The BBC have got a mini focus group with Labour voters in Bradford, and the non-Asian bloke is actually called 'Dusty Rhodes'.
Theresa May's Conservatives
Jeremy Corbyn's Labour
Tim Farron's Liberal Democrats
Paul Nuttall's UKIP
2 people's Greens
Nicholas Durgeon's Scottish Nationalists
Satan's Sinn Fein
Dr Ian Paisley's DUP
Some other bunch of nonces
I'm foreign, but I wish I were an Englishman
The BBC have got a mini focus group with Labour voters in Bradford, and the non-Asian bloke is actually called 'Dusty Rhodes'.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-39942573
What an embarrassing load of core vote wank, or 'the 8% strategy' as I would call it.
Then I need to point out (see the very first graph on the FT times article) that corporate tax revenues had been basically constant during that period, before last years increase.Originally Posted by GS
And I also need to point out that you were referring to business investment resulting from corporate tax cuts, and an associated increase in revenues. Not to income tax or anything else you might like to change the subject to: you said "Companies have used the corporation tax cut to invest in expansion and job creation. It's led to an increase in tax intake."
This manifestly isn't so. What's the explanation? Could you possibly be peddling discredited and simplistic propaganda that serves only the very rich?
As for increases to FDI, I'll just quote you on this - "comparing it to 2008 is a nonsense given everything that happened up until then was built on air. "
No, they have not been constant. Net CT has increased from 36.6bn in 2010 to 44.4bn in 2016, as I outlined.
See: https://www.gov.uk/government/statis...nt-august-2015 - in the attached PDF, figure 1 on page 10.
Yes, I was talking about business investment, including FDI. Both have seen positive trends. I didn't change the subject to income tax, or anything else, rather pointed out the trend that lower rates have brought higher revenues and that a headline CT rate cut doesn't mean you lose all revenue deriving from business (I.e. private sector) as they continue to pay employer NIC and the state takes a chunk of the cash going to an employee they've hired with the cash instead. This is part of looking at taxation holistically - in terms of liabilities and associated tax receipts across a number of areas.
It is, therefore, manifestly true that in the period 2010 to 2016, CT rates were cut and an increase in revenue was noted. It is, further, true that unemployment has drastically reduced in the same period. This suggests the rate cut led to investment in job creation. It is also true that the Tories have provided a significant tax cut to lower earners, and driven higher receipts out of the rich. This additional taxation income from private individuals instead of private enterprise further illustrates that compensating incomes to the exchequer can, and have been, achieved.
I don't want to be unkind, but I'm genuinely not sure you grasp how the taxation system works or how the liabilities are arrived at. You're displaying an unfortunate degree of ignorance here. I don't really want to have to explain the same point three times whilst you claim that a point made to reinforce the argument is somehow changing the topic.
Now, answer the question on Corbyn, McDonnell and their views on the IRA. I'd also like your views on why it is okay that their election campaign will be run by a Stalinist sympathiser.
It's where I am on this. How do you actually frame a referendum once a proposed agreement is in place? And do you just keep running them until everyone is in agreement? What about if you agree with some of the agreement but not other parts? Who pays for the constant referenda cycle?
Plus it would hand even more incentive to the European Union to come up with a shite agreement for us to reject. They should just say either 1) 'Norway Model' mate; or 2) bin the vote. It would at least be honest, and you could even claim the WILL OF THE BRITISH PEOPLE if you won an election off the back of it.
Now you're either being dishonest or unable to keep track of the discussion.Originally Posted by GS
To quote my last post, they were "constant during that period, before last years increase."
The FT showed that that increase was not due to extra business investment. Meaning that there was at no point an increase due to business investment.
Claiming that the revenues showed up in income tax (or holistically across all tax revenues instead) is a completely different argument. If you want to switch to that, then fine but it's not "reinforcing" the claim that corporate taxes increased, and it's much more difficult to prove, particularly as you've already noted that the only way was up from 2010 anyway. Show me any source that posits such a relationship.
I mean, this...
...is utter nonsense. One thing happening after another thing is not evidence of causality. Everyone knows that unemployment is always "drastically reduced" following a recession. Are you pretending that it would not have fallen without a cut to corporation tax?Originally Posted by GS
And no, I'm not going to talk about the IRA or something else, since that's just an excuse to get away from the lack of justification for your simplistic claim.
Henry, you're not reading the article properly. You're making arguments that they've applied to financial year 2016/17. My points have been on 2010-2016.
The point on business investment, therefore, is somewhat moot. The 2% decrease noted therein would appear to relate to 2016 - calendar year, not financial year. Therefore nine months in the last FY and mostly in the run up to and aftermath of the referendum. I would suggest that as a key reason for any temporary slowing.
And again, their first graph shows corporate tax revenue from that period. It was flat until 2016, despite the rate cut. Are you not seeing that?Originally Posted by GS
Ms May said she was "very happy" to "endorse" Mr Hammond but shied away from saying she would keep him in post.
She added: "Weve worked together over the years for many years, longer than we could care to identify. Thats an age-related comment, nothing else, just in case you try and relate anything into that."
She's so crap at this sort of stuff. She's clearly politically aware enough but when she does the 'HERE IS CLARITY PLEASE DO NOT MISCONTRUE' ends up sounding so desperate, like the other day when she felt the need to tell us that her dish washer was a machine and not a live-in slave.
Despite being an awful hag of a woman, as PM she's growing on me a bit. She is much more representative of how people think than a braying twat like Cameron.
That might explain why the Twitter SEETHE seems so much more intense with her. It was almost too easy to mock him.
Yep. Scotland has to have an independence referendum after all of those as well.
I'm seeing it, but again this shows your wholly superficial understanding. You need to look at the hard data, not the line of one graph in one article. You need to consider the difference between onshore and offshore, and also payments made v liabilities incurred. If you want to be very accurate, figures for CT payments are thus for onshore:
2010: 31.6bn
2011: 36.2bn
2012: 34.3bn
2013: 36.0bn
2014: 36.8bn
2015: 40.9bn
2016: 43.9bn
Increase for onshore only: Ł12.3bn (+38.9%)
Offshore only:
2010: 5.0bn
2011: 6.9bn
2012: 8.8bn
2013: 4.4bn
2014: 3.6bn
2015: 2.1bn
2016: 0.5bn
Decrease for offshore only: (Ł4.5bn)
Total:
2010: 36.6bn
2011: 43.0bn
2012: 43.1bn
2013: 40.5bn
2014: 40.3bn
2015: 43.0bn
2016: 44.4bn
Increase for all: +7.8bn (21.2%).
Offshore has struggled, understandably, given the oil price collapse and lack of profitability of north sea oil fields in the face of the Saudis pumping it onto the market to undermine American shale. For onshore, despite a headline cut from 28% to 19%, receipts still went up by almost 39% for those 'revenue' streams.
It has nothing to do with superficiality, and everything to do with examining what you said, rather than what you wished you'd said. Your claims weren't about onshore revenues, they were about revenues in general.
And whereas you're perfectly willing to dismiss the drop on one set of figures due to extraneous factors, you'll seize on the set where you find an increase and just as quickly dismiss those factors - despite the huge elephant in the room that they were starting from recession-levels and could only go up. At this point you're going to have to provide some evidence that the increase (any increase, since you keep switching the one that you're talking about) was related to the rate cut. Otherwise you're just arguing from a conclusion.
Here is a study by the Institute for Fiscal Studies (again, part of the neoliberal establishment) which concludes the obvious that the rates being cut led to lower revenues than would otherwise have been obtained.
You have an ideological commitment to the Reagan-Thatcher idea of the job creators unshackled by the burden of taxation, unleashing their resources. You are declaring this to be a great truth, denigrating anyone who doesn't accept it uncritically, and then when challenged, scrabbling around desperately for some half-assed correlation which you can, using whatever logical fallacies are required, twist into some sort of justification.Corporate tax receipts as a share of national income are set to be at the same level in 2020–21 as they were in 2010–11. This is not evidence that cuts to corporation tax rates have not reduced revenues. Instead, it reflects the effect of other factors, including the ongoing recovery of financial sector (and other) profits following the Great Recession. Corporation tax receipts are forecast to be 2.3% of national income by 2021–22, substantially below the pre-recession high of 3.2%.
No, the issue is that you don't understand the topic. I didn't change the topic, nor did I change the parameters therein. I simply provided further detail and expanded the supporting argument. The onshore / offshore was worthwhile highlighting in the context of explaining the increase you denied point blank existed. It provided context and, in my view, supported the argument further particularly with reference to global trends in oil.
You're just being dense. You've yet to offer a single substantive point.
"This article explains there's a big increase so ha!"
"That's the wrong financial year, Henry."
"Oh. But the graph! It's flat!"
"Here's the hard data showing that's not the case for the reference period, Henry."
"You've shown onshore! You never mentioned that before!"
"It's the same healing figures with further context to support the argument, Henry."
"Tory! Tory!"
How fucking dull. We'll end the discussion there, since you'd argue that black was white on this.
When you're ready to justify supporting an IRA apologist, you can explain why. Until then, you'd be best refraining from moralising given you have to adhere to a particularly unpleasant moral bankruptcy to overlook it and pretend it never happened.
This is an interesting pathology. We go from simplistic propaganda and sneering at anyone who doesn't swallow it whole, to abandoning the discussion as "dull" whenever someone doesn't just revert to trading insults and challenges the detail.
Your original claim was that the cut to corporate taxes had led to increased revenues.
There was no such increase from 2010-2015.
There was an increase in 2016 but this was for other reasons, fully understood.
This being pointed out, you've variously tried to switch your claim to income tax, FDI and to onshore corporate tax receipts.
These things are expected to increase in the aftermath of a recession, but the Institute for Fiscal Studies says that there's been a decrease in what was expected due to cuts.
So you've offered no evidence whatsoever linking a cut in corporate tax rates to increased investment.
It's appallingly obvious that you've got an ideological position and are sticking to that, whatever reality might say. It's pretty much a religious faith for you.
I'm genuinely flummoxed here. You're arguing that black is white, and have apparently not fully grasped that you're looking at incorrect financial years, that onshore revenues are a component of the full CT revenues (the point standing on the latter irrespective of the additional detail provided to aid your understanding) and to continue asserting that there was no increase noted despite the data being in front of you directly contradicting your claim.
If you want to argue about the merits of the cut in FY11-FY16 and the reasons for the increase in CT (aggregated), then fine. But that is absolutely impossible if you continue to assert factual untruths.
It's an illogical position. I think there was a spell immediately after the vote where a significant minority of the hardcore Remain vote thought it might be over-turned / ignored / somehow discredited to stop it happening. May going full throttle finishes it, so he can call for another referendum now knowing full well it's never going to happen. It's just a campaign strategy to try and steal Continuity Remain but it's looking like a terrible strategy the more it plays out.
He's just delivered the manifesto with an EU flag on the stage and equated the highly-popular Theresa May to Donald Trump and Marine Le Pen. The imagery is terrible, really. Joe Public aren't exactly going to love the idea that there's a party who seemingly want the EU to succeed before the UK does.
I reckon they're going to lose seats next month, never mind win them.
They'll win back Bermondsey & OS, Cambridge for sure. Maybe a couple in Scotland. Probably hit about 12-15.
Nick Clegg has to be in serious trouble, seeing as he only remained (arf) last time because of borrowed Conservative votes, and Norman Lamb must be bricking it with all the Norfolk leave nutters.
I think Cleggers might be alright. Norman Lamb has probably had it unless he has the mythical 'personal vote' up there.
I've noticed, looking at a lot of these seats, that UKIP do/did much better in the eastern half of the country (all the way up) than they do/did in the western half. I wonder what the historical reason for that is. Hanseatic League truthers? Viking raid anxiety?
Because the electorate is Essex Man, seaside towns, and the sort of people who make their own sausages. Proper ones at that. Not ones that taste of things. Outside of Norwich and Cambridge it's an absolute ponce-free zone.
This Cricking is quite good: https://www.channel4.com/news/farron...oking-cannabis
Farron is so bad at politics, strategically doesn't have a fucking clue. He needed to move into Blair territory and adopt some broad tropes of the Regressive Majority, even if that risked making Dr Evan Harris cry at dinner. Instead he's just doubled down on what Charles Kennedy was doing about 20 years ago, but with none of the charm or know-how.
Past leaders going into polling day have had a bit of national clout, but half the country doesn't know who he is and those who do think he's shit. Clegg got a lot of help with the first TV debate suddenly catapulting him into the stratosphere, though.
The coalition has clearly ruined the Lib Dem brand, perhaps for another ten or fifteen years. It's a bit difficult to sweep up the student / progressive anti-Tory votes after you've hiked tuition fees and gone into coalition with the Tories. Our own Lib Dem contingent never recovered from the very act of forming the coalition in the first place.
The Tories are apparently going heavy on Farron's seat.
I always lol when I hear the tuition fees BROKEN PROMISE being used as a reason not to trust the Liberal Democrats, as if they are the only people to have ever gone back on a manifesto pledge. Oh well. Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch.
I think it carries weight because it was a significant part of their 2010 offer, with a heavy vote amongst students. It's not as if they didn't implement the PROMISE, they actively did the complete opposite to the tune of trebling it to mightily aggrieve a significant chunk of their core vote already REELING from the coalition in the first place.
They deserve to be annihilated, anyway. Sanctimonious bastards.
That Northern Ireland bit on Newsnight was a bit special, with added comedy lighting. Quite liked the UUP chap making a bid for Irish unification the other way. The biggest Brexit lols are definitely to be had over there.
Our political parties have collectively shit the bed over it. The political discourse has been absolutely dreadful, although that's hardly an exception.
I've reached a point where I want the local assembly to be shut down permanently and direct rule resumed. They shouldn't be allowed to earn a living here.
I think I asked this before, but if you devolved significant powers (education, health) to actual local government, would the terrorists be open to shutting the assembly down and reverting to direct rule? You would think they would jump at the opportunity to run their own little areas.
The IRA aren't interested in local government any more, at least not seriously. The long-term plan has been to get into government in both north and south at the same time, to demonstrate credibility and, if you're in power on both sides of the border, ease the path to unification. Their big problem in the south has been their IRA connections, so they needed the credibility of working in government up here to show that they weren't just a collection of terrorists-turned-politicians and were serious.
The issue for them, in terms of the constitution, is that if people are happy with the status quo then they're not going to vote for unification - because why would you. They seem to have realised this. They've "made it work" for ten years, giving them credibility. Now they can collapse it, claim "the north" is being shafted and other solutions must be looked at. Other solutions meaning a border poll and unification.
It doesn't really matter what you offer them at this point, they'll continue to game it in their long-term interest of breaking the country apart.
I think they're trying to do the opposite of breaking the country apart.
Belfast would go up in flames if there was a vote for unification by a 51-49 margin. Even the prospect of holding a border poll (which they wouldn't win) is fucking terrifying.
It might even be 52-48. It'd be THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE then.
As if it would be remotely comparable.
Remain terrorism would be pretty amazing. Manbag bombs left in roadside cafes and newsagents. A. C. Grayling on hunger strike. Tim Farron doing his shuffling 'just don't shove it down my throat' routine for each new atrocity.
'But will anyone here object if, with a ballot paper in this hand and a subtitled film in the other, we remain an open, tolerant nation?'
I was thinking the other day, there's no good left wing 'terrorists' about any more.
The Ulster Covenant transfers over a bit too perfectly for leavers as well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westmo..._constituency)
I just wonder whether this one will be close, but I imagine he'll hold on unless Mr Fishfinger splits his vote.
Is someone standing in for Tezza May tonight? Or is it going to be a Labour vs Lib Dem vs Green bore off?
Labour aren't participating either, so it's going to be a record low viewing figure for a primetime terrestrial tv event.
Corbz isn't going either (rightly). It's just SNP, Lib Dems, UKIP, the Greens and the Welsh.
Farron yet again massive error going on and reducing the Lib Dems to the level of the other listed bitters. His campaign is one of the most incompetent I can remember. Jezza/Milne donning it in comparison.
The Standard say Labour up by 8 points so the GAP with the cruel and evil tories is only 15 points now.
Jezzalution is on.
Lulz. Fuck watching that then.
If it wasn't for nationalism, four of those parties would pretty much be saying the exact same thing as well. He's not going to be able to distinguish the message, unless it's a case of trying to out-outrage the others on UKIP.
I'm sure I saw one of the Lib Dem policies was for TV debates to be "mandatory". The state of it.
Lol at the Conservatives social care program for the elderly. Labour should just lead with 'We're demonised for wanting to nationalise public infrastructure, the Tories want to nationalise your nans house'
Fuck old people*. The sooner they carc it at sto hoarding the houses they bought for 50p the better.
Toggle Spoiler