You know what Ellers, this thread (which I started) used to be informative, challenging and pleasurable. It isn't any longer (for me at least), largely due to your 'contributions'. I was going to say I would stop posting on here, but no, I think I'll just ignore your efforts..
How can it be informative and pleasurable when you post? You are a truculent character who will just say the opposite even when wrong. As for the thread, it has evolved and changed over time which it should do. If you don't like the thread then post on the 'Aircraft carrier' one.
I just read that Scotland would leave NATO if they became independent and would need to reapply They would need the consent of the 28 members to be accepted which could take years..
So Scotland want to give up sharing their sovereignty with 3 other countries so they can share with 27 others, go figure
Your point is totally correct. It's all about playing politics. The date/time was just to overshadow the Brixit bill. When we need to be strong for the euro negotiations the SNP do this. It is interesting that many of the 'remoaners' have said the same. Hopefully, they will have their independence referendum at some point, lose and it will be the end of the Krankie/Salmond and that other SNP idiot at Westminister.
Pathetic performance by Corbyn at PMQs today. May and Hammond should have been taken apart for the NICs fiasco but he failed to land a blow. Taxi for Jeremy!
PMQs is a content provider of political entertainment for consumption by the general public. Bread and circuses... I'm having a great day, BTW!
Hammond making a statement now. Not so many jokes today I'd wager. Glad to hear you're having a good day. Backed the first winner at Cheltenham?
But he is incapable of ever doing so. It is sad that a Labour leader can find nothing better to say than U turn and Hammond should have spent more time working out what he wanted to do than worry about reciting a few stale jokes. Watching it last week, I was struck by the grim sullen faces on the Labour front bench - they really do believe they are waging a class war. Ridicule, sarcasm and humour seem to have bypassed them completely. It is a sad day when a Tory Chancellor can make soundbites and policies to redress the balance in favour of the working man and the Labour leader's only retort is that he has committed a U turn. Personally I don't think much of the notion that politicians can never change their mind and must always run the gauntlet of cries of U-turn. Blair for all of his sins or rather crimes against humanity at least knew the value in owning up to a mistake. However was it on this occasion? There is undoubtedly a lot of abuse of self-employed status simply for the tax perks. If most of them were real entrepeneurs fair enough but they are not. For someone to work for one employer for several years and work as an employee (by doing what he is told while subject to discipline) but be called a consultant and get his money by way of daily fees to his limited company and then draw dividends form the company instead of receiving salary with tax and NI deducted at a higher rate thus lessening his tax bill is not in my view such an entrepreneur. The test always comes when the employer sacks him and then, hey presto, the contractor suddenly claims that he was an employee all the time so that he can bring a claim of Unfair Dismissal. IR 35 has a lot to answer for and the tax authorities have been trying to do something about it for years. IR 35 companies always consist of a man his wife and, if so desired, the dog as well being sole shareholders with the registered office being the home address. They hardly ever produce accounts, often fail to insure themselves and work on the production line and submit invoices to ensure that they can then be paid on payday without any tax or NI contributions being paid. The reason being that they are supposed to do that themselves. It is a scam under which they get more and the more unscrupulous never pay their tax closing the company and setting up under a different name if they can. Employers go along with it because they believe that it is to their benefit to have a worker who does not have employment protection. The benefits are minimal. Both also benefit from reduced NICs So my friends, I think Hammond was probably right first time around. His only error was to spring a surprise in the way he did it and misjudge the mood of his party.
Just musing and interested in people's opinion on this.... There are two things going on that caught my eye. One - the Conservatives may have broken the law regarding expenditure on the 2015 election. The CPS are looking at the evidence. Two - there are suspicions, possibly backed by evidence, possibly being suppressed for "security" reasons that large amounts of "dark money" from foreign sources (allegedly also involved in Trumps win, too) was used to pay for elements of the Leave campaign - which would also be breaking the law. Try and forget that your preference won or lost the 2015 election or 2016 referendum. Just focusing on the concept of winning an election by breaking the law. If it is true and can be proved, do you think the elections are still valid and their results should still stand? If it helps, pretend the other side won and see if that changes things for you? I'm trying to work out how I feel about it - if it turns out to be true.
Indeed. A lot of ifs, buts, provisos and hypoththeses in all of that and I'm a bit knackered today to do the exercise you suggest!!!!!
No, I'm only bored when I watch Chelsea. Like we all are! Just curious if people here would accept the cancellation of an election result if the winners were proven to have broken the law in some way - in these cases, by breaking the laws about funding levels and transparency.
Over here in the States, the President would resign, aka Richard Nixon. No way would there be another election.
And then there are the millions of self employed workers like me who do accounts and pay their taxes......whilst never getting any holiday pay, sick pay or paternity/maternity leave.
You and my wife Col. Whoever takes this route takes a considerable amount of personal risk and has to navigate a complex system. The tax/NI 'breaks' are a very limited reward for the risk, you still have to find the work, deliver it and find more. Any legal use of the rules is fair in my view. The major offenders are employers who employ the self employed full time for years in order to avoid paying NI and providing benefits.
