-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
UK PoliGAF |OT3| - Strong and Stable Government? No. Coalition Of Chaos!
- Thread starter Jezbollah
- Start date
- Status
War Peaceman
You're a big guy.
Not to mention, he is a known 'difficult person'. Or should I say he has very bad personal conduct.
Needs sacking
Evening Standard: David Daviss dilemma: to stand or not to stand
Oh Gideon. You're loving this aren't you?
Oh Gideon. You're loving this aren't you?
Spuck-uk
Banned
Majority of 17,000, so she might actually get sacked.
This is the first I've heard of it! That's interesting though, it looks like the Government are arguing that it's not an EU institution so it's fine, and hoping that no one looks further. Guess we'll hear more about it in the future.
Conservative irresponsibility runs through this issue in a huge way and always will. I'm sure this will illicit "bu-bu-but Labour..." responses like always, but it's time to face the fucking facts; Brexit was birthed out of the Conservatives playing their party drama writ large on the public.
I wrote a much larger post with a timeline about why I think this, but fuck it. It's old ground we've already seen in this fairly young thread already. There are two common themes though; putting Conservative party interests ahead of anything else, and not being prepared when everything inevitably goes to shit.
No amount of campaigning or pamphlets are going to make that okay.
QuicheFontaine
Member
I honestly think that is the tactic, which I find kind of amazing. IP news generally doesn't get much airtime on the news anyway, and "It's not an EU institution" is technically correct and probably enough to put off further questioning.
Huw_Dawson
Member
Green too, easy to forget them at the mo.
And yes please to a by-election in Newton Abbot! That was roughly a Lib Dem seat until 2010.
Huw_Dawson
Member
Anyone in the Tory ranks calling for her to go is a damn fool. I don't know if Labour would fight it all that hard but the Lib Dems would throw the entire membership at it. That majority could be overturned in a by-election atmosphere.
You have a cocktail of a hideously unpopular Tory party, a worsening economy, Brexit becoming more and more unpopular and you're challenging both an insurgent "I can win anywhere" Corbyn and a Lib Dem machine that badly wants a by-election win.
Theonik
Member
Green is the only one that has taken a pure 'Brexit is dumb let's not' stance!
Some things are more important then winning shit.
Huw_Dawson
Member
I agree actually but I generally take my politics with a Machiavellian bent. I'd love her to step down but at that point her successor has to face not one but possibly two hostile parties that would smell blood in that seat. It's far smarter to take the abuse then step down at the next full election, or weather the storm until everyone forgets about it.
I thought their policy was a ratification referendum?
I appreciate your looking at this through the lens of party vs party numbers, but some things are bigger than that surely?
Either because they think it's right, or even if, cynically, they want to help market themselves as friendlier, no one is a damn fool for wanting her gone.
And I'd hope we're past the "what's the harm..."
Theonik
Member
Their policy is unlear. On one hand they state that they wish to remain, on the other they say they will push for a referendum on the final deal. Ultimately Greens are a no-hope party when it comes to governing which one of the two paths they would take is up for debate if they had any real influence.
CyclopsRock
Member
I'm not gonna deny that without the Tories we wouldn't be Brexiting. But this doesn't change the fact that after 30+ years of banging on about it from the backbenches, it's happening now because of a referendum, not an act of parliament. I don't think people are gonna forget that.
I don't think Cyclops is wrong, the referendum absolves the Tories of some of the blame, maybe even immunises them to a great degree.
The MPs most responsible for the reprehensible damage Brexit will cause this country both economically and in global stature are all in safe Tory seats, so the nutters will never be removed. It will coincidentally be the Tories who are the least damaging and the most reasonable who will be at risk.
The Tory party will radicalise further to their eventual GOP state.
The MPs most responsible for the reprehensible damage Brexit will cause this country both economically and in global stature are all in safe Tory seats, so the nutters will never be removed. It will coincidentally be the Tories who are the least damaging and the most reasonable who will be at risk.
The Tory party will radicalise further to their eventual GOP state.
Wrestlemania
Banned
If there hadn't been 30+ years of Tories creating the EU boogeyman, leave would never have gotten a majority. Of course the blame lies with them.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40561807
I love this article, they want to stop people like Window Cleaners being paid in cash so it can be taxed.
HOW ABOUT YOU TAX THE CORPORATIONS TERESA. :|
I love this article, they want to stop people like Window Cleaners being paid in cash so it can be taxed.
HOW ABOUT YOU TAX THE CORPORATIONS TERESA. :|
The government has a position on everything, Cameron only offered a referendum because he thought he'd win it easily.
Dirtyshubb
Member
Yep, they chase this £6b potential pool to be taxed, yet give the top 1% that in tax breaks alone, let alone the billions we lose in corporation tax being so low or simply being avoided.
That's different though - I don't think anyone is actually arguing whether the Tories are responsible for Brexit (they obviously are), but whether the Tories will forever be blamed for it. Which they probably wont, as ultimately it was a public referendum supported by voters from more than just the Tory party
It was overwhelmingly one party and one age group in particular though. I disagree with cyclops here, I think it's definitely branded as a conservative led issue. After all, the fact the campaign turned into a blue on blue fight was one of the big problems according to the analysis.
I also think that as the older generation who voted for this die off, it's going to be natural to blame the party of old people for this.
QuicheFontaine
Member
I don't really see the problem with going after cash in hand workers though? If they're not paying tax they're breaking the law. Also going after these people doesn't prevent them from raising corporation tax, or whatever else it is that you want them to do.
QuicheFontaine
Member
How is it a "bit rich"? You can have different opinions on where the tax rates should be set, but I thought everyone would at least agree that people should pay the tax they owe.
How is this woman still in a job?
Royal_Phalanx
Member
I'd rather cut taxes for poor people and raise corporation tax and taxes on the rich, they are more able to pay more money anyway so the scale should be higher.
Therein lies the issue though. Most people would advocate everyone paying their fair share, and many feel the current system is anything but fair. It's the same old, same old with the Tories - go after the 'pennies' from the benefits scroungers, the window cleaners et al, yet flatly refuse to go after the 'big bucks' from those who can afford to pay; especially the large corporations who have the means to skillfully skirt around taxation law rather than outright break it.
God forbid we should increase corporation tax to a rate that is still less than the rest of the G7. It's the same old trickle-down economics argument from the Tories that time shows us again and again simply doesn't work. No, far more important that the window cleaner declares the £20 he just earned. Just have to make sure the DM readers have someone to 'tut tut' at so they don't notice the gross injustice of it all.
To paraphrase Lyndon B. Johnson - "If you can convince the lowest British man hes better than <insert 'other'>, he wont notice youre picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and hell empty his pockets for you."
Because you can't fire an MP. She's had the Tory whip withdrawn so she's no longer a Tory MP at least.
There's no real issue but it also doesn't serve much purpose given that's such a tiny amount of tax. It's just the usual Tory policies of demonising those who don't earn much as scroungers or not doing their part. There are more pressing matters to be dealt with in relation to tax and its a bad look to be going after the poorer parts of the population than the richer ones.
But I do agree, both should start paying their taxes properly.
Does this mean the Tories no longer have a majority without the DUP?
I think there was only one or two votes in it
Nobody is advocating not paying taxes.
But let's not kid ourselves, if this is implemented in the next few years without a rebalancing of other tax plans, we're going to see HMRC chasing down people in often low-paid, insecure, mercenary-style work at the same time as corporation tax drops to near tax haven levels.
Theonik
Member
No, but for all intents and purposes yes. Now only a 1-2 abstentions can ruin the broth.
That is, if she doesn't vote with the Tory whip anyway. Also that's if the DUP abstains. If DUP votes against hey are also screwed.
That's not what the report is recommending though? The recommendation is that people be paid electronically instead of in cash so that it's easier to track their earnings and tax them accordingly.
Like, I am not at all a fan of May or the Tories, but there is really nothing wrong with this proposal.
It's close. Though, it's not a big concern for them as she'll almost certainly be voting in line with the Tories anyway.
If she resigned and triggered a by-election, then things might get interesting, but she had a majority of 17,000. It'd be a surprise if that got overturned.
QuicheFontaine
Member
So the Conservatives are now one by-election away from losing their majority?
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
I don't think there's anything wrong with this proposal in isolation. However, knowing that there are only so many legislative hours in the day, knowing that they chose to prioritise this particular initiative, which will have only minor effect, over an initiative focusing on tax avoidance by large corporations, which would have a significant effect, does stick in the craw a bit. Context matters.
Theonik
Member
Greece is starting to get around this issue unintentionally through limiting the amount of cash people are able to legally get. Capital controls have basically meant that a large portion of transactions need to happen by cash!
#priorities
Central banker mate, still a public servant
I mean, that's fair enough. My point is more that people shouldn't tear down this proposal as being bad in and of itself, which some people seem to be doing.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked