The Doctor Posted 7 May 2015 Posted 7 May 2015 Question - is it a breach of regulations or illegal to post exit polls? Think it is but not certain.
David Hankey Posted 7 May 2015 Posted 7 May 2015 David Cameron wanted less regulation in banking so if the tories were in power the exact same would have happened, maybe even worse. Perhaps the tories would have spent less in the run up to the crash but then maybe the economy would have grown less during the preceding years. My point is this - Many people blame Labour for the economic downturn when that is simply a one dimensional view on the topic. Hypothetical. This was on New Labour's watch, no good anyone denying it.
MooseBreath Posted 7 May 2015 Posted 7 May 2015 But I think that's part of the argument, that many corporations pay such a limited amount of Corporation tax which stands at around 20%, for all businesses, isn't a particularly high amount to pay, however that is a fair statement that they do employ many people who pay income tax. However, of course corporation tax is only on profits, so it's not unreasonable. For example when Amazon contribute very little compared to what they should be paying, many people feel angry, as many people have to pay more than 20% on a lot less earnings, which is understandable. EDIT: I'm not blaming any political party for any corporations avoiding tax. What benefit is there to raising corporation tax if it just means businesses will grow less and employ less people? I don't know why you equate corporations with individual people. Most large corporations in this country are publicly listed so those benefitting from lower corporation tax are shareholders, like most of usare through pensions. This idea that an average corporation benefits just one super rich bloke and therefore he should pay the same tax as anyone else is a bit naive to say the least.
MiniFox Posted 7 May 2015 Posted 7 May 2015 What benefit is there to raising corporation tax if it just means businesses will grow less and employ less people? I don't know why you equate corporations with individual people. Most large corporations in this country are publicly listed so those benefitting from lower corporation tax are shareholders, like most of usare through pensions. This idea that an average corporation benefits just one super rich bloke and therefore he should pay the same tax as anyone else is a bit naive to say the least. It's not about raising corporation tax, I never said that, as you said businesses will grow less, plus it doesn't exactly help people wanting to start their own businesses if the corporation tax is too high. The point is, these corporations, as you have already said, are made up of people, shareholders, of which benefit from said corporations not paying certain taxes, meaning they will receive more than they would/should have, which still asks the question, why should one individual be allowed to pay less tax than another? As for the one super rich bloke comment, to an extent you are right, but their are a lot of businesses which do have one majority shareholder, meaning, yes one super rich bloke will benefit, along with a few other fairly rich shareholders. But the fact is, these corporations should pay their fair share, that's the point.
Guest Posted 7 May 2015 Posted 7 May 2015 I know you've said that, I just don't believe you. I think you're making those comments in some ridiculous effort to make your points of view sound less motivated by greed. If your views were less inconsistent maybe people would take you more seriously and might be more inclined to believe you. I can't change what you believe and neither do I care. It must be sad to not believe people whom you've never met despite every fact you know showing that you are wrong. Being a successful self-employed businessman I wouldn't dream of having my investments in a country where I no longer live, I like to have immediate control over them. I keep a small amount of cash in a bank account for when I'm holidaying over there or buying presents from England. My views are incredibly consistent. It must be strange to believe in a life where individuals have to fit into Tory/Socialist devil/hetero/coulour etc... stereotype category. Real people are a mixture of lots of different categories. Just because you can't understand me it doesn't mean that I don't exist. It simply means your intellectual capabilities are limited. For some they improve with age and education and travel etc... Hope they do for you too.
Guest Posted 7 May 2015 Posted 7 May 2015 Hypothetical. This was on New Labour's watch, no good anyone denying it. New Labour, Tory ? What's the real difference?
Guest Posted 7 May 2015 Posted 7 May 2015 It's not about raising corporation tax, I never said that, as you said businesses will grow less, plus it doesn't exactly help people wanting to start their own businesses if the corporation tax is too high. The point is, these corporations, as you have already said, are made up of people, shareholders, of which benefit from said corporations not paying certain taxes, meaning they will receive more than they would/should have, which still asks the question, why should one individual be allowed to pay less tax than another? As for the one super rich bloke comment, to an extent you are right, but their are a lot of businesses which do have one majority shareholder, meaning, yes one super rich bloke will benefit, along with a few other fairly rich shareholders. But the fact is, these corporations should pay their fair share, that's the point. Was going to reply but you are eloquently enlightening Moose. Be careful though he'll start to call you a girl.
GaelicFox Posted 7 May 2015 Posted 7 May 2015 I had to que to VOTE ....every time that has happened I have seen a change of government
GaelicFox Posted 7 May 2015 Posted 7 May 2015 New Labour, Tory ? What's the real difference? NONE what so ever ....first past the post needs to go as well
MooseBreath Posted 7 May 2015 Posted 7 May 2015 It's not about raising corporation tax, I never said that, as you said businesses will grow less, plus it doesn't exactly help people wanting to start their own businesses if the corporation tax is too high. The point is, these corporations, as you have already said, are made up of people, shareholders, of which benefit from said corporations not paying certain taxes, meaning they will receive more than they would/should have, which still asks the question, why should one individual be allowed to pay less tax than another? As for the one super rich bloke comment, to an extent you are right, but their are a lot of businesses which do have one majority shareholder, meaning, yes one super rich bloke will benefit, along with a few other fairly rich shareholders. But the fact is, these corporations should pay their fair share, that's the point. I don't pay less income tax because I'm a shareholder in a corporation. An individual's income tax and corporation tax aren't comparable, there's no logical reason why they should be the same or even similar. It's apples and oranges.
MooseBreath Posted 7 May 2015 Posted 7 May 2015 I can't change what you believe and neither do I care. It must be sad to not believe people whom you've never met despite every fact you know showing that you are wrong. Being a successful self-employed businessman I wouldn't dream of having my investments in a country where I no longer live, I like to have immediate control over them. I keep a small amount of cash in a bank account for when I'm holidaying over there or buying presents from England. My views are incredibly consistent. It must be strange to believe in a life where individuals have to fit into Tory/Socialist devil/hetero/coulour etc... stereotype category. Real people are a mixture of lots of different categories. Just because you can't understand me it doesn't mean that I don't exist. It simply means your intellectual capabilities are limited. For some they improve with age and education and travel etc... Hope they do for you too. I've got more letters after my name than there are letters in my name, so i think I'm covered for education. I've also travelled extensively all over the world, focusing mostly on the poorer parts of the world, but I've also lived in four different countries for at least six months each. I haven't lived in France yet. I'm sure you're right and that moving a few dozen miles down the road is what my life is missing. It must be so enlightening to live in such an exotic place. As for age, I'll just have to wait and see. A lot can happen in the 50 years I have to wait until I'm your age.
MiniFox Posted 7 May 2015 Posted 7 May 2015 I don't pay less income tax because I'm a shareholder in a corporation. An individual's income tax and corporation tax aren't comparable, there's no logical reason why they should be the same or even similar. It's apples and oranges. No, you don't pay less income tax because you're a shareholder. But the money you receive from any business isn't classed as income tax unless you have received it as a salary, the money they receive is usually taxed as a dividend (I believe). But before that money reaches them, corporation tax is supposed to be paid, which when it isn't, the people who receive profits get more than they should have.
Guest Posted 7 May 2015 Posted 7 May 2015 I've got more letters after my name than there are letters in my name, so i think I'm covered for education. Your criminal record number is not your name.
MooseBreath Posted 7 May 2015 Posted 7 May 2015 Your ciminal record number is not your name. My what now?
Guest Bilo Posted 7 May 2015 Posted 7 May 2015 I think you are ignoring demograpics here mate, Bradford and Bethnal Green where respect won were both over 40% Muslim, Leicester South was less than 10% yet they received 16% of the vote, had Leicester South been 40-50% Muslim like Bradford West, it looks pretty clear that Respect would have easily taken that seat on the voting trend. Nothing to do with the people of Leicester realising anything, just that Respect aren't going to win any seat where there isn't a huge Muslim population in it. Respect certainly won't win any seat that doesn't have a large Muslim population in it, for much the same reason that UKIP wouldn't win a seat with a large Asian population. It simply isn't their target audience. It is, however, a little simplistic to say Muslims vote Respect. If that were the case, Respect would have MPs not only in Bradford, but in Birmingham, Oldham, Rotherham, East London and anywhere else there is a large Islamic population. The fact is that these people are voting not for Respect, but for Galloway himself. This is more down to celebrity culture than anything else, it's certainly no political awakening. Of far more relevance to me than the number of Muslims are the unemployment figures and number of adults with no qualifications in Bradford West - Muslims might be more likely to vote Respect, but impoverished, ignorant and gullible Muslims are even more likely to vote for Gorgeous George. It works in much the same way that the BNP used to before their vote collapsed - white working class was their target market, but impoverished, ignorant and gullible white working class were far more likely to cast their vote for Nick Griffin and his ilk. Put bluntly, you don't have to be thick as pigshit to vote Galloway, but it definitely helps. Once Galloway realised that the people of Bethnal Green weren't going to give him a second shot, he tried the same in the nearby constituency of Poplar & Limehouse. A similar ethnic demographic for sure, but with less poverty and less muppets to exploit. He ended upcoming a very distant third behind the Labour and Tory candidates, the former of whom romped home. The key difference between the BNP and Respect though is that all the other parties got it right with the former - they had the potential to be dangerous in their determination to stir up racial tension so the main parties united and destroyed them, to the extent I'd be amazed if any BNP candidate recouped their deposit tonight. It was only a few years ago they had seats in on councils and in the European Parliament. What's needed with Respect is for the main parties to stop burying their heads in the sand and realise they're just as dangerous as the BNP once were, and are using the same tactics by riling up the aggressive, ignorant and naive in their target community. Once they get their heads round this, they should unite and batter them once and for all. What's most damning about that Ben Judah article is the fact it's not even surprising. Imagine that, more or less exactly the same behaviour seen in the East End of London by the Blackshirts and almost nobody blinks. If that doesn't scare people, I don't know what will.
Rincewind Posted 7 May 2015 Posted 7 May 2015 I do not think LeicesterSouth has a Respect candidate. Also there are Indian/Muslim (going by names) for other parties right and left. Can't remember them all.The sitting MP is Jon Ashworth, a safe seatand well liked and has one of the best attendance records for the HOP although I never voted for him. I felt it was safe to vote for an outsider.
Guest Bilo Posted 7 May 2015 Posted 7 May 2015 I do not think LeicesterSouth has a Respect candidate. Also there are Indian/Muslim (going by names) for other parties right and left. Can't remember them all.The sitting MP is Jon Ashworth, a safe seatand well liked and has one of the best attendance records for the HOP although I never voted for him. I felt it was safe to vote for an outsider. Respect haven't stood in Leicester South for years, mate. Labour will walk it as always - Ashworth seems like a good 'un to be honest.
Jon25747 Posted 7 May 2015 Posted 7 May 2015 Hypothetical. This was on New Labour's watch, no good anyone denying it. The fact it was on Labour's watch is coincidental...
Guest MattP Posted 7 May 2015 Posted 7 May 2015 Respect certainly won't win any seat that doesn't have a large Muslim population in it, for much the same reason that UKIP wouldn't win a seat with a large Asian population. It simply isn't their target audience. It is, however, a little simplistic to say Muslims vote Respect. If that were the case, Respect would have MPs not only in Bradford, but in Birmingham, Oldham, Rotherham, East London and anywhere else there is a large Islamic population. The fact is that these people are voting not for Respect, but for Galloway himself. This is more down to celebrity culture than anything else, it's certainly no political awakening. Of far more relevance to me than the number of Muslims are the unemployment figures and number of adults with no qualifications in Bradford West - Muslims might be more likely to vote Respect, but impoverished, ignorant and gullible Muslims are even more likely to vote for Gorgeous George. It works in much the same way that the BNP used to before their vote collapsed - white working class was their target market, but impoverished, ignorant and gullible white working class were far more likely to cast their vote for Nick Griffin and his ilk. Put bluntly, you don't have to be thick as pigshit to vote Galloway, but it definitely helps. Once Galloway realised that the people of Bethnal Green weren't going to give him a second shot, he tried the same in the nearby constituency of Poplar & Limehouse. A similar ethnic demographic for sure, but with less poverty and less muppets to exploit. He ended upcoming a very distant third behind the Labour and Tory candidates, the former of whom romped home. The key difference between the BNP and Respect though is that all the other parties got it right with the former - they had the potential to be dangerous in their determination to stir up racial tension so the main parties united and destroyed them, to the extent I'd be amazed if any BNP candidate recouped their deposit tonight. It was only a few years ago they had seats in on councils and in the European Parliament. What's needed with Respect is for the main parties to stop burying their heads in the sand and realise they're just as dangerous as the BNP once were, and are using the same tactics by riling up the aggressive, ignorant and naive in their target community. Once they get their heads round this, they should unite and batter them once and for all. What's most damning about that Ben Judah article is the fact it's not even surprising. Imagine that, more or less exactly the same behaviour seen in the East End of London by the Blackshirts and almost nobody blinks. If that doesn't scare people, I don't know what will. Good post, although in no way did I say Muslims vote for respect, I said based on the muslim demographic in South Leicester it would be highly likely in the election where they got 16% of the vote they would have elected Respect had the demographics been that of Bradford West or Bethal Green and Bow. Respect haven't stood in Leicester South for years, mate. Labour will walk it as always - Ashworth seems like a good 'un to be honest. Has a good voting record, although was one of the Labour MP's exposed employing people on zero hour contracts and not paying the living wage.
Rincewind Posted 7 May 2015 Posted 7 May 2015 Yes he will he has a big majority. Never met him but from his lituture handed out he has a team working with him visiting communities and local projects. He has also visited the Gaza strip several times working with volunteers and reportin on the situation there. I have mentioned i tbeforebut there is a website They work for you' where you can keep track on what your local MP is doing and activity in Paliament. I have email alerts re JA. I don't care what part an MP represents. If they are activeand listen to their consitients then they have my respect.
Rincewind Posted 7 May 2015 Posted 7 May 2015 The fact it was on Labour's watch is coincidental... Labour back then was New Labour or the New Tory to be more exact.
Harry - LCFC Posted 7 May 2015 Posted 7 May 2015 Someone on my facebook said the Conservative Party taking office in the 2010 election was a 'coup'.
Guest MattP Posted 7 May 2015 Posted 7 May 2015 Someone on my facebook said the Conservative Party taking office in the 2010 election was a 'coup'. You want to read some of the SNP stuff. Obsessed with conspiracy theories, a lot of them still believe the referendum was rigged. There is some fringe group of the party tonight stationing themselves outside polling booths to follow the boxes to the count.
Guest Bilo Posted 7 May 2015 Posted 7 May 2015 You want to read some of the SNP stuff. Obsessed with conspiracy theories, a lot of them still believe the referendum was rigged. There is some fringe group of the party tonight stationing themselves outside polling booths to follow the boxes to the count. Nationalists are pretty much always nutters - amazed people still think the SNP are a bunch of lefties.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.