FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Party allegiances
Party allegiances
Jump to: Newest in thread
I recently read a comment from someone saying they'd always voted Tory and always will... immediately slagged off by labour voters who, doubtless, have always voted labour and always will. Is it too much to ask for voters to vote for what's right and makes sense rather than simply following the party allegiance??? I'd guess yes, it is  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I recently read a comment from someone saying they'd always voted Tory and always will... immediately slagged off by labour voters who, doubtless, have always voted labour and always will. Is it too much to ask for voters to vote for what's right and makes sense rather than simply following the party allegiance??? I'd guess yes, it is "
It's a sad state of affairs. The whole system is not fit for purpose. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
 |
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I recently read a comment from someone saying they'd always voted Tory and always will... immediately slagged off by labour voters who, doubtless, have always voted labour and always will. Is it too much to ask for voters to vote for what's right and makes sense rather than simply following the party allegiance??? I'd guess yes, it is "
I have voted for labour & the Lib Dems and might vote for the greens at the next GE, but I have never voted for the tories, |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *atEvolutionCouple
over a year ago
atlantisEVOLUTION. Stoke. |
"I recently read a comment from someone saying they'd always voted Tory and always will... immediately slagged off by labour voters who, doubtless, have always voted labour and always will. Is it too much to ask for voters to vote for what's right and makes sense rather than simply following the party allegiance??? I'd guess yes, it is "
What gave you the idea that that was a good idea? lol.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I recently read a comment from someone saying they'd always voted Tory and always will... immediately slagged off by labour voters who, doubtless, have always voted labour and always will. Is it too much to ask for voters to vote for what's right and makes sense rather than simply following the party allegiance??? I'd guess yes, it is
What gave you the idea that that was a good idea? lol. "
What do you mean |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *atEvolutionCouple
over a year ago
atlantisEVOLUTION. Stoke. |
"I recently read a comment from someone saying they'd always voted Tory and always will... immediately slagged off by labour voters who, doubtless, have always voted labour and always will. Is it too much to ask for voters to vote for what's right and makes sense rather than simply following the party allegiance??? I'd guess yes, it is
What gave you the idea that that was a good idea? lol.
What do you mean "
A light-hearted response is all - no foul intended. Difficult to do here on the Politics forum.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
We need Proportional Representation to stop politics being skewed and binary.
While I personally abhor the policies put forward by the Brexit Party, if sufficient people honestly believe in those policies then they should get a voice. Likewise the far left.
PR would/should help remove blind tribal allegiance and more focus on actual policies allowing people to properly vote based on what matters to them rather than always compromising.
Then again, I can only comment from my POV. I have no loyalty to any party. I am only interested in what their policies mean to me, my family, my community, my country/society in that order. At present this current Government are scoring horrendously bad on all measures for me, hence my anti (this) Govt stance across the forums. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"We need Proportional Representation to stop politics being skewed and binary.
While I personally abhor the policies put forward by the Brexit Party, if sufficient people honestly believe in those policies then they should get a voice. Likewise the far left.
PR would/should help remove blind tribal allegiance and more focus on actual policies allowing people to properly vote based on what matters to them rather than always compromising.
Then again, I can only comment from my POV. I have no loyalty to any party. I am only interested in what their policies mean to me, my family, my community, my country/society in that order. At present this current Government are scoring horrendously bad on all measures for me, hence my anti (this) Govt stance across the forums. "
*that were out forward by the Brexit Party |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
Sorry should add that with PR there is more chance of those extreme elements in both the Labour and Conservative parties moving out and doing their own thing creating a wider spectrum of choice and allowing Labour to be more Centre Left and Conservatives to be Centre Right.
You wanna vote for Communists, you have a choice.
You wanna vote for Fascists, you have a choice. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eroy1000Man
over a year ago
milton keynes |
"Sorry should add that with PR there is more chance of those extreme elements in both the Labour and Conservative parties moving out and doing their own thing creating a wider spectrum of choice and allowing Labour to be more Centre Left and Conservatives to be Centre Right.
You wanna vote for Communists, you have a choice.
You wanna vote for Fascists, you have a choice."
I would like PR and also a simple no loophole tax system. Not sure which party will guarantee that and have a chance of actually winning a GE in order to implement it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Sorry should add that with PR there is more chance of those extreme elements in both the Labour and Conservative parties moving out and doing their own thing creating a wider spectrum of choice and allowing Labour to be more Centre Left and Conservatives to be Centre Right.
You wanna vote for Communists, you have a choice.
You wanna vote for Fascists, you have a choice.
I would like PR and also a simple no loophole tax system. Not sure which party will guarantee that and have a chance of actually winning a GE in order to implement it. "
No party is going to go against any of the main drivers for brexit. So closing tax loopholes is completely off the table.
As for PR, you're looking at the Greens, who are obviously not likely to get more than one seat, so you're looking at a vote to exert influence. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I've a mate who's a high court barrister and dyed blue through and through. I quote "I had to vote green, I can't abide this shower of tories. I didn't mind him as mayor where he couldn't do TOO much harm, but leader of the country? Fuck off" |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
I should be a natural Tory from an economic perspective, but there's never been a point in my life when I could bring myself too.
The Conservative party have moved further and further from any sort of thought out plan about what their purpose is, to just saying what will get them elected. I have more time for a party that has a strategy for the country that I disagree with than being 100% in it for themselves and their mates. Whatever integrity existed in in the party was driven out after the last election. So even if I liked the policies the individuals in charge have proven again and again that they are unfit to run the country based on both temperament and competence.
So, left with Labour (Jeremy Corbyn is no longer the leader so endlessly bringing that up can be ignored), LibDems who aren't nasty enough for power as proven by the coalition (which has a lot to be said for it) and the Greens who still aren't fully thought out in all areas.
All of these parties have many elements that fit my view on things. I am content to vote tactically if necessary for both local and national elections, as that is what the system requires.
The irony is, of course, that the UK is a pretty kind, generous and socially liberal country, but that vote is split and the nasty party wins by default. Except for the time when an even more nasty party turned up (UKIP) and they screwed the country to maintain their hold on power.
I don't like PR because it loses the constituency link. Unfortunately single transferable vote requires too much thinking for most people so that opportunity was lost.
I can only hope that people learn, but if this forum is anything to go by, the amazing ability to try justify the actions of this government could we'll keep them in power... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ackal1Couple
over a year ago
Manchester |
"I should be a natural Tory from an economic perspective, but there's never been a point in my life when I could bring myself too.
The Conservative party have moved further and further from any sort of thought out plan about what their purpose is, to just saying what will get them elected. I have more time for a party that has a strategy for the country that I disagree with than being 100% in it for themselves and their mates. Whatever integrity existed in in the party was driven out after the last election. So even if I liked the policies the individuals in charge have proven again and again that they are unfit to run the country based on both temperament and competence.
So, left with Labour (Jeremy Corbyn is no longer the leader so endlessly bringing that up can be ignored), LibDems who aren't nasty enough for power as proven by the coalition (which has a lot to be said for it) and the Greens who still aren't fully thought out in all areas.
All of these parties have many elements that fit my view on things. I am content to vote tactically if necessary for both local and national elections, as that is what the system requires.
The irony is, of course, that the UK is a pretty kind, generous and socially liberal country, but that vote is split and the nasty party wins by default. Except for the time when an even more nasty party turned up (UKIP) and they screwed the country to maintain their hold on power.
I don't like PR because it loses the constituency link. Unfortunately single transferable vote requires too much thinking for most people so that opportunity was lost.
I can only hope that people learn, but if this forum is anything to go by, the amazing ability to try justify the actions of this government could we'll keep them in power..."
Just in your comment around loss of local constituency link my view would be to abolish national party politics on a local council level. No two towns are the same or have the same issues. Similar yes but what is urgently needed in Thames compared to what Oldham needs cannot be addressed by a national party policy it’s impossible. Bringing it more local would give more power to the local people.
I totally support PR for the reasons given. The MP will be answerable to the electorate and reflect the voters make up and views.
FPTP is definitely not democratic. An 80 seat majority when more people didn’t vote for the tories exposes how broken our system is. Voters need to know their vote really does count. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ackal1Couple
over a year ago
Manchester |
"I should be a natural Tory from an economic perspective, but there's never been a point in my life when I could bring myself too.
The Conservative party have moved further and further from any sort of thought out plan about what their purpose is, to just saying what will get them elected. I have more time for a party that has a strategy for the country that I disagree with than being 100% in it for themselves and their mates. Whatever integrity existed in in the party was driven out after the last election. So even if I liked the policies the individuals in charge have proven again and again that they are unfit to run the country based on both temperament and competence.
So, left with Labour (Jeremy Corbyn is no longer the leader so endlessly bringing that up can be ignored), LibDems who aren't nasty enough for power as proven by the coalition (which has a lot to be said for it) and the Greens who still aren't fully thought out in all areas.
All of these parties have many elements that fit my view on things. I am content to vote tactically if necessary for both local and national elections, as that is what the system requires.
The irony is, of course, that the UK is a pretty kind, generous and socially liberal country, but that vote is split and the nasty party wins by default. Except for the time when an even more nasty party turned up (UKIP) and they screwed the country to maintain their hold on power.
I don't like PR because it loses the constituency link. Unfortunately single transferable vote requires too much thinking for most people so that opportunity was lost.
I can only hope that people learn, but if this forum is anything to go by, the amazing ability to try justify the actions of this government could we'll keep them in power..."
Just in your comment around loss of local constituency link my view would be to abolish national party politics on a local council level. No two towns are the same or have the same issues. Similar yes but what is urgently needed in Thames compared to what Oldham needs cannot be addressed by a national party policy it’s impossible. Bringing it more local would give more power to the local people.
I totally support PR for the reasons given. The MP will be answerable to the electorate and reflect the voters make up and views.
FPTP is definitely not democratic. An 80 seat majority when more people didn’t vote for the tories exposes how broken our system is. Voters need to know their vote really does count. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"I should be a natural Tory from an economic perspective, but there's never been a point in my life when I could bring myself too.
The Conservative party have moved further and further from any sort of thought out plan about what their purpose is, to just saying what will get them elected. I have more time for a party that has a strategy for the country that I disagree with than being 100% in it for themselves and their mates. Whatever integrity existed in in the party was driven out after the last election. So even if I liked the policies the individuals in charge have proven again and again that they are unfit to run the country based on both temperament and competence.
So, left with Labour (Jeremy Corbyn is no longer the leader so endlessly bringing that up can be ignored), LibDems who aren't nasty enough for power as proven by the coalition (which has a lot to be said for it) and the Greens who still aren't fully thought out in all areas.
All of these parties have many elements that fit my view on things. I am content to vote tactically if necessary for both local and national elections, as that is what the system requires.
The irony is, of course, that the UK is a pretty kind, generous and socially liberal country, but that vote is split and the nasty party wins by default. Except for the time when an even more nasty party turned up (UKIP) and they screwed the country to maintain their hold on power.
I don't like PR because it loses the constituency link. Unfortunately single transferable vote requires too much thinking for most people so that opportunity was lost.
I can only hope that people learn, but if this forum is anything to go by, the amazing ability to try justify the actions of this government could we'll keep them in power..."
Easy we have had our differences in the Virus forum but I agree with almost all of what you say here.
I support PR but understand the idea behind constituency politics, and have seen in practice how seriously some MPs take it. However, I think the power of the whip totally undermines MPs being able to properly represent their constituents on anything except the most local of issues. If the issue touches national policies, forget it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eroy1000Man
over a year ago
milton keynes |
"Sorry should add that with PR there is more chance of those extreme elements in both the Labour and Conservative parties moving out and doing their own thing creating a wider spectrum of choice and allowing Labour to be more Centre Left and Conservatives to be Centre Right.
You wanna vote for Communists, you have a choice.
You wanna vote for Fascists, you have a choice.
I would like PR and also a simple no loophole tax system. Not sure which party will guarantee that and have a chance of actually winning a GE in order to implement it.
No party is going to go against any of the main drivers for brexit. So closing tax loopholes is completely off the table.
As for PR, you're looking at the Greens, who are obviously not likely to get more than one seat, so you're looking at a vote to exert influence. "
So the tax loopholes are here to stay then regardless of colour of government. Quite a sobering thought. I thought it would be a vote winner for Labour especially after the sunak story. Looks like a similar situation with PR too |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"I should be a natural Tory from an economic perspective, but there's never been a point in my life when I could bring myself too.
The Conservative party have moved further and further from any sort of thought out plan about what their purpose is, to just saying what will get them elected. I have more time for a party that has a strategy for the country that I disagree with than being 100% in it for themselves and their mates. Whatever integrity existed in in the party was driven out after the last election. So even if I liked the policies the individuals in charge have proven again and again that they are unfit to run the country based on both temperament and competence.
So, left with Labour (Jeremy Corbyn is no longer the leader so endlessly bringing that up can be ignored), LibDems who aren't nasty enough for power as proven by the coalition (which has a lot to be said for it) and the Greens who still aren't fully thought out in all areas.
All of these parties have many elements that fit my view on things. I am content to vote tactically if necessary for both local and national elections, as that is what the system requires.
The irony is, of course, that the UK is a pretty kind, generous and socially liberal country, but that vote is split and the nasty party wins by default. Except for the time when an even more nasty party turned up (UKIP) and they screwed the country to maintain their hold on power.
I don't like PR because it loses the constituency link. Unfortunately single transferable vote requires too much thinking for most people so that opportunity was lost.
I can only hope that people learn, but if this forum is anything to go by, the amazing ability to try justify the actions of this government could we'll keep them in power...
Just in your comment around loss of local constituency link my view would be to abolish national party politics on a local council level. No two towns are the same or have the same issues. Similar yes but what is urgently needed in Thames compared to what Oldham needs cannot be addressed by a national party policy it’s impossible. Bringing it more local would give more power to the local people.
I totally support PR for the reasons given. The MP will be answerable to the electorate and reflect the voters make up and views.
FPTP is definitely not democratic. An 80 seat majority when more people didn’t vote for the tories exposes how broken our system is. Voters need to know their vote really does count. "
I see your point on a local level, but difficult to implement because national parties are based on local networks. They should be the channel through which national party policy is formulated, but the reality is that activists are never that representative and are likely to skew policy.
The point of transferable vote is to rank your votes so that you can at least get something close to an acceptable candidate to you so that your vote is not wasted.
There will be some interesting statistics out of that too. With more extreme parties it will be visible what direction votes of eventual winners come from so it will be apparent who they will play to in office. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"Sorry should add that with PR there is more chance of those extreme elements in both the Labour and Conservative parties moving out and doing their own thing creating a wider spectrum of choice and allowing Labour to be more Centre Left and Conservatives to be Centre Right.
You wanna vote for Communists, you have a choice.
You wanna vote for Fascists, you have a choice.
I would like PR and also a simple no loophole tax system. Not sure which party will guarantee that and have a chance of actually winning a GE in order to implement it.
No party is going to go against any of the main drivers for brexit. So closing tax loopholes is completely off the table.
As for PR, you're looking at the Greens, who are obviously not likely to get more than one seat, so you're looking at a vote to exert influence.
So the tax loopholes are here to stay then regardless of colour of government. Quite a sobering thought. I thought it would be a vote winner for Labour especially after the sunak story. Looks like a similar situation with PR too"
No reason for tax loopholes to stay. It's one of the few benefits of Brexit, but most who voted to leave don't want to make use of the opportunity... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eroy1000Man
over a year ago
milton keynes |
"Sorry should add that with PR there is more chance of those extreme elements in both the Labour and Conservative parties moving out and doing their own thing creating a wider spectrum of choice and allowing Labour to be more Centre Left and Conservatives to be Centre Right.
You wanna vote for Communists, you have a choice.
You wanna vote for Fascists, you have a choice.
I would like PR and also a simple no loophole tax system. Not sure which party will guarantee that and have a chance of actually winning a GE in order to implement it.
No party is going to go against any of the main drivers for brexit. So closing tax loopholes is completely off the table.
As for PR, you're looking at the Greens, who are obviously not likely to get more than one seat, so you're looking at a vote to exert influence.
So the tax loopholes are here to stay then regardless of colour of government. Quite a sobering thought. I thought it would be a vote winner for Labour especially after the sunak story. Looks like a similar situation with PR too
No reason for tax loopholes to stay. It's one of the few benefits of Brexit, but most who voted to leave don't want to make use of the opportunity..."
No reason to keep them that's true but sadly it seems no party will commit to scrapping them either. Same problem with PR. It seems regardless who you vote for it will not change |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ostafunMan
over a year ago
near ipswich |
"Sorry should add that with PR there is more chance of those extreme elements in both the Labour and Conservative parties moving out and doing their own thing creating a wider spectrum of choice and allowing Labour to be more Centre Left and Conservatives to be Centre Right.
You wanna vote for Communists, you have a choice.
You wanna vote for Fascists, you have a choice.
I would like PR and also a simple no loophole tax system. Not sure which party will guarantee that and have a chance of actually winning a GE in order to implement it.
No party is going to go against any of the main drivers for brexit. So closing tax loopholes is completely off the table.
As for PR, you're looking at the Greens, who are obviously not likely to get more than one seat, so you're looking at a vote to exert influence.
So the tax loopholes are here to stay then regardless of colour of government. Quite a sobering thought. I thought it would be a vote winner for Labour especially after the sunak story. Looks like a similar situation with PR too
No reason for tax loopholes to stay. It's one of the few benefits of Brexit, but most who voted to leave don't want to make use of the opportunity..."
what are all these tax loopholes that have been bought in since brexit? please enlighten me. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Sorry should add that with PR there is more chance of those extreme elements in both the Labour and Conservative parties moving out and doing their own thing creating a wider spectrum of choice and allowing Labour to be more Centre Left and Conservatives to be Centre Right.
You wanna vote for Communists, you have a choice.
You wanna vote for Fascists, you have a choice.
I would like PR and also a simple no loophole tax system. Not sure which party will guarantee that and have a chance of actually winning a GE in order to implement it.
No party is going to go against any of the main drivers for brexit. So closing tax loopholes is completely off the table.
As for PR, you're looking at the Greens, who are obviously not likely to get more than one seat, so you're looking at a vote to exert influence.
So the tax loopholes are here to stay then regardless of colour of government. Quite a sobering thought. I thought it would be a vote winner for Labour especially after the sunak story. Looks like a similar situation with PR too
No reason for tax loopholes to stay. It's one of the few benefits of Brexit, but most who voted to leave don't want to make use of the opportunity...
No reason to keep them that's true but sadly it seems no party will commit to scrapping them either. Same problem with PR. It seems regardless who you vote for it will not change"
Which party would go against brexit?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I recently read a comment from someone saying they'd always voted Tory and always will... immediately slagged off by labour voters who, doubtless, have always voted labour and always will. Is it too much to ask for voters to vote for what's right and makes sense rather than simply following the party allegiance??? I'd guess yes, it is "
I know right! I just don’t get it! My beliefs are sooooo conservative/libertarian and I’ve always voted blue. But I’ll never vote for them again and don’t get why many I know who vote blue give them unwavering support. There’s not a conservative bone in this party. I didn’t leave the party, the party left me.
I may even stand as an independent |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I should be a natural Tory from an economic perspective, but there's never been a point in my life when I could bring myself too.
The Conservative party have moved further and further from any sort of thought out plan about what their purpose is, to just saying what will get them elected. I have more time for a party that has a strategy for the country that I disagree with than being 100% in it for themselves and their mates. Whatever integrity existed in in the party was driven out after the last election. So even if I liked the policies the individuals in charge have proven again and again that they are unfit to run the country based on both temperament and competence.
So, left with Labour (Jeremy Corbyn is no longer the leader so endlessly bringing that up can be ignored), LibDems who aren't nasty enough for power as proven by the coalition (which has a lot to be said for it) and the Greens who still aren't fully thought out in all areas.
All of these parties have many elements that fit my view on things. I am content to vote tactically if necessary for both local and national elections, as that is what the system requires.
The irony is, of course, that the UK is a pretty kind, generous and socially liberal country, but that vote is split and the nasty party wins by default. Except for the time when an even more nasty party turned up (UKIP) and they screwed the country to maintain their hold on power.
I don't like PR because it loses the constituency link. Unfortunately single transferable vote requires too much thinking for most people so that opportunity was lost.
I can only hope that people learn, but if this forum is anything to go by, the amazing ability to try justify the actions of this government could we'll keep them in power...
Easy we have had our differences in the Virus forum but I agree with almost all of what you say here.
I support PR but understand the idea behind constituency politics, and have seen in practice how seriously some MPs take it. However, I think the power of the whip totally undermines MPs being able to properly represent their constituents on anything except the most local of issues. If the issue touches national policies, forget it."
Im the exact same. Love the idea of PR but also quite like how at a GE you vote in your MP.
However now I don’t think you vote in anything as they’re all puppets haha |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eroy1000Man
over a year ago
milton keynes |
"Sorry should add that with PR there is more chance of those extreme elements in both the Labour and Conservative parties moving out and doing their own thing creating a wider spectrum of choice and allowing Labour to be more Centre Left and Conservatives to be Centre Right.
You wanna vote for Communists, you have a choice.
You wanna vote for Fascists, you have a choice.
I would like PR and also a simple no loophole tax system. Not sure which party will guarantee that and have a chance of actually winning a GE in order to implement it.
No party is going to go against any of the main drivers for brexit. So closing tax loopholes is completely off the table.
As for PR, you're looking at the Greens, who are obviously not likely to get more than one seat, so you're looking at a vote to exert influence.
So the tax loopholes are here to stay then regardless of colour of government. Quite a sobering thought. I thought it would be a vote winner for Labour especially after the sunak story. Looks like a similar situation with PR too
No reason for tax loopholes to stay. It's one of the few benefits of Brexit, but most who voted to leave don't want to make use of the opportunity...what are all these tax loopholes that have been bought in since brexit? please enlighten me. "
None have been introduced since brexit as far as I have read. I was talking about the ones that have existed for years. An example would be the recent sunak story. The rule is hundreds of years old and not been changed by any government. Starmer and other opposition parties rightly complained about it. Yet when I ask which of these opposition parties will scrap such loopholes and also give us PR it seems none will. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
The best thing for this country now is to get in a small party thats never been in power so never had a chanse to become corupt.a party who will have to learn as they go on and will try to do the job right.
Such a thing would break party alegiance and shock the big partys into the realisation nothing is set in stone |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ostafunMan
over a year ago
near ipswich |
"Sorry should add that with PR there is more chance of those extreme elements in both the Labour and Conservative parties moving out and doing their own thing creating a wider spectrum of choice and allowing Labour to be more Centre Left and Conservatives to be Centre Right.
You wanna vote for Communists, you have a choice.
You wanna vote for Fascists, you have a choice.
I would like PR and also a simple no loophole tax system. Not sure which party will guarantee that and have a chance of actually winning a GE in order to implement it.
No party is going to go against any of the main drivers for brexit. So closing tax loopholes is completely off the table.
As for PR, you're looking at the Greens, who are obviously not likely to get more than one seat, so you're looking at a vote to exert influence.
So the tax loopholes are here to stay then regardless of colour of government. Quite a sobering thought. I thought it would be a vote winner for Labour especially after the sunak story. Looks like a similar situation with PR too
No reason for tax loopholes to stay. It's one of the few benefits of Brexit, but most who voted to leave don't want to make use of the opportunity...what are all these tax loopholes that have been bought in since brexit? please enlighten me.
None have been introduced since brexit as far as I have read. I was talking about the ones that have existed for years. An example would be the recent sunak story. The rule is hundreds of years old and not been changed by any government. Starmer and other opposition parties rightly complained about it. Yet when I ask which of these opposition parties will scrap such loopholes and also give us PR it seems none will. "
Exactly, but you still get the narrative from some that it was what brexit was all about without any examples of it being true.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Sorry should add that with PR there is more chance of those extreme elements in both the Labour and Conservative parties moving out and doing their own thing creating a wider spectrum of choice and allowing Labour to be more Centre Left and Conservatives to be Centre Right.
You wanna vote for Communists, you have a choice.
You wanna vote for Fascists, you have a choice.
I would like PR and also a simple no loophole tax system. Not sure which party will guarantee that and have a chance of actually winning a GE in order to implement it.
No party is going to go against any of the main drivers for brexit. So closing tax loopholes is completely off the table.
As for PR, you're looking at the Greens, who are obviously not likely to get more than one seat, so you're looking at a vote to exert influence.
So the tax loopholes are here to stay then regardless of colour of government. Quite a sobering thought. I thought it would be a vote winner for Labour especially after the sunak story. Looks like a similar situation with PR too
No reason for tax loopholes to stay. It's one of the few benefits of Brexit, but most who voted to leave don't want to make use of the opportunity...what are all these tax loopholes that have been bought in since brexit? please enlighten me.
None have been introduced since brexit as far as I have read. I was talking about the ones that have existed for years. An example would be the recent sunak story. The rule is hundreds of years old and not been changed by any government. Starmer and other opposition parties rightly complained about it. Yet when I ask which of these opposition parties will scrap such loopholes and also give us PR it seems none will. Exactly, but you still get the narrative from some that it was what brexit was all about without any examples of it being true. "
Apart from the reality of real life events.
But other than that yes. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ackal1Couple
over a year ago
Manchester |
"I should be a natural Tory from an economic perspective, but there's never been a point in my life when I could bring myself too.
The Conservative party have moved further and further from any sort of thought out plan about what their purpose is, to just saying what will get them elected. I have more time for a party that has a strategy for the country that I disagree with than being 100% in it for themselves and their mates. Whatever integrity existed in in the party was driven out after the last election. So even if I liked the policies the individuals in charge have proven again and again that they are unfit to run the country based on both temperament and competence.
So, left with Labour (Jeremy Corbyn is no longer the leader so endlessly bringing that up can be ignored), LibDems who aren't nasty enough for power as proven by the coalition (which has a lot to be said for it) and the Greens who still aren't fully thought out in all areas.
All of these parties have many elements that fit my view on things. I am content to vote tactically if necessary for both local and national elections, as that is what the system requires.
The irony is, of course, that the UK is a pretty kind, generous and socially liberal country, but that vote is split and the nasty party wins by default. Except for the time when an even more nasty party turned up (UKIP) and they screwed the country to maintain their hold on power.
I don't like PR because it loses the constituency link. Unfortunately single transferable vote requires too much thinking for most people so that opportunity was lost.
I can only hope that people learn, but if this forum is anything to go by, the amazing ability to try justify the actions of this government could we'll keep them in power...
Easy we have had our differences in the Virus forum but I agree with almost all of what you say here.
I support PR but understand the idea behind constituency politics, and have seen in practice how seriously some MPs take it. However, I think the power of the whip totally undermines MPs being able to properly represent their constituents on anything except the most local of issues. If the issue touches national policies, forget it.
Im the exact same. Love the idea of PR but also quite like how at a GE you vote in your MP.
However now I don’t think you vote in anything as they’re all puppets haha"
Another son why if you wish to become an MP you just have lived in the constituency for at least five years prior. No more choosing of yes men and women by central office. Over 60% of our MPs are beholden to the two offices in London. They do not care about your local issues. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ackal1Couple
over a year ago
Manchester |
"I should be a natural Tory from an economic perspective, but there's never been a point in my life when I could bring myself too.
The Conservative party have moved further and further from any sort of thought out plan about what their purpose is, to just saying what will get them elected. I have more time for a party that has a strategy for the country that I disagree with than being 100% in it for themselves and their mates. Whatever integrity existed in in the party was driven out after the last election. So even if I liked the policies the individuals in charge have proven again and again that they are unfit to run the country based on both temperament and competence.
So, left with Labour (Jeremy Corbyn is no longer the leader so endlessly bringing that up can be ignored), LibDems who aren't nasty enough for power as proven by the coalition (which has a lot to be said for it) and the Greens who still aren't fully thought out in all areas.
All of these parties have many elements that fit my view on things. I am content to vote tactically if necessary for both local and national elections, as that is what the system requires.
The irony is, of course, that the UK is a pretty kind, generous and socially liberal country, but that vote is split and the nasty party wins by default. Except for the time when an even more nasty party turned up (UKIP) and they screwed the country to maintain their hold on power.
I don't like PR because it loses the constituency link. Unfortunately single transferable vote requires too much thinking for most people so that opportunity was lost.
I can only hope that people learn, but if this forum is anything to go by, the amazing ability to try justify the actions of this government could we'll keep them in power...
Just in your comment around loss of local constituency link my view would be to abolish national party politics on a local council level. No two towns are the same or have the same issues. Similar yes but what is urgently needed in Thames compared to what Oldham needs cannot be addressed by a national party policy it’s impossible. Bringing it more local would give more power to the local people.
I totally support PR for the reasons given. The MP will be answerable to the electorate and reflect the voters make up and views.
FPTP is definitely not democratic. An 80 seat majority when more people didn’t vote for the tories exposes how broken our system is. Voters need to know their vote really does count.
I see your point on a local level, but difficult to implement because national parties are based on local networks. They should be the channel through which national party policy is formulated, but the reality is that activists are never that representative and are likely to skew policy.
The point of transferable vote is to rank your votes so that you can at least get something close to an acceptable candidate to you so that your vote is not wasted.
There will be some interesting statistics out of that too. With more extreme parties it will be visible what direction votes of eventual winners come from so it will be apparent who they will play to in office."
I think given that 60% of MPs are parachuted I don’t think the local offices have much say anymore. It’s London who chose your mp not the local conservative club. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"Sorry should add that with PR there is more chance of those extreme elements in both the Labour and Conservative parties moving out and doing their own thing creating a wider spectrum of choice and allowing Labour to be more Centre Left and Conservatives to be Centre Right.
You wanna vote for Communists, you have a choice.
You wanna vote for Fascists, you have a choice.
I would like PR and also a simple no loophole tax system. Not sure which party will guarantee that and have a chance of actually winning a GE in order to implement it.
No party is going to go against any of the main drivers for brexit. So closing tax loopholes is completely off the table.
As for PR, you're looking at the Greens, who are obviously not likely to get more than one seat, so you're looking at a vote to exert influence.
So the tax loopholes are here to stay then regardless of colour of government. Quite a sobering thought. I thought it would be a vote winner for Labour especially after the sunak story. Looks like a similar situation with PR too
No reason for tax loopholes to stay. It's one of the few benefits of Brexit, but most who voted to leave don't want to make use of the opportunity...what are all these tax loopholes that have been bought in since brexit? please enlighten me.
None have been introduced since brexit as far as I have read. I was talking about the ones that have existed for years. An example would be the recent sunak story. The rule is hundreds of years old and not been changed by any government. Starmer and other opposition parties rightly complained about it. Yet when I ask which of these opposition parties will scrap such loopholes and also give us PR it seems none will. Exactly, but you still get the narrative from some that it was what brexit was all about without any examples of it being true. "
Lol I think you got the wrong end of the stick there old chap. Brexit was in part about maintaining the tax loophole and tax haven status quo. Something that was not going to happen if the UK stayed in the EU. It wasn’t about introducing new laws/rules but maintaining what was there! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ostafunMan
over a year ago
near ipswich |
"Sorry should add that with PR there is more chance of those extreme elements in both the Labour and Conservative parties moving out and doing their own thing creating a wider spectrum of choice and allowing Labour to be more Centre Left and Conservatives to be Centre Right.
You wanna vote for Communists, you have a choice.
You wanna vote for Fascists, you have a choice.
I would like PR and also a simple no loophole tax system. Not sure which party will guarantee that and have a chance of actually winning a GE in order to implement it.
No party is going to go against any of the main drivers for brexit. So closing tax loopholes is completely off the table.
As for PR, you're looking at the Greens, who are obviously not likely to get more than one seat, so you're looking at a vote to exert influence.
So the tax loopholes are here to stay then regardless of colour of government. Quite a sobering thought. I thought it would be a vote winner for Labour especially after the sunak story. Looks like a similar situation with PR too
No reason for tax loopholes to stay. It's one of the few benefits of Brexit, but most who voted to leave don't want to make use of the opportunity...what are all these tax loopholes that have been bought in since brexit? please enlighten me.
None have been introduced since brexit as far as I have read. I was talking about the ones that have existed for years. An example would be the recent sunak story. The rule is hundreds of years old and not been changed by any government. Starmer and other opposition parties rightly complained about it. Yet when I ask which of these opposition parties will scrap such loopholes and also give us PR it seems none will. Exactly, but you still get the narrative from some that it was what brexit was all about without any examples of it being true.
Lol I think you got the wrong end of the stick there old chap. Brexit was in part about maintaining the tax loophole and tax haven status quo. Something that was not going to happen if the UK stayed in the EU. It wasn’t about introducing new laws/rules but maintaining what was there! "
Are you still believing that myth? try looking at full facts on the subject and can you point out which tax loopholes the eu have stopped since brexit that the uk has not please? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ackal1Couple
over a year ago
Manchester |
"Sorry should add that with PR there is more chance of those extreme elements in both the Labour and Conservative parties moving out and doing their own thing creating a wider spectrum of choice and allowing Labour to be more Centre Left and Conservatives to be Centre Right.
You wanna vote for Communists, you have a choice.
You wanna vote for Fascists, you have a choice.
I would like PR and also a simple no loophole tax system. Not sure which party will guarantee that and have a chance of actually winning a GE in order to implement it.
No party is going to go against any of the main drivers for brexit. So closing tax loopholes is completely off the table.
As for PR, you're looking at the Greens, who are obviously not likely to get more than one seat, so you're looking at a vote to exert influence.
So the tax loopholes are here to stay then regardless of colour of government. Quite a sobering thought. I thought it would be a vote winner for Labour especially after the sunak story. Looks like a similar situation with PR too
No reason for tax loopholes to stay. It's one of the few benefits of Brexit, but most who voted to leave don't want to make use of the opportunity...what are all these tax loopholes that have been bought in since brexit? please enlighten me.
None have been introduced since brexit as far as I have read. I was talking about the ones that have existed for years. An example would be the recent sunak story. The rule is hundreds of years old and not been changed by any government. Starmer and other opposition parties rightly complained about it. Yet when I ask which of these opposition parties will scrap such loopholes and also give us PR it seems none will. Exactly, but you still get the narrative from some that it was what brexit was all about without any examples of it being true. "
Think you will find the narrative was those who exploit the loopholes before Brexit wanted Brexit as the EU wanted to close theme it’s not about new rules it’s about keeping the status quo of one system for the rich and the rest know their place . |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ostafunMan
over a year ago
near ipswich |
"Sorry should add that with PR there is more chance of those extreme elements in both the Labour and Conservative parties moving out and doing their own thing creating a wider spectrum of choice and allowing Labour to be more Centre Left and Conservatives to be Centre Right.
You wanna vote for Communists, you have a choice.
You wanna vote for Fascists, you have a choice.
I would like PR and also a simple no loophole tax system. Not sure which party will guarantee that and have a chance of actually winning a GE in order to implement it.
No party is going to go against any of the main drivers for brexit. So closing tax loopholes is completely off the table.
As for PR, you're looking at the Greens, who are obviously not likely to get more than one seat, so you're looking at a vote to exert influence.
So the tax loopholes are here to stay then regardless of colour of government. Quite a sobering thought. I thought it would be a vote winner for Labour especially after the sunak story. Looks like a similar situation with PR too
No reason for tax loopholes to stay. It's one of the few benefits of Brexit, but most who voted to leave don't want to make use of the opportunity...what are all these tax loopholes that have been bought in since brexit? please enlighten me.
None have been introduced since brexit as far as I have read. I was talking about the ones that have existed for years. An example would be the recent sunak story. The rule is hundreds of years old and not been changed by any government. Starmer and other opposition parties rightly complained about it. Yet when I ask which of these opposition parties will scrap such loopholes and also give us PR it seems none will. Exactly, but you still get the narrative from some that it was what brexit was all about without any examples of it being true.
Think you will find the narrative was those who exploit the loopholes before Brexit wanted Brexit as the EU wanted to close theme it’s not about new rules it’s about keeping the status quo of one system for the rich and the rest know their place . "
Right got you so nothing has changed as regarding rules yet, any idea what rules are in the process of being changed? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ackal1Couple
over a year ago
Manchester |
"Sorry should add that with PR there is more chance of those extreme elements in both the Labour and Conservative parties moving out and doing their own thing creating a wider spectrum of choice and allowing Labour to be more Centre Left and Conservatives to be Centre Right.
You wanna vote for Communists, you have a choice.
You wanna vote for Fascists, you have a choice.
I would like PR and also a simple no loophole tax system. Not sure which party will guarantee that and have a chance of actually winning a GE in order to implement it.
No party is going to go against any of the main drivers for brexit. So closing tax loopholes is completely off the table.
As for PR, you're looking at the Greens, who are obviously not likely to get more than one seat, so you're looking at a vote to exert influence.
So the tax loopholes are here to stay then regardless of colour of government. Quite a sobering thought. I thought it would be a vote winner for Labour especially after the sunak story. Looks like a similar situation with PR too
No reason for tax loopholes to stay. It's one of the few benefits of Brexit, but most who voted to leave don't want to make use of the opportunity...what are all these tax loopholes that have been bought in since brexit? please enlighten me.
None have been introduced since brexit as far as I have read. I was talking about the ones that have existed for years. An example would be the recent sunak story. The rule is hundreds of years old and not been changed by any government. Starmer and other opposition parties rightly complained about it. Yet when I ask which of these opposition parties will scrap such loopholes and also give us PR it seems none will. Exactly, but you still get the narrative from some that it was what brexit was all about without any examples of it being true.
Lol I think you got the wrong end of the stick there old chap. Brexit was in part about maintaining the tax loophole and tax haven status quo. Something that was not going to happen if the UK stayed in the EU. It wasn’t about introducing new laws/rules but maintaining what was there! Are you still believing that myth? try looking at full facts on the subject and can you point out which tax loopholes the eu have stopped since brexit that the uk has not please?"
They haven’t stopped any and that’s the point . They were trying to and as the U.K. is by far the biggest channel through which tax avoidance slushes (hence all the Russians oh and sunaks wife are here ) they wanted to start with the U.K. being fully onboard with any agreement. So by default to have any real impact the U.K. had to join in fully.
The USA are also trying to clamp down as they lose the billions due them by the likes of Apple.
A recent agreement was made between the USA the EU and the U.K. to try and clamp down on avoidance by companies. The only objection which he refused to budge on came from Sunak.
The clause they had to include which made the whole thing a mockery was financial institutions are exempt from the clamp down . So the financial institutions who mostly sort the tax avoidance are exempt. That’s got some teeth then. … not |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ostafunMan
over a year ago
near ipswich |
"Sorry should add that with PR there is more chance of those extreme elements in both the Labour and Conservative parties moving out and doing their own thing creating a wider spectrum of choice and allowing Labour to be more Centre Left and Conservatives to be Centre Right.
You wanna vote for Communists, you have a choice.
You wanna vote for Fascists, you have a choice.
I would like PR and also a simple no loophole tax system. Not sure which party will guarantee that and have a chance of actually winning a GE in order to implement it.
No party is going to go against any of the main drivers for brexit. So closing tax loopholes is completely off the table.
As for PR, you're looking at the Greens, who are obviously not likely to get more than one seat, so you're looking at a vote to exert influence.
So the tax loopholes are here to stay then regardless of colour of government. Quite a sobering thought. I thought it would be a vote winner for Labour especially after the sunak story. Looks like a similar situation with PR too
No reason for tax loopholes to stay. It's one of the few benefits of Brexit, but most who voted to leave don't want to make use of the opportunity...what are all these tax loopholes that have been bought in since brexit? please enlighten me.
None have been introduced since brexit as far as I have read. I was talking about the ones that have existed for years. An example would be the recent sunak story. The rule is hundreds of years old and not been changed by any government. Starmer and other opposition parties rightly complained about it. Yet when I ask which of these opposition parties will scrap such loopholes and also give us PR it seems none will. Exactly, but you still get the narrative from some that it was what brexit was all about without any examples of it being true.
Lol I think you got the wrong end of the stick there old chap. Brexit was in part about maintaining the tax loophole and tax haven status quo. Something that was not going to happen if the UK stayed in the EU. It wasn’t about introducing new laws/rules but maintaining what was there! Are you still believing that myth? try looking at full facts on the subject and can you point out which tax loopholes the eu have stopped since brexit that the uk has not please?
They haven’t stopped any and that’s the point . They were trying to and as the U.K. is by far the biggest channel through which tax avoidance slushes (hence all the Russians oh and sunaks wife are here ) they wanted to start with the U.K. being fully onboard with any agreement. So by default to have any real impact the U.K. had to join in fully.
The USA are also trying to clamp down as they lose the billions due them by the likes of Apple.
A recent agreement was made between the USA the EU and the U.K. to try and clamp down on avoidance by companies. The only objection which he refused to budge on came from Sunak.
The clause they had to include which made the whole thing a mockery was financial institutions are exempt from the clamp down . So the financial institutions who mostly sort the tax avoidance are exempt. That’s got some teeth then. … not "
I thought not but it doesnt seem to stop the false claim that brexit was about tax avoidance for the rich and everyone else was conned.
come back to me when something has changed to prove the point otherwise i will just keep calling out the myth. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ackal1Couple
over a year ago
Manchester |
"Sorry should add that with PR there is more chance of those extreme elements in both the Labour and Conservative parties moving out and doing their own thing creating a wider spectrum of choice and allowing Labour to be more Centre Left and Conservatives to be Centre Right.
You wanna vote for Communists, you have a choice.
You wanna vote for Fascists, you have a choice.
I would like PR and also a simple no loophole tax system. Not sure which party will guarantee that and have a chance of actually winning a GE in order to implement it.
No party is going to go against any of the main drivers for brexit. So closing tax loopholes is completely off the table.
As for PR, you're looking at the Greens, who are obviously not likely to get more than one seat, so you're looking at a vote to exert influence.
So the tax loopholes are here to stay then regardless of colour of government. Quite a sobering thought. I thought it would be a vote winner for Labour especially after the sunak story. Looks like a similar situation with PR too
No reason for tax loopholes to stay. It's one of the few benefits of Brexit, but most who voted to leave don't want to make use of the opportunity...what are all these tax loopholes that have been bought in since brexit? please enlighten me.
None have been introduced since brexit as far as I have read. I was talking about the ones that have existed for years. An example would be the recent sunak story. The rule is hundreds of years old and not been changed by any government. Starmer and other opposition parties rightly complained about it. Yet when I ask which of these opposition parties will scrap such loopholes and also give us PR it seems none will. Exactly, but you still get the narrative from some that it was what brexit was all about without any examples of it being true.
Think you will find the narrative was those who exploit the loopholes before Brexit wanted Brexit as the EU wanted to close theme it’s not about new rules it’s about keeping the status quo of one system for the rich and the rest know their place . Right got you so nothing has changed as regarding rules yet, any idea what rules are in the process of being changed? "
The proposal was formulated in 2016 but the discussions took place for years before as you would expect. Without the U.K. involved the law would be weak as we help to avoid 65% of the worlds total in legal avoidance. Illegal is thought to be twice the size but as it’s hidden it’s just a guess based on the worlds economic activity.
https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/anti-tax-avoidance-directive_en |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ackal1Couple
over a year ago
Manchester |
Glad we cleared that up
The panic button was pressed a few years before the Brexit vote as the wealthy were made aware of the discussions and the attempt to stop avoidance . The right wing owned media went into a melt down of anti EU rhetoric. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ackal1Couple
over a year ago
Manchester |
"[Removed by poster at 18/04/22 13:57:13] yes me too https://fullfact.org/online/brexit-not-concealing-offshore-accounts/
"
So firstly you were claiming above the directive is false and a myth. You asked for proof of the EUs intention. So is that proof or not? Simple yes or no to that please.
Secondly the Christian guy is talking about offshore accounts for individuals which are not related to the above and thirdly the aim of the directive was to clamp down on the process as it is blatantly abused by corporations.
If it was all working so well why would there have been so much effort put into creating the new directive. Or is the directive not real as you claim?
The examples given by the EU which the U.K. enable are Amazon, Google and Starbucks which transfer monies to Ireland in a legal way to avoid tax in the U.K.
You are confusing legal with moral which was the intention of the directive to tighten the loopholes and to make profits created in the country of sale stay in the country of sale.
No one was saying anything is being done illegally. I worked with a client who moved over £100m of profits perfectly legally out of the U.K. to a lower tax regime. The rules are very lax and the directive was to stop the ease with which these actions are taken. The rules are open to interpretation which is why they are weak.
By stopping the movement they would also expose the transfer of wealth from the EU to private accounts which would then be addressing the offshore personal and so far still legal avoidance.
Do you think it’s good that Starbucks and Amazon avoid U.K. tax this way? I thought being so patriotic you would be annoyed but I guess you’re happy for them to avoid contributing their fare share. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ostafunMan
over a year ago
near ipswich |
"[Removed by poster at 18/04/22 13:57:13] yes me too https://fullfact.org/online/brexit-not-concealing-offshore-accounts/
So firstly you were claiming above the directive is false and a myth. You asked for proof of the EUs intention. So is that proof or not? Simple yes or no to that please.
Secondly the Christian guy is talking about offshore accounts for individuals which are not related to the above and thirdly the aim of the directive was to clamp down on the process as it is blatantly abused by corporations.
If it was all working so well why would there have been so much effort put into creating the new directive. Or is the directive not real as you claim?
The examples given by the EU which the U.K. enable are Amazon, Google and Starbucks which transfer monies to Ireland in a legal way to avoid tax in the U.K.
You are confusing legal with moral which was the intention of the directive to tighten the loopholes and to make profits created in the country of sale stay in the country of sale.
No one was saying anything is being done illegally. I worked with a client who moved over £100m of profits perfectly legally out of the U.K. to a lower tax regime. The rules are very lax and the directive was to stop the ease with which these actions are taken. The rules are open to interpretation which is why they are weak.
By stopping the movement they would also expose the transfer of wealth from the EU to private accounts which would then be addressing the offshore personal and so far still legal avoidance.
Do you think it’s good that Starbucks and Amazon avoid U.K. tax this way? I thought being so patriotic you would be annoyed but I guess you’re happy for them to avoid contributing their fare share. "
yeah if you actually go into it the uk is already signed up to them in 2018.
As i said nothing has changed at all. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ackal1Couple
over a year ago
Manchester |
"[Removed by poster at 18/04/22 13:57:13] yes me too https://fullfact.org/online/brexit-not-concealing-offshore-accounts/
So firstly you were claiming above the directive is false and a myth. You asked for proof of the EUs intention. So is that proof or not? Simple yes or no to that please.
Secondly the Christian guy is talking about offshore accounts for individuals which are not related to the above and thirdly the aim of the directive was to clamp down on the process as it is blatantly abused by corporations.
If it was all working so well why would there have been so much effort put into creating the new directive. Or is the directive not real as you claim?
The examples given by the EU which the U.K. enable are Amazon, Google and Starbucks which transfer monies to Ireland in a legal way to avoid tax in the U.K.
You are confusing legal with moral which was the intention of the directive to tighten the loopholes and to make profits created in the country of sale stay in the country of sale.
No one was saying anything is being done illegally. I worked with a client who moved over £100m of profits perfectly legally out of the U.K. to a lower tax regime. The rules are very lax and the directive was to stop the ease with which these actions are taken. The rules are open to interpretation which is why they are weak.
By stopping the movement they would also expose the transfer of wealth from the EU to private accounts which would then be addressing the offshore personal and so far still legal avoidance.
Do you think it’s good that Starbucks and Amazon avoid U.K. tax this way? I thought being so patriotic you would be annoyed but I guess you’re happy for them to avoid contributing their fare share. yeah if you actually go into it the uk is already signed up to them in 2018.
As i said nothing has changed at all. "
The directive was the first stage of discussion and none of the follow ups have been implemented or ratified.
Your point was this was a myth it blatantly wasn’t
Oh and the Brexit vote was in June 2016 . The proposals on avoidance were put forward in October 2016 . |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ostafunMan
over a year ago
near ipswich |
"[Removed by poster at 18/04/22 13:57:13] yes me too https://fullfact.org/online/brexit-not-concealing-offshore-accounts/
So firstly you were claiming above the directive is false and a myth. You asked for proof of the EUs intention. So is that proof or not? Simple yes or no to that please.
Secondly the Christian guy is talking about offshore accounts for individuals which are not related to the above and thirdly the aim of the directive was to clamp down on the process as it is blatantly abused by corporations.
If it was all working so well why would there have been so much effort put into creating the new directive. Or is the directive not real as you claim?
The examples given by the EU which the U.K. enable are Amazon, Google and Starbucks which transfer monies to Ireland in a legal way to avoid tax in the U.K.
You are confusing legal with moral which was the intention of the directive to tighten the loopholes and to make profits created in the country of sale stay in the country of sale.
No one was saying anything is being done illegally. I worked with a client who moved over £100m of profits perfectly legally out of the U.K. to a lower tax regime. The rules are very lax and the directive was to stop the ease with which these actions are taken. The rules are open to interpretation which is why they are weak.
By stopping the movement they would also expose the transfer of wealth from the EU to private accounts which would then be addressing the offshore personal and so far still legal avoidance.
Do you think it’s good that Starbucks and Amazon avoid U.K. tax this way? I thought being so patriotic you would be annoyed but I guess you’re happy for them to avoid contributing their fare share. yeah if you actually go into it the uk is already signed up to them in 2018.
As i said nothing has changed at all.
The directive was the first stage of discussion and none of the follow ups have been implemented or ratified.
Your point was this was a myth it blatantly wasn’t
Oh and the Brexit vote was in June 2016 . The proposals on avoidance were put forward in October 2016 . "
yeah and we continued to be in the eu until 2020 thanks to some so we were still signed up to all rules. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ackal1Couple
over a year ago
Manchester |
"[Removed by poster at 18/04/22 13:57:13] yes me too https://fullfact.org/online/brexit-not-concealing-offshore-accounts/
So firstly you were claiming above the directive is false and a myth. You asked for proof of the EUs intention. So is that proof or not? Simple yes or no to that please.
Secondly the Christian guy is talking about offshore accounts for individuals which are not related to the above and thirdly the aim of the directive was to clamp down on the process as it is blatantly abused by corporations.
If it was all working so well why would there have been so much effort put into creating the new directive. Or is the directive not real as you claim?
The examples given by the EU which the U.K. enable are Amazon, Google and Starbucks which transfer monies to Ireland in a legal way to avoid tax in the U.K.
You are confusing legal with moral which was the intention of the directive to tighten the loopholes and to make profits created in the country of sale stay in the country of sale.
No one was saying anything is being done illegally. I worked with a client who moved over £100m of profits perfectly legally out of the U.K. to a lower tax regime. The rules are very lax and the directive was to stop the ease with which these actions are taken. The rules are open to interpretation which is why they are weak.
By stopping the movement they would also expose the transfer of wealth from the EU to private accounts which would then be addressing the offshore personal and so far still legal avoidance.
Do you think it’s good that Starbucks and Amazon avoid U.K. tax this way? I thought being so patriotic you would be annoyed but I guess you’re happy for them to avoid contributing their fare share. yeah if you actually go into it the uk is already signed up to them in 2018.
As i said nothing has changed at all.
The directive was the first stage of discussion and none of the follow ups have been implemented or ratified.
Your point was this was a myth it blatantly wasn’t
Oh and the Brexit vote was in June 2016 . The proposals on avoidance were put forward in October 2016 . yeah and we continued to be in the eu until 2020 thanks to some so we were still signed up to all rules. "
I have to correct myself as some countries have ratified the rules and implemented in full. They luckily do not have large scale tax avoidance systems.
We have promised to look at it and have said we will keep the rules we already have. We have not implemented new rules in either of the exit tax requirements specifically in the ATAD only transposed them as part of the U.K. 2019 financial bill. “Exit” being a clue.
We haven’t agreed to adhere to or keep all the rules and can ignore them at will. That’s a benefit Brexit for you. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I don't understand this voting Conservative thing. That party doesn't even exist anymore."
First part, that's the main discussion point around here. We all have our theories.
Part two, pretty sure they exist and have an even tighter str4nglehold on the UK than ever before. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eroy1000Man
over a year ago
milton keynes |
"[Removed by poster at 18/04/22 13:57:13] yes me too https://fullfact.org/online/brexit-not-concealing-offshore-accounts/
So firstly you were claiming above the directive is false and a myth. You asked for proof of the EUs intention. So is that proof or not? Simple yes or no to that please.
Secondly the Christian guy is talking about offshore accounts for individuals which are not related to the above and thirdly the aim of the directive was to clamp down on the process as it is blatantly abused by corporations.
If it was all working so well why would there have been so much effort put into creating the new directive. Or is the directive not real as you claim?
The examples given by the EU which the U.K. enable are Amazon, Google and Starbucks which transfer monies to Ireland in a legal way to avoid tax in the U.K.
You are confusing legal with moral which was the intention of the directive to tighten the loopholes and to make profits created in the country of sale stay in the country of sale.
No one was saying anything is being done illegally. I worked with a client who moved over £100m of profits perfectly legally out of the U.K. to a lower tax regime. The rules are very lax and the directive was to stop the ease with which these actions are taken. The rules are open to interpretation which is why they are weak.
By stopping the movement they would also expose the transfer of wealth from the EU to private accounts which would then be addressing the offshore personal and so far still legal avoidance.
Do you think it’s good that Starbucks and Amazon avoid U.K. tax this way? I thought being so patriotic you would be annoyed but I guess you’re happy for them to avoid contributing their fare share. "
Wasn't there a new proposed tax for online sales that got headlines last year. Last I heard it was still in the discussion stage but seemed to be accepted by many countries and also having a minimum corporation tax rate. Hopefully it will help. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Sorry should add that with PR there is more chance of those extreme elements in both the Labour and Conservative parties moving out and doing their own thing creating a wider spectrum of choice and allowing Labour to be more Centre Left and Conservatives to be Centre Right.
You wanna vote for Communists, you have a choice.
You wanna vote for Fascists, you have a choice.
I would like PR and also a simple no loophole tax system. Not sure which party will guarantee that and have a chance of actually winning a GE in order to implement it. "
it’s the no “loophole” bit that got me… don’t you think there should be incentives to provide the essentials? Why would anyone bother otherwise? Out of the goodness in their hearts?  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"Sorry should add that with PR there is more chance of those extreme elements in both the Labour and Conservative parties moving out and doing their own thing creating a wider spectrum of choice and allowing Labour to be more Centre Left and Conservatives to be Centre Right.
You wanna vote for Communists, you have a choice.
You wanna vote for Fascists, you have a choice.
I would like PR and also a simple no loophole tax system. Not sure which party will guarantee that and have a chance of actually winning a GE in order to implement it. it’s the no “loophole” bit that got me… don’t you think there should be incentives to provide the essentials? Why would anyone bother otherwise? Out of the goodness in their hearts? "
You’re going to need to explain that post, not quite getting your meaning? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ornLordMan
over a year ago
Wiltshire and London |
"I don't understand this voting Conservative thing. That party doesn't even exist anymore.
First part, that's the main discussion point around here. We all have our theories.
Part two, pretty sure they exist and have an even tighter str4nglehold on the UK than ever before. "
They are no longer the Conservative party was my point. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
