Brexit - Post Match Reaction

[pingpong]

Consider this point of agreement:

Brexit has had a major impact on many facets of the uk including the economy, immigration, and laws.

 

If we all agree with that, then it's just a case of weighing positive and negative impacts, and considering that we may have different opinions on those.

 

For example, we are now able to dump sewage like never before.  Some people, who don't want polluted rivers and beaches etc, might think that's bad, but others might think that is good, eg it allows utility companies to be more efficient in how they manage waste.

Similarly, a drop in eu immigration has led to more immigration from further afield, leading to an increase in ethnic diversity and more immigrants from africa and Asia. Some celebrate that, others might think it's bad.

It's without doubt cost our economy overall, but has benefited other countries, eg france, who don't have the Dublin agreement to worry about anymore, and they get to make our blue passports for us.

There's always winners and losers, so you can't say brexit has been good or bad, it's just your perspective on whether you prefer a European collaborative effort to improve quality of life and british business, with free moving eu immigration and major trade deals, or whether you want Britain to have its own sovrinty and increased nonEU immigration, and have it's own smaller trade deals. If it's the latter, then you have every right to view brexit as a success.

 

[Lord Duckhunter]

20 hours ago, a1ex2001 said:

In reality nobody outside of parliament voted for the brexit we got as the people were never given any detail about what they were voting for.

Do you realise how ridiculous this statement is. The whole  point of Brexit was to give the UK Government control over areas that were previously with  the EU. What they did with that was down to them. If the sweaties voted for independence & then elected a Tory government, they’d look pretty silly claiming they “didn’t vote for that independence “, because they did. 
 

George Galloway wanted the UK out of the EU, as did Bill Cash. So what “detail” could the leave side give. Had Remain won, a Tory future inside the EU would have looked a lot different than a Jeremy Corbyn future inside it. 
 

This Government has a massive majority, Parliament has a massive remain majority. If they wanted to rejoin the SM or CU they could, if they wanted free movement for EU citizens they could do that, they could even start negotiating terms for rejoining the EU. It’s your side of the argument keeping us out of these “wonderful” things, not Nige, or the “thick twats who didn’t know what they were voting for”. Perhaps you should ask yourself if that side really believe Brexit was that bad, seeing as they’ve absolutely no intention of doing anything other than tinkering  around the edges. 

[a1ex2001]

20 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Do you realise how ridiculous this statement is. The whole  point of Brexit was to give the UK Government control over areas that were previously with  the EU. What they did with that was down to them. If the sweaties voted for independence & then elected a Tory government, they’d look pretty silly claiming they “didn’t vote for that independence “, because they did. 
 

George Galloway wanted the UK out of the EU, as did Bill Cash. So what “detail” could the leave side give. Had Remain won, a Tory future inside the EU would have looked a lot different than a Jeremy Corbyn future inside it. 
 

This Government has a massive majority, Parliament has a massive remain majority. If they wanted to rejoin the SM or CU they could, if they wanted free movement for EU citizens they could do that, they could even start negotiating terms for rejoining the EU. It’s your side of the argument keeping us out of these “wonderful” things, not Nige, or the “thick twats who didn’t know what they were voting for”. Perhaps you should ask yourself if that side really believe Brexit was that bad, seeing as they’ve absolutely no intention of doing anything other than tinkering  around the edges. 

It’s not ridiculous, during the referendum campaign leading figures on the leave side said leaving the single market and customs union was not in the national interest so you could reasonably infer that a vote to leave the EU wasn’t a vote to leave either of those arrangements.  Leave could have taken a myriad of forms but was not defined in anyway so we were in effect asked to choose between the status quo and a pack of populist lies.  This is why people still complain they didn’t get the Brexit they wanted, plenty still come out with the laughable Brexit in name only and nonsense about wanting no deal etc etc.

when making such an important decision it would have been prudent to define the choices!

nobody is ready to re-open the Brexit debate because it is too painful and damaging and would risk dividing the country and labour loosing the next election. Brexit is a disaster the evidence is pulling up and still nobody can point to the benefits!

Edited August 23 by a1ex2001

[Weston Super Saint]

14 hours ago, Farmer Saint said:

Nope, just the inbred leave voters. I seem to remember an independent think tank put together a very in depth analysis on the demographics, IQ and general wellbeing of the voters, and it turned out that 100% of the leave voters were racist, inbred, farmers.

Fixed it for you.

[trousers]

11 hours ago, a1ex2001 said:

It’s not ridiculous, during the referendum campaign leading figures on the leave side said leaving the single market and customs union was not in the national interest so you could reasonably infer that a vote to leave the EU wasn’t a vote to leave either of those arrangements.  Leave could have taken a myriad of forms but was not defined in anyway so we were in effect asked to choose between the status quo and a pack of populist lies.  This is why people still complain they didn’t get the Brexit they wanted, plenty still come out with the laughable Brexit in name only and nonsense about wanting no deal etc etc.

when making such an important decision it would have been prudent to define the choices!

nobody is ready to re-open the Brexit debate because it is too painful and damaging and would risk dividing the country and labour loosing the next election. Brexit is a disaster the evidence is pulling up and still nobody can point to the benefits!

*losing

[Farmer Saint]

10 hours ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Fixed it for you.

Gosh, that was clever - did you think that up all by yourself? With that quick thinking, intelligence and whit, I am predicting you voted... 

LEAVE

[a1ex2001]

7 hours ago, trousers said:

*losing

Thanks once again for your valuable contribution

[trousers]

51 minutes ago, a1ex2001 said:

Thanks once again for your valuable contribution

You're very welcome, sir. It's my absolute pleasure. You and I together will defeat this thicko revolution...

 

Edited August 24 by trousers

[Guided Missile]

3 hours ago, Farmer Saint said:

Gosh, that was clever - did you think that up all by yourself? With that quick thinking, intelligence and whit, I am predicting you voted... 

LEAVE

*whit?

Edited August 24 by Guided Missile

[Weston Super Saint]

12 minutes ago, Guided Missile said:

*whit?

I think it's like "wit" just a little smaller?

[Tamesaint]

19 minutes ago, Guided Missile said:

*whit?

Its going to be a long bank holiday weekend if he has already started drinking. 

[Farmer Saint]

3 hours ago, Guided Missile said:

*whit?

Auto-correct from writing "Whit Merrifield" too often (I'm into my baseball y'see). 

[buctootim]

I got to second base once. True story 

[Lord Duckhunter]

On 23/08/2024 at 13:15, a1ex2001 said:

It’s not ridiculous, during the referendum campaign leading figures on the leave side said leaving the single market and customs union was not in the national interest so you could reasonably infer that a vote to leave the EU wasn’t a vote to leave either of those arrangements.  Leave could have taken a myriad of forms but was not defined in anyway

How could it be defined in any way. Leave weren’t a Gov in waiting putting forward a proposal of how they’d govern, people within the campaign gave their opinion, but George Galloway wanted a different country after Brexit than Nigel Farage. Neither were in a position to enact anything, the remain Parliament were the only body that could. It’s the reason referendums are a bad idea in a parliamentary democracy. A referendum called by & voted for by the remain side who thought they’d win.

Some on the leave side did want to stay in the SM & CU, but as many on the remain side spelt out that voting leave meant leaving both, these included the PM, who was in a position to enact that. Talking of which, the biggest lies came from him, he’d negotiated a great deal, and he won’t resign if he loses the referendum. Complete pony, from the bloke that ultimately gave us Brexit. 
 

But ultimately it wasn’t Farage, or leave that took us out of the SM & CU, it was Parliament. A Parliament stuffed full of Remainers. Your side took us out of those 2 bodies….

Edited August 25 by Lord Duckhunter

[a1ex2001]

7 hours ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

How could it be defined in any way. Leave weren’t a Gov in waiting putting forward a proposal of how they’d govern, people within the campaign gave their opinion, but George Galloway wanted a different country after Brexit than Nigel Farage. Neither were in a position to enact anything, the remain Parliament were the only body that could. It’s the reason referendums are a bad idea in a parliamentary democracy. A referendum called by & voted for by the remain side who thought they’d win.

Some on the leave side did want to stay in the SM & CU, but as many on the remain side spelt out that voting leave meant leaving both, these included the PM, who was in a position to enact that. Talking of which, the biggest lies came from him, he’d negotiated a great deal, and he won’t resign if he loses the referendum. Complete pony, from the bloke that ultimately gave us Brexit. 
 

But ultimately it wasn’t Farage, or leave that took us out of the SM & CU, it was Parliament. A Parliament stuffed full of Remainers. Your side took us out of those 2 bodies….

Stuffed full of remainers?  When Boris had a massive majority, a cabinet stacked with his cronies and leave supporters, Cummings pulling the strings behind the scenes and had kicked all the moderate voices out of the party?  Of course it was remainers fault that a government elected on a mandate of get Brexit done led by the face of the leave campaign delivered the ultimate crap sandwich.  Do you even believe the nonsense you post?

The leave campaign should have been forced to either present an accurate picture of what Brexit they were asking us to choose or as I’ve said countless times we should have had a second referendum (Announced as part of the process of initiating the vote) once the Brexit deal was negotiated to decide if the deal negotiated was attractive.  Both votes should have been legally binding and therefore subject to all the rules and over sight of the electoral commission.

I think the only thing we agree on is Cameron should never have called the vote in the first place. He put it in the manifesto to appease the ERG fringe and expected to trade it as part of a coalition with the Lib Dem’s then he was to confident he would win.  Following the vote his position as PM was untenable and I agreed with his decision to go.

[Whitey Grandad]

22 minutes ago, a1ex2001 said:

Stuffed full of remainers?  When Boris had a massive majority, a cabinet stacked with his cronies and leave supporters, Cummings pulling the strings behind the scenes and had kicked all the moderate voices out of the party?  Of course it was remainers fault that a government elected on a mandate of get Brexit done led by the face of the leave campaign delivered the ultimate crap sandwich.  Do you even believe the nonsense you post?

The leave campaign should have been forced to either present an accurate picture of what Brexit they were asking us to choose or as I’ve said countless times we should have had a second referendum (Announced as part of the process of initiating the vote) once the Brexit deal was negotiated to decide if the deal negotiated was attractive.  Both votes should have been legally binding and therefore subject to all the rules and over sight of the electoral commission.

I think the only thing we agree on is Cameron should never have called the vote in the first place. He put it in the manifesto to appease the ERG fringe and expected to trade it as part of a coalition with the Lib Dem’s then he was to confident he would win.  Following the vote his position as PM was untenable and I agreed with his decision to go.

If it were stuffed full of remainders we would never have left. The Parliament were effectively hung.

[a1ex2001]

23 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

If it were stuffed full of remainders we would never have left. The Parliament were effectively hung.

It wasn’t hung following Boris’s election victory he had a massive majority elected on a mandate of ‘get Brexit done’ sadly once again Boris had failed to define Brexit beyond it being ‘oven ready’ and him and his cronies they went to war over who could deliver the hardest Brexit while the venture capitalist loons in the party fought for a ‘no deal’ Brexit so they could cash in once again betting against the country.  Boris and his Brexit majority chose to push through his terrible deal, the leave supporters were the ones that blocked May’s deal not remain supporting MP’s.  Every time Brexit failed or failed to deliver it has been the fault of leave supporting politicians.  Right down to the negotiating team showing up on day one in Brussels having done next to no prep and wandering why the EU handed them their backsides on a plate.

Eventually those that have supported leave and those that have delivered it will take ownership of the massive turd sandwich and stop trying to blame those who didn’t want to leave or saying they voted for a ‘different’ Brexit.

[Whitey Grandad]

14 minutes ago, a1ex2001 said:

It wasn’t hung following Boris’s election victory he had a massive majority elected on a mandate of ‘get Brexit done’ sadly once again Boris had failed to define Brexit beyond it being ‘oven ready’ and him and his cronies they went to war over who could deliver the hardest Brexit while the venture capitalist loons in the party fought for a ‘no deal’ Brexit so they could cash in once again betting against the country.  Boris and his Brexit majority chose to push through his terrible deal, the leave supporters were the ones that blocked May’s deal not remain supporting MP’s.  Every time Brexit failed or failed to deliver it has been the fault of leave supporting politicians.  Right down to the negotiating team showing up on day one in Brussels having done next to no prep and wandering why the EU handed them their backsides on a plate.

Eventually those that have supported leave and those that have delivered it will take ownership of the massive turd sandwich and stop trying to blame those who didn’t want to leave or saying they voted for a ‘different’ Brexit.

Agreed. It was effectively hung, I.e. ineffective, until that GE.

[a1ex2001]

2 hours ago, Whitey Grandad said:

Agreed. It was effectively hung, I.e. ineffective, until that GE.

Even before that GE the only thing that stopped Brexit happening was the ERG head bangers. May’s deal would have passed through parliament if the Brexit supporting MP’s had voted in favour.  The real irony is they didn’t like the so called ‘back stop’ which they then effectively put Northern Ireland in to for the rest of time.

[Whitey Grandad]

2 hours ago, a1ex2001 said:

Even before that GE the only thing that stopped Brexit happening was the ERG head bangers. May’s deal would have passed through parliament if the Brexit supporting MP’s had voted in favour.  The real irony is they didn’t like the so called ‘back stop’ which they then effectively put Northern Ireland in to for the rest of time.

For people who call themselves a research group they don’t seem to know a lot.

[Lord Duckhunter]

16 hours ago, a1ex2001 said:

The leave campaign should have been forced to either present an accurate picture of what Brexit they were asking us to choose

There were leavers from the left and leavers from the right, wanting totally different things. Just as Kier Starmer wanted a different UK in the EU than David Cameron did, the RMT recommended Leave alongside Nige, so whose version should be “forced to give an accurate picture”. Two of histories biggest leavers Tony Benn & Bob Crow didn’t want to leave so we could become Singapore on the Thames, people wanted to leave for different reasons, you can’t demand a manifesto from one group of leavers. 
 

When we voted in the first referendum there was no mention of a single currency, Poland joining the bloc or other changes to our relationship that came about as a result of Maastricht & Lisbon. The vote was to leave or stay in, & Parliament to decide what both looked like. The Government decided to sign these treaties. You bang on about a second referendum, but our side weren’t given one when those treaties were signed, changing the EEC we voted on. 
 

Most remainers seem to fundamentally misunderstand the role of the referendum in our parliamentary democracy, which is strange because they’re supposed to be the clever ones. 
 

[Weston Super Saint]

1 hour ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Most remainers seem to fundamentally misunderstand the role of the referendum in our parliamentary democracy, which is strange because they’re supposed to be the clever ones. 
 

They are happy sitting in their ivory towers hurling insults at the "thick cunts".

[a1ex2001]

7 hours ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

There were leavers from the left and leavers from the right, wanting totally different things. Just as Kier Starmer wanted a different UK in the EU than David Cameron did, the RMT recommended Leave alongside Nige, so whose version should be “forced to give an accurate picture”. Two of histories biggest leavers Tony Benn & Bob Crow didn’t want to leave so we could become Singapore on the Thames, people wanted to leave for different reasons, you can’t demand a manifesto from one group of leavers. 
 

When we voted in the first referendum there was no mention of a single currency, Poland joining the bloc or other changes to our relationship that came about as a result of Maastricht & Lisbon. The vote was to leave or stay in, & Parliament to decide what both looked like. The Government decided to sign these treaties. You bang on about a second referendum, but our side weren’t given one when those treaties were signed, changing the EEC we voted on. 
 

Most remainers seem to fundamentally misunderstand the role of the referendum in our parliamentary democracy, which is strange because they’re supposed to be the clever ones. 
 

Hence the sensible two referendum solution to a complex question.  A simple yes no was not subtle enough and resulted in the cockup that followed.  The official leave campaign was mainly fronted and funded by right leaning individuals so you would think they could have presented a coherent picture and I seem to remember Boris being front and centre…

personally I would never use referendums as they are terribly flawed, particularly when done on an advisory basis without the rules and oversight of the electoral commission.  You are right though if we are going to be stupid enough to use them we should have had a vote on Maastricht and other similar treaties.

[Guided Missile]

Having done his best to sink the chances of a decent deal with the EU while in opposition along with Treason May, Two Tier is off to Germany to ask them to give British businesses advantageous treatment as part of talks on Wednesday about a new trade and defence treaty. Now, I am all for improved relationships with Germany, but I have a few questions about this:

1. How the hell are Germany able to negotiate a trade deal with the UK, independent of the EU?
2. What can we gain in the defence of Europe, from a country whose whole economy was based on Russian appeasement, to gain cheap energy?
3. What can we learn from a country that has caused so much damage to its security with open borders, to gain cheap labour?

All we needed was this cretins speech yesterday to discover what is in store. Like the unions, Sholz will play him for the fool he is. It's going to be a long 5 years, ladies, but I blame populism (aka democracy). 50 days in and buyers remorse is sinking in.

 

[badgerx16]

7 minutes ago, Guided Missile said:

Having done his best to sink the chances of a decent deal with the EU while in opposition along with Treason May, Two Tier is off to Germany to ask them to give British businesses advantageous treatment as part of talks on Wednesday about a new trade and defence treaty. Now, I am all for improved relationships with Germany, but I have a few questions about this:

1. How the hell are Germany able to negotiate a trade deal with the UK, independent of the EU?
2. What can we gain in the defence of Europe, from a country whose whole economy was based on Russian appeasement, to gain cheap energy?
3. What can we learn from a country that has caused so much damage to its security with open borders, to gain cheap labour?

All we needed was this cretins speech yesterday to discover what is in store. Like the unions, Sholz will play him for the fool he is. It's going to be a long 5 years, ladies, but I blame populism (aka democracy). 50 days in and buyers remorse is sinking in.

 

I didn't realise you voted Labour.

[sadoldgit]

Perhaps wait and see what transpires before slagging Starmer off? It isn’t as if the ruling party of 14 years were so effective is it? We need a change of approach and that is what is happening. How it works out we have yet to see.

[Tamesaint]

1 hour ago, sadoldgit said:

Perhaps wait and see what transpires before slagging Starmer off? It isn’t as if the ruling party of 14 years were so effective is it? We need a change of approach and that is what is happening. How it works out we have yet to see.

Very sensible advice but he will ignore it. You only expect bigoted nonsense  from Shit for Brains. 

 

[Guided Missile]

Postcard from Germany:

 

[badgerx16]

I have this image of GM parading round Berlin chanting "Two world wars and one world cup".

Edited August 28 by badgerx16

[The Kraken]

He certainly seems to have taken his election defeat very, very badly.

[Lord Duckhunter]

4 hours ago, sadoldgit said:

Perhaps wait and see what transpires before slagging Starmer off? 

Taking winter fuel payments off pensioners, giving in to the train drivers & then letting the bloke who coughs up for his clobber & glasses wander around Downing Street with access all areas pass. Not a very good start is it. When can we start complaining about it, because if it was The Tories you’d be on one of your crusades. 
 

God knows what a cock up he’ll make of the budget and the unintended consequences of these duds running amok. I had one perfect example myself last week. We rent out a property through a letting agent, & every year they give us a recommendation of the rent increase we should charge. We go with them because they know the market & know their renters. Lease is due in Oct, and  need to give them 2 months notice of any increase. Recommend increase huge , fucking hell. Rang agent to ask why & check it wasn’t a mistake. Evidently it’s now become even more of a landlords market, “they’ll pay it because there’s nowhere else to go” & went on to say that landlords are selling up when tenancies end to avoid potential CGT rise in up coming budget. Supply is now taking a real hit, particularly in larger property (as our is). Rents are going up above inflation.
 

There you have it, a policy to squeeze the rich, ends up hurting ordinary Joes and adding to their cost of living. Labour in a nutshell. 

[tdmickey3]

1 hour ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Taking winter fuel payments off pensioners, giving in to the train drivers & then letting the bloke who coughs up for his clobber & glasses wander around Downing Street with access all areas pass. Not a very good start is it. When can we start complaining about it, because if it was The Tories you’d be on one of your crusades. 
 

God knows what a cock up he’ll make of the budget and the unintended consequences of these duds running amok. I had one perfect example myself last week. We rent out a property through a letting agent, & every year they give us a recommendation of the rent increase we should charge. We go with them because they know the market & know their renters. Lease is due in Oct, and  need to give them 2 months notice of any increase. Recommend increase huge , fucking hell. Rang agent to ask why & check it wasn’t a mistake. Evidently it’s now become even more of a landlords market, “they’ll pay it because there’s nowhere else to go” & went on to say that landlords are selling up when tenancies end to avoid potential CGT rise in up coming budget. Supply is now taking a real hit, particularly in larger property (as our is). Rents are going up above inflation.
 

There you have it, a policy to squeeze the rich, ends up hurting ordinary Joes and adding to their cost of living. Labour in a nutshell. 

Bet you go with the increase, despite all of your bluster but you are only replying because of the poster... 🙄

[Tamesaint]

4 hours ago, The Kraken said:

He certainly seems to have taken his election defeat very, very badly.

Wait until Trump loses. His nurses will have to be on suicide watch then. 

[sadoldgit]

3 hours ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Taking winter fuel payments off pensioners, giving in to the train drivers & then letting the bloke who coughs up for his clobber & glasses wander around Downing Street with access all areas pass. Not a very good start is it. When can we start complaining about it, because if it was The Tories you’d be on one of your crusades. 
 

God knows what a cock up he’ll make of the budget and the unintended consequences of these duds running amok. I had one perfect example myself last week. We rent out a property through a letting agent, & every year they give us a recommendation of the rent increase we should charge. We go with them because they know the market & know their renters. Lease is due in Oct, and  need to give them 2 months notice of any increase. Recommend increase huge , fucking hell. Rang agent to ask why & check it wasn’t a mistake. Evidently it’s now become even more of a landlords market, “they’ll pay it because there’s nowhere else to go” & went on to say that landlords are selling up when tenancies end to avoid potential CGT rise in up coming budget. Supply is now taking a real hit, particularly in larger property (as our is). Rents are going up above inflation.
 

There you have it, a policy to squeeze the rich, ends up hurting ordinary Joes and adding to their cost of living. Labour in a nutshell. 

The last 14 years of Tory rule have been an unmitigated disaster yet not a peep from you. We are where we are financially because of the people you voted for. Whinge all you like but the rest of us will never forget…

[Lord Duckhunter]

12 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

The last 14 years of Tory rule have been an unmitigated disaster yet not a peep from you. We are where we are financially because of the people you voted for. Whinge all you like but the rest of us will never forget…

Not a peep, what ware you on about 🤡. Plenty of complaints about tax rises, immigration & other pinko nonsense. Still, as I’m on ignore you probably missed it. 
 

As Dan Hodges has said, being as incompetent as the previous Government isn’t the “change” people voted for. Unless Starmer gets a grip this is heading one way. 

[whelk]

4 hours ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Taking winter fuel payments off pensioners, giving in to the train drivers & then letting the bloke who coughs up for his clobber & glasses wander around Downing Street with access all areas pass. Not a very good start is it. When can we start complaining about it, because if it was The Tories you’d be on one of your crusades. 
 

God knows what a cock up he’ll make of the budget and the unintended consequences of these duds running amok. I had one perfect example myself last week. We rent out a property through a letting agent, & every year they give us a recommendation of the rent increase we should charge. We go with them because they know the market & know their renters. Lease is due in Oct, and  need to give them 2 months notice of any increase. Recommend increase huge , fucking hell. Rang agent to ask why & check it wasn’t a mistake. Evidently it’s now become even more of a landlords market, “they’ll pay it because there’s nowhere else to go” & went on to say that landlords are selling up when tenancies end to avoid potential CGT rise in up coming budget. Supply is now taking a real hit, particularly in larger property (as our is). Rents are going up above inflation.
 

There you have it, a policy to squeeze the rich, ends up hurting ordinary Joes and adding to their cost of living. Labour in a nutshell. 

Yawn, yeah we know you have a second home. Hope they come for you exploitive bastards fleecing your poor tenants.

[whelk]

1 hour ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Not a peep, what ware you on about 🤡. Plenty of complaints about tax rises, immigration & other pinko nonsense. Still, as I’m on ignore you probably missed it. 
 

As Dan Hodges has said, being as incompetent as the previous Government isn’t the “change” people voted for. Unless Starmer gets a grip this is heading one way. 

Dan Hodges - lol, but not surprising. 

[The Kraken]

Dan Hodges, the barometer of sense 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

 

Fucking LOL 🤣 dear oh fucking Lord 🤣

[Lord Duckhunter]

This.

 

A rise in CGT from the current 20 per cent to 40 per cent or even 45 per cent now seems certain. The trouble is, people are already planning ahead. There are reports from accountants and financial advisers across the UK that small companies are being sold, share portfolios cashed in, and property holdings reshuffled to book the gains right away. 

That makes perfect sense of course. If you sell now, you only have to pay 20 per cent of whatever profit you have made, whereas if you wait until the end of the year you will have to pay twice as much to the government. The result? The raid will generate almost no additional revenue, for the simple reason that everyone will have sold if they can, and if they can’t, they will just hold onto the asset until the rate comes down again, or they can move abroad for enough years to avoid it. If you are going to raise CGT you have to spring it as a complete surprise, and implement it on the same day that it is announced, so that no one can plan ahead. Instead, Labour has made a complete mess of it. 

In reality, all it has done is expose how hopelessly ignorant this administration is of basic economics. Neither Starmer nor Reeves, even though she keeps boasting about how she ‘knows how to run the economy’, have worked out that taxes impact the way people behave, and that has to be taken into account when planning any major changes. That hardly bodes well for the next five years.

[Tamesaint]

13 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

This.

 

 

A rise in CGT from the current 20 per cent to 40 per cent or even 45 per cent now seems certain. The trouble is, people are already planning ahead. There are reports from accountants and financial advisers across the UK that small companies are being sold, share portfolios cashed in, and property holdings reshuffled to book the gains right away. 

That makes perfect sense of course. If you sell now, you only have to pay 20 per cent of whatever profit you have made, whereas if you wait until the end of the year you will have to pay twice as much to the government. The result? The raid will generate almost no additional revenue, for the simple reason that everyone will have sold if they can, and if they can’t, they will just hold onto the asset until the rate comes down again, or they can move abroad for enough years to avoid it. If you are going to raise CGT you have to spring it as a complete surprise, and implement it on the same day that it is announced, so that no one can plan ahead. Instead, Labour has made a complete mess of it. 

In reality, all it has done is expose how hopelessly ignorant this administration is of basic economics. Neither Starmer nor Reeves, even though she keeps boasting about how she ‘knows how to run the economy’, have worked out that taxes impact the way people behave, and that has to be taken into account when planning any major changes. That hardly bodes well for the next five years.

Source? It would be interesting to know which brainbox wrote this. All these  share portfolios are apparently  being cashed in.... Yet the FTSE 100 and 250 are higher now than  they were on 4 July the date of the General Election. 

You are getting so desperate to attack the Labour government that you are beginning to look stupid. 😂 Why not just wait and see what happens rather than believing nonsense. 

[whelk]

17 minutes ago, Tamesaint said:

Source? It would be interesting to know which brainbox wrote this. All these  share portfolios are apparently  being cashed in.... Yet the FTSE 100 and 250 are higher now than  they were on 4 July the date of the General Election. 

You are getting so desperate to attack the Labour government that you are beginning to look stupid. 😂 Why not just wait and see what happens rather than believing nonsense. 

Funny isn’t it that always claim that any tax rise won’t generate additional revenue to the Treasury as people look to get round. So what’s the problem then if it is so ineffective? 

Every tax rise has a valid counter argument but there is huge wealth in the country and why should someone like Sunak be paying a smaller proportion of tax on his gains than a teacher sucked into 40% income tax bracket? 

[badgerx16]

1 hour ago, Tamesaint said:

Source? It would be interesting to know which brainbox wrote this.
😂

Matthew Lynn in The Spectator.

Edited August 29 by badgerx16

[Guided Missile]

2 hours ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

This.

 

 

A rise in CGT from the current 20 per cent to 40 per cent or even 45 per cent now seems certain. The trouble is, people are already planning ahead. There are reports from accountants and financial advisers across the UK that small companies are being sold, share portfolios cashed in, and property holdings reshuffled to book the gains right away. 

That makes perfect sense of course. If you sell now, you only have to pay 20 per cent of whatever profit you have made, whereas if you wait until the end of the year you will have to pay twice as much to the government. The result? The raid will generate almost no additional revenue, for the simple reason that everyone will have sold if they can, and if they can’t, they will just hold onto the asset until the rate comes down again, or they can move abroad for enough years to avoid it. If you are going to raise CGT you have to spring it as a complete surprise, and implement it on the same day that it is announced, so that no one can plan ahead. Instead, Labour has made a complete mess of it. 

In reality, all it has done is expose how hopelessly ignorant this administration is of basic economics. Neither Starmer nor Reeves, even though she keeps boasting about how she ‘knows how to run the economy’, have worked out that taxes impact the way people behave, and that has to be taken into account when planning any major changes. That hardly bodes well for the next five years.

I learnt about this in Ferris Beuller's Day Off:

A basic representation of a Laffer curve, plotting government revenue (R) against the tax rate (t) and showing the maximum revenue at t*

[Guided Missile]

 

[badgerx16]

18 minutes ago, Guided Missile said:

 

"It's just business,

Cattle prods and the I.M.F"

[Lord Duckhunter]

3 hours ago, Tamesaint said:

 Why not just wait and see what happens rather than believing nonsense. 

No need to wait and see what’s happened to our tenants, their rent has gone up because supply is going down. Exactly the same thing that happened when Osborne introduced restrictions on buy to let mortgage tax relief, instead of hitting “greedy landlords”, it hit ordinary Joes because supply went down. So many sold up, the ones that didn’t were able to pass the extra tax due onto their renters. 

[The Kraken]

1 hour ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

No need to wait and see what’s happened to our tenants, their rent has gone up because supply is going down. Exactly the same thing that happened when Osborne introduced restrictions on buy to let mortgage tax relief, instead of hitting “greedy landlords”, it hit ordinary Joes because supply went down. So many sold up, the ones that didn’t were able to pass the extra tax due onto their renters. 

Aren’t you the fella who said on here that you don’t put your prices up much because you want to keep good tenants?

[Tamesaint]

1 hour ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

No need to wait and see what’s happened to our tenants, their rent has gone up because supply is going down. Exactly the same thing that happened when Osborne introduced restrictions on buy to let mortgage tax relief, instead of hitting “greedy landlords”, it hit ordinary Joes because supply went down. So many sold up, the ones that didn’t were able to pass the extra tax due onto their renters. 

So what Labour are doing is the same as what Osborne and the Tories did. Dic you slag the Tories off then? 

[Gloucester Saint]

5 hours ago, whelk said:

Funny isn’t it that always claim that any tax rise won’t generate additional revenue to the Treasury as people look to get round. So what’s the problem then if it is so ineffective? 

Every tax rise has a valid counter argument but there is huge wealth in the country and why should someone like Sunak be paying a smaller proportion of tax on his gains than a teacher sucked into 40% income tax bracket? 

https://jacobin.com/2023/04/trickle-down-economics-arthur-laffer-wealth-inequality-ronald-reagan-margaret-thatcher
It also blew the North Sea oil receipts. 

Nothing compared to Truss’s inept attempts though at Laffer theory (Thatcher and Lawson were highly intelligent people even if I didn’t agree with them on some things, but did on others eg trades union reforms. Truss is as thick as mince) https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/08/27/liz-truss-considered-scrapping-cancer-treatment-on-the-nhs/

Kwarteng pushed her nicely under the 🚌 by saying he wasn’t in the room when this was discussed but it’s quite likely that it was discussed. So basically confirming it’s the truth but distancing himself. Can’t blame him after how Truss treated him. Although the cancer patients in my family would have fared a lot worse had Truss, Matthew Sinclair, Mark Littlewood and the IEA had their way. If you get cancer - go away so Liz buy a higher grade of coke to snort (allegedly) or a billionaire friend of the Tufton St crowd buy another mansion portfolio to let to Russian oligarchs.

Whatever Starmer and Reeves do in the autumn, I might not like it but it will never come close to Truss and the IEA. Even Boris would have thought that was a shit idea let alone Cameron/Osborne.

Edited August 29 by Gloucester Saint

[whelk]

1 hour ago, The Kraken said:

Aren’t you the fella who said on here that you don’t put your prices up much because you want to keep good tenants?

He wants to pretend his greed is not from him he is just following advice.

His basic tenet is don’t tax the wealthy and trying to justify with bs arguments