The Theresa May General Election thread (edited)

What's Hot
17172747677200

Comments

  • ToneControlToneControl Frets: 11791
    AliGorie said:
    Samgb said:

    • Rising Bigotry and nationalism? Where's your proof? There's definitely less bigotry that there used to be, although nationalism has increased in Scotland
    yeah TC, British nationalism - it's being deliberately stoked - divide an conquer. I have said from the outset of the rise for independence that THEY (British State) would be prepared to  'send the troopes in'. It has been said *by Torys) that the SNP were a threat to the British state and that they were like 'terrorists'. Expect the worst from the remnants of 'The Empire'.
    is there any proof of the nationalism in England increasing?
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • JalapenoJalapeno Frets: 6378
    edited May 2017
    Just an opinion - I feel it's xenophobia rather than nationalism per se that's on the rise (in England).
    Imagine something sharp and witty here ......

    Feedback
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom
  • DarnWeightDarnWeight Frets: 2566
    Just to address the food banks thing.  Yes, the number of food banks themselves have gone up, but to paint that as the reason for the increase in food bank use is pretty rank.  The numbers clearly point to a fairly sharp rise in food bank use around about 2012-13, which coincided with changes to JSA and benefit regimes, i.e. the increased use of "sanctioning".  There is a strong correlation between delays in benefit payments (a large proportion down to imposition of conditions/sanctions) and increased food bank usage.  This isn't propaganda.  Here's a link to the paper, published by researchers at the University of Oxford using Trussell Trust and Local Authority data.
    So, a paper from an Oxford academic, from research funded by the Trussell Trust says that it seems that people who lose benefits through sanctions are more likely to seek food from a food bank. I'd say this would be a predictable outcome
     
    Is this relevant to "tax cheats" though?
    No relevance to tax cheats.  I don't really know where to begin with that one.  I've bolded my first sentence in the quote above just to clarify what I was specifically addressing.

    This is from the funding section of the paper...

    This research was funded by a grant provided by the Trussell Trust Foodbank Network. The research question, design, analyses, and writing were soley devised by the study authors. The views expressed reflect only the authors’ interpretations of the findings. RL and DS were also supported by a Wellcome Trust Investigator Award during the course of this research.

    ...so make of that what you will.  They were also using Local Authority data with regards JSA claims/sanctions, so I'd argue their data isn't solely based on numbers provided by Trussell.  As a scientist myself, I'd say the outcome would be a direct result of the hypothesis they were testing, and how well the data bore that hypothesis out.

    Being that the government's position appears to be that there are "many complex reasons why people use food banks" (both TM and Priti Patel are on record as using that phrase), I'd rather they acknowledged (or were challenged to acknowledge, by y'know, professional journalists) that studies linking their own policies and schemes are out there, and the reasons aren't nearly as complex as they'd like us to believe.
    New fangled trading feedback link right here!
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom
  • GarthyGarthy Frets: 2268
    AliGorie said:
    Samgb said:

    • Rising Bigotry and nationalism? Where's your proof? There's definitely less bigotry that there used to be, although nationalism has increased in Scotland
    yeah TC, British nationalism - it's being deliberately stoked - divide an conquer. I have said from the outset of the rise for independence that THEY (British State) would be prepared to  'send the troopes in'. It has been said *by Torys) that the SNP were a threat to the British state and that they were like 'terrorists'. Expect the worst from the remnants of 'The Empire'.
    is there any proof of the nationalism in England increasing?
    Nationalism in England is racist, bigoted xenophobia. Nationalism in Wales, Scotland and Ireland is proud patriotism. I wish all three would just get on with their Indy-Refs and sod off.
    0reaction image LOL 1reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • capo4thcapo4th Frets: 4437
    Interesting that no one wants to discuss the £40000 self employed tax cheats
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • ToneControlToneControl Frets: 11791
    capo4th said:
    Interesting that no one wants to discuss the £40000 self employed tax cheats
    or the £65000 self-employed tax cheats, they are working-class, and part of the many, not the few

    Reassuringly, HMRC spends a lot of time and money chasing the self-employed tax cheats, so at least they are attempting to do their job properly.

    I forgot to include this quote, some earn £100k putting them in the top 3% earners in the UK:

    Pimlico Plumbers, one of the biggest plumbing firms in London, ........

    Charlie Mullins, its chief executive, said: “The growth in the economy .... the availability of skilled engineers is heading in the opposite direction.”

    Mullins said it presented a great opportunity for experienced plumbers to cash in on their skills: “Our plumbers can earn up to £100,000 a year,” he said.

    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • ToneControlToneControl Frets: 11791
    Just to address the food banks thing.  Yes, the number of food banks themselves have gone up, but to paint that as the reason for the increase in food bank use is pretty rank.  The numbers clearly point to a fairly sharp rise in food bank use around about 2012-13, which coincided with changes to JSA and benefit regimes, i.e. the increased use of "sanctioning".  There is a strong correlation between delays in benefit payments (a large proportion down to imposition of conditions/sanctions) and increased food bank usage.  This isn't propaganda.  Here's a link to the paper, published by researchers at the University of Oxford using Trussell Trust and Local Authority data.
    So, a paper from an Oxford academic, from research funded by the Trussell Trust says that it seems that people who lose benefits through sanctions are more likely to seek food from a food bank. I'd say this would be a predictable outcome
     
    Is this relevant to "tax cheats" though?
    No relevance to tax cheats.  I don't really know where to begin with that one.  I've bolded my first sentence in the quote above just to clarify what I was specifically addressing.

    This is from the funding section of the paper...

    This research was funded by a grant provided by the Trussell Trust Foodbank Network. The research question, design, analyses, and writing were soley devised by the study authors. The views expressed reflect only the authors’ interpretations of the findings. RL and DS were also supported by a Wellcome Trust Investigator Award during the course of this research.

    ...so make of that what you will.  They were also using Local Authority data with regards JSA claims/sanctions, so I'd argue their data isn't solely based on numbers provided by Trussell.  As a scientist myself, I'd say the outcome would be a direct result of the hypothesis they were testing, and how well the data bore that hypothesis out.

    Being that the government's position appears to be that there are "many complex reasons why people use food banks" (both TM and Priti Patel are on record as using that phrase), I'd rather they acknowledged (or were challenged to acknowledge, by y'know, professional journalists) that studies linking their own policies and schemes are out there, and the reasons aren't nearly as complex as they'd like us to believe.
    I was just trying to keep my argument about tax avoidance on track.

    Anyway, to address your point directly, I think this research on this food bank issue is pretty pointless:
    1. Well-meaning people collaborate to open a food bank (Trussell is 20 years old, and was active in the UK for 6 years of the labour government, so it's not a reaction to the current govt)
    2. The food bank implements rules as to who can use it and under what circumstances (or else anyone can turn up and take advantage)
    3. The rules will typically include extreme hardship (such as having your benefits sanctioned) - you need a special voucher to claim food
    4. The food bank then decides to pay for an Oxford academic to research when people use the food bank
    5. The research says that increased use of sanctions (which is a technique to get benefit claimants to comply with terms of benefit provision) correlates with increased use of the foodbank. No shit Sherlock?
    This is so predictable, given the organisation funding the research writes its own rules on who qualifies for food, that it seems a waste of charity money to me to pay an academic to write the paper.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom
  • stickyfiddlestickyfiddle Frets: 26754
    Sporky said:.

    There should be a "none of the above, throw them all in a pit with tigers" option.
    They could charge £50 for a special ballot paper with that option added. The funds raised could probably save the NHS...
    The Assumptions - UAE party band for all your rock & soul desires
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom
  • ToneControlToneControl Frets: 11791
    Garthy said:
    AliGorie said:
    Samgb said:

    • Rising Bigotry and nationalism? Where's your proof? There's definitely less bigotry that there used to be, although nationalism has increased in Scotland
    yeah TC, British nationalism - it's being deliberately stoked - divide an conquer. I have said from the outset of the rise for independence that THEY (British State) would be prepared to  'send the troopes in'. It has been said *by Torys) that the SNP were a threat to the British state and that they were like 'terrorists'. Expect the worst from the remnants of 'The Empire'.
    is there any proof of the nationalism in England increasing?
    Nationalism in England is racist, bigoted xenophobia. Nationalism in Wales, Scotland and Ireland is proud patriotism. I wish all three would just get on with their Indy-Refs and sod off.
    I am also tired of the unrealistic stereotypes that are wheeled out on these issues. There's a popular idea that the only people in England who feel strongly about nationalism are skinhead racists. 
    I can't see any evidence for that at all. 

    Known facts:

    nationalists in Wales used to burn English people's houses down
    I knew a very friendly, nice, popular guy (luthier/joiner) who moved to west Wales, learned Welsh, and was ostracised in his new town. 

    nationalists in Ireland have killed many people, hundreds if not thousands
    The most ugly bigoted xenophobia in living history in the UK has been in Northern Ireland
    I've been there and seen it. It's still there, most cannot avoid it

    I have little knowledge of Scottish nationalism beyond TV and media, but it doesn't all look pretty to me


    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 2reaction image Wisdom
  • ToneControlToneControl Frets: 11791
    edited May 2017
    Getting back to my point

    does anyone here believe that the majority of cash that is not collected by HMRC because of tax evasion is because of "tax cheats" such as the stereotypical "Banker" or wealthy professional?

    here's some evidence:

    Top 3,000 earners pay more tax than the bottom 9 million
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/tax/11233686/How-top-3000-earners-pay-more-tax-than-bottom-9-million.html

    Top 1% of earners pay over 25% of all income tax
    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-27/u-k-s-top-1-of-earners-now-paying-a-quarter-of-all-income-tax

    Top 1% of earners pay 27% of all income tax
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/26/nearly-half-of-britons-pay-no-income-tax-as-burden-on-rich-incre/

    Top 25% of earners pay 75% of all income tax
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2580074/Top-25-earners-pay-75-ALL-income-tax-half-country-contributes-10.html

    Bottom 50% of earners pay 10% of all income tax
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2580074/Top-25-earners-pay-75-ALL-income-tax-half-country-contributes-10.html

    So, do any of you guys know anyone who works cash-in-hand, and declares their income truthfully to HMRC?
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom
  • HeartfeltdawnHeartfeltdawn Frets: 22097
    Evilmags said:
    The food bank argument is propaganda of the worst sort. Any basic drill down into the statistics shows about 0.03 percent of the population use them at any given time. What difference is their between private and public charity, except one is entirely voluntary and the other is coerced? The only recorded and real examples of "rising bigotry" is the anti semitisim so beloved of Corbynites and UKIP just collapsed in the last election and the SNP lost ground. In short, nothing you said at all bares up to even basic analysis. 

    If you are actually suggesting that it's only the Jews facing rising bigotry out there, then that's statistically untrue. 




    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom
  • HeartfeltdawnHeartfeltdawn Frets: 22097
    edited May 2017
    So, a paper from an Oxford academic, from research funded by the Trussell Trust says that it seems that people who lose benefits through sanctions are more likely to seek food from a food bank. I'd say this would be a predictable outcome
     

    Not as predictable as the 'wargh he's a professor at a university he must be a fucking leftie and he's on the take' approach. 




    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 3reaction image Wisdom
  • HeartfeltdawnHeartfeltdawn Frets: 22097
    Getting back to my point

    does anyone here believe that the majority of cash that is not collected by HMRC because of tax evasion is because of "tax cheats" such as the stereotypical "Banker" or wealthy professional?

    here's some evidence:

    Top 3,000 earners pay more tax than the bottom 9 million
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/tax/11233686/How-top-3000-earners-pay-more-tax-than-bottom-9-million.html

    Top 1% of earners pay over 25% of all income tax
    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-27/u-k-s-top-1-of-earners-now-paying-a-quarter-of-all-income-tax

    Top 1% of earners pay 27% of all income tax
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/26/nearly-half-of-britons-pay-no-income-tax-as-burden-on-rich-incre/



    That article about the top 1% of earners... is there anywhere that says what that top 1% actually earned? A breakdown of what they earned and then the amount of income tax they paid as a percentage of earnings would be interesting. 



    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom
  • DarnWeightDarnWeight Frets: 2566
    I was just trying to keep my argument about tax avoidance on track.

    Anyway, to address your point directly, I think this research on this food bank issue is pretty pointless:
    1. Well-meaning people collaborate to open a food bank (Trussell is 20 years old, and was active in the UK for 6 years of the labour government, so it's not a reaction to the current govt)
    2. The food bank implements rules as to who can use it and under what circumstances (or else anyone can turn up and take advantage)
    3. The rules will typically include extreme hardship (such as having your benefits sanctioned) - you need a special voucher to claim food
    4. The food bank then decides to pay for an Oxford academic to research when people use the food bank
    5. The research says that increased use of sanctions (which is a technique to get benefit claimants to comply with terms of benefit provision) correlates with increased use of the foodbank. No shit Sherlock?
    This is so predictable, given the organisation funding the research writes its own rules on who qualifies for food, that it seems a waste of charity money to me to pay an academic to write the paper.
    Sorry for the derail...my comment was mostly directed at 'mags initial response, not yours.

    Like it or not, Trussell are in a unique position to collect this data, being that they're basically a franchise with food banks across the country.  That makes the data they capture "valuable" from an academic standpoint.  It's up to them if they choose to fund independent research.

    Yes, food banks have been with us since before the current government, but food bank use has increased by more than an order of magnitude on the current government's watch (I'm including the previous coalition government here).  As this research points out, those numbers can be clearly linked with increased benefits sanctioning.  It may be an obvious conclusion, but it's one that this government are at pains to deny whenever they're taken to task about it.
    New fangled trading feedback link right here!
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 4reaction image Wisdom
  • ChuckManualChuckManual Frets: 692

    Known facts:

    nationalists in Wales used to burn English people's houses down
    I knew a very friendly, nice, popular guy (luthier/joiner) who moved to west Wales, learned Welsh, and was ostracised in his new town. 

    Other known facts:

    You can find arseholes everywhere - Wales doesn't have exclusive rights to xenophobic bullshit.

    Example 1: My parents retired to Wales from the English south coast (where they'd lived their entire lives) and were immediately assimilated into the local community with no issues whatsoever from their neighbours or townsfolk and have lived there very happily for twenty years now without a single problem.

    Example 2: Our next-door neighbours (in Sussex) originally came from Yorkshire. Their neighbours on the other side originally came from Lancashire ...and neither of them have exchanged a pleasant word in the decade (twelve years, actually, I think) that they've been living next to each-other - because of the War of the fucking Roses, five hundred years ago?!  :o

    We seem to have got waaaay off topic though...

    My current political quandary is this; I can't remember ever actually liking a leader of a political party (John Smith, maybe? But probably only because he wasn't in post long enough to make any disastrous/stupid/hypocritical decisions?), but I currently actively dislike all the leaders (and their ideologies) that we are saddled with at the moment.
    Not much of the gear, even less idea.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom
  • FretwiredFretwired Frets: 24601
    Why are so many people using food banks?

    The Trussell Trust operates as a “social franchise”, which means that each food bank is run as an independent charity but the central organisation provides training, guidelines and logistical support. The details vary from town to town but the overall set-up is the same. Doctors, social workers, the police and various charities hand out vouchers to people in crisis. With this voucher, they can then collect three days’ worth of food from their local food bank. Food banks were designed as an emergency stopgap: the aim is that people should collect no more than three parcels, by which point they should, in theory, have found a more sustainable solution.

    When a series of reports drew links between government welfare policies and increased food bank usage, the DWP repeatedly insisted there was insufficient evidence for these claims. “Figures used in the media about food banks have been self-reported by food bank providers and their users, and the statistics have not been independently checked or verified,” the DWP said in 2013. Chris Mould of the Trussell Trust told me he “would push back very strongly on criticism of the data”, and emphasised that the trust complies with Office for National Statistics guidelines as best it can.

    between half and two-thirds of users end up at food banks because of problems with benefits. This includes delayed payments, changes to benefits such as the reduction in Disability Living Allowance and financial penalties known as sanctions. As a condition of receiving Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA), claimants are required to demonstrate that they are actively looking for work, usually by applying for a set number of jobs a month, and to participate in various training schemes. If they fail to meet their targets they can be sanctioned, meaning that their benefits are cut. Equally, people receiving Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) because of a disability or a long-term health condition can be sanctioned for failing to attend a mandatory interview or training programme. In the year to September 2014, 895,000 sanctions were placed on ESA and JSA claimants, up from 564,000 in the final 12 months of the last Labour government.

    Now this is interesting ...

    On 19 December 2014, the NG7 Food Bank in Nottingham closed. In the 30 months before its closure it had fed over 5,500 people but it decided its position was untenable. In a media statement in November it objected to the local council using food banks, it said, as an alternative to state welfare provision, writing that “despite our best ongoing efforts, we have recognised that we are not being used as a temporary service of last resort, but rather being seen as a part of the long-term strategy of replacement for statutory services, [which] have a duty and the resources to address a large part of the need. We recognise that other approaches are now required to attempt to change the current situation for many in our communities.”

    Of central concern to NG7 was the council’s provision of emergency funds, such as crisis loans or benefit advances. These used to be administered by the government’s Social Fund, but in April 2013 the fund was abolished and responsibility for emergency hardship payments was devolved to local authorities on a discretionary basis. Nottingham City Council’s hardship fund is designed to support a range of people in short-term need, including those fleeing domestic violence, care leavers, and those waiting for a decision on a benefit claim or who have recently experienced a disaster. NG7 objected to the council’s policy that “the expectation would be that they [applicants] seek help from friends or family and the food banks”. In other words, the council is using food banks as an excuse to give out fewer emergency payments.

    So it would seem the government's draconian policies and measures leave people without benefits so they are forced to use food banks. Government also seems to be using food banks as an extension of the benefits system to save money which partly explains the growth.

    I pinched some of the above from a long-winded, but interesting article. You can read the full thing here:

    http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/03/why-are-so-many-people-using-food-banks



    Remember, it's easier to criticise than create!
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 5reaction image Wisdom
  • FretwiredFretwired Frets: 24601
    Crown Prosecution service clear Tories of electoral expenses fraud in all cases but one

    Here's the statement in full:

    Nick Vamos, CPS head of special crime, said: "We have considered files of evidence from 14 police forces in respect of allegations relating to Conservative Party candidates’ expenditure during the 2015 General Election campaign.

    “We considered whether candidates and election agents working in constituencies that were visited by the Party’s ‘Battle Bus’ may have committed a criminal offence by not declaring related expenditure on their local returns. Instead, as the Electoral Commission found in its report, these costs were recorded as national expenditure by the Party.

    “We reviewed the files in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors and have concluded the tests in the Code are not met and no criminal charges have been authorised.

    “Under the Representation of the People Act, every candidate and agent must sign a declaration on the expenses return that to the best of their knowledge and belief it is a complete and correct return as required by law. It is an offence to knowingly make a false declaration.

    "In order to bring a charge, it must be proved that a suspect knew the return was inaccurate and acted dishonestly in signing the declaration. Although there is evidence to suggest the returns may have been inaccurate, there is insufficient evidence to prove to the criminal standard that any candidate or agent was dishonest.

    “The Act also makes it a technical offence for an election agent to fail to deliver a true return. By omitting any ‘Battle Bus’ costs, the returns may have been inaccurate. However, it is clear agents were told by Conservative Party headquarters that the costs were part of the national campaign and it would not be possible to prove any agent acted knowingly or dishonestly.

    "Therefore we have concluded it is not in the public interest to charge anyone referred to us with this offence.

    “Our evaluation of the evidence is consistent with that of the Electoral Commission. While the role of the Commission is to regulate political finances and campaign spending, the role of the CPS is to consider whether any individual should face criminal charges, which is a different matter with different consideration and tests.

    “One file, from Kent Police, was only recently received by the CPS, and remains under consideration. No inference as to whether any criminal charge may or may not be authorised in relation to this file should be drawn from this fact and we will announce our decision as soon as possible once we have considered the evidence in this matter.”

    I thought as much ....

    Remember, it's easier to criticise than create!
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • quarkyquarky Frets: 2777
    capo4th said:
    Remember kids that on June the 9th if you have voted for Jeremy Corbyn you will be able to claim back your wealth.

    What the fuck does that mean is this a Diane Abbott number crunching excercise?

    What wealth does he believe people can claim back and can I make my claim asap Andy get a breakdown of how much I can claim if I vote for weird beard.
    He is a socialist, it isn't *your* wealth. He means the state will take "your" wealth.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • ToneControlToneControl Frets: 11791
    Getting back to my point

    does anyone here believe that the majority of cash that is not collected by HMRC because of tax evasion is because of "tax cheats" such as the stereotypical "Banker" or wealthy professional?

    here's some evidence:

    Top 3,000 earners pay more tax than the bottom 9 million
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/tax/11233686/How-top-3000-earners-pay-more-tax-than-bottom-9-million.html

    Top 1% of earners pay over 25% of all income tax
    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-27/u-k-s-top-1-of-earners-now-paying-a-quarter-of-all-income-tax

    Top 1% of earners pay 27% of all income tax
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/26/nearly-half-of-britons-pay-no-income-tax-as-burden-on-rich-incre/



    That article about the top 1% of earners... is there anywhere that says what that top 1% actually earned? A breakdown of what they earned and then the amount of income tax they paid as a percentage of earnings would be interesting. 
    it would
    the article says HMRC provided the figures:
    "The figures were disclosed in a Freedom of Information (FoI) request to the journalist Fraser Nelson as part of his investigation into growing wealth inequality in Britain. His findings will be broadcast in Channel 4’s investigations programme Dispatches, entitled How The Rich Get Richer,"

    Do you know how to get FOI data for this? 

    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • ToneControlToneControl Frets: 11791
    Fretwired said:
    Why are so many people using food banks?



    Now this is interesting ...


    I pinched some of the above from a long-winded, but interesting article. You can read the full thing here:

    http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/03/why-are-so-many-people-using-food-banks


    interesting stuff

    personally I think it's immoral for the state to expect private charities to provide remedies for flaws in the provision of assistance to those who need it. A G7 country with a welfare state should have no need for such charities 
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom
Sign In or Register to comment.