A massive amount of that revenue never hits the books in the UK. It's a low margin retailer (as all high volume retail tends to be) that has very high costs associated with running it's business like staff, postage and operating it's massive warehouses. All that don't come cheap.

 

They've not bent the rules with what they are doing. It's all perfectly legal, immoral perhaps.

 

Last year Tesco's revenue was £63.3bn. It's pre-tax profit was £2.2bn and it paid £0.3bn in tax. They don't get dragged through the mud about tax.

 

I really dislike profit because it's a completely fake and manipulatable number because it's full of non-cash items. If we want to increase tax intake from corporations then we need to stop bitching about the way they legally operate and change the rules that govern financial reporting so that tax is paid on profits before non-cash items and after capital allowances.

I disagree completely. I really doubt that many of the Tory-UKIP switchers only voted Tory for the first time in 2010 - I think it's more traditional Tories who've finally snapped over Europe/immigration/gay marriage. Labour have done relatively well at bringing back 2010 Labour-Tory switchers, hence why we're doing better in marginal seats than in the rest of the country.

What was the energy price freeze then? Was that a New Labour or a Lib Dem policy?

 

that was a minor quick vote-winner, temporary in nature and irrelevant in the long-term scheme of things....sorry!

Minor quick vote-winner? The amount of work that went into that policy (and the huge splash it caused for a good month or two) hardly qualifies it as minor!

Minor quick vote-winner? The amount of work that went into that policy (and the huge splash it caused for a good month or two) hardly qualifies it as minor!

 

It was minor in terms of what it represented. Labour were deluding themselves if they thought people were going to think "ooh, I'll save a few quid on the gas, that's all I need to know to vote Labour!" It could've worked as part of a general theme of tackling "Rip-Off Britain" where a bunch of big companies are outrageously fleecing customers for essentials just to line their own pockets. An energy price freeze could've been a good illustration to back up a wider point, but it was never going to be enough in and of itself.

Poll for the Rochester & Strood by-election in Kent shows UKIP on course for a win: 43% to the Tories' 30%.

 

Labour are humiliatingly on 21%, down even on their miserable 2010 score. What's interesting is the Labour candidate is some dire Progress Tendency robot who wanted Labour to prioritise the deficit and witter on about the "tough spending decisions they'll take", which is in stark contrast to the Labour MP who previously won this constituency 3 times in a row between 1997 and 2010 who was a loony-left member of the Socialist Campaign Group. It seems even people in the fabled south-east have not got the memo that they're supposed to prefer "centre-ground", "credible", "pro-business" Labour candidates over ones who actually stand for something.

It was minor in terms of what it represented. Labour were deluding themselves if they thought people were going to think "ooh, I'll save a few quid on the gas, that's all I need to know to vote Labour!" It could've worked as part of a general theme of tackling "Rip-Off Britain" where a bunch of big companies are outrageously fleecing customers for essentials just to line their own pockets. An energy price freeze could've been a good illustration to back up a wider point, but it was never going to be enough in and of itself.

It WAS part of a wider point - the policy was to have the freeze while a Labour government reformed the energy market and broke up the Big Six.

 

I find it absurdly patronising when people mock Labour policies that save people money. I'm sorry, but people can't complain about how tough people are finding things like gas prices and in the same breath mock any attempts at reducing that bill alongside wider reform.

What's interesting is the Labour candidate is some dire Progress Tendency robot who wanted Labour to prioritise the deficit and witter on about the "tough spending decisions they'll take"

I must have missed that speech, because so far as I know she's a member of the Fabians, the evil Tory propagandists they are.

 

which is in stark contrast to the Labour MP who previously won this constituency 3 times in a row between 1997 and 2010 who was a loony-left member of the Socialist Campaign Group. It seems even people in the fabled south-east have not got the memo that they're supposed to prefer "centre-ground", "credible", "pro-business" Labour candidates over ones who actually stand for something.

 

Lordy me. There were loads of left-wing candidates elected in centrist places in 1997, and loads of centrist candidates elected in pretty left-wing places in 1997. Generally the popularity of Labour nationally and then subsequently the strength of being an incumbent local MP carried most of them through for a while. It's quite rare to find an MP with a personal vote based on their views, and in places there are (I can only really think of Dennis Skinner in Bolsover) they're generally places that'd vote Labour anyway.

It WAS part of a wider point - the policy was to have the freeze while a Labour government reformed the energy market and broke up the Big Six.

 

I find it absurdly patronising when people mock Labour policies that save people money. I'm sorry, but people can't complain about how tough people are finding things like gas prices and in the same breath mock any attempts at reducing that bill alongside wider reform.

 

Not mocking it, just pointing out it was a one-year-only policy that affected the private sector, conveniently avoiding Labour having to make any actual long-term policies on things that matter. Like, say, privatising the energy companies, take them back off foreign-governments, and make sure profits made out of UK citizens don't go abroad, they stay in the UK, or perhaps setting up a new UK-state-owned company that can undercut them in prices.

 

Mad? The council I work for (staunchly Tory-held and part-insane) is actively involved in setting itself up competing with private companies for council profit, and in the process most likely putting the private sector small businesses out of work. If a right-wing party can come to a socialist-ish arrangement (tax payers paying for staff who provide a private sector service - though granted they charge extra for it) then why can't Labour do the same...?

 

 

Don't you mean nationalising the energy companies popchartfreak? Though, they are actually already nationalised - it's just that the states that own them are not the UK, but France and Germany, and they are screwing us over for the privilege.

Edited October 23, 201410 yr by Doctor Blind

Don't you mean nationalising the energy companies popchartfreak? Though, they are actually already nationalised - it's just that the states that own them are not the UK, but France and Germany, and they are screwing us over for the privilege.

 

 

oops yes I do, well translated! :lol:

Not mocking it, just pointing out it was a one-year-only policy that affected the private sector, conveniently avoiding Labour having to make any actual long-term policies on things that matter. Like, say, privatising the energy companies, take them back off foreign-governments, and make sure profits made out of UK citizens don't go abroad, they stay in the UK, or perhaps setting up a new UK-state-owned company that can undercut them in prices.

 

Mad? The council I work for (staunchly Tory-held and part-insane) is actively involved in setting itself up competing with private companies for council profit, and in the process most likely putting the private sector small businesses out of work. If a right-wing party can come to a socialist-ish arrangement (tax payers paying for staff who provide a private sector service - though granted they charge extra for it) then why can't Labour do the same...?

I want to see energy renationalised but it's absurd to think that the energy price freeze was a minor policy.

The easiest industry to renationalise would be rail as it could be done at zero cost. All that needs to be done is to say that rail franchises will not be renewed. However, despite overwhelming support for denationalisation, Labour won't commit to it. They won't even go for the half-way house of having a state provider being able to bid against private (or other European state-owned) companies.

The Scotrail franchise has just been given to the Dutch national railway company.

 

Labour are bitching and moaning about how we didn't defer the franchise so clearly the SNP weren't serious about nationalisation, then don't include transport in their proposal to the Smith Commission (because they don't include bloody anything in that proposal. It's legit bullshit. EVEN THE TORIES WANT TO GIVE US MORE)

 

Labour are a complete joke right now, the Scottish party is led by a bloody moron and can't breathe without permission from Westminster and my good god they are so contradictory right now. They've talked about nationalising the railways but it feels like a throwaway statement that they are not serious about.

They won't even go for the half-way house of having a state provider being able to bid against private (or other European state-owned) companies.

That was exactly what we said we'd do?

That was exactly what we said we'd do?

I thought they'd declined even to go that far.

Locally, even local gov staff who feel they can do a better and cheaper job (being as they know how to do it) are not allowed to bid against being TUPE'd over to bankrupt companies. It's so ingrained in UK political life that Privatisation Is Cheap And Efficient. Trust me, it ain't necessarily so, just means money that used to get re-invested goes to the well-off in dividends, or if they fail spectacularly they get bailed out by the taxpayer cos councils still have to provide some services no matter what.

 

Nationally, railway-wise, Spain seems to do OK at providing a reasonable service that doesn't cost the earth - they have double-decker trains for short-ish journeys, effectively doubling the passenger numbers able to board in rush hour (and reduce cost), these are the sort of investments needed not a single multi-billion route designed to make london commuters get to work 20 minutes quicker.

The UKIP factor: having collectively ensured that the party of usual protest is trashed so much that they are no longer an option, the rise of a more extreme part of protest seems to be having an effect on policies of the other 2 even this one...

BBC:

 

"Ed Miliband has promised to bring in an immigration bill creating "clear, credible and concrete changes" within months, if Labour wins next year's general election.

 

The party leader also said there would be an end to "false promises" on the subject if he became prime minister.

 

Mr Miliband pledged action on border checks, exploitation and opportunities available to UK workers.

 

David Cameron has promised "further action" to curb immigration.

 

Official figures published in August showed UK net migration - the difference between those entering and leaving - increased by more than 38% to 243,000 in 2013-14. EU citizens accounted for two-thirds of the growth.

 

Mr Cameron has said his aim of reducing the figure to below 100,000 is still achievable.

 

In recent days, it has been reported that the coalition could seek an "emergency brake" to stop EU migration after it reached a certain level or to limit the number of National Insurance numbers issued to new arrivals from the EU. Mr Cameron is attending an EU summit in Brussels on Thursday and Friday.

 

...

 

In his speech Mr Miliband reiterated Labour's promise to count all people going in and out of the UK and make it a criminal offence when employment agencies recruit exclusively from abroad.

 

He added that he would improve and expand apprenticeships and ensure that "public sector workers in public-facing roles have minimum standards of English".

 

These measures would be included in an Immigration Reform Bill, to be outlined in more detail in the first Queen's Speech after a Labour victory next May, he said.

 

Mr Miliband also promised to "seek change in Europe", including:

 

Longer transitional controls on immigration when new countries join the EU

Stopping child benefit and child tax credits being paid to children living abroad

Doubling the period of residence before people would be entitled to benefits

 

But he added: "False promises on immigration just make people more cynical about politics. I won't be part of that. I will not make promises I can't keep.""

 

Discuss.

 

A few of my thoughts:

 

Councils already only hire people who can speak English who deal with people.

 

Immigration checks etc means more staff/costs: friends I know who work for them do long hours already. I agree with the policy but you don't get owt for nowt.

 

I will not make promises I can't keep - but will "seek change". Presumably not a promise then.

 

Employment legislation already states that the whole of europe must be free to apply for contracts, not sure how many exclusively hire from abroad but would imagine that contravenes EU law.

 

So, largely seems to me to be a case of tidying up a few loose ends, delaying a few applications for a bit, and promising extra duties without a single word on how it will be achieved given cutbacks are ongoing.

 

Colour me cynical?

Edited October 24, 201410 yr by popchartfreak

This article explains the five points in more detail.

 

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/...lan-immigration

 

Someone made the point a while back that moderate immigration reform should be more natural for Labour than the Tories anyway, who insist on the rule of the free market in every other instance where they're not conceding to UKIP. I'm still not comfortable with some of the rhetoric (and it's been spun in a completely misleading "tough on immigration" way) but the proposals are pretty sensible and achievable.

 

Locally, even local gov staff who feel they can do a better and cheaper job (being as they know how to do it) are not allowed to bid against being TUPE'd over to bankrupt companies. It's so ingrained in UK political life that Privatisation Is Cheap And Efficient. Trust me, it ain't necessarily so, just means money that used to get re-invested goes to the well-off in dividends, or if they fail spectacularly they get bailed out by the taxpayer cos councils still have to provide some services no matter what.

 

Nationally, railway-wise, Spain seems to do OK at providing a reasonable service that doesn't cost the earth - they have double-decker trains for short-ish journeys, effectively doubling the passenger numbers able to board in rush hour (and reduce cost), these are the sort of investments needed not a single multi-billion route designed to make london commuters get to work 20 minutes quicker.

The fundamental problem with HS2 is that it's being built the wrong way round. If the government was half serious about closing regional inequalities it would be investing the money connecting Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds, Liverpool, Sheffield, Newcastle, Hull and Nottingham better. Northern Hub is already doing half the job for a tiny fraction of the money.

To completely change the topic, do people even realise anymore when information is badly put across? The extra £1.7 billion has of course been portrayed as a sudden demand decided on a whim by populist media, and even from media I trust I had to dig pretty deep before finding out that the precise rules (the GNI growing more than forecast and also adding in parts of the shadow economy to calculations) have been in place for a long time now. It seems everyone's starting to give up even contesting bullshit.

 

And rather than throwing a hissy fit only once the rules don't work out in the UK's favour, they should've been contested when they were agreed upon.

 

Honestly I was beginning to think it was a genuine case of the EU kicking themselves in the foot and reading the internet it seems that even non-Eurosceptics are thinking this. Without wanting to sound like a broken record, it's yet again the media dictating the mood. This is how a formerly niche and ill-founded opinion such as Euroscepticism becomes a mainstream point of view.

Edited October 24, 201410 yr by Harve

This article explains the five points in more detail.

 

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/...lan-immigration

 

Someone made the point a while back that moderate immigration reform should be more natural for Labour than the Tories anyway, who insist on the rule of the free market in every other instance where they're not conceding to UKIP. I'm still not comfortable with some of the rhetoric (and it's been spun in a completely misleading "tough on immigration" way) but the proposals are pretty sensible and achievable.

The fundamental problem with HS2 is that it's being built the wrong way round. If the government was half serious about closing regional inequalities it would be investing the money connecting Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds, Liverpool, Sheffield, Newcastle, Hull and Nottingham better. Northern Hub is already doing half the job for a tiny fraction of the money.

 

I kind of agree with this. I'm starting to come round to the argument that mass immigration of "low-skilled" workers only works in the favour of big businesses who get to maximise their profits by playing so many workers off against eachother and letting wages race to the bottom. But it's this bullshit about "culture" or "immigrants destroying the British/English way of life" that really makes me uneasy.