, though Bozza must now be at even bigger risk of a no confidence vote.

I'm not so sure. It depends how Dominic interprets the data. The tories lost 9.6% of their vote, but that could be explained by them standing the same chancer whose fraudulent activity forced the by-election in the first place. The bigger eye-opener is Labour losing 12.5%. Now, that could just tempt them into going for it.

Libdems are the big risk in many Tory seats in the sarf, so Pro-remain deals like this one would see them stuffed.

If that's the case, then I'm sure that Dominic is on top of the numbers.
I'm still not convinced that the 14.3% gain by the LibDem is representative and not just a reaction to 1. The Tory being a criminal that they already recalled, and 2. the dithering shambles that Labour currently are.

For me, the biggest issues are whether the Remain parties can maintain/secure/organise a pact for a GE, and not just a by election with an obvious strongest party, and how much stronger BXP’s ground game will become over the coming months.
Reselecting the same idiot who caused the by election in the first place was a ridiculous move.

Mellsblue wrote:For me, the biggest issues are whether the Remain parties can maintain/secure/organise a pact for a GE, and not just a by election with an obvious strongest party, and how much stronger BXP’s ground game will become over the coming months.
Reselecting the same idiot who caused the by election in the first place was a ridiculous move.

well yes, and where Labour sit v that pact and then whether BXP pact with Bozza

Stones of granite wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Stones of granite wrote: I'm not so sure. It depends how Dominic interprets the data. The tories lost 9.6% of their vote, but that could be explained by them standing the same chancer whose fraudulent activity forced the by-election in the first place. The bigger eye-opener is Labour losing 12.5%. Now, that could just tempt them into going for it.

Libdems are the big risk in many Tory seats in the sarf, so Pro-remain deals like this one would see them stuffed.

If that's the case, then I'm sure that Dominic is on top of the numbers.
I'm still not convinced that the 14.3% gain by the LibDem is representative and not just a reaction to 1. The Tory being a criminal that they already recalled, and 2. the dithering shambles that Labour currently are.

shift to Libdems is pretty much what you see in the polls, with the additive effect of pro-remain parties standing aside. Mind, you'd think Plaid not standing would have helped Labour a bit more.

Whilst I think a pre-brexit GE would be a mare, and solve nothing, it would be fun to see pollsters running around trying to predict what will happen- as imo it would be a tactical vote-fest on Brexit.

Banquo wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:

Banquo wrote: Libdems are the big risk in many Tory seats in the sarf, so Pro-remain deals like this one would see them stuffed.

If that's the case, then I'm sure that Dominic is on top of the numbers.
I'm still not convinced that the 14.3% gain by the LibDem is representative and not just a reaction to 1. The Tory being a criminal that they already recalled, and 2. the dithering shambles that Labour currently are.

shift to Libdems is pretty much what you see in the polls, with the additive effect of pro-remain parties standing aside. Mind, you'd think Plaid not standing would have helped Labour a bit more.

Whilst I think a pre-brexit GE would be a mare, and solve nothing, it would be fun to see pollsters running around trying to predict what will happen- as imo it would be a tactical vote-fest on Brexit.

100% with you on that. It's such a clusterfuck that it's driven to some point of peak nihilism where I'd be happy to watch the chaos of a pre-brexit GE just to see if things really can get any worse.

Mellsblue wrote:

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: Of course we were having discussions about what future trade deals may look like. The May govt. has said as much, as have the Aussies and the Kiwis, amongst others. However, that isn’t negotiating FTA’s. Which is what Boris’s govt. has now said they will do. The EU have had no issues with these talks, at least not that I’ve seen/read, and I think we can therefore safely assume that they don’t breach any EU rules on FTA discussions. Let’s not forget that a lot of these nations would also like an FTA with the EU and they aren’t going to upset the apple cart.

Essentially then you're drawing a strong distinction between casual discussions on what a future trade deal will look like, and 'official' talks on what a future trade deal will look like, and I simply don't do that, partly because so many of the actual discussion on agreements are preceded by discussions on what parties would agree to, and that's what we have now. The only distinction I'd draw is we can't sign anything for now, and thus any broad outline or even detailed positions are subject to change.

I’m not. The EU rules are.

John Bolton and his moustache have been booked into meetings with all sorts of people who don't need to meet him to discuss foreign policy, but do look suspiciously like people who have a stake in any future trade deal. It's almost like they'll be discussing trade before we've left the EU