The I cant believe it’s not politics thread.

[Leicester_Loyal]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-63409687

 

'Shell has reported profits have more than doubled between July and September helped by high oil and gas prices.

The energy giant said underlying profits reached $9.5bn (£8.2bn) in the third quarter.'

[foxes1988]

23 minutes ago, Fazzer 7 said:

Well then there needs to be a cross party debate and resolution to this problem. With the population in the uk nearing 70 million an estimated 5+ million of that attributed to immigration in the last decade, “I believe that’s the figur I’ve read” its clear it can’t continue at the same rate, is it any wonder services and infrastructure can’t cope with demand. 

And why do people from anywhere just think they can wade into any country and expect it’s government to provide for them, yes there are genuine asylum seekers who should be and are catered for. But a great many just aren’t, they are economic migrants seeking a better life. There are regulated means of coming here to live and work. These people such as those crossing the channel seek only to bypass that system, probably because they know they wouldn’t qualify. But you’re right the whole thing is a mess, and yes people like *me do get excited, well not so much excited as angry. 

 

 

We need more cross part debate and resolution on all problems to be honest but this is the issue with FPTP voting systems.  All the power is with the Conservatives and the Labour has to be in 'opposition'.  Bring in PR or some other system and parties have to work together much more.

 

Why cant our services and infrastructure cope though.  I understand when a particular area gets overwhelmed with immigration (Boston) but in general on a national level we shouldn't have an issue.  Governments are happy to take the GDP growth and all the extra tax revenue that immigration brought us but not invest it and choose years of austerity.

[LVFox]

23 minutes ago, Robo61 said:

You really do need to do a little more research,  of those coming here by boat the vast majority apply for asylum and are eventually granted it,  they are not economic migrants.  I'll say it once more,  there are no safe routes for those seeking asylum and that is why we now have them crossing by boats.  This government have created a market for traffickers which was not previously there.  That is what you ought to be angry about.

100% this. A fully functioning home office with a quick asylum processing system eliminates the traffickers.

 

A department that does bugger all means migrants take matter into their own hands

[st albans fox]

16 minutes ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-63409687

 

'Shell has reported profits have more than doubled between July and September helped by high oil and gas prices.

The energy giant said underlying profits reached $9.5bn (£8.2bn) in the third quarter.'

Hunt will introduce further windfall taxes on energy producers - the difficulty being if you tax all their profits globally or just those in uk.

if the former, there is a huge incentive for them to depart these shores - I would 

[weller54]

[Dahnsouff]

3 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

Hunt will introduce further windfall taxes on energy producers - the difficulty being if you tax all their profits globally or just those in uk.

if the former, there is a huge incentive for them to depart these shores - I would 

But @ozleicester tells me tax flight is not real**

 

** it is, they just mean that as long as you invest the tax revenues correctly into education, you make new millionaires to replace those that leave

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2013/02/17/sorry-new-york-times-tax-flight-of-the-rich-is-not-a-myth/?sh=4758fff3e0be

 

[ealingfox]

31 minutes ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-63409687

 

'Shell has reported profits have more than doubled between July and September helped by high oil and gas prices.

The energy giant said underlying profits reached $9.5bn (£8.2bn) in the third quarter.'

 

Take it all. Every penny above what they were making before.

[StanSP]

@Fazzer 7 what did you think of any Ukrainians that came here when their country was being bombed by Russia? And still is, really.

 

Is it okay for them to come here and claim asylum? 

[yorkie1999]

1 hour ago, foxes1988 said:

We need more cross part debate and resolution on all problems to be honest but this is the issue with FPTP voting systems.  All the power is with the Conservatives and the Labour has to be in 'opposition'.  Bring in PR or some other system and parties have to work together much more.

 

Why cant our services and infrastructure cope though.  I understand when a particular area gets overwhelmed with immigration (Boston) but in general on a national level we shouldn't have an issue.  Governments are happy to take the GDP growth and all the extra tax revenue that immigration brought us but not invest it and choose years of austerity.

I'd have thought the obvious answer would be because they're not big enough and there isn't enough taxpayers money to pay for any increases. The money has all run out but the UK way of doing things is to carry on and hope things improve, bit like filling a bucket of water with a hosepipe but leaving it on in the hope that the water in the bucket evaporates.

[st albans fox]

56 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

But @ozleicester tells me tax flight is not real**

 

** it is, they just mean that as long as you invest the tax revenues correctly into education, you make new millionaires to replace those that leave

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2013/02/17/sorry-new-york-times-tax-flight-of-the-rich-is-not-a-myth/?sh=4758fff3e0be

 

Corporate tax flight is a little different 

 

let’s take an energy company registered in the U.K. and therefore payjng corporate taxes here - economically we need these companies. 
 

We will tax their profits (after their accountants  have applied their avoidance techniques ) - it’s still a plus for the U.K. economy 

 

if we impose a windfall tax on profits they make in other parts of the globe then the risk is that other countries do the same to them in those countries and they pay twice.  
 

whilst they will likely argue that any windfall tax on profits is unfair, they will definitely not be willing to pay twice. 
 

hence the strong likelihood that they relocate themselves to another country where they are confident that no windfall tax on overall profits will be made on them.  Then we are only able to tax their profits made here at best. We’ve lost the CT element that we were already holding. 

 

 

[Dahnsouff]

1 minute ago, st albans fox said:

Corporate tax flight is a little different 

 

let’s take an energy company registered in the U.K. and therefore payjng corporate taxes here - economically we need these companies. 
 

We will tax their profits (after their accountants  have applied their avoidance techniques ) - it’s still a plus for the U.K. economy 

 

if we impose a windfall tax on profits they make in other parts of the globe then the risk is that other countries do the same to them in those countries and they pay twice.  
 

whilst they will likely argue that any windfall tax on profits is unfair, they will definitely not be willing to pay twice. 
 

hence the strong likelihood that they relocate themselves to another country where they are confident that no windfall tax on overall profits will be made on them.  Then we are only able to tax their profits made here at best. We’ve lost the CT element that we were already holding. 

 

 

So as with most things in life, a compromise/middle ground is the most likely scenario? This would surely be most likely to succeed, but even this contains an obvious level of subjective judgement. (One person fair level would not match another persons)

[urban.spaceman]

Benefit scroungers are the problem remember.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/oct/27/rishi-sunak-rehires-five-ministers-entitled-to-redundancy-payouts

[StanSP]

Should she perhaps know this before taking such a high-profile post?! 

 

 

[Dahnsouff]

Just now, StanSP said:

Should she perhaps know this before taking such a high-profile post?! 

 

 

The ministerial equivalent of Joe Publics speed awareness course. 

[bovril]

On 25/10/2022 at 13:10, urban.spaceman said:

As an atheist this is not exactly inspiring. Zero representation for 38% of the country.

 

 

 

You guys had your chance with Truss - look how that ended up

[urban.spaceman]

8 minutes ago, StanSP said:

Should she perhaps know this before taking such a high-profile post?! 

 

 

She's been in government roles since 2018! How much information has she had access to and how much has she leaked?

[urban.spaceman]

15 minutes ago, bovril said:

You guys had your chance with Truss - look how that ended up

I'd like to retract my previous statement

[Facecloth]

I thought we might at least get some stability with Sunak, but I can't see Braverman lasting much longer the more that comes out about her.

[Greg2607]

I thought Rishi performed relatively well in PMQ's yesterday, i've seen both sides of the divide claim victory, but he did a solid enough job. 

 

I like the fact that he has gone back to the 2019 manifesto (whether I agree with that manifesto or not) - it shows he has some political nous and delivering on a mandate the people voted for. - I think that avoids a GE election for now and allows him time to try to improve the poll ratings... 

 

If he manages to improve those poll ratings, by definition, it will be because he has helped those people in need.

 

After the shower of the last 3 or 4 years... he is definitely an improvement in terms of persona and giving a feeling that we have someone competent at the wheel. 

 

Whatever your political persuasion, I think we can all agree that we at least want to feel like the person in charge is competent. 

 

 

[Fazzer 7]

2 hours ago, StanSP said:

@Fazzer 7 what did you think of any Ukrainians that came here when their country was being bombed by Russia? And still is, really.

 

Is it okay for them to come here and claim asylum? 

As I understand it they aren’t being granted permanent residency. Most will return home when they’re able. The big difference that I can see is their men folk stayed behind and fought. The exact opposite of what comes across the channel with 90% being young men. Who, if granted asylum will no doubt seek to bring their families. 

[Dahnsouff]

Braverman is an unnecessary own goal, but I do understand the need to have multiple voices across the party, as failure to do so gives you Truss

 

Thats now what, 3 from the ERG? Braverman along with Mordaunt and Coffey (Ladies, have a word with yourselves) but surely there must have other options with a more ERG friendly slant, if that is how Rishi is going to garner cross party support?

[weller54]

4 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

Braverman is an unnecessary own goal, but I do understand the need to have multiple voices across the party, as failure to do so gives you Truss

 

Thats now what, 3 from the ERG? Braverman along with Mordaunt and Coffey (Ladies, have a word with yourselves) but surely there must have other options with a more ERG friendly slant, if that is how Rishi is going to garner cross party support?

One good thing...Shapps isn't in a top job... slimy cretin!

[bovril]

With our first non-white PM I have to say I'm salivating at the prospect of both voting against the Tories and incurring the wrath of idiot American liberals. 

[Mickyblueeyes]

47 minutes ago, Fazzer 7 said:

As I understand it they aren’t being granted permanent residency. Most will return home when they’re able. The big difference that I can see is their men folk stayed behind and fought. The exact opposite of what comes across the channel with 90% being young men. Who, if granted asylum will no doubt seek to bring their families. 

Not completely out of choice though. There are already methods being sought (illegally) for men to get back with their families. The issue is, the longer the war goes on with Russia, the more desperate (completely understandably) these men and the methods sought become. 
 

When you read Stan’s question with that understand, you’ll understand why he asked it. And why precedent here is so significant. 

[Tommy Fresh]

2 hours ago, Fazzer 7 said:

As I understand it they aren’t being granted permanent residency. Most will return home when they’re able. The big difference that I can see is their men folk stayed behind and fought. The exact opposite of what comes across the channel with 90% being young men. Who, if granted asylum will no doubt seek to bring their families. 

So your initial issue as far as I could tell was anyone who crossed the channel, then you made out your main issue was those pesky Albanians, good to see you've reverted to type and you're now back moaning about anyone seeking asylum. I'll add to @StanSP's point and ask your opinion on those who have sought asylum via such a method from countries that we helped to destabilise in the first place.