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.

Tetchytyke

Established Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
10,953
Location
Isle of Man
Sure GusB, any excuse to overturn the result.
You see, this is the gormlessness of referendums. Things change. Democracy isn't a one-time-only affair. A rematch isn't "overturning" anything. Referendums are, in my opinion, profoundly undemocratic precisely because they crystallise things that can't be crystallised.

In Indyref1 we were in the EU and going to maintain the UK; now we're leaving the EU despite most Scottish people voting Remain. I'd say demands for Indyref2 are legitimate, although I think another referendum would be a mistake for exactly the same reason the Indyref1 and Brexit referendums were a mistake.

It's also a manifesto promise so if you don't like it don't vote for the SNP.
 
Last edited:
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

StaffsWCML

Member
Joined
10 Apr 2019
Messages
221
You see, this is the gormlessness of referendums. Things change. Democracy isn't a one-time-only affair. A rematch isn't "overturning" anything. Referendums are, in my opinion, profoundly undemocratic precisely because they crystallise things that can't be crystallised.

In Indyref1 we were in the EU and going to maintain the UK; now we're leaving the EU despite most Scottish people voting Remain. I'd say demands for Indyref2 are legitimate, although I think another referendum would be a mistake for exactly the same reason the Indyref1 and Brexit referendums were a mistake.

It's also a manifesto promise so if you don't like it don't vote for the SNP.

Its bizarre though from the SNP. I personally cant fathom Brexit. Brexit is a bit like breaking a finger and cutting off your arm, I understand the concerns of people in the North and Midlands but Brexit wasn't really the solution, neither is Farage.

What the SNP are doing is like having no arm, but then deciding to cut off your leg also. Scotland's biggest portion of trade is with the UK/England, very little with the EU. An independent Scotland in the EU (to which they don't meet financial requirements, and Spain would not permit due to Catalonia), would have a hard border with a post Brexit England, they would likely lose billions of military investment and jobs from Westminster, the Barnet formula actually gives the Scottish economy more spending power than their economy generates. A large percentage of the tourism enters via Dover or other British ports and travels across and open boarder.

Domestically the SNP are failing, educations standards are falling, hospitals are generally worse than elsewhere in the UK, its odd they are so popular.
 

Tetchytyke

Established Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
10,953
Location
Isle of Man
An independent Scotland in the EU (to which they don't meet financial requirements, and Spain would not permit due to Catalonia)
Spain have said they wouldn't oppose it, presumably with an eye on Gibraltar (also overwhelmingly Remain).

As for finances, Scotland is slightly bigger than the Republic of Ireland but has more natural resources. So one would assume they will cope just fine financially independent of the UK.

I think a referendum is a really bad idea- it would be just as polarising and destructive as Brexit- but I don't think Scotland would sink.
 

StaffsWCML

Member
Joined
10 Apr 2019
Messages
221
So you'd think, but apparently they have said they would not block Scottish EU membership.
I think it would change if it were ever a possibility. Its wont even get close to them joining because financially they are worse off than Greece and Ireland. Obviously they would probably be a net receiver of EU funds but not sure it would top up the losses from Westminster and British trade, even though they are presented as the devil.

I think the SNP are acting in the same jingoistic nationalist head in the sand interests as the Brexit bandwagon. Its all very well being an independent sovereign nation or whatever but when you lose most of your trade and jobs, its not quite all its cracked up to be! I doubt the EU will replace the 40 odd billion of UK trade they would most likely lose a fair percentage of.
 

Tetchytyke

Established Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
10,953
Location
Isle of Man
financially they are worse off than Greece and Ireland
I'm not so convinced they are, because it's so difficult to separate Scottish revenue from British revenue. Not everything generated in Scotland passes through Scottish books.

Ireland do relatively well with fewer people and fewer natural resources, and most people there are glad to be independent of Britain.

That said, I agree about it being just as jingoistic as Brexit. Just as polarising, too. But as Brexit is likely to hit Scotland hardest, and Scotland didn't want Brexit, I can see it being less divisive an idea in a year or two when Farage's ordure hits the Scots' fan.
 

GrimShady

On Moderation
Joined
13 Dec 2016
Messages
1,740
You see, this is the gormlessness of referendums. Things change. Democracy isn't a one-time-only affair. A rematch isn't "overturning" anything. Referendums are, in my opinion, profoundly undemocratic precisely because they crystallise things that can't be crystallised.

In Indyref1 we were in the EU and going to maintain the UK; now we're leaving the EU despite most Scottish people voting Remain. I'd say demands for Indyref2 are legitimate, although I think another referendum would be a mistake for exactly the same reason the Indyref1 and Brexit referendums were a mistake.

It's also a manifesto promise so if you don't like it don't vote for the SNP.
Things don't change that quickly. It's all lies and broken promises as per usual. Let's just keep voting to we get our wicked way. Once in a generation I seem to remember was the buzz word at the time?

Let's not forget the broken promises of tuition fees all signed by the Lid Dems in 2010.

I can't understand why anyone would vote mainstream at all.
 

Tetchytyke

Established Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
10,953
Location
Isle of Man
Let's just keep voting to we get our wicked way.
This is why I hate referendums. Democracy is not a one-off transaction, and one-off decisions demean democracy. Brexit is a pretty big change, too, tbf.

Let's not forget the broken promises of tuition fees all signed by the Lid Dems in 2010.
The LibDems weren't in charge?

It's mad how the Tories got away with this. Even more mad that, in the south west, the electorate punished the LibDems for the coalition by, er, voting Conservative.
 

GrimShady

On Moderation
Joined
13 Dec 2016
Messages
1,740
This is why I hate referendums. Democracy is not a one-off transaction, and one-off decisions demean democracy. Brexit is a pretty big change, too, tbf.



The LibDems weren't in charge?

It's mad how the Tories got away with this. Even more mad that, in the south west, the electorate punished the LibDems for the coalition by, er, voting Conservative.
Maybe we should have a general election every few months then?

The Lib Dems made a promise to the electorate, as you know, that they would vote against any rise in tuition fees yet as soon as the got a taste of power gave everyone the finger. This is why they were punished. Let's please not try and rewrite history. Even Nick Glegg made a televised apology for what they did.
 

Tetchytyke

Established Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
10,953
Location
Isle of Man
Maybe we should have a general election every few months then?
Eh?

It's three and a half years since the Brexit vote, five since Indyref1. These things didn't happen last week.

The Lib Dems made a promise to the electorate, as you know, that they would vote against any rise in tuition fees yet as soon as the got a taste of power gave everyone the finger.
That's not what they promised, but I'm going out on a limb here and guessing you're not a LibDem. "They've lost my vote forever due to their Brexit stance" doesn't sound so good when you were never going to vote for them anyway.

The Tories' Brexit stance has cost them my vote, but as I'd rather shave with an orbital sander than vote Tory it's pretty meaningless.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
18,440
Location
Nottingham
Maybe we should have a general election every few months then?

The Lib Dems made a promise to the electorate, as you know, that they would vote against any rise in tuition fees yet as soon as the got a taste of power gave everyone the finger. This is why they were punished. Let's please not try and rewrite history. Even Nick Glegg made a televised apology for what they did.
It was probably wrong of the Lib Dems to promise to end tuition fees, when they had no hope of ever implementing that promise except in the incredibly unlikely event of them getting an overall majority. Although a majority is slightly less unlikely next time round, I suspect they have also made a presentational mistake in trumpeting that they would revoke Article 50 if they achieved one, though it would be democratically legitimate to do that in those circumstances.

Not so many years ago Tony Blair took Britain into the Iraq war on a false pretence, and we are still suffering the after-effects in the form of increased conflict in the region and the spread of international terrorism. Is that still a reason not to vote Labour, now under different leadership and with different policies?
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
21,455
Location
Scotland
The Lib Dems made a promise to the electorate, as you know, that they would vote against any rise in tuition fees yet as soon as the got a taste of power gave everyone the finger.
That's not what they promised, but I'm going out on a limb here and guessing you're not a LibDem.
As always, the truth is somewhere between these two positions. To quote the BBC's summary of their 2010 manifesto:
Phase out university tuition fees within six years. Scrap fees for final-year students immediately.
So yes, they did promise to eliminate tuition fees, but not immediately for all students.
 

Tetchytyke

Established Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
10,953
Location
Isle of Man
I suspect they have also made a presentational mistake in trumpeting that they would revoke Article 50 if they achieved one
I'm not so sure. A strong and consistent message is likely to appeal to Remainers, which is their target audience. Their success will largely depend on how many Conservative Remainers- of which there are plenty- they can attract. Johnson's bullyboy tactics in deselecting Remain MPs might work in their favour even more.

It's certainly a better message than from Labour, who can't decide if they're for or against Brexit (and will give you a different answer depending on whether you're a Brexitist or a Remainer).
 

Tetchytyke

Established Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
10,953
Location
Isle of Man
So yes, they did promise to eliminate tuition fees, but not immediately for all students.
Mainfesto promises work when you're the majority party in a Government. If you're not, you might not be able to do what you said, you might be outvoted.

I continue to be amazed that a) Cameron managed to get Clegg to take the blame for the Tories' nastiness and b) that people allegedly upset by Clegg's position taught his party a lesson by, er, deserting them for the Tories. Cameron's 2015 majority came from people in the south west switching to Tory from LibDem.

You can only assume from (b) that people didn't mind tuition fees and austerity, but didn't want the LibDems diluting it...
 

StaffsWCML

Member
Joined
10 Apr 2019
Messages
221
I suppose the question is who do you vote for, if you want honesty there is no party.

Corbyn and the current Seamus Milne inspired Labour front bench are some of the most conniving lying bullying horrible gits out there, I would say they are probably more nasty and spiteful than the Tories at present. Old school Labour and the unions are full of nasty bullies.

Corbyn has persistently lied, his last manifesto promised Labour would deliver Brexit, most of their seats are in Northern and Midlands towns that wanted Brexit, him and his party are now blocking every possible Brexit if its not a Corbyn Labour peoples Brexit (or whatever tripe they spin) but now some of them say they would vote against whatever (allegedly much better deal) they get anyway, really lying a treachery of the highest order and serving the interests of their voters but maybe the Islington elite in their membership. Corbyn also said he would 'sort' tuition fees but then back tracked when he realised the magic money tree stopped sprouting 50s. He lied about attending a terrorists memorial. The man is a as much a dishonest liar as they come.

Some of their policies would cause absolute mayhem economically seizing utilities at a rate determined by the Labour Party, seizing land and property, forcing private business to give shares to workers, heavy re-unionisation of the workforce, taxes on gardens ( thought they wanted us all to have a better life not punish those with greenspace). Higher tax for business and individuals would cause much more unemployment and a higher welfare bill. Absolute madness and we would all be poorer for it, but as socialists they want to keep us all poor, under their command at their mercy whilst Corbyn, Milne and the inner circle of Union buddies live the high life.
 

Paddy O'Doors

Member
Joined
21 May 2013
Messages
52
I suppose the question is who do you vote for, if you want honesty there is no party.

Corbyn and the current Seamus Milne inspired Labour front bench are some of the most conniving lying bullying horrible gits out there, I would say they are probably more nasty and spiteful than the Tories at present. Old school Labour and the unions are full of nasty bullies.

Corbyn has persistently lied, his last manifesto promised Labour would deliver Brexit, most of their seats are in Northern and Midlands towns that wanted Brexit, him and his party are now blocking every possible Brexit if its not a Corbyn Labour peoples Brexit (or whatever tripe they spin) but now some of them say they would vote against whatever (allegedly much better deal) they get anyway, really lying a treachery of the highest order and serving the interests of their voters but maybe the Islington elite in their membership. Corbyn also said he would 'sort' tuition fees but then back tracked when he realised the magic money tree stopped sprouting 50s. He lied about attending a terrorists memorial. The man is a as much a dishonest liar as they come.

Some of their policies would cause absolute mayhem economically seizing utilities at a rate determined by the Labour Party, seizing land and property, forcing private business to give shares to workers, heavy re-unionisation of the workforce, taxes on gardens ( thought they wanted us all to have a better life not punish those with greenspace). Higher tax for business and individuals would cause much more unemployment and a higher welfare bill. Absolute madness and we would all be poorer for it, but as socialists they want to keep us all poor, under their command at their mercy whilst Corbyn, Milne and the inner circle of Union buddies live the high life.
Very well put, I couldn't agree more.
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
4,663
Corbyn has persistently lied, his last manifesto promised Labour would deliver Brexit, most of their seats are in Northern and Midlands towns that wanted Brexit,
You may not have noticed, but Labour is not in Government. Just as people are pointing out for LibDems and tuition fees, if you don't win the election, then you can't do the stuff you promise to do if you do win.

him and his party are now blocking every possible Brexit if its not a Corbyn Labour peoples Brexit (or whatever tripe they spin)
A bit of a loaded way of putting it. They are (alongside many Tory MPs) voting to block the particular versions of Brexit that the Tory party has come up with. That's not at all inconsistent with their manifesto promise to deliver Brexit (implied: If they were in Government and thereby able to deliver a vaguely sensible Brexit).

Some of their policies would cause absolute mayhem economically seizing utilities at a rate determined by the Labour Party, seizing land and property, forcing private business to give shares to workers, heavy re-unionisation of the workforce, taxes on gardens ( thought they wanted us all to have a better life not punish those with greenspace). Higher tax for business and individuals would cause much more unemployment and a higher welfare bill. Absolute madness and we would all be poorer for it, but as socialists they want to keep us all poor, under their command at their mercy
I'm very confident that basically no-one in the Labour Party wants to keep us all poor. It might well be that some of their economic policies might do economic damage because they've been badly thought out, but that's not the same thing as wanting them to cause damage. You're making the classic mistake of assuming people you disagree with are motivated by malice - whereas actually it's just a different understanding of what policies would work.

whilst Corbyn, Milne and the inner circle of Union buddies live the high life.
That's just pure right-wing fantasy.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
18,440
Location
Nottingham
I'm not so sure. A strong and consistent message is likely to appeal to Remainers, which is their target audience. Their success will largely depend on how many Conservative Remainers- of which there are plenty- they can attract. Johnson's bullyboy tactics in deselecting Remain MPs might work in their favour even more.

It's certainly a better message than from Labour, who can't decide if they're for or against Brexit (and will give you a different answer depending on whether you're a Brexitist or a Remainer).
I don't think the former Conservative Remainers have anywhere else to go than the Lib Dems, so whether it's a referendum or revocation doesn't make much difference. Referendum and campaign for remain seemed a pretty strong message to me, and the current message can't be consistent as it's just changed!

On the other hand it will put off some of the many who don't like Brexit but think we should do it anyway because it's the so-called "will of the people". This group could easily align with either Tories or Labour depending on their views on other issues.
 

Tetchytyke

Established Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
10,953
Location
Isle of Man
Higher tax for business and individuals would cause much more unemployment and a higher welfare bill.
Now this I don't agree with. I don't think making businesses pay their way would increase unemployment. I think it would reduce it. Amazon, Starbucks, etc, are driving everyone else out of business because of their highly complicated and highly irregular tax arrangements.

If we want an economy that works for everyone, it needs to be a level playing field. And that requires changes to tax legislation and removal of loopholes.

You only have to look at the High Street to see how "trickle down economics" don't work; those who have their finger on the scale don't reinvest their ill-gotten gains, or even spend them elsewhere in the service economy, they offshore ilthem.
 

StaffsWCML

Member
Joined
10 Apr 2019
Messages
221
You may not have noticed, but Labour is not in Government. Just as people are pointing out for LibDems and tuition fees, if you don't win the election, then you can't do the stuff you promise to do if you do win.



A bit of a loaded way of putting it. They are (alongside many Tory MPs) voting to block the particular versions of Brexit that the Tory party has come up with. That's not at all inconsistent with their manifesto promise to deliver Brexit (implied: If they were in Government and thereby able to deliver a vaguely sensible Brexit).



I'm very confident that basically no-one in the Labour Party wants to keep us all poor. It might well be that some of their economic policies might do economic damage because they've been badly thought out, but that's not the same thing as wanting them to cause damage. You're making the classic mistake of assuming people you disagree with are motivated by malice - whereas actually it's just a different understanding of what policies would work.



That's just pure right-wing fantasy.
They should however in my view make compromises to deliver Brexit, they could conceivably have backed the withdrawal agreement, an agreement they now talk of bringing a modified 'Labour' version back to parliament because it is the best the EU will offer us. Didn't May tell us this several times? didn't the EU.

The EU and the Government and Whitehall contingent came up with the deal and withdrawal agreement, it took many months to negotiate by a team of skilled negotiators from both sides. It is probably the best we can get, May said this, the EU said this, Labour now admit this too, however it is not a Corbyn deal so they would never back it, they should to honour their manifesto commitments. I agree the Tories had a problem with hard right Brexiteers and also remainers not being happy with the deal, that should have been solved by stronger leadership.

I don't feel that some of the people (far left) in the current Labour party are very nice people, their spite and hatred for the rich I feel would mean the decisions they make would be to punish the rich who can afford to get away from whatever they do, the end result is everyone suffers. It maybe not intentional but it is the result of the politics of envy. I would certainly hope most politicians don't want to see people poor from any side although this is an accusation quite often thrown at the Tories.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
52,874
Location
Up and down the south WCML (mostly)
Now this I don't agree with. I don't think making businesses pay their way would increase unemployment. I think it would reduce it. Amazon, Starbucks, etc, are driving everyone else out of business because of their highly complicated and highly irregular tax arrangements.
To be fair, there are other ways to solve that which might be considered fairly right-wing or a bit hybrid - cut the business taxes for everyone and instead tax more heavily on income and assets of individuals.
 

StaffsWCML

Member
Joined
10 Apr 2019
Messages
221
Now this I don't agree with. I don't think making businesses pay their way would increase unemployment. I think it would reduce it. Amazon, Starbucks, etc, are driving everyone else out of business because of their highly complicated and highly irregular tax arrangements.

If we want an economy that works for everyone, it needs to be a level playing field. And that requires changes to tax legislation and removal of loopholes.

You only have to look at the High Street to see how "trickle down economics" don't work; those who have their finger on the scale don't reinvest their ill-gotten gains, or even spend them elsewhere in the service economy, they offshore ilthem.
Perhaps I should have been clearer.

I do agree Amazon, Starbucks, Apple etc need action against them. However, this action needs to be global and needs to be done with the support of the country where they are based. Its no use the UK deciding to Tax Amazon and co independently, the US would probably see it as some kind of trade war, they would just operate elsewhere or pull out. Obviously now they create many thousands of jobs, plus giving consumers access to cheaper goods. Any action mostly likely needs to be global or European.

I would support some kind of e-commerce tax and large warehouse tax, a long with the reduction of rates for non-betting shops on the high street, perhaps with peppercorn rents (initially) in flagging high streets.

There are some good businesses that do invest in staff and training, I would probably offer tax incentives for companies that train and retain staff, possibly even for those that maintain living wages. Most businesses owners want to make a profit, I think that is fair for the risks and capital required to start the business. If the tax is too hard the business will try to maintain profits but cutting other areas, training/staffing.
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
4,663
They should however in my view make compromises to deliver Brexit, they could conceivably have backed the withdrawal agreement, an agreement they now talk of bringing a modified 'Labour' version back to parliament because it is the best the EU will offer us. Didn't May tell us this several times? didn't the EU.
I think more correctly, it's the best the EU can/will offer us that fits the restrictions of all Theresa May's 'red lines'. Labour would be negotiating without all those self-imposed restrictions. It seems very plausible that would allow us to get a better deal than Theresa May's one. (Depending of course on what you regard as 'better'. Personally, I'd still prefer to stay in the EU).

I don't feel that some of the people (far left) in the current Labour party are very nice people, their spite and hatred for the rich I feel would mean the decisions they make would be to punish the rich who can afford to get away from whatever they do, the end result is everyone suffers. It maybe not intentional but it is the result of the politics of envy. I would certainly hope most politicians don't want to see people poor from any side although this is an accusation quite often thrown at the Tories.
I'm actually in the Labour Party, so I have a lot of contact with Labour members. I'm on the moderate wing, so I don't particularly agree with the direction Jeremy Corbyn is leading the party in. I do agree with you to the extent there there is a little bit politics of envy there - which I don't really like, but to my mind, it's not nearly as bad as what seems to be the complete inability to understand what life is like for many poorer people that you usually see in the Tory Party. I also do have some concerns that some of Labour's proposals will harm the economy and end up doing more harm than good - although I'd still say that's preferable to (less bad than) the harm that the Tories routinely do. But I'd say that people in the Labour Party are, on the whole, just as nice as people are generally - not really any better or worse than your average man in the street. In most things in politics, it's often a case of, being well meaning but somewhat misguided in some beliefs.
 

StaffsWCML

Member
Joined
10 Apr 2019
Messages
221
I think more correctly, it's the best the EU can/will offer us that fits the restrictions of all Theresa May's 'red lines'. Labour would be negotiating without all those self-imposed restrictions. It seems very plausible that would allow us to get a better deal than Theresa May's one. (Depending of course on what you regard as 'better'. Personally, I'd still prefer to stay in the EU).



I'm actually in the Labour Party, so I have a lot of contact with Labour members. I'm on the moderate wing, so I don't particularly agree with the direction Jeremy Corbyn is leading the party in. I do agree with you to the extent there there is a little bit politics of envy there - which I don't really like, but to my mind, it's not nearly as bad as what seems to be the complete inability to understand what life is like for many poorer people that you usually see in the Tory Party. I also do have some concerns that some of Labour's proposals will harm the economy and end up doing more harm than good - although I'd still say that's preferable to (less bad than) the harm that the Tories routinely do. But I'd say that people in the Labour Party are, on the whole, just as nice as people are generally - not really any better or worse than your average man in the street. In most things in politics, it's often a case of being, well meaning but somewhat misguided in some beliefs.
I agree with the EU comments.

Interesting insight, I have no problem with the moderate wing of the party at all. Their intentions are generally the best. I felt certainly the early years under Blair, Labour had the best of both worlds and was incredibly electable. The problems are when you go to far to either extreme. The leadership in my experience from momentum and the likes of Milne is a culture of intimidation and bullying, also often seen in Unions (for those who cross pickets or are helpful to management).

I do have to disagree that Labour economic policy would be less bad than the Tories currently, at present we have plenty of jobs, a slowly growing economy, even despite Brexit. Many thousands of public sector jobs were saved by pay freezes during the deficit, and the fact the deficit was brought under control. It was a tough but necessary action due to Gordon Brown losing control in the final years. Income Tax thresholds have risen, minimum wages have risen, Pension provision has been made with employee and employer contributions. Yes there are many problems as there are in many countries but Brexit aside I do think things could be a lot worse. THat all starts the minute the doll queue grows.
 

Tetchytyke

Established Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
10,953
Location
Isle of Man
instead tax more heavily on income and assets of individuals.
The problem is that income can be gamed, most infamously by the vulture capitalist boss of Boots bragging he paid less tax than his cleaner. Same with assets; you can't easily tax an offshore trust fund. Both of these sorts of loopholes are a lot harder to close than ones aimed at businesses who loan themselves money at huge interest rates, or who buy "IP" or "admin help" from themselves at inflated prices.

Its no use the UK deciding to Tax Amazon and co independently, the US would probably see it as some kind of trade war, they would just operate elsewhere or pull out.
France just did.

And "pull out"? Really? Amazon would leave a vastly profitable market because of a relatively small tax rise? Really really? 80% of something is better than 100% of nothing, which would be their revenue here if they left the UK.
 

StaffsWCML

Member
Joined
10 Apr 2019
Messages
221
The problem is that income can be gamed, most infamously by the vulture capitalist boss of Boots bragging he paid less tax than his cleaner. Same with assets; you can't easily tax an offshore trust fund. Both of these sorts of loopholes are a lot harder to close than ones aimed at businesses who loan themselves money at huge interest rates, or who buy "IP" or "admin help" from themselves at inflated prices.



France just did.

And "pull out"? Really? Amazon would leave a vastly profitable market because of a relatively small tax rise? Really really? 80% of something is better than 100% of nothing, which would be their revenue here if they left the UK.
I don't really know much about what France have done or how sustainable it is. Who knows what Amazon would do, or what the US government would do in terms of trade. If it were perceived that US tech companies were unfairly treated.

The UK exports more to the US than France, we actually have a trade surplus with the US. Damaging our trade with the US would be equally as silly as leaving the EU.
 

DarloRich

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
24,069
Location
Work - Fenny Stratford(MK) Home - Darlington
I don't really know much about what France have done or how sustainable it is. Who knows what Amazon would do, or what the US government would do in terms of trade. If it were perceived that US tech companies were unfairly treated.

The UK exports more to the US than France, we actually have a trade surplus with the US. Damaging our trade with the US would be equally as silly as leaving the EU.
amazon are not going to leave the UK if they are taxed a bit more. What they are going to do is structure themselves in the most tax efficient way possible mitigating, as much as they can, any increased exposure.
 

StaffsWCML

Member
Joined
10 Apr 2019
Messages
221
amazon are not going to leave the UK if they are taxed a bit more. What they are going to do is structure themselves in the most tax efficient way possible mitigating, as much as they can, any increased exposure.
Most likely not, they will do whatever is tax efficient which may mean less jobs, more imports from a third country.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top