Grendel
Well-Known Member
Michael Foot didn’t have a coup as despite his left wing views he was:
Patriotic
Intelligent
Academic
Respected
His time was too late but corbyn ticked none of the above
I wouldn't be up for a coup either but it all just shows the contempt with which they hold anybody with left wing views in.
Corbyn polling poorly - Coup
Starmer polling poorly - Silence
'Corbyn is going to kick out all the moderates' - nothing happens
'Starmer is going to unite the party' - kicks out the left
'Corbyn allows anti semitism' - should have done more but prevented by NEC and McNichol
'Starmer will rid the party of antisemitism' - yes, apart from his allies who go untouched
Corbyn supporters are cultists - lose your mind at an objectively funny video of starter
'Corbyn can't run the party' - 'He's useless get rid'
'Starmer can't run the party' - 'Give him some time'
'Corbyn is a McCarthyist' - silences nobody
'Finally the party is under control of the adults' - Bristol West CLP blatant vote rigging barely even spoken about.
I voted Nandy 1 and Starmer 2, didn't put RLB down at all so I'm not some cultist but equally I'm not being gaslighted by this shit. I won't be voting Labour in May for council or mayor and I won't when an election comes unless they change and that doesn't have to be huge policy it just means a bit of honesty, transparency and inclusiveness.
I may as well pre-empt the completely predictable reply with a heavy dose of irony by saying- you're not going to win voters by telling them they're wrong - and bow out, I should have learned to ignore the politics threads in this place by now.
Maybe I’m missing a point here, but is he saying in the same interview that we shouldn’t be trying to force out Hancock (rich and privileged) whilst simultaneously saying that the criminalisation of cannabis possession (focusing generally more on poorer people) is still important?Fucking hell Starmer. What the fuck is that answer about drug policy?
Jesus.
Maybe I’m missing a point here, but is he saying in the same interview that we shouldn’t be trying to force out Hancock (rich and privileged) whilst simultaneously saying that the criminalisation of cannabis possession (focusing generally more on poorer people) is still important?
He’s appealing to public opinion on Hancock and he’s probably right I haven’t seen the polling though.
His take on cannabis is dumb as a box of rocks though. There’s too much crime so maybe legalise demand but not supply? Insanity. If crime is your concern then legalisation and regulation is your answer. Public health is the only reason and even that’s a fairly weak argument.
To be honest - I’ve got far more issue with his bat shit crazy idea for schools.You get nowhere by calling for ministers to quit at the time of a a crisis. There is be a time for that to come.
On the other hand. Matt Forde is an insufferable thundercunt but this is pretty much spot on:
He's absolutely petrifiedFucking hell Starmer. What the fuck is that answer about drug policy?
Jesus.
Tbh he should be making it as clear as he possibly can that Hancock is useless, short of actually saying he should resign. I think the non publication of them is bit of a red herring. It is the fact the contracts failed to deliver adequate PPE which may have led to unnecessary death and spread of infection is the more important point, which given the close links the sham companies had with the Tories really brings into question what the entire government thinks its role is in a national crisis.On the other hand. Matt Forde is an insufferable thundercunt but this is pretty much spot on:
He's absolutely petrified
New to thid thread and agree with your assessment. UK plc currently have a Covid sized hole in their budget and we need to consider creative solutions for increased taxation. The so called black or underworld economy is worth tens of billions and strategic licencing and supply of cannabis products could be a money spinner. There are currently hundred of thousands of people getting ripped off by illegal street dealers who are not overly bothered by the quility of their produce. Liciancing will remove this dilemma and possibily have public health upsides.He’s appealing to public opinion on Hancock and he’s probably right I haven’t seen the polling though.
His take on cannabis is dumb as a box of rocks though. There’s too much crime so maybe legalise demand but not supply? Insanity. If crime is your concern then legalisation and regulation is your answer. Public health is the only reason and even that’s a fairly weak argument.
He's absolutely petrified
New to thid thread and agree with your assessment. UK plc currently have a Covid sized hole in their budget and we need to consider creative solutions for increased taxation. The so called black or underworld economy is worth tens of billions and strategic licencing and supply of cannabis products could be a money spinner. There are currently hundred of thousands of people getting ripped off by illegal street dealers who are not overly bothered by the quility of their produce. Liciancing will remove this dilemma and possibily have public health upsides.
Would a 24 month trial be appropriate?
It does have an element of Corbyn's Brexit response.
"Say you'll support Brexit"
"But then we'll lose half the country as remainers and a lot of the more liberal left-wing"
"Well say you'll have a second referendum then"
"But then I'll risk losing half the country as Brexiteers and a lot of the Labour heartlands that voted for Brexit"
repeat ad infinitum
This time it's
"say you'll decriminalise drugs"
"that won't wash with the law-and-order lot"
"say you'll crackdown on them then"
"that'll upset the liberals"
it seems whoever gets put in charge is then advised that both options are shit and not to choose any in case you alienate a potential voter, whereas in reality having no position alienates them all.
Pick a side and live or die by it. It's called leadership.
I'm all for the control of drugs via regulation and taxes. it won't remove the black market but it will reduce it's impact. yes you'll lose those minor fines for possession etc and increase costs with bureaucracy but that'd be a drop in the ocean compared to taxes.
Not only that it could reduce public spending as you'd be spending less trying to bring down these drug cartels and dealing with minor criminals and wannabes, reducing costs and time spent policing and in the judicial system. It's a gateway into more criminal behaviour later in life for some kids that would be closed. On the other hand it could increase public spending in dealing with addiction etc. but again that link between cannabis and then going onto harder drugs could be broken somewhat as there's a clear legal barrier between the two. You don't get people saying an alcohol addict is likely to end up using cocaine or heroin despite as a drug its effects being worse than cannabis.
Should certainly legalise cannabis so it’s sold through licenced businesses. Ending proabition played a huge part in bringing the US out of the Great Depression. Same could happen here with cannabis. VAT on sales, business taxes on the businesses selling it.Legalise all drugs. They all are doing the same thing (papering over the cracks in mental health support) and all cause the same problems with the same solutions.
The black market will exist in the same way it does for alcohol today. Mostly it’ll be a bunch of people growing in their attic so they don’t have to pay inflated prices.
Every drug user I know would rather buy safe regulated stuff with a guaranteed quality than chase down hood rats in Foleshill and risk all kinds of shite. These kids aren’t there for their business and customer service skills.
What on earth is going on with the nominations for Labour's Liverpool Mayor candidate. Seems a complete shitshow.
Labour reopens applications for Liverpool Mayor nominations
Shortlisted candidates will NOT be invited to reapplywww.liverpoolecho.co.uk
Surely the only person he will be taking votes from is Shaun Bailey?Laurence Fox running for Mayor of London.
Reported in the Telegraph and trending on Twitter. Not bad for someone who's been 'cancelled'!
On one hand I hope he gets it just to show him up for the absolute roaster he is but on the other hand probably not
best not give it to a shit actor who only got a few parts because of his grandad.
Surely the only person he will be taking votes from is Shaun Bailey?
He’s batshit crazy....
Both as you say - every time Bailey says something he sounds like even more of an out of touch knobhead. This weeks diatribe was if we introduced UBI it would only get spent on drugs. Which at least a nice change from it being bought from an MP’s salary.just to clarify, are you on about Fox or Bailey (obviously both!)
To be fair, I probably would spend my UBI on drugs
To be fair, I probably would spend my UBI on drugs
Good old traditional English drugs I hope. None of the foreign muck.
It’s like the old joke “don’t give money to the homeless in case they buy drugs with it” “well that’s what I was going to with it anyway”
All that would mean is more sales for JD Sports and second hand Aldi dealerships as drug dealers get a boom.
Now I know from experience there are still people out there who would try and find a loophole around this so they can get more, so it'd need more work on looking for them. For example, it'd have to make sure it included all types of shares including preference shares etc and things like share based payments and venture capital would also need to be looked at.
Similarly, in an effort to avoid the tax it could lead to a preference for 'investors' to provide finance via debt in the form of loans rather than as capital. This could have a big impact on the stock market and, although I think it's given far too much prominence and importance in our economy, that shock wouldn't be good short term. So to prevent this jump towards debt consideration would have to be considered as to imposing a similar tax on things like interest payments to even it out.
This would have the benefit of increasing the thought companies put into taking on debt and lead to more responsible borrowing.
I also realise that there are many different ways companies are used from one-man band sole-trader style set-ups to massive Plc's and the effect on them needs to be considered. This idea definitely applies best to the larger companies and Plc's, but smaller companies like local builders, plumbers etc often pay much higher dividends per share. So if necessary it could have a progressive sliding scale like income tax with lower rates for smaller payouts increasing as you get towards the massive payouts of PLC's
At the moment I've looked at about 50 odd companies, but they're all quite large due to SME's having much reduced reporting requirements so the info isn't there for smaller companies.
Of those, dividends paid equate to roughly 6 times that of tax and just over half of those companies paid no dividends, with 15% paying out more than 10 times their tax bill in dividends. One company paid out 111 times their tax liability in dividends and another paid out £500m in dividends yet received a tax rebate of £1m.
Interest payments were roughly equal to tax taken.
I know it needs further investigation to ensure it'd work for all which I don't have access to the necessary data to do and even then the manhours would be massive so it'd need to be done on a large scale such as within Whitehall, but the basic idea seems sound and it's more the research into what exact rates would be acceptable.
Worked for JohnsonOn one hand I hope he gets it just to show him up for the absolute roaster he is
I've mentioned this before and as it's now a hot topic in general and being discussed elsewhere due to the planned rises in coming years, here's my outline proposal for corp tax. If you get through it fair play to you.
I know it's a radical departure from current thinking and some (one on here esp) will find it difficult to comprehend such a massive change, but the more I thought about the more sense it made.
I'll also point out this isn't aiming to increase the amount of tax companies should pay- it's replacing the method of calculation with a new one and trying to prevent those large companies avoiding it. The biggest hole in public finances is from large corporations avoiding tax and this is about them paying their fair share.
Bit of scene setting first as to how the idea came about.
Firstly, and again as I've mentioned recently somewhere on this board, I find profit to be a very arbitrary thing to base a tax on - it's just a paper figure that can be manipulated easily via bookkeeping and accounting conventions and policies. It's far too unreliable.
Secondly, we're conditioned at a young age to consider tax a 'dirty word' - something to be avoided if at all possible despite what it can provide to society as a whole through ongoing public expenditure. Dividends however suffers no such stigma and are actively encouraged despite it being in many cases a large payment to an individual purely for owning a bit of paper bought with a one-off payment, often to another individual so the company in question actually receives nothing from the transaction.
So initially my thoughts were along the lines of 'tax needs a rebrand - it's a societal dividend'.
But then I thought you've still got the constant tug of war between private and public, with one spending large amounts to avoid tax, the other spending large amounts to try and stop them avoiding it. It's incredibly wasteful for everyone.
Which is when I thought about getting everyone pulling in the same direction and basing corp tax on dividends rather than profit. When shareholders benefit the public purse benefits as well. Everyone is pulling towards the same thing.
TBC
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?