UK Politics Thread

[Montmorency]

Gordon Brown Endorses Corbyn, and something about austerity

So, my impression is that Corbyn has been on a roll in the past half-year.

[Fragony]

Should Corbyn be happy with Brown endorsing him, is that a dagger I see. If labour is anything even remotily as traiterous internally as our Dutch counterpart anything can be a Judas' kiss. Brittish politics is always fun to watch, as an outsider you simply cannot understand what's going on. To the naked eye, Corbyn is a force of nature who simply has no use for the likes of Gordon Brown who has all 50 shades of grey and none of them are interresting

[Beskar]

Jeremy Corbyn got the Séan MacBride Peace Prize.
http://www.ipb.org/events/macbride-p...jeremy-corbyn/

[rory_20_uk]

Corbyn is to be fair to the man true to what he believes. He has had the good fortune that in his his entire life his principles have never really been tested - the closest was in the disastrous 1970s.

Gordon Brown was PM over 7 years ago - many if not most of Corbyn's supporters were in their early teenage years at that point and probably had little interest in politics. Such "minor" points as him selling UK's gold when almost at a historically low level whilst chancellor and his boasts to break the boom and bust cycle appear to be forgotten.

So he is another "fantastic" Labour ex-PM (who was mostly against the eeeevil Tony Blair) anointing the shadow leader.

Rather than focusing on the extremely difficult / complex global macroeconomics and redistribution from the wealthy western countries to the poorer ones which looks like a trend that is going to be extremely difficult to arrest, or the distorted global system of tax avoidance and how to solve it which would be extremely difficult to solve he avoids the "how" and just focuses on "aspirations". After all, the way to his solutions are extremely difficult if not impossible.

The good, well paid jobs appear to only be of importance to UK workers - it is almost as if his Socialism has a strong National flavour... National Socialism.

[Fragony]

If you want to be really funny you could call him a facist, keeping existing sctructures intact while catering lower-classes third way. It wouldn't be really fair but not that off, a Starwars themed I am your father moment would be priceless

No, t's not true it's not possible

In your heart you know it to be true

NOOOOO

Then again, it's a little bit true

[Beskar]

Not enough Corporate Cronyism with Corbyn's policies.

[Furunculus]

corbyn has one redeeming quality as a politician:
he is willing to espouse ideas he believes in regardless of whether he loses favour among his peer group for publicly diverging from the consensus.
i admire that enormously.

alright, he has another redeeming quality (as human being):
he seems to be a decent man.
but this is of limited value in politics.

in all other realms I disagree with corbyn intensely:
he is doctrinaire, in pursuing ideas long since demonstrated to be a failure.
in order to achieve his collectivist dream, he is willing to throw overboard all the individual liberty i hold dear.

[Pannonian]

corbyn has one redeeming quality as a politician:
he is willing to espouse ideas he believes in regardless of whether he loses favour among his peer group for publicly diverging from the consensus.
i admire that enormously.

alright, he has another redeeming quality (as human being):
he seems to be a decent man.
but this is of limited value in politics.

in all other realms I disagree with corbyn intensely:
he is doctrinaire, in pursuing ideas long since demonstrated to be a failure.
in order to achieve his collectivist dream, he is willing to throw overboard all the individual liberty i hold dear.

He's a Brexiter, as are you.

[rory_20_uk]

He's a Brexiter, as are you.

Ye Gods! There are more things in the world than Brexiteer / not-Brexiteer.

Perhaps this will be a catalyst to a more developed / nuanced view of politics than the stale digital approach. Can people cope with the concept of two or even more variables at once??!?

[Pannonian]

Ye Gods! There are more things in the world than Brexiteer / not-Brexiteer.

Perhaps this will be a catalyst to a more developed / nuanced view of politics than the stale digital approach. Can people cope with the concept of two or even more variables at once??!?

Given all the knock on effects from Brexit, other nuances are minor in significance.

[Furunculus]

He's a Brexiter, as are you.

How does this relate to my comment?

[rory_20_uk]

Given all the knock on effects from Brexit, other nuances are minor in significance.

One of the biggest economic risks being viewed as Corbyn becoming PM and the effects that might have? That would be down to his other policies, nothing to do with Brexit.

[Pannonian]

One of the biggest economic risks being viewed as Corbyn becoming PM and the effects that might have? That would be down to his other policies, nothing to do with Brexit.

There may be differing views on the role of the state in Britain's economy. However, when even right wing US free marketeer think tanks conclude that the UK economy will significantly contract as a result of Brexit, why will it matter who is in charge? We'll all be in the crap, excepting the super rich who will be able to exploit the basket case that is post-Brexit Britain (cf. John Redwood's financial advice). How that crap will be distributed makes little difference.

And for that reason, I judge a politician on whether or not they're urging me to drink the kool aid. And I'll despise any politicians who urge it while making alternative arrangements for themselves.

[rory_20_uk]

There may be differing views on the role of the state in Britain's economy. However, when even right wing US free marketeer think tanks conclude that the UK economy will significantly contract as a result of Brexit, why will it matter who is in charge? We'll all be in the crap, excepting the super rich who will be able to exploit the basket case that is post-Brexit Britain (cf. John Redwood's financial advice). How that crap will be distributed makes little difference.

And for that reason, I judge a politician on whether or not they're urging me to drink the kool aid. And I'll despise any politicians who urge it while making alternative arrangements for themselves.

Ah yes, the WTO rules... Which we trade with Japan, USA, China, India, Brazil... the list is rather long. And somehow we manage to trade. Hardly optimal, but not going to end the country.

The super rich already can exploit the overseas money rules. They are pathetically easy to exploit - and cost merely a few thousand pounds to have a nice offshore Foundation with a "professional" local on the Board which means finding out the owner is almost impossible (since no books nor list of creditors is required). I found this out in about 10 minutes. Neither the Tories nor New Labour fixed this. Nor for that matter did Old Labour.

The economy will almost certainly contract, at the very least in the short term. Which puts pressure on investor / consumer confidence in the UK. Because since we run a large deficit even with the Eeeeevil Tories in power we need more to have the ability to sell money on the international markets.

If the Markets are not prepared to lend - due to the fiscal policies - then interest rates go way up and financing the debt becomes a problem. And if we are very unlucky with Corbyn nationalizing the Utilities and God knows what else debt will be truly vast. Or will he just wipe out the shareholders (which are often Pension funds since the utilities are "safe")? Then all the Banks will quickly offshore as the last vestiges of reasons to remain in the UK disappear. Possibly never to return - both no longer the gateway to Europe and the scare of electing utter nut jobs to be PM why take the risk?

Corbyn is a believer. He is an idealist. He would destroy the UK without remorse since he believes he would make something better from its ashes. Merely that he is prepared to go down with the ship doesn't make me like him any more for steering it towards the iceberg.

[Pannonian]

Ah yes, the WTO rules... Which we trade with Japan, USA, China, India, Brazil... the list is rather long. And somehow we manage to trade. Hardly optimal, but not going to end the country.

The super rich already can exploit the overseas money rules. They are pathetically easy to exploit - and cost merely a few thousand pounds to have a nice offshore Foundation with a "professional" local on the Board which means finding out the owner is almost impossible (since no books nor list of creditors is required). I found this out in about 10 minutes. Neither the Tories nor New Labour fixed this. Nor for that matter did Old Labour.

The economy will almost certainly contract, at the very least in the short term. Which puts pressure on investor / consumer confidence in the UK. Because since we run a large deficit even with the Eeeeevil Tories in power we need more to have the ability to sell money on the international markets.

If the Markets are not prepared to lend - due to the fiscal policies - then interest rates go way up and financing the debt becomes a problem. And if we are very unlucky with Corbyn nationalizing the Utilities and God knows what else debt will be truly vast. Or will he just wipe out the shareholders (which are often Pension funds since the utilities are "safe")? Then all the Banks will quickly offshore as the last vestiges of reasons to remain in the UK disappear. Possibly never to return - both no longer the gateway to Europe and the scare of electing utter nut jobs to be PM why take the risk?

Corbyn is a believer. He is an idealist. He would destroy the UK without remorse since he believes he would make something better from its ashes. Merely that he is prepared to go down with the ship doesn't make me like him any more for steering it towards the iceberg.

Everything you've said about Corbyn can be equally applied to the neolib Brexiters. And as Farage and Redwood demonstrate, they're not even willing to stay with the ship after having steered it towards the iceberg.

[rory_20_uk]

Everything you've said about Corbyn can be equally applied to the neolib Brexiters. And as Farage and Redwood demonstrate, they're not even willing to stay with the ship after having steered it towards the iceberg.

Whether leaving the EU is an iceberg is very debatable - I would argue having drifted so far into the EU is the problem and then pain we are experiencing is very much how the closer one is to a black hole the greater the cost to get away from it - it would have been a lot easier one or two decades ago than it is now; if we had bowed to demands to ditch the pound the difficulty would be all the greater. Sorry about mixing metaphors, but icebergs only really have the detrimental effect once they are hit; black holes have their effect at a longer distance.

I have my political views, I'm not emotionally tied to one party or group of people and I'll try to defend their self-serving antics. Corbyn also has his pension from being an MP, and that is a lovely final salary and index-linked so even in the wildest hells he unleashes he'll be fine. It is just most others who will be destitute.

It probably is people such as you and I who both have their job and all their assets linked to the UK rather than our Dear Leaders of any stripe. I can try and get part of my pension invested abroad, but that's about it.

[Pannonian]

Whether leaving the EU is an iceberg is very debatable - I would argue having drifted so far into the EU is the problem and then pain we are experiencing is very much how the closer one is to a black hole the greater the cost to get away from it - it would have been a lot easier one or two decades ago than it is now; if we had bowed to demands to ditch the pound the difficulty would be all the greater. Sorry about mixing metaphors, but icebergs only really have the detrimental effect once they are hit; black holes have their effect at a longer distance.

I have my political views, I'm not emotionally tied to one party or group of people and I'll try to defend their self-serving antics. Corbyn also has his pension from being an MP, and that is a lovely final salary and index-linked so even in the wildest hells he unleashes he'll be fine. It is just most others who will be destitute.

It probably is people such as you and I who both have their job and all their assets linked to the UK rather than our Dear Leaders of any stripe. I can try and get part of my pension invested abroad, but that's about it.

If you're trying to get me to admit that Corbyn is no better, then you won't get any resistance from me. I despise the man and the politician.

[Fragony]

Hard to dispise the man, he seems like a nice guy. I wouldn't like the politician either though, insanity is trying to same thing and expecting different results. But at least he really believes he isn't insane, but then again he would plunge you into a communist nightmare and won't listen to anyone once things start going wrong, good people can become the worst

[Beskar]

Corbyn is apparently a moderate by Norwegian standards.

[Fragony]

Corbyn is apparently a moderate by Norwegian standards.

Norway is kinda a country of extremes, even the weather is

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Corbyn is apparently a moderate by Norwegian standards.

Damning with faint praise much?

[Viking]

Corbyn is apparently a moderate by Norwegian standards.

I wonder what the 'Norwegian standards' are.

[Beskar]

I wonder what the 'Norwegian standards' are.

You will be able to better inform people than me. It was a Norwegian person who commented about it. They thought it was amusing that Corbyn was pictured as some ardent militaristic communist whilst being "Moderate by our standards".I was reproducing it as a conversation point.

[rory_20_uk]

They key difference is that Norway has a truly vast Sovereign wealth fund that could weather almost any storm. The UK borrows money monthly. When you need to borrow money off people, what they think is rather important.

[Montmorency]

Corbyn is to be fair to the man true to what he believes. He has had the good fortune that in his his entire life his principles have never really been tested - the closest was in the disastrous 1970s.

Gordon Brown was PM over 7 years ago - many if not most of Corbyn's supporters were in their early teenage years at that point and probably had little interest in politics. Such "minor" points as him selling UK's gold when almost at a historically low level whilst chancellor and his boasts to break the boom and bust cycle appear to be forgotten.

So he is another "fantastic" Labour ex-PM (who was mostly against the eeeevil Tony Blair) anointing the shadow leader.

Rather than focusing on the extremely difficult / complex global macroeconomics and redistribution from the wealthy western countries to the poorer ones which looks like a trend that is going to be extremely difficult to arrest, or the distorted global system of tax avoidance and how to solve it which would be extremely difficult to solve he avoids the "how" and just focuses on "aspirations". After all, the way to his solutions are extremely difficult if not impossible.

From what I read the Labour Manifesto details an agenda and its policy implementation, and claims to be budget-balanced.

Here's what it says about tax avoidance:

We will take on the social scourge of tax avoidance through our Tax Transparency and Enforcement Programme, and close down tax loopholes.

The good, well paid jobs appear to only be of importance to UK workers - it is almost as if his Socialism has a strong National flavour... National Socialism.

Is this a reference to something specific, or is it a complaint that Labour doesn't have a comprehensive plan for the world order?

Corbyn is a believer. He is an idealist. He would destroy the UK without remorse since he believes he would make something better from its ashes. Merely that he is prepared to go down with the ship doesn't make me like him any more for steering it towards the iceberg.

How do you come by this assessment of his policy proposals?

Also, I wonder if a measure of idealism isn't pragmatic. Why vote for a party that doesn't seem to want to accomplish anything?

They key difference is that Norway has a truly vast Sovereign wealth fund that could weather almost any storm. The UK borrows money monthly. When you need to borrow money off people, what they think is rather important.

So the UK is already sinking and cannot survive in the long-term? And what are your choices:

1. Accelerate the trend and accept peonage.
2. Alter the logic of the framework.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

They key difference is that Norway has a truly vast Sovereign wealth fund that could weather almost any storm. The UK borrows money monthly. When you need to borrow money off people, what they think is rather important.

Unless you borrow ENOUGH, in which case they're the ones who have to look after your well-being.

[rory_20_uk]

From what I read the Labour Manifesto details an agenda and its policy implementation, and claims to be budget-balanced.

Here's what it says about tax avoidance:

Is this a reference to something specific, or is it a complaint that Labour doesn't have a comprehensive plan for the world order?

How do you come by this assessment of his policy proposals?

Also, I wonder if a measure of idealism isn't pragmatic. Why vote for a party that doesn't seem to want to accomplish anything?

So the UK is already sinking and cannot survive in the long-term? And what are your choices:

1. Accelerate the trend and accept peonage.
2. Alter the logic of the framework.

Oh it claims to be a balanced budget. Doesn't Labour always? By growing our way out of debt. Which requires debt now and then guaranteeing growth later on. And of course getting all the rich individuals to pay is part of it.

Tax avoidance requires something more than the UK doing something since profit is moved abroad by accounting magic so there is nothing to tax in the UK since all the product was bought at cost. I'm no accountant, but Lewis Hamilton demonstrates that big ticket items would be bought abroad, owned by companies and loaned to the end-user if the attempt at purchase tax was instigated. Try to get them as they are the company owner? Either have it owned by a Foundation or else have the Directors as cutouts.

Very rich individuals can pretty do the same thing. Linky. Before the final vote is collected and Corbyn wins, all the money will be flitting to places where it is nigh on impossible to get it with shell companies in the middle declaring bankruptcy leaving no paper trail.

Getting all countries to harmonise their tax codes is the way forward. But making promises might also also work...

I'm all for changing the logic of the framework. Better that than Labour drive us to Peonage.

Unless you borrow ENOUGH, in which case they're the ones who have to look after your well-being.

That tends not to work for Countries - the Credit Rating collapses, and things get very bad.

[Pannonian]

Oh it claims to be a balanced budget. Doesn't Labour always? By growing our way out of debt. Which requires debt now and then guaranteeing growth later on. And of course getting all the rich individuals to pay is part of it.

Tax avoidance requires something more than the UK doing something since profit is moved abroad by accounting magic so there is nothing to tax in the UK since all the product was bought at cost. I'm no accountant, but Lewis Hamilton demonstrates that big ticket items would be bought abroad, owned by companies and loaned to the end-user if the attempt at purchase tax was instigated. Try to get them as they are the company owner? Either have it owned by a Foundation or else have the Directors as cutouts.

Very rich individuals can pretty do the same thing. Linky. Before the final vote is collected and Corbyn wins, all the money will be flitting to places where it is nigh on impossible to get it with shell companies in the middle declaring bankruptcy leaving no paper trail.

Getting all countries to harmonise their tax codes is the way forward. But making promises might also also work...

I'm all for changing the logic of the framework. Better that than Labour drive us to Peonage.



That tends not to work for Countries - the Credit Rating collapses, and things get very bad.

The Anti Tax Avoidance Directive

The Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive contains five legally-binding anti-abuse measures, which all Member States should apply against common forms of aggressive tax planning.

Member States should apply these measures as from 1 January 2019.

It creates a minimum level of protection against corporate tax avoidance throughout the EU, while ensuring a fairer and more stable environment for businesses.

[rory_20_uk]

Lovely in theory. The first image is so simplistic it is amusing: yes, when a company has an entity called Profit Syphon Inc elsewhere it is nice and simple. But sadly... that never happens!

How does the EU know what something is worth? Or what value is added at what point in the chain? Is making a car in Mexico allowed or not? Starbucks gets its coffee beans processed abroad and then sells the finished product to individual companies - so most money is in the preparation. Is this allowed? If not why not?

What is Intellectual Property worth? Or patients? They will remain owned by some company in the Seychelles and charge 10% of all revenue worldwide.

And lastly - if the entity in the EU has no money, how exactly can you tax it? All the sites in the EU are separately owned distributors.

Oh, and let's not forget countries such as Ireland are on the side of the Companies and are actively fighting these changes.

[Pannonian]

Lovely in theory. The first image is so simplistic it is amusing: yes, when a company has an entity called Profit Syphon Inc elsewhere it is nice and simple. But sadly... that never happens!

How does the EU know what something is worth? Or what value is added at what point in the chain? Is making a car in Mexico allowed or not? Starbucks gets its coffee beans processed abroad and then sells the finished product to individual companies - so most money is in the preparation. Is this allowed? If not why not?

What is Intellectual Property worth? Or patients? They will remain owned by some company in the Seychelles and charge 10% of all revenue worldwide.

And lastly - if the entity in the EU has no money, how exactly can you tax it? All the sites in the EU are separately owned distributors.

Oh, and let's not forget countries such as Ireland are on the side of the Companies and are actively fighting these changes.

If the UK were within this effort and contributing our expertise, then the EU's efforts may be more effective. Policy-wise, the UK is the money-laundering centre of the world. This isn't due to lack of expertise, but due to intentional policy. And if we were to agree to work towards this ideal that you said you'd like, then because of our experience in aiding money-laundering, we'd also have the most expertise in reducing it. So once again, you describe an ideal and blame the EU for not being able to live up to it, when it's the UK which has the greatest part in thwarting this ideal of yours.