What no jeremy cobyn thread?

Llamaman said:
That sounds terrible. It would lead to governments to need to move tax rates widely, resulting in a hugely uneven playing field between different companies, dependant on when they invested.
It would also allow larger companies to negotiate better rates, skewing the market by rigging the market against start-ups. Tax avoidance would be rife as companies who invested at a 'bad' time would acquire other companies purely to get access to their tax rate.
And it would run a coach and horses through transparency as tax rates would be set in private meetings, like in dodgy Luxembourg.
Click to expand...
I prefer the flexibility as it will allow to focus and stimulate on what is required. Times have changed, the concept of a country and immobility is phasing out. Can't come quick enough for me.
 
dejongj said:
The same benefit as with many other trade deals. Or on a local level with procurement frameworks.

I'm not convinced there is, however my points were against the dispute clause which many seems to get so worked up about. To me not agreeing to ensure that those who want to invest can get their investment is what I don't think is good.
Click to expand...

What terms and conditions do you think should be set at the time of signing that are not fixed now?
 
Rapscallion said:
What terms and conditions do you think should be set at the time of signing that are not fixed now?
Click to expand...
Hold on. I was asking why the trade agreement isn't good and especially regarding this clause. I was merely responding to the responses. I never even brought the point up. However if someone seriously changes the terms that affects a multi year investment than an appropriate dispute process needs to be in place. Much better to do that up front that do it afterwards. Successive governments have not a good track record in getting out of large deals.
 
dejongj said:
I prefer the flexibility as it will allow to focus and stimulate on what is required.
Click to expand...
There's no flexibility in tying future generations' hands by setting tax laws and rates in perpetuity.
 
Your view or Corbin seems to depend on age, if your old enough to remember 1978-79 it's hell no not again, if you young enough not to remember then he's a breath of fresh air.
 
dejongj said:
Hold on. I was asking why the trade agreement isn't good and especially regarding this clause. I was merely responding to the responses. I never even brought the point up. However if someone seriously changes the terms that affects a multi year investment than an appropriate dispute process needs to be in place. Much better to do that up front that do it afterwards. Successive governments have not a good track record in getting out of large deals.
Click to expand...

I was referring to a point you raised in a previous post: -

dejongj said:
And this is where I think it is time for a chance. The world has changed, much more international for people and legal entities. Much better if we move to a more flexible system where the terms and conditions are upheld at the point in time they were agreed. Doesn't mean they can't change over time, but the existing ones should be upheld.

Take child benefit. I would stop it in ten months time. Fulfil the commitment to the existing people and once the last child is of age it stops for everyone. Absolutely fair. And those who don't have children yet know exactly that they aren't going to get it either. So simple. Why not just have more unique stimulants and stop interfering with everything.
Click to expand...
 
acetone said:
Your view or Corbin seems to depend on age, if your old enough to remember 1978-79 it's hell no not again, if you young enough not to remember then he's a breath of fresh air.
Click to expand...

A cynic may say that if you are old enough to still be reading the mostly right wing press and swallowing its attempts at smears, you are more likely to vote against Jeremy Corbyn.
 
Rapscallion said:
A cynic may say that if you are old enough to still be reading the mostly right wing press and swallowing its attempts at smears, you are more likely to vote against Jeremy Corbyn.
Click to expand...

The people who are doing the most "smearing" are not the right wing press, but the senior members of the Labour Party.
 
Llamaman said:
There's no flexibility in tying future generations' hands by setting tax laws and rates in perpetuity.
Click to expand...
Doesn't have to be perpetuity, could be at least until the investment matures. That all depends on an agreement.
 
dejongj said:
Doesn't have to be perpetuity, could be at least until the investment matures. That all depends on an agreement.
Click to expand...
When does a UK branch or subsidiary of a foreign company mature?
 
acetone said:
Your view or Corbin seems to depend on age, if your old enough to remember 1978-79 it's hell no not again, if you young enough not to remember then he's a breath of fresh air.
Click to expand...
It all depends on what you saw during the 80's and how you came out of it.

If you're sat in a comfortable job, with a decent salary and you never witnessed the devastation of the 80's, you've probably swallowed monetarist policies hook line and sinker, you will also believe that it was Labours spending on the welfare state, and not the International Banking Crisis that crashed our economy. And you'll think Corbyn's calls for a fairer society just mean that he wants more of your money to spend on the workshy.

Whereas if you saw the 80's as a decade that completely wrecked our society and set us up for the inevitable crash in in banking. If you can see that most people 'in work' are struggling to get by, and that they no longer have any control of their own destiny (we're leaving it to the markets - it'll be fine), if you can see that Socialism only exists for City fat cats and bankers because we can't afford for them to fail - no matter how much of an arse they make of the job.

Then you might see the that what he's talking about is a radical new look at economic policy rather than going for the easy option and maintaining the status quo, the fact that 40 senior economists seem to think he has a point ought to make people take him seriously.

But then the fact that we re-elected a government who had no plan to reduce the deficit, but made a promise (that they'd already made and broken) doesn't bode well for convincing the electorate.
 
Phil V said:
It all depends on what you saw during the 80's and how you came out of it.

If you're sat in a comfortable job, with a decent salary and you never witnessed the devastation of the 80's, you've probably swallowed monetarist policies hook line and sinker, you will also believe that it was Labours spending on the welfare state, and not the International Banking Crisis that crashed our economy. And you'll think Corbyn's calls for a fairer society just mean that he wants more of your money to spend on the workshy.

Whereas if you saw the 80's as a decade that completely wrecked our society and set us up for the inevitable crash in in banking. If you can see that most people 'in work' are struggling to get by, and that they no longer have any control of their own destiny (we're leaving it to the markets - it'll be fine), if you can see that Socialism only exists for City fat cats and bankers because we can't afford for them to fail - no matter how much of an arse they make of the job.

Then you might see the that what he's talking about is a radical new look at economic policy rather than going for the easy option and maintaining the status quo, the fact that 40 senior economists seem to think he has a point ought to make people take him seriously.

But then the fact that we re-elected a government who had no plan to reduce the deficit, but made a promise (that they'd already made and broken) doesn't bode well for convincing the electorate.
Click to expand...

⬆️
This
 
Rapscallion said:
Still don't see an answer to which terms and conditions you would want fixed? Could you be a bit more specific?
Click to expand...
I can't as that depends on the deal. Which deal are you talking about?
 
Newspaper sales are down half a million this year, almost 7%. If the trend continued there might be hope for us lefty commie bastards yet!
 
rjbell said:
Newspaper sales are down half a million this year, almost 7%. If the trend continued there might be hope for us lefty commie bastards yet!
Click to expand...
There's nothing wrong with being a commie if commies can come up with policies that work and which people will vote for. Sadly commie policies don't work and even if people vote commie when the country starts to flush down the toilet people will start getting uppity.

I dread to think what will happen if that fool Corbyn gets elected. Will people really vote for a student union activist type who's never grown up? Imagine Rick from The Yong Ones running the country and I think that'd be more attractive than Corbyn. Actually if he was PM he'd probably be lynched in under a year once people's lifestyles drop through the floor and a VW Golf has to be paid for with turnips because the £ is worth less than dead leaves in autumn.
 
dejongj said:
I can't as that depends on the deal. Which deal are you talking about?
Click to expand...

Since the TTIP hasn't been agreed no deal falls under that treaty yet. Humour me, what sort of terms and conditions were you referring to.
 
woof woof said:
There's nothing wrong with being a commie if commies can come up with policies that work and which people will vote for. Sadly commie policies don't work and even if people vote commie when the country starts to flush down the toilet people will start getting uppity.

I dread to think what will happen if that fool Corbyn gets elected. Will people really vote for a student union activist type who's never grown up? Imagine Rick from The Yong Ones running the country and I think that'd be more attractive than Corbyn. Actually if he was PM he'd probably be lynched in under a year once people's lifestyles drop through the floor and a VW Golf has to be paid for with turnips because the £ is worth less than dead leaves in autumn.
Click to expand...

Instead we have Alan B'Stard!
 
Rapscallion said:
Since the TTIP hasn't been agreed no deal falls under that treaty yet. Humour me, what sort of terms and conditions were you referring to.
Click to expand...
????? But isn't that exactly the point, why be against a dispute resolution clause?
 
dejongj said:
Whenever it was agreed in the deal.
Click to expand...
So, your suggestion is that anyone wanting to invest in the UK has to go into a meeting room with HMRC and thrash out a deal in advance? You think Johnny Start-Up will get the same deal as MegaBucks Corp?
It's the most ridiculously anti-competitive and regressive tax suggestion I've heard in ages. What you've described is Luxembourg on a bad day.

If you want to offer incentives to investment, you can create fixed-term tax breaks that are written into law and available to all. No need for dodgy back-room deals, everything is transparent and the opportunities are available to every/anyone who meets the defined criteria. This is what many countries (including the UK at times) do, and it works.
 
dejongj said:
????? But isn't that exactly the point, why be against a dispute resolution clause?
Click to expand...

You are making no sense whatsoever. You suggested that a new system where terms and conditions were fixed at the point where they were agreed. I was hoping that you would be able to clarify what these were, but it appears you don't want to.....
 
Llamaman said:
So, your suggestion is that anyone wanting to invest in the UK has to go into a meeting room with HMRC and thrash out a deal in advance? You think Johnny Start-Up will get the same deal as MegaBucks Corp?
It's the most ridiculously anti-competitive and regressive tax suggestion I've heard in ages. What you've described is Luxembourg on a bad day.

If you want to offer incentives to investment, you can create fixed-term tax breaks that are written into law and available to all. No need for dodgy back-room deals, everything is transparent and the opportunities are available to every/anyone who meets the defined criteria. This is what many countries (including the UK at times) do, and it works.
Click to expand...
Why does it immediately have the extreme of dodgy back room deals? Why such negative assumptions.

Btw there have been many a deal agreed in the past and many more in the future. Do you really thinks a multi national corporation just decides to invest in the UK and create thousands of jobs without some deal being agreed?

All my point ever was; why so against the dispute resolution clause?
 
Rapscallion said:
You are making no sense whatsoever. You suggested that a new system where terms and conditions were fixed at the point where they were agreed. I was hoping that you would be able to clarify what these were, but it appears you don't want to.....
Click to expand...
??!? I have no clue what you are on about. From the moment go you've taken my comment out of context. I didn't do that, you did. How am I supposed to know if define the terms and conditions for a deal that has not been agreed yet? Surely that is between the parties who will come to such agreement. Not a difficult concept to understand I would have thought. Not sure what you want me to say.
 
dejongj said:
??!? I have no clue what you are on about. From the moment go you've taken my comment out of context. I didn't do that, you did. How am I supposed to know if define the terms and conditions for a deal that has not been agreed yet? Surely that is between the parties who will come to such agreement. Not a difficult concept to understand I would have thought. Not sure what you want me to say.
Click to expand...

You were the one proposing the change, silly me for assuming you knew what you wanted to change..

EDIT
Your suggestion was in post 314: -
"Much better if we move to a more flexible system where the terms and conditions are upheld at the point in time they were agreed."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Rapscallion said:
You were the one proposing the change, silly me for assuming you knew what you wanted to change..

EDIT
Your suggestion was in post 314: -
"Much better if we move to a more flexible system where the terms and conditions are upheld at the point in time they were agreed."
Click to expand...
Yes exactly, what does it matter what the terms and agreements are that the parties involved agree. Why do you expect me to know those now? And if in the future one party wants to change those then there is the dispute resolution element. What is so hard to understand about that? And why is it so bad to have such arrangements made upfront?
 
dejongj said:
Why does it immediately have the extreme of dodgy back room deals? Why such negative assumptions.
Click to expand...
Because that's what you're suggesting, unless you are also proposing 40 TV channels of wall-to-wall live coverage of boring tax negotiations.

dejongj said:
Btw there have been many a deal agreed in the past and many more in the future.
Click to expand...
Advance agreements and advance pricing arrangements (which I assume you are referring to) are very limited in scope. They are a very great deal apart from your apparent proposal of 20,000+ pages of tax code being up for grabs.

dejongj said:
Do you really thinks a multi national corporation just decides to invest in the UK and create thousands of jobs without some deal being agreed?
Click to expand...
Yes, because that's normally (APAs aside) exactly how it works. Unless you can produce any evidence of a company agreeing an exclusive tax rate deal in advance? Did HSBC get a special tax rate when buying Midland Bank? Nope. How about Deutsche Bank buying Morgan Grenfell? Nope. Did Mondelez (nee Kraft) get a beneficial tax agreement when buying Cadbury? No, they buggered the HQ off to Switzerland, which one assumes would not have been on the HMRC negotiating table, if such a thing had existed.

dejongj said:
All my point ever was; why so against the dispute resolution clause?
Click to expand...
Because the tax code should be primarily a matter of statute, not civil contract. Anything other undermines the basic principle that the law should be blind - this cannot be the case if each man can barter for his own law, as you propose. In fact, it would appear prima facie to be contrary to Article 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights;
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law.
Click to expand...

But we have now segued from politics to jurisprudence. Has Jeremy Corbyn actually expressed any opinion on TTIP?
 
Last edited:
He did express an opinion on TTIP at the Durham Miners Gala on the 11th July...

He specifically emphasised the threat of the US-EU trade deal TTIP… He called for TTIP’s rejection not only in terms of its well publicised threat to the NHS and public services but also because of the international threat that it poses to worker and environmental protection legislation across Europe, the UK and the US.

Plus here's an article he wrote in February about TTIP

I don't agree with his views on everything, but have to say I agree with him 100% on the dangers of this.
No business, small, medium, national or multinational should be allowed to effectively supersede the policies of a democratically elected government just because it's effecting the profit to their shareholders. You want a free market economy? Live with it!

Any business has risks. Assess these in a logical way, get it right and you make a profit, get it wrong and you don't. But don't come back to the nation and ask for compensation because you screwed up and it all goes wrong.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
There's nothing wrong with being a commie if commies can come up with policies that work and which people will vote for. Sadly commie policies don't work and even if people vote commie when the country starts to flush down the toilet people will start getting uppity.

I dread to think what will happen if that fool Corbyn gets elected. Will people really vote for a student union activist type who's never grown up? Imagine Rick from The Yong Ones running the country and I think that'd be more attractive than Corbyn. Actually if he was PM he'd probably be lynched in under a year once people's lifestyles drop through the floor and a VW Golf has to be paid for with turnips because the £ is worth less than dead leaves in autumn.
Click to expand...
He would give people an alternative, something they lack at the moment. If they don't want him then thats fine but at least give the voters the choice. Give them some alternative to the neo-liberal b****x that has brought this country to its knees.
 
You can't say b****x in a OOF thread really?
 
jakeblu said:
He would give people an alternative, something they lack at the moment. If they don't want him then thats fine but at least give the voters the choice. Give them some alternative to the neo-liberal b****x that has brought this country to its knees.
Click to expand...

Depends. Many people who like him and see this as a fresh alternative would prefer not to see a Tory government. Given the way people are now, I would say that labours best chance of power is a David milliband, slightly right of the party. Part of the reason tories was in power for so long last time was partly down to the fact labour were too far to the left. Kinnock snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.

Partly like the last election. When push came to shove people could bring themselves to vote for ed and while I agree it is nice to see someone different will it make labour electable?
 
boyfalldown said:
err its a nice theory. Not true though. The opinion polls for the 92 election suggested either a narrow majority for the Major government or a hung parliament.
Click to expand...

Indeed you could say Milliband snatched defeat from the jaws of victory if we are to believe the polls, I think this election had a lot in common with '92. A Tory government that nobody quite trusted, and no credible opposition. In the end a lot of people decided 'better the devil you know', but a lot of those people weren't wearing that openly, even days before the election.
 
I remember after the 92 election word started to come out from the labour party that their personal polls were showing that their support was slipping and defeat was expected. This time though i think everyone was taken by surprise, Milliband really did believe, as did the Tories, that he would be prime minister.
 
So Corbyn wants to have women only carraiges on trains???? Back in time we go!
 
Last edited:
Really?

Here's what he actually said,

"My intention would be to make public transport safer for everyone from the train platform, to the bus stop to the mode of transport itself.
"However, I would consult with women and open it up to hear their views on whether women-only carriages would be welcome - and also if piloting this at times and [on] modes of transport where harassment is reported most frequently would be of interest."

How does that translate to "wants"?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top