• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Poll: Potential General Election: who are you voting for?

Potential October GE: Who will you vote for?

  • Conservative

    Votes: 84 19.1%
  • Labour

    Votes: 129 29.4%
  • SNP

    Votes: 29 6.6%
  • Plaid Cymru

    Votes: 4 0.9%
  • Lib Dems

    Votes: 130 29.6%
  • TIG

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • DUP

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Sinn Fein

    Votes: 2 0.5%
  • UUP

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • SDLP

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Green Party (or any local Green affiliate)

    Votes: 14 3.2%
  • Other independent or minor party (please state!)

    Votes: 3 0.7%
  • Spoiled ballot

    Votes: 7 1.6%
  • Not voting

    Votes: 13 3.0%
  • Brexit Party

    Votes: 24 5.5%

  • Total voters
    439
Status
Not open for further replies.

DarloRich

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
29,182
Location
Fenny Stratford
Then why try to change anything at all? You may as well then say don't join a trade union as the bosses will just say no to everything (which I'm sure you wouldn't agree with).

Shall we try not to be silly? The recent Labour manifesto was chock full of expenses pledges designed to appeal to the Corbyn base. They were a lefty greatest hits album but not very helpful and nor did they, in my view, actually do much to fix the problems in our society. The biggest gap was actually winning an election..................

Close the loopholes and they will have to pay. You're telling me Starbucks or Vodafone will withdraw from the UK market because of a bit more tax on their profit margin? They'll walk away from profit because they'll lose a slice? Aye right.

Obviously they wont leave, but they will make their corporate structure as tax efficient as possible. What they wont do is easily hand over the kind of money the Corbyn clowns think they will.

And, on a wider subject, if the likes of Amazon aren't going to pay for the facilities they use, why do we want them here anyway? Parasites aren't healthy things to support.

Sorry to be all capitalist but he market ( aka us) clearly DOES want them here. That isnt going to change however much you wish that it would.

And loopholes can be easily closed. HMRC are now aggressively going after people paid through employee trusts after the Tories changed the law- and made the change retrospective. The Tories will close loopholes and collect aggressively- just they'll only do it against the little people.

I agree. However the people Corbyn expects to roll over and pay lots of their money to his government to give away to poor people are exactly the kind of people who can afford good advisors to come up with new schemes. That or just move off shore. If that happens Labour will have to go after the little people and what is considered rich will slide downwards.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
13,305
Location
Isle of Man
Obviously they wont leave, but they will make their corporate structure as tax efficient as possible.

They will find another loophole, of course, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't close loopholes down. Sadly there isn't the will because our current leaders think that we should model ourselves on Delaware.

"Tax efficiency" is just a coy term for "pretending we lent money off ourselves to offshore the dough". Easy enough to close down with sufficient determination.

Sorry to be all capitalist but he market ( aka us) clearly DOES want them here.

They're popular because they're cheap. Why are they cheap? Because they're parasites.

Of course they're cheaper than the high street, they have no overheads and pay no tax.

Question is, if Bezos took his bat and ball home, would we miss him? Unlikely. It's not like he contributes anything to our country.
 

DarloRich

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
29,182
Location
Fenny Stratford
They will find another loophole, of course, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't close loopholes down. Sadly there isn't the will because our current leaders think that we should model ourselves on Delaware.

"Tax efficiency" is just a coy term for "pretending we lent money off ourselves to offshore the dough". Easy enough to close down with sufficient determination.

We have to be realistic. You can close all the loopholes you want but you cant stop a company basing in a nice tax haven somewhere, sloshing the money through banks there while complying with local laws.

The issue for me is that the burden will simply pass down the chain and wont raise enough money to cover the commitments. By all means increase tax but do it in a way that actually delivers! I don't think this plan will.

They're popular because they're cheap. Why are they cheap? Because they're parasites.

Of course they're cheaper than the high street, they have no overheads and pay no tax.

Question is, if Bezos took his bat and ball home, would we miss him? Unlikely. It's not like he contributes anything to our country.

But that isnt going happen. Pretending otherwise is exactly the kind of silliness Corbyn is based upon.
 

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
13,305
Location
Isle of Man
We have to be realistic. You can close all the loopholes you want but you cant stop a company basing in a nice tax haven somewhere, sloshing the money through banks there while complying with local laws

You can and countries do. France have just brought in a Google tax. The key is "local laws". Our current laws- quite deliberately- have more holes in them than a hobo's underpants.

Companies aren't going to abandon the UK if we tighten our laws, just as they didn't despite their threats when the minimum wage came in or when Tony Blair got in. So why persist in the idea they will?

It's not "Corbyn silliness" to think those who benefit from this country should pay for its upkeep.

It's mad, we'll confiscate a passport from a man who can't afford to pay what random over-inflated figure the Child Maintenance Service demand of him, but won't do the same for tax dodgers who move money earned in the UK to a tax haven. Where there's a will there's a way.
 

DarloRich

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
29,182
Location
Fenny Stratford
You can and countries do. France have just brought in a Google tax. The key is "local laws". Our current laws- quite deliberately- have more holes in them than a hobo's underpants.

Companies aren't going to abandon the UK if we tighten our laws, just as they didn't despite their threats when the minimum wage came in or when Tony Blair got in. So why persist in the idea they will?

It's not "Corbyn silliness" to think those who benefit from this country should pay for its upkeep.

It's mad, we'll confiscate a passport from a man who can't afford to pay what random over-inflated figure the Child Maintenance Service demand of him, but won't do the same for tax dodgers who move money earned in the UK to a tax haven. Where there's a will there's a way.

With respect I haven't suggested companies will abandon this country. I suggest they will create a corporate structure that allows them to trade here while being registered somewhere nice and non taxing! I further suggest that even if you close the loopholes companies, especially the biggest & richest companies, will develop new ones to limit their exposure.

My overarching point is because of this behaviour the tax gained by a Corbyn government would be insufficient to deliver on their vast promises in their manifesto meaning they either have to borrow even more ( remembering the nationalisation plans at c.£60bn didn't form part of the costed numbers) which must eventually reach an unsustainable level and impact on general economic performance ( impacting on tax and so on) and/or pass the burden down the chain.

Ultimately, I simply do not think they will raise enough money to deliver their agenda.
 

Grimsby town

Member
Joined
4 Apr 2011
Messages
386
With respect I haven't suggested companies will abandon this country. I suggest they will create a corporate structure that allows them to trade here while being registered somewhere nice and non taxing! I further suggest that even if you close the loopholes companies, especially the biggest & richest companies, will develop new ones to limit their exposure.

My overarching point is because of this behaviour the tax gained by a Corbyn government would be insufficient to deliver on their vast promises in their manifesto meaning they either have to borrow even more ( remembering the nationalisation plans at c.£60bn didn't form part of the costed numbers) which must eventually reach an unsustainable level and impact on general economic performance ( impacting on tax and so on) and/or pass the burden down the chain.

Ultimately, I simply do not think they will raise enough money to deliver their agenda.

I agree that the 2017 manifesto was very optimistic with it's tax estimates which is one of the reasons I didn't vote for it. We do need to tax more in this country and despite the optimistic tax take estimates from labour, at least they are promising some way of raising income. On the other hand the conservatives appear to be promising tax cuts such as further cuts to corporation tax and increasing the level the top rate of tax is paid at while simultaneously promising extra police officers etc.

You can complain about labour being optimistic but at least they're saying how they will attempt to fund such measures instead of resorting to funding pledges through a 'brexit dividend' or economic growth.
 

Busaholic

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Jun 2014
Messages
14,029
I agree that the 2017 manifesto was very optimistic with it's tax estimates which is one of the reasons I didn't vote for it. We do need to tax more in this country and despite the optimistic tax take estimates from labour, at least they are promising some way of raising income. On the other hand the conservatives appear to be promising tax cuts such as further cuts to corporation tax and increasing the level the top rate of tax is paid at while simultaneously promising extra police officers etc.

You can complain about labour being optimistic but at least they're saying how they will attempt to fund such measures instead of resorting to funding pledges through a 'brexit dividend' or economic growth.
When the Tories and their coalition partners were cutting 20,000 police officers I didn't notice Theresa or whoever going along to a police convention to announce it!
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
8,027
Location
SE London
Shall we try not to be silly? The recent Labour manifesto was chock full of expenses pledges designed to appeal to the Corbyn base. They were a lefty greatest hits album but not very helpful and nor did they, in my view, actually do much to fix the problems in our society.

That certainly wasn't my impression. I think I've made it very clear here in the past that my politics lies on the 'moderate' wing of Labour, and I've often criticised the kind of silliness you get from much of Labour's left and on occasions from the Labour leadership. But I also remember reading the 2017 manifesto and finding that it seemed a very reasonable document with little that I could disagree with. Not at all like the image that we often tend to have of Corbyn and the left of the party. And - perhaps surprisingly given issues like Corbyn's sometimes strange stance on things like Russian and Palestinian terrorism - the manifesto was actually pretty strong on supporting defence and the armed forces. (By the way, the 2017 manifesto in question is still available online here)

I agree with the criticism that you've made elsewhere that the tax and spending sums don't completely add up because large corporations etc. will find ways to avoid higher taxes. But I'd point out that's not just a problem with Labour - it's a problem with all the parties, that they all tend to cost things in a very accounting-type of way: Simply adding up proposed income and subtracting proposed expenditure, based on current economic statistics, ignoring that people's behaviour always changes in response to Government policy. The most obvious example was how George Osborne never seemed to understand that, if you cut Government expenditure, that immediately feeds through to reduce taxation income. So I don't think you can exclusively tar Labour with the brush of iffy economics.
 

DarloRich

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
29,182
Location
Fenny Stratford
The 2017 mainifesto was drawn up before the Corbyn fans had taken complete control of the bureaucracy of the party. They now control all of the key agenda setting bodies. The next manifesto will not contain anything like the clear statements on defence or security.

I agree that higher tax returns are needed to invest in public services but they have to come from all of us not just those at the top ( mainly because unlike us they have tools to reduce thier exposure) or from businesses.

Labour also have to win power to put thier agenda into action. They dont offer the kind of agenda designed to do that imo. They play to thier base and that is a mistake. They seem to belive that the reason people reject Corbyn is becuase the party isnt left wing enough and becuase we are sheep led by the "MSM". Personally I think it is becuase they dont seem to get aspiration and actually seem to fear people trying to better thier lot!
 

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
13,305
Location
Isle of Man
I agree with the criticism that you've made elsewhere that the tax and spending sums don't completely add up because large corporations etc. will find ways to avoid higher taxes. But I'd point out that's not just a problem with Labour - it's a problem with all the parties, that they all tend to cost things in a very accounting-type of way

One of the biggest problems is how "the national budget is just like a domestic household budget" has taken hold as received wisdom. So all parties have to show how they'll pay for everything, jumping through hoops to show tax A will pay for spending B. The idea of running a deficit in lean times is toxic, though it is often the best thing to do economically to keep things going. "Austerity", both with spending cuts and taxation rises (especially the 33% rise in VAT) just choked off any growth there was, reducing tax revenue and making things worse.

With respect I haven't suggested companies will abandon this country. I suggest they will create a corporate structure that allows them to trade here while being registered somewhere nice and non taxing! I further suggest that even if you close the loopholes companies, especially the biggest & richest companies, will develop new ones to limit their exposure.

They will, of course, find ways around it. Some of these ways will be effective, others less so. But I find it fascinating you don't apply the same critique to the Tories promising to cut tax yet keep spending as it is.

With respect, I think you fall into the trap a lot of people do in thinking everything must be "costed", as though revenue and expenditure are fixed things.

Offshoring money through opaque financial dealings is doable for individuals, but publicly listed companies can't do it in the same way due to shareholder reporting. So why not shut down variations of the Delaware loophole? The Tories had no such worries when they decided to retrospectively go after the little people forced into employee trusts.

I think we all know the answer. It's not "too difficult"- it's pretty bloody easy- but it's not in the MPs' interests to do it. Hence why our current leaders want to turn us into Delaware.
 

krus_aragon

Established Member
Joined
10 Jun 2009
Messages
6,042
Location
North Wales
They seem to belive that the reason people reject Corbyn is becuase the party isnt left wing enough and becuase we are sheep led by the "MSM".
I read that as Mirror-Signal-Manouvre. Then I thought a little harder, and worked out what you meant. :oops:
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,818
Location
Yorks
Maybe Corbyn is putting people off. Perhaps he should stand aside and let Tom Watson take over for example.

That said, I don't think a return to the full force of "New Labour" is what's needed. There needs to be an acceptance that "the market" isn't always right (speaking as someone who's voted labour more often than not in past general elections). The consensus of the past few decades is very much a development from Mrs Thatcher's economic philosophy, and that probably needs to change.
 

dgl

Established Member
Joined
5 Oct 2014
Messages
2,391
Personally I would like Gordon Brown back as leader of the Labour party, yes some people will point to the financial crisis and try to claim that it was all his fault but, in my view with what he had to deal with he did the best he could, if only the conservatives g
hadn't tried to do whatever they could to make it all go tits up again. He certinaly would have put farage in his place and would not though necessary to placate the right wing.
 

Bayum

Established Member
Joined
21 Mar 2008
Messages
2,902
Location
Leeds
Shall we try not to be silly? The recent Labour manifesto was chock full of expenses pledges designed to appeal to the Corbyn base. They were a lefty greatest hits album but not very helpful and nor did they, in my view, actually do much to fix the problems in our society. The biggest gap was actually winning an election..................



Obviously they wont leave, but they will make their corporate structure as tax efficient as possible. What they wont do is easily hand over the kind of money the Corbyn clowns think they will.



Sorry to be all capitalist but he market ( aka us) clearly DOES want them here. That isnt going to change however much you wish that it would.



I agree. However the people Corbyn expects to roll over and pay lots of their money to his government to give away to poor people are exactly the kind of people who can afford good advisors to come up with new schemes. That or just move off shore. If that happens Labour will have to go after the little people and what is considered rich will slide downwards.
In contrast to the spending pledges made my BJ and Javid?
 

507021

Established Member
Joined
19 Feb 2015
Messages
4,670
Location
Chester
Personally I would like Gordon Brown back as leader of the Labour party, yes some people will point to the financial crisis and try to claim that it was all his fault but, in my view with what he had to deal with he did the best he could, if only the conservatives g
hadn't tried to do whatever they could to make it all go tits up again. He certinaly would have put farage in his place and would not though necessary to placate the right wing.

I'd like David Miliband to come back and be party leader, but I don't think it'll happen. My other choice would be Keir Starmer.

Plus I'm not far off leaving the party anyway, as I'm fed up of being called a "Tory" and a "Blairite" because I'm not left wing enough.
 

Bayum

Established Member
Joined
21 Mar 2008
Messages
2,902
Location
Leeds
Which pledges/manifesto promises were made first....those of the Labour party or those to who you allude above?
Alluding? Both BJ and Javid have plunged, and rightly, billions into the NHS and education and declared austerity as over. Annoyingly, the funding was part of a long game by BJ in order to entice voters. People need to get off the band wagon of this idea that this Labour or other parties cannot be trusted with money.
 

dgl

Established Member
Joined
5 Oct 2014
Messages
2,391
Alluding? Both BJ and Javid have plunged, and rightly, billions into the NHS and education and declared austerity as over. Annoyingly, the funding was part of a long game by BJ in order to entice voters. People need to get off the band wagon of this idea that this Labour or other parties cannot be trusted with money.

In fact it was the Conservatives pooh-pooing the idea of banking reform/controls that was partly the reason for the recent financial crisis.
 

Bayum

Established Member
Joined
21 Mar 2008
Messages
2,902
Location
Leeds
In fact it was the Conservatives pooh-pooing the idea of banking reform/controls that was partly the reason for the recent financial crisis.
Indeed. But it’s funny that big news broadcasters fail to mention such events. More recently, only ‘The Times’ has reported on BJ’s hope for a GE for October was partly planned at a time when student voting would be low.
 

JamesT

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2015
Messages
2,640
In fact it was the Conservatives pooh-pooing the idea of banking reform/controls that was partly the reason for the recent financial crisis.

Which banking reforms were those? Labour rejigged the regulatory system when they came to power in 1997. They had a majority so they could have implemented any system they liked, no need for Conservative approval.
 

greyman42

Established Member
Joined
14 Aug 2017
Messages
4,894
I'd like David Miliband to come back and be party leader, but I don't think it'll happen. My other choice would be Keir Starmer.

Plus I'm not far off leaving the party anyway, as I'm fed up of being called a "Tory" and a "Blairite" because I'm not left wing enough.
That is where it all started going wrong for labour, when they chose Ed instead of David. As for being called Tory or Blairite, well it's better than being in with the loony left.
 

507021

Established Member
Joined
19 Feb 2015
Messages
4,670
Location
Chester
After giving it a lot of thought over the past few days, I've had a change of heart and decided to vote for the Liberal Democrats in the next election.

I've changed my vote on the poll to reflect this.
 

greyman42

Established Member
Joined
14 Aug 2017
Messages
4,894
Maybe Corbyn is putting people off.
Obviously he is and Emily Thornberrys performance on Question Time did not help. It is no wonder that despite Johnsons problems, he is still riding high in the polls.
 

Cowley

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
15 Apr 2016
Messages
15,688
Location
Devon
After giving it a lot of thought over the past few days, I've had a change of heart and decided to vote for the Liberal Democrats in the next election.

I've changed my vote on the poll to reflect this.
I feel like the Lib Dems are more aligned to me than any of the other parties at the moment too (like you I’d usually vote Labour).
I need to work out what the most useful vote for our area is though. I’m not sure because I think we’ve recently had a slight boundary change.
 

507021

Established Member
Joined
19 Feb 2015
Messages
4,670
Location
Chester
I feel like the Lib Dems are more aligned to me than any of the other parties at the moment too (like you I’d usually vote Labour).
I need to work out what the most useful vote for our area is though. I’m not sure because I think we’ve recently had a slight boundary change.

Labour doesn't really feel the same to me any more mate, I honestly feel left behind by the party moving further to the left.

Like yourself, the Liberal Democrats are the party I agree with the most right now.
 

Aictos

Established Member
Joined
28 Apr 2009
Messages
10,403
With the obvious split incoming for the Conservative Party, could we see the faction led by Johnson merge with Farage to form a new Hard Right party leaving the moderate Conservatives to continue as they are?

Equally could we see the Liberal Democrat’s overtake Labour as the opposition government to the one in power?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top