Off Topic Politics Thread

Replying to myself at first.

IMO, done less than I thought he would and whilst there is a 'stealth tax' there I sort of agree with what has been done.

Bottom line is we have to pay for COVID somehow, and there will be hardship somewhere. I never thought a Tory govt would give away as much as this one TBH.

Glad that corporation tax is only on larger corps and before we moan about the freezing of tax allowances, some have had about a min of 80% of 12 months wages for free so only fair we all pay for it.

There will always be losers in taxation and it will affect the poorest more (It is unfortunately the way the system is set up).

Some will say the Tories have protected the rich, but I cannot see any other way to balance the books. Tax the richest to the hilt and we'll lose them and their companies that employ 1000s.

God I sound like a Tory. You'll all hate me and put me on ignore.

Silver Lining: No more spoon talk.

Maybe time for bed.

 

Extending the furlough and self-employed support schemes pretty much had to be done to avoid mass businesses failing and crippling unemployment. I am no fan of Tory politics at all but I don't see what else they could do at the moment. Just never forget that the money being given out in such a seemingly generous manner is actually our money, so it isn't what it is portrayed to be in the media. They will take it back one way or another and the younger generation will be the ones to do most of the paying for it. The one thing that took me aback was there was not one word on investing in the NHS to ensure it is in a fit state to meet current and future needs. It's all going to go private if this government get their way so I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

All things considered it was a positive budget for the times we are living through and there is always going to be some pain in reducing the levels of government debt. I just wish the likes of Amazon were forced to contribute to this country rather than being allowed to suck up billions while paying virtually no tax. ****ers. We don't live in a fair and equitable society so I guess we shouldn't expect things to be fair. We can still dream though.

 

I think the Amazon (and other large companies) is interesting. Whilst paying a small amount of tax comparatively, they are also pretty large employers in the UK (c.40k). So there are also advantages of companies like that.

I do feel there could be some middle ground in the way employers of large numbers of people pay tax on profits, but perhaps a a different rate considering the whole taxation of people employed by their being in the UK.

No easy answer, and Im sure people will disagree, I just dont believe this is simple, or black and white.

 

Thats the thing though, you can say oh look amazon aren't paying taxes but they contribute so much by employing x amount of people.

The thing is, if amazon wasn't around selling goods and employing x amount of people, then whatever they are selling, someone would be selling that too and employing the x amount of people to have those packed and sold and be paying taxes.

I'm not an economist though or have numbers for how many more/less people would be working / how much more or less would be sold but mathematically, those jobs wouldn't just disappear.

What the high street was and is now is because the likes of amazon have been hoovering up the revenue

 

Well, the point, specifically with Amazon (i was just using them as an easy example) is that businesses were/are selling what they do. They just do it better, and I expect are more persuasive, so they are generating a higher level of GDP than if they werent here, and we were serviced by other people. So in theory, there are more jobs. Supermarkets sell lots of what amazon sells - they are employing more people not less.

DIY stores, etc that amazon sell, have all done well.

The issue with Amazon is that traditional high street retailers and now some of the out of town superstore firms, are struggling as business is moving slightly away.

So what? If the masses are changing their buying habits, and there is a better solution, what is the issue? Existing retailers had the opportunity to diverge into online, and have been left behind. Interestingly, Next who have a large high street presence are one of if not the best online retailer and are doing really well.

People said the same stuff when supermarkets got huge, taking away village shops etc, and that largely gets forgotten and it is about how evil Amazon etc. are.

It is partial evolution, and companies need to keep up with, in this instance, consumer trends.

Look at Amazon today - just opened up a completely till free store in London - have been doing this across USA for 2 years. Why? not just cos they needed a high street presence, but because they have an issue with mounting cost of returns from their Amazon model, and need to take pressure off this by allowing people to drop back items when they go to the supermarket. They have adapted once again, instead of sitting on their fa arses raking in money without developing their model, which is what happened to the high street.

It does beg the Q of what the High Street will look like in 5/10/15 years - i can see a more cosmopolitan high street like you would see across europe, with quant cafe/bars etc, fresh fruit traders etc. I actually think it could be a good thing, but not sure how the landlords of these big outlets will cope, and the pension funds that are inextricably linked with them.

 

The Good Law Project has been threatened with a claim for libel, in an apparent attempt to stop them querying how government PPE contracts have been given out.
Links to the letter they received and the response are in the email.
The email also points out how wealthy people (still) use their wealth to stop people from investigating their behaviour, using the fear of expensive legal action to shut people up.

Hi Badger

The law of libel has been reformed to make it harder for those who say they have been defamed to win in court. But the world the law envisages is not always the real world.

In the real world, the costs of defending libel proceedings are prohibitive for all except the wealthy. And the financial stress of defending a claim can be unbearable. The consequence is that the threat of defamation proceedings can be used to harass those who seek to speak truth to wealth and power. And they can be, and are, used to force the withdrawal – and sometimes the humiliating withdrawal – of statements which are true or at the very least a reasonable opinion.

Exacerbating this state of affairs – we think – is the routine practice of issuing threats of libel proceedings and stating those threats to be confidential and not for publication so that the world at large never knows you are threatening to sue your critics. We think that if you want to use libel law to silence criticism – be that criticism fair or unfair – you should know your actions will be public. Otherwise, you can avoid all costs attached to taking advantage of your wealth and power to silence criticism.

We are aware of responsible campaigning groups seeking to hold men to account for sexual misconduct who have felt obliged to withdraw campaigns under threat of being sued. We are aware of defamation proceedings threatened against newspapers seeking to protect trans rights. And I have been threatened with defamation proceedings by several hugely wealthy men on the right or far right of politics for speaking truth to power.

More recently, I have repeatedly been threatened with defamation proceedings by those who have won vast contracts through the Government’s VIP lane. I have received two such threats from Pestfix. And last month I received a threat from Andrew Mills, the former advisor to Liz Truss’ Board of Trade and the man behind the £252m deal won by Ayanda through the VIP lane. No proceedings have been issued but those cases have cost us, in aggregate, tens of thousands of pounds to resist.

Mr Mills’ threat was marked “Strictly Private and Confidential. Not for Publication or Dissemination” but I don’t think these threats to sue on matters of public interest should be made behind closed doors. So I am publishing his letter with my reply.

I want to be as clear as I can be that what I have to say about Andrew Mills’ letter, and his actions in instructing lawyers to write to me, are stated in my reply to that letter. It is for the court, should Mr Mills issue proceedings, and not me to decide whether his actions in issuing that threat were justified or not. Nothing here should be taken as a comment on his actions and sometimes the law says it is right to sue for defamation. However, my intention in publishing his letter together with my reply is to put what I think should be in the public domain in the public domain.

Going forward we at Good Law Project intend to be active in this space to try and protect those who speak truth to power. We will be organising an event for journalists and campaigners on how to defend themselves against the threat to accountability posed by the current state of defamation law.

Thank you,

Jolyon Maugham
Director of Good Law Project

please log in to view this image

please log in to view this image

please log in to view this image

 

Of course Amazon do it "better". They have lower costs (warehouses), higher purchase power, international links to other countries for ease of importing at lower rates. Lower prices on goods, more reliable online shopping means bigger profit margins. People are willing to shop amazon as they are more efficient, you get your goods next day, you can find everything there.

What would happen if Amazon wasn't there? you don't think people would go to other online stores or shop elsewhere? Cosumerism would go to zero and people would be out of jobs? this is where i think you are wrong. If starbucks didn't exist or any of the large coffee chains who pay next to nothing on tax there tax you can bet people would start going to the smaller cafes for their coffee for their fix, businesses that are unlikely to have a chain in luxembourg for example to shift their revenue and be paying their full share of corporation tax.

This is the society we live in though and theres not much we can do about it but to think all those jobs will just vanish into thin air is capitalist claptrap imo

 

There are loads of other online stores, that compete with the high street and amazon. I dont think you have perhaps understood my post - I literally haven’t said the things you are saying I did! Are you accusing me of capitalist claptrap when i said nothing of the sort?

Of course people would go elsewhere, that is kinda my point - there are alternatives to shops. I never said anything of the sort about jobs disappearing - I was suggesting people are being persuaded to buy more from amazon (and others) which is likely to contribute to higher spend than would ordinarily happen (against shops just being on the high street, which i understood your original point was). This was my point about GDP increasing.

 

was the original crux of the argument. They provide loads of jobs even if they pay little tax. Then you went onto them increasing our GDP, being better run than high street shops etc.

We're not saying there business isn't smart. Supermarkets have taken over the small village shops. Whilst i'm sure some people are upset with Supermarkets (financial pressure on farming, etc), supermarkets pay their taxes and employ loads of people.

Why can't Amazon pay their fair share of taxes and employ loads of people? that is all people are asking for. This is where i think you are defending their behaviour because it's legal. This is where people think amazon are even worse offenders than supermarkets so they have more of the focus.

 

NHS being offered a whopping 1% pay rise .....nowhere near inflation

 

I never said the jobs would disappear did I? I was saying I think they contribute to more than traditional shops have.

I never said they shouldn’t, or any large corporate, pay their fair share, my original post suggested there may be some middle ground on taxation, given their importance to employment. There is a fine balance between taxing companies, not just amazon, and investment being taken out of the country.

In addition, all governments have tax loopholes than enables the issues you point to. Now, whether they do the ‘moral’ thing, in your eyes is one thing, and other people may have a different view as to what moral is. Look at the companies getting Covid relief, some of them gave taken the moral high ground over giving some of it back, but i largely expect they also did this to steal a march on competition

I haven’t even defended the position of Amazon, i think you are looking at it different to me, which is also fine, but can we not do this thing where your saying ive said things, and defended them, when it isn’t the case at all. All i have said is there may be a middle ground - that is the literal position of my original post

 

Fair enough. Sorry if i seemed excessively strong. It was good to discuss.

 

Nah it's ok, I just didnt like being misunderstood. I do get your point, and see how it can be frustrating.

The best part for me was seeing the 3 wise money's who liked your post.

2 of them have me on ignore, so **** knows what they found to like, but it's always good for them to disagree with anything i say.

And the other one is conflicted as i dont think he likes me at all but is a Mod, so i guess cant put me on ignore (sorry Chicls, just being honest how I see it).

Anyhow, I've got 90 Day Fiance that my lovely wife is insisting on putting on Discovery, and is glaring at me to put my mobile down

 

I’m allowed to like whichever posts I want to Billy. Being a mod doesn’t make me neutral on all points. I happened to agree with Bobby’s views of Amazon, but I agree he wasn’t necessarily disagreeing with what you said. You probably don’t notice the times I like one of your posts but don’t worry about it.

Enjoy the film, it sounds dreadful.

 

Chilcs, sorry i was saying it somewhat tongue in cheek, i probably shouldn’t have said it, i guess it didnt need to be said!

I do also notice it, usually out of surprise

Oh and even worse, it is a series with multi spin offs

 

Some things never change. I don’t think we have ever had such an openly corrupt government.

 

Typical of the bloody pinko Grauniad. Have you ever been to Richmond*? Impoversished beyond belief. That's why they vote Tory. See, it's not a complex message. Want your town to get a face-lift? Vote Tory then you plebs. Simples, as that bloody meerkat says.

I'm aware that a number of readers on this forum think that civilisation stops just north of Winchester, so have a look https://www.richmond.org/

 

It is interesting to read the comments about Starmer and Sturgeon who have not enjoyed the best of weeks! I have to say that I really dislike Sturgeon but I just think this is because it is almost impossible to find fault with what she has to say. No other politician in Europe is pushing for a liberal society with such intent that I am really surprised that she has not become a cause celebre on a wider, global scale. The Salmond enquiry had threatened to derail and undermine her yet no killer punches have been landed and her reputation has not really suffered. She has admitted her faults and errors in a way that would be totally alien to Boris. She is not a woman I like. It is difficult to have any affection for anyone who has an unbalanced hatred of the English. Despite this, the logic of her arguments are frequently so strong that I think she is unassailable. For my money, she is the ultimate politician of our time and has re-imagined the SNP in her image. Salmond was a wily politician but one who has made bad judgement calls and something of a pantomime villain. It has been fun watching his stock decline. By comparison, Sturgeon combines his savvy whilst constantly ensuring that she is seen not to have done anything that might jeopardise her integrity. She is a very smart political animal.

What I find strange is that Sturgeon could have really projected her mantra over a much larger stage. Newspapers like the Express are constantly publishing hostile articles about her and you can appreciate why there is a genuine hatred towards her throughout much of England. What doesn't get reported is just how good she is even though I read somewhere in the week that she actually enjoys a far larger following in England that a rag like the Express would make you believe. With her liberal viewpoint coupled with her management of her political party, she enjoys far more clout that a country with a population with 6 million people should. There are elements of Sturgeon which actually recall Margaret Thatcher with regard to her aloofness yet, whilst their politics were an ocean apart, I would reluctantly argue that Nicola Sturgeon is the greater politician.

Anyone who believes in democracy can see that Scotland deserves another referendum as the situation in 2021 is totally different from 2014. Scotland is now marooned outside of the EU and shackled to another union where it will always remain a bit part player, even if batting above itself. There is no doubt that Scotland would do far better under Sturgeon. I think that the whole of Europe would benefit from someone with her outlook. Her liberal views are unimpeachable and I think that her gender is an asset and ensures that she projects something truly different to the kind of politicians we have been used to in the past. It is really difficult, even if you dislike her, to disagree with her comments. Few politicians have consistently been right as often as she has. I cannot recall her ever been proved to be incorrect. If you like, she has the potential to be the Obama of our time.

However, I think that there is another side to tis argument. At the moment the only credible opposition to the Tories is the SNP. They are the only people landing blows on Boris and they are ones which always hurt. In comparison, Labour under Starmer have become ineffectual and, I am sorry to say, totally pointless. It is weird situation because Sturgeon's arguments about Scotland also apply to the rest of the UK in many instances. Starmer does not have the personality of Sturgeon and nor does he have the ability to present arguments which seem as cast iron as Sturgeons. Sturgeon is everything Starmer is not. Unfortunately, as soon as Scotland becomes independent, I think Boris will have a much easier life post-Sturgeon. As long as he continues to deny the Scots another referendum, Scotland will always appear to be the victim. Whilst Scotland may receive money from Westminster, it clearly gets little governance from there! It is a shame that someone of Sturgeon's ability is fated to perform on a small stage - both for the same of her own country and also as credible opposition for this government, She is effectively the Leader of the Opposition but also a politician capable of being a more significant player on a global stage.

 

Nicola

God bless her. She is ten times the leader Spaffer ****ing Johnson thinks he is.

please log in to view this image