"British Tea Party" organises pro-cuts rally - May 14th

[scorza]

It is obvious that thousands would turn out for anti cut protests due to the sheer size of the public sector and indirect public sector jobs.

Thousands turn out for anti-cuts protests because thousands are adversely affected by it. By no means was it simply a case of public sector workers turning out. Equally not many people turned up for this protest because they're already getting what they want.

Generally speaking "the right" doesn't need to protest because they already have means to influence the system, while "the left" generally doesn't - which is of course why the system always changes to the poor and disenfranchised's detriment.

 

[Dolph]

So what tiny minority of the population is needed before we start taking notice of the protestors?

Is the 0.0006% of people protesting today a non-meaningful figure compared to the 0.04% of people involved in the anti-cuts protests?

Or can we simply ignore both groups?

 

[Theophany]

52% of the electorate voted for parties who made it quite clear in the election run-up that they would cut slower. Assuming all the independents and 'others' took a similar line to the Conservatives its still the case that most people voted for something other than what is happening.

Cutting slower than is already occurring, in context, is like comparing the speeds of one tectonic plate to another. They're both painfully slow.

The only reason it 'hurts' is because the previous governments were negligent in their spending. If the people on the Left need somebody to be ****ed at, they should look within their own ranks and apply some rational thought for a change.

 

[Dolph]

Generally speaking "the right" doesn't need to protest because they already have means to influence the system, while "the left" generally doesn't - which is of course why the system always changes to the poor and disenfranchised's detriment.

That has to be the biggest load of apologist crap ever used to justify the violence and intimidation tactics used by the left when they don't get their way...

 

[Biohazard]

That has to be the biggest load of apologist crap ever used to justify the violence and intimidation tactics used by the left when they don't get their way...

Don't fall into generalisations yourself Dolph.

You are more intelligent than this.

 

[scorza]

So what tiny minority of the population is needed before we start taking notice of the protestors?

Is the 0.0006% of people protesting today a non-meaningful figure compared to the 0.04% of people involved in the anti-cuts protests?

Or can we simply ignore both groups?

You ignore them at their peril. This is where politicians earn their money, judging the relative merits of protests. Get it wrong and there are consequences for your party and society.

 

[Kmodo]

Thousands turn out for anti-cuts protests because thousands are adversely affected by it. By no means was it simply a case of public sector workers turning out

Spin it how you want, from what I saw Public sector workers and indirect public sector workers clearly made up the bulk of the protestors

 

[Biohazard]

You ignore them at their peril. This is where politicians earn their money, judging the relative merits of protests. Get it wrong and there are consequences for your party and society.

Or making them illegal outright in certain cases with some...

 

[Dolph]

You ignore them at their peril. This is where politicians earn their money, judging the relative merits of protests. Get it wrong and there are consequences for your party and society.

So effectively you're arguing that vocal minorities should be listened to against those who aren't part of them?

As for consequences, why do you think Labour performed so terribly (worse than John Major's Tories in 1997) at the last election and were only protected due to gerrymandering and excessive representation in scotland and wales?

 

[Biohazard]

So effectively you're arguing that vocal minorities should be listened to against those who aren't part of them?

You know he's right.

It might be a minority on the streets, but the discussion and publicity brings support and disdain.

People may not be bothered to travel to London to take part, but they take notice and decide on the wider issue themself.

As for consequences, why do you think Labour performed so terribly (worse than John Major's Tories in 1997) at the last election and were only protected due to gerrymandering and excessive representation in scotland and wales?

Tory heartland?

 

[scorza]

Spin it how you want, from what I saw Public sector workers and indirect public sector workers clearly made up the bulk of the protestors

You were there then? How do you know they were public sector workers? Did you ask them or do they all look a bit funny?

 

[scorza]

So effectively you're arguing that vocal minorities should be listened to against those who aren't part of them?

I think politicians should always listen to the public don't you? Whether or not you they should do anything is another matter.

 

[Kmodo]

You were there then? How do you know they were public sector workers? Did you ask them or do they all look a bit funny?

So you don't think the unions rallied the majority of troops?

 

[Biohazard]

So you don't think the unions rallied the majority of troops?

Maybe half?

Not sure I don't know.

But why are people included in a union all of a sudden not people, but a congealed mass single body?

People can be in a union, and have remarkably differing politics.

But union scaremongery is nothing new.

 

[Kmodo]

Maybe half?

Not sure I don't know.

But why are people included in a union all of a sudden not people, but a congealed mass single body?

People can be in a union, and have remarkably differing politics.

But union scaremongery is nothing new.

Where did I say they were not people?

He is arguing against this statement

It is obvious that thousands would turn out for anti cut protests due to the sheer size of the public sector and indirect public sector jobs.

 

[Snax]

Sorry typo I meant evasion.



It would depend on which country as the department looks set to continue to sign reciprocal transparancy agreements with countries and economic hidey-holes.



I don't think they are at all. This has been wheeled out decade after decade as an attack on the tax regime - it's never happened.

I asked for evidence of it happening en masse in the world, no one can bring it either.



That is not HMRC's job directly, the last part.

HMRC's job is is to "protect" and collect the revenue.

It should do so harder and more ruthlessly, and stop cutting deals with business without consulting legal advice..

Well they are definitely not evasion schemes either. Evasion is illegal.

How much do you know about the UK tax system? HMRC cant collect power from those outside the UK's tax net. Transparency agreements just show up evasion (illegal), not avoidance (legal). The agreements will show undeclared funds but will not suddenly allow the UK to tax extra jurisdictions.

People have highlighted substantial companies that have moved abroad. I would say that is fairly comprehensive. Again- companies can move funds to be taxed in other areas while maintaining a presence in the UK. Moving HQ is a high profile example. Other low profile examples involve re-structuring to be taxed elsewhere (not illegal, hard to stop without breaking EU laws)

Regarding the comments about cutting deals without consulting legal advice; are you talking about the Vodafone case?

 

[Biohazard]

Where did I say they were not people?

He is arguing against this statement

Just the impression I get sometimes here, sorry if that was not your intent.

Perhaps there were a lot of private sector workers in there unhappy their public teet was being removed also

 

[scorza]

So you don't think the unions rallied the majority of troops?

It was organised at least in part by the TUC, but that doesn't mean exclusively public sector or even exclusively union members. Sadly I wasn't able to attend the march that day, but a few people here went and said there was a very diverse mix of people.

 

[Biohazard]

Well they are definitely not evasion schemes either. Evasion is illegal.

Sorry I though you were speaking the other way then since you questioned avoidance.

How much do you know about the UK tax system? HMRC cant collect power from those outside the UK's tax net. Transparency agreements just show up evasion (illegal), not avoidance (legal). The agreements will show undeclared funds but will not suddenly allow the UK to tax extra jurisdictions.

A fair bit.

People have highlighted substantial companies that have moved abroad. I would say that is fairly comprehensive. Again- companies can move funds to be taxed in other areas while maintaining a presence in the UK. Moving HQ is a high profile example. Other low profile examples involve re-structuring to be taxed elsewhere (not illegal, hard to stop without breaking EU laws)

Which companies? :

Regarding the comments about cutting deals without consulting legal advice; are you talking about the Vodafone case?

Other's also, it's becoming the norm it would seem.

 

[Kmodo]

Just the impression I get sometimes here, sorry if that was not your intent.

Perhaps there were a lot of private sector workers in there unhappy their public teet was being removed also

It certainly was not my intent

I am sure there were and that is why I say indirect public sector jobs. There are many companies who exclusive serve the public sector with little to no competition and completely rip the tax payer off.