The Politics Thread

[Hoboh]

One really worrying thing emerging is the effects of the NIC on charities who are being given no exceptions even if they work with unaffected public bodies.
Yeah, I've seen the bleating about overpaid CEO's and managers alongside the why should those wanting holidays for pets, (tongue in cheek btw) not be included, but this will have a serious effect on Hospices (who get little by way of funding from the NHS despite carrying out extremely important work for them) and even load costs on GP surgeries because they are classed as private enterprises. Bad enough now getting hold of them, imagine less receptionists etc.

Yep. Might be rare but you and I are in agreement here.

I’ve seen some analysis from a friend who does this research for a living and it’s a really uneven effect - a lot of business will be better off or unaffected but look at the care world, third sector and things like GP practices and it is going to impact a lot.

It’s the mid sized stuff with a fair number of low paid workers that is going to be hit massively.

I think they need to rethink that somehow. The % rise is probably fine but the threshold lowering is going to hurt the third sector and care hugely.

I think I'll print and frame this

[Worthy4England]

There's a larger scene than non-profits, that need help.

I really feel for hospitality (coz I quite like my local and I'm good mates with the guy who runs it). They've seen energy costs soar, cost of goods soar - booze and food - NMW increase and NIC baseline reduction. It's a small snug boozer in a converted terrace house - it has a maximum capacity which he can't increase so limited even on a hot summer "shall we nip out for a beer" day. Combine that with everyone feeling the pinch on discretionary cash so they're coming out less often and he can't just pass off increases to the customer by upping the ante, so 1p off a pint, isn't helping much. Sorta what I mean when I say "big budget" isn't looking close enough at businesses on the breadline already. He employs typically between 8-10 people...

Another mate has a small civil engineering business, they predominantly do groundworks - he employs a few lads - if he lays them off when the order book has nothing in it for a week or two, then he has no lads. The business is struggling for quite a lot of similar reasons as the boozer. No one really spending - he's better on fixed costs, than the boozer, but there are increasing costs (fuel and the like) and a very light order book, with significant cashflow problems as people take their time paying (there aren't many "formal" contracts - site guy pays the civils when he gets paid and the like).

These are problems that have gone on for years, so not of Labour's creating. Neither of these folks own a boat and live in modest houses etc. They need help. We'll just let 'em go to the wall. In the case of the boozer, we'll be left with Wetherspoons (I'd stop bothering at that point)

[Hoboh]

Big business throws around the numbers in terms of cash government likes to see, bragg about and attach to, small business doesn't hence they give it little thought or don't bloody care.

[Worthy4England]

Big business throws around the numbers in terms of cash government likes to see, bragg about and attach to, small business doesn't hence they give it little thought or don't bloody care.

Don't disagree (that's Insano and me in the same thread), but this concept of "broadest shoulders" - I guess only applies to "people that are captive taxpayers" - not businesses who might tell 'em to fcuk off.

[boltonboris]

^ That's the thing - Easy to try and call the bluff of your Maccies, Amazons etc and say alright then don't bloody trade here, but the "markets" don't take too well to the bigger boys being told off and how they react seems to be all that anybody's arsed about

[BWFC_Insane]

The bottom line for me is that since 2008 we’ve had low growth. Or no growth. I think we are running at average growth of about 0.5% in this period. Compared to more than triple that rate 97-2010 as an average.

Such a sustained period of economic slump is historically unheard of more or less in modern times in the U.K. and add to that fact that since 1979 in particular wealth transfers upwards and not back. So real household incomes have stagnated. The meagre growth we’ve seen has been hoovered up by the wealthiest.

Governments are pretty much unable to stop this either. For all the ‘tax the rich’ wealth tax demands from the left nobody actually knows how you can do this. And when attempts are made…such as the changes to IHT we’ve recently seen to stop rich folk buying up land as a tax avoidance scheme, what happens is a cause is found, this case it’s farmers with some edge cases that screams loudly. Wealth taxes will catch people who we don’t intend, and mostly won’t work because those we really want to tax, either don’t really exist or simply can move their assets and money round. Until we can solve it internationally which is a long way off governments don’t have the right instruments to deal with this.

You therefore in reality are left hoping you can increase growth beyond the anemic. Not so much hoping as being entirely reliant on doing so. Because whilst that would still be hoovered up by the richest some crumbs end up in households. We’ve had a drop in living standards in the last parliament. The slight extra growth projected by the budget stimulus means that living standards are only set to rise 0.4% this Parliament if we are lucky. But that’s only because there is a two year slight boost in growth projected. And it’s bad. But better than nothing. Assuming it happens.

So growth - how do we achieve that? There are fundamentally only two ways. Increased productivity or increased workforce. Productivity in a service driven economy is pretty hard to increase and certainly not something you can control much. We’ve spent years trying. It hasn’t worked. So the only real way is to grow the workforce. Which means more immigration. But people don’t want immigration even though every single positive growth figure is entirely down to immigration. We’ve left the EU meaning that we now have an even worse position. Because the immigration we need to solve the growth crisis is almost all from places where people will want to stay here long term. So infrastructure needs go up. In the EU we had a mix of transient and more permanent migration meaning the cost to the growth it produced was lower.

IMHO until a government is honest about this…and the fact that we need to let many many more working age people into the country…we will continue down a road that is fraught with risk and not particularly high reward.

[BWFC_Insane]

^ That's the thing - Easy to try and call the bluff of your Maccies, Amazons etc and say alright then don't bloody trade here, but the "markets" don't take too well to the bigger boys being told off and how they react seems to be all that anybody's arsed about

The markets don’t give two hoots about Amazon or McDonalds. They only really bottom line care about the value of your currency and the national debt position.

The government are attempting to try and go after some of the big boys, there was a story about it today. The reality is that they probably won’t get very far because unless there is an international cooperation on tax regimes - there isn’t a lot government can do.

[Hoboh]

Big business throws around the numbers in terms of cash government likes to see, bragg about and attach to, small business doesn't hence they give it little thought or don't bloody care.

Don't disagree (that's Insano and me in the same thread), but this concept of "broadest shoulders" - I guess only applies to "people that are captive taxpayers" - not businesses who might tell 'em to fcuk off.

Crikey, I must be doing something wrong then

[Hoboh]

^ That's the thing - Easy to try and call the bluff of your Maccies, Amazons etc and say alright then don't bloody trade here, but the "markets" don't take too well to the bigger boys being told off and how they react seems to be all that anybody's arsed about

The markets don’t give two hoots about Amazon or McDonalds. They only really bottom line care about the value of your currency and the national debt position.

The government are attempting to try and go after some of the big boys, there was a story about it today. The reality is that they probably won’t get very far because unless there is an international cooperation on tax regimes - there isn’t a lot government can do.

Globalisation put paid to any chance of chasing multi national conglomerates, literally, the only people who can control them are those who can have certain people disappear or fall out of windows and we don't want to go down that route.

[BWFC_Insane]

^ That's the thing - Easy to try and call the bluff of your Maccies, Amazons etc and say alright then don't bloody trade here, but the "markets" don't take too well to the bigger boys being told off and how they react seems to be all that anybody's arsed about

The markets don’t give two hoots about Amazon or McDonalds. They only really bottom line care about the value of your currency and the national debt position.

The government are attempting to try and go after some of the big boys, there was a story about it today. The reality is that they probably won’t get very far because unless there is an international cooperation on tax regimes - there isn’t a lot government can do.

Globalisation put paid to any chance of chasing multi national conglomerates, literally, the only people who can control them are those who can have certain people disappear or fall out of windows and we don't want to go down that route.

Globalisation is nothing more than global trade. Without which there wouldn’t be multinational conglomerates to tax and we’d all be stuck in the dark ages.

Let’s not be silly. The reason we can’t go after these businesses is because we need more international cooperation to do so. Not less.

[Hoboh]

^ That's the thing - Easy to try and call the bluff of your Maccies, Amazons etc and say alright then don't bloody trade here, but the "markets" don't take too well to the bigger boys being told off and how they react seems to be all that anybody's arsed about

The markets don’t give two hoots about Amazon or McDonalds. They only really bottom line care about the value of your currency and the national debt position.

The government are attempting to try and go after some of the big boys, there was a story about it today. The reality is that they probably won’t get very far because unless there is an international cooperation on tax regimes - there isn’t a lot government can do.

Globalisation put paid to any chance of chasing multi national conglomerates, literally, the only people who can control them are those who can have certain people disappear or fall out of windows and we don't want to go down that route.

Globalisation is nothing more than global trade. Without which there wouldn’t be multinational conglomerates to tax and we’d all be stuck in the dark ages.

Let’s not be silly. The reason we can’t go after these businesses is because we need more international cooperation to do so. Not less.

It doesn't work like that, where is the global trade with other countries whose kids are down mines digging up the stuff for batteries for the eco electric car? The folk who will be involved with massive business building the new Saudi Arabia?
Globalisation is nothing other than a cover for the fast buck for already wealthy companies in much the same way the EU is a tool for politicians ambitions.

[BWFC_Insane]

^ That's the thing - Easy to try and call the bluff of your Maccies, Amazons etc and say alright then don't bloody trade here, but the "markets" don't take too well to the bigger boys being told off and how they react seems to be all that anybody's arsed about

The markets don’t give two hoots about Amazon or McDonalds. They only really bottom line care about the value of your currency and the national debt position.

The government are attempting to try and go after some of the big boys, there was a story about it today. The reality is that they probably won’t get very far because unless there is an international cooperation on tax regimes - there isn’t a lot government can do.

Globalisation put paid to any chance of chasing multi national conglomerates, literally, the only people who can control them are those who can have certain people disappear or fall out of windows and we don't want to go down that route.

Globalisation is nothing more than global trade. Without which there wouldn’t be multinational conglomerates to tax and we’d all be stuck in the dark ages.

Let’s not be silly. The reason we can’t go after these businesses is because we need more international cooperation to do so. Not less.

It doesn't work like that, where is the global trade with other countries whose kids are down mines digging up the stuff for batteries for the eco electric car? The folk who will be involved with massive business building the new Saudi Arabia?
Globalisation is nothing other than a cover for the fast buck for already wealthy companies in much the same way the EU is a tool for politicians ambitions.

The problem with this discussion is that globalisation is not a constructed phenomenon. It’s not new either. It’s a natural and inescapable situation. Pointing to the negative consequences of it doesn’t change that. Big companies exploited markets since forever. Before we could easily move money and people round the world.

And even if you think there is an imaginary point before we could move labour, money and business round the world easily - say pre ww2 at absolute earliest - you can’t go back to that point. You can’t uninvent international travel, the internet, international money transfers and the 20th century banking system.

[Worthy4England]

All sounds pretty much like the UK in the industrial revolution 200 years ago. We just didn't call shit globalisation, then.

[TANGODANCER]

The latest "revelations" into the Royals incomes shows how far we have come since the days of the "King's Deer, livestock "and just about anything they fancied claiming tax on in the name of the God given rights as our leaders. We could start by giving the self-styled royalty one palace and grounds and weekly spending money for H.R.H and spouse and let the rest of the hangers on get a job. Spain at least made a start in that direction.

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

The latest "revelations" into the Royals incomes shows how far we have come since the days of the "King's Deer, livestock "and just about anything they fancied claiming tax on in the name of the God given rights as our leaders. We could start by giving the self-styled royalty one palace and grounds and weekly spending money for H.R.H and spouse and let the rest of the hangers on get a job. Spain at least made a start in that direction.

Or, we could tell them to feck off and get proper jobs and pay PAYE like the rest of the plebs

[Worthy4England]

I reckon Harris has the close US election, along with a "step forward, GOP nominee, Elon" (another Democrat convert) for the next one, unless Trump can carry on grifting cash out of idiots for his PACs. Wonder what the fall-out will be like this time, after the Reps managed to land zero "voter fraud" allegations anywhere other than TikTok last time. They've set it up for another long fcuking moan - I mean you can hardly remember the last time they won the popular vote, and there's rumors (US sic) they have some "cunning plan" lined up in some states.

Another 4 years of Trump adding another 10 miles to the 2,500 mile border wall and claiming victory, doesn't bear thinking about. He's mentally unstable.

[BWFC_Insane]

I reckon Harris has the close US election, along with a "step forward, GOP nominee, Elon" (another Democrat convert) for the next one, unless Trump can carry on grifting cash out of idiots for his PACs. Wonder what the fall-out will be like this time, after the Reps managed to land zero "voter fraud" allegations anywhere other than TikTok last time. They've set it up for another long fcuking moan - I mean you can hardly remember the last time they won the popular vote, and there's rumors (US sic) they have some "cunning plan" lined up in some states.

Another 4 years of Trump adding another 10 miles to the 2,500 mile border wall and claiming victory, doesn't bear thinking about. He's mentally unstable.

You think Harris is going to win? I hope she does but if someone forced me to lump my life savings on an outcome I’d very reluctantly put it on Trump winning.

It’s a basket case right now over there. So hard to really understand what’s going on as their polls are as basket case as their electorate.

I’ve just never thought that Harris was quite there to beat Trump and their own cost of living crisis will potentially hurt her chances further. People tend to vote against incumbents when things have been ropey.

[Worthy4England]

Think she might just shade it...You seen his geriatric, cock-sucking (not perjorative he's actually been blow-jobbing his mic), racist rallys? They're worse than last go.

Think Harris will be clear winner on popular vote, but for sure it's mighty close on the swing states.He's not helped himself calling Puerto Ricans garbage. His core love it, but they won't carry the election without folks in the centre. Roe v Wade still a big issue, so I think she might shade it.

Az probably Trump - 11 Votes
Georgia - 1 point game - Split - 16 Votes, last go Biden
Michigan Harris - 15 Votes
Nevada Harris - 6 Votes
NC - 1 point game - Split - 16 Votes, last go Trump
Pennsylvania - 1 point - split - 19 votes, last go Biden
Wisconsin - Harris - 10 votes

I reckon Harris has 31 v Trump 11, with 51 too close. So she certainly needs some of PA, NC and GA....which are marginal calls within marginal states...

[BWFC_Insane]

Think she might just shade it...You seen his geriatric, cock-sucking (not perjorative he's actually been blow-jobbing his mic), racist rallys? They're worse than last go.

Think Harris will be clear winner on popular vote, but for sure it's mighty close on the swing states.He's not helped himself calling Puerto Ricans garbage. His core love it, but they won't carry the election without folks in the centre. Roe v Wade still a big issue, so I think she might shade it.

Az probably Trump - 11 Votes
Georgia - 1 point game - Split - 16 Votes, last go Biden
Michigan Harris - 15 Votes
Nevada Harris - 6 Votes
NC - 1 point game - Split - 16 Votes, last go Trump
Pennsylvania - 1 point - split - 19 votes, last go Biden
Wisconsin - Harris - 10 votes

I reckon Harris has 31 v Trump 11, with 51 too close. So she certainly needs some of PA, NC and GA....which are marginal calls within marginal states...

Yeah my worry is that those inclined to vote for Trump - like that sort of stuff. I’m not convinced there are that many normal republicans who will say ‘look I’m right leaning but this man is a disgrace’. There are a few. Sure. But I worry not enough to counterbalance the seemingly disenfranchised minorities and working class men drifting to Trump from Biden (because Harris doesn’t have the same affinity to those groups Biden did).

But we will see. It’s one where I sort of gave up any hope on ages ago and watch fairly dispassionately now. They’ve lost their way completely that is for sure. And whilst clearly infinitely better than Trump, Harris is not very convincing at least to me. Feel like there are many stronger democratic candidates who wimped out of this one.

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

Never underestimate America's capacity for stupid. It even outstrips our own.