Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Register Log in

[Politics] Labour Party meltdown incoming.......



B

borat

Well-known member
Jul 16, 2003
644
Nobby Cybergoat said:
It has to be one of two things.

1) There is a conspiracy amongst all print and TV news outlets, including GB News, the Daily Mail and the Telegraph not to print anything which could hurt the Labour Party

2) It isn't true
Click to expand...

Regarding 1) I did some more digging and GB news have highlighted it via a video. Cant yet see it on any other sites.

Another possibility is that Media companies don't want to expose something that could lead to an investigation into their own billionaire owner(s) offshore tax affairs and highlight their hypocrisy.

Also possible some are waiting to verify it (although its now been 5 days so seems unlikely)

Michael Crick (ex BBC) has highlighted it.




a0c48287-fa9a-42d7-ac7f-8d4310f7ccac.jpg
 






Weststander

Weststander

Well-known member
Aug 25, 2011
69,007
Withdean area
borat said:
Regarding 1) I did some more digging and GB news have highlighted it via a video. Cant yet see it on any other sites.

Another possibility is that Media companies don't want to expose something that could lead to an investigation into their own billionaire owner(s) offshore tax affairs and highlight their hypocrisy.

Also possible some are waiting to verify it (although its now been 5 days so seems unlikely)

Michael Crick (ex BBC) has highlighted it.




View attachment 189300
Click to expand...

The UK alone can do little about tax havens in the big picture. But I'd love a reshaped UK company law/tax system where entities and individuals here cannot gain from them in any shape and form. Similarly, a law preventing ownership of UK property or company shares in a tax haven .... in practical terms, from new deals only. When having a nose at the ultimate owner of UK businesses, so often you have to follow a tortuous trail until you eventually you come to, you guessed it, Jersey or BVI or Cayman Isles.

They can only be based there for vast tax savings reasons.

Before anyone claims it, this is not a post 2010 or a UK thing. The Panama, Liechtenstein and Swiss data leaks revealed swathes of crooked Germans, French, Dutch millionaires/billionaires too.
 


B

borat

Well-known member
Jul 16, 2003
644
Weststander said:
The UK alone can do little about tax havens in the big picture. But I'd love a reshaped UK company law/tax system where entities and individuals here cannot gain from them in any shape and form. Similarly, a law preventing ownership of UK property or company shares in a tax haven .... in practical terms, from new deals only. When having a nose at the ultimate owner of UK businesses, so often you have to follow a tortuous trail until you eventually you come to, you guessed it, Jersey or BVI or Cayman Isles.

They can only be based there for vast tax savings reasons.

Before anyone claims it, this is not a post 2010 or a UK thing. The Panama, Liechtenstein and Swiss data leaks revealed swathes of crooked Germans, French, Dutch millionaires/billionaires too.
Click to expand...

The detail the donor is in the Caymans is only part of the story.

This donation is one of the biggest the Labour party has ever received and from a hedge fund with significant shares in private health, arms and fossil fuels companies. It appears it was deliberately timed to avoid surfacing pre-election.

What would such a company with its various interests wish to gain from such a donation you might wonder.

No other way to describe it other than corruption.
 


Weststander

Weststander

Well-known member
Aug 25, 2011
69,007
Withdean area
borat said:
The detail the donor is in the Caymans is only part of the story.

This donation is one of the biggest the Labour party has ever received and from a hedge fund with significant shares in private health, arms and fossil fuels companies. It appears it was deliberately timed to avoid surfacing pre-election.

What would such a company with its various interests wish to gain from such a donation you might wonder.

No other way to describe it other than corruption.
Click to expand...

The funny thing is that Labour would’ve walked the GE without it, it was a 4 year cake walk, they only had to say nothing and largely didn’t. It absolutely wasn’t in this case a scenario where a large fighting fund was required to match Tory donors.

Donors unashamedly changed ship eg lifelong Tory John Caudwell, in a similar way to Murdoch in 1997. Wanting to be seen to be backing a winning horse and keep their feet in the No 10 door.
 




armchairclubber

armchairclubber

Well-known member
Aug 8, 2010
1,654
Bexhill
borat said:
The detail the donor is in the Caymans is only part of the story.

This donation is one of the biggest the Labour party has ever received and from a hedge fund with significant shares in private health, arms and fossil fuels companies. It appears it was deliberately timed to avoid surfacing pre-election.

What would such a company with its various interests wish to gain from such a donation you might wonder.

No other way to describe it other than corruption.
Click to expand...


I fear die hard Starmerites are going to need a lot more convincing

Surely it's a noble pursuit ... Just like giving to charity.

And they're still canvassing for more it seems.

 


N

nevergoagain

Well-known member
Jul 28, 2005
1,513
nowhere near Burgess Hill
Weststander said:
The UK alone can do little about tax havens in the big picture. But I'd love a reshaped UK company law/tax system where entities and individuals here cannot gain from them in any shape and form. Similarly, a law preventing ownership of UK property or company shares in a tax haven .... in practical terms, from new deals only. When having a nose at the ultimate owner of UK businesses, so often you have to follow a tortuous trail until you eventually you come to, you guessed it, Jersey or BVI or Cayman Isles.

They can only be based there for vast tax savings reasons.

Before anyone claims it, this is not a post 2010 or a UK thing. The Panama, Liechtenstein and Swiss data leaks revealed swathes of crooked Germans, French, Dutch millionaires/billionaires too.
Click to expand...
I don't know about these things but as much as I agree about closing down these tax havens or at least making them unusable from here the fact they are crown dependencies I think will cause a huge ruckus if they did anything drastic.
 


pb21

pb21

Well-known member
Apr 23, 2010
6,678
nevergoagain said:
If I hear Rachel Reeves say the words "22 billion black hole" one more time I fear my TV will get launched out of the window.
Click to expand...
You better get used to it.

I used to feel the same way whenever I heard the Tory party mention the note left by Labour in that desk and how they caused the global financial crisis. That lasted 14 years...
 




Weststander

Weststander

Well-known member
Aug 25, 2011
69,007
Withdean area
nevergoagain said:
I don't know about these things but as much as I agree about closing down these tax havens or at least making them unusable from here the fact they are crown dependencies I think will cause a huge ruckus if they did anything drastic.
Click to expand...

So be it.

But they’d still make fortunes out of corrupt Yanks, Germans and French.
 


D

dsr-burnley

Well-known member
Aug 15, 2014
2,582
Weststander said:
The UK alone can do little about tax havens in the big picture. But I'd love a reshaped UK company law/tax system where entities and individuals here cannot gain from them in any shape and form. Similarly, a law preventing ownership of UK property or company shares in a tax haven .... in practical terms, from new deals only. When having a nose at the ultimate owner of UK businesses, so often you have to follow a tortuous trail until you eventually you come to, you guessed it, Jersey or BVI or Cayman Isles.

They can only be based there for vast tax savings reasons.

Before anyone claims it, this is not a post 2010 or a UK thing. The Panama, Liechtenstein and Swiss data leaks revealed swathes of crooked Germans, French, Dutch millionaires/billionaires too.
Click to expand...
UK property is now taxed under UK tax law wherever the owner may be based.

As for ownership of shares, the practical result of banning UK companies from having indeterminate foreign owners would be that any company that wanted to go public, would do it on someone else's stock exchange. Quite apart from the potential loss of lucrative shareholders, there would also be a huge admin cost in tracing back beneficial owners.
 


Weststander

Weststander

Well-known member
Aug 25, 2011
69,007
Withdean area
dsr-burnley said:
UK property is now taxed under UK tax law wherever the owner may be based.

As for ownership of shares, the practical result of banning UK companies from having indeterminate foreign owners would be that any company that wanted to go public, would do it on someone else's stock exchange. Quite apart from the potential loss of lucrative shareholders, there would also be a huge admin cost in tracing back beneficial owners.
Click to expand...

Admin …. I’m suggesting it as a new law on new ultimate owners. Fine if owned in territories not on a tax haven blacklist. No need to do any tracking down, the new ultimate owner (person of significant control) or entity under them cannot be in a tax haven.

I’ve tracked these scenarios down. Brits who’ve moved to Jersey set up an investment vehicle there, private equity, to acquire UK businesses. For example vets. There’s literally only one possible reason to be in Jersey …. to pay bugger all tax on the dividends and capital gains.
 




C

cunning fergus

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jan 18, 2009
4,874
pb21 said:
You better get used to it.

I used to feel the same way whenever I heard the Tory party mention the note left by Labour in that desk and how they caused the global financial crisis. That lasted 14 years...
Click to expand...

The difference at the moment is that imbecile Liam Byrne did leave a note, and Ed Balls did apologise for Labour’s mismanagement of the UK’s financial services industry. You maybe too young but amongst other things Gordon Brown boasted about the abolishment of the boom and bust cycle and Fred Goodwin got knighted in the run up to 2008.

Source: the Guardian
search.app

Labour conference: why Ed Balls had to apologise

Patrick Wintour: The shadow chancellor has found there are many Labour mistakes he has had to apologise for – including failed bank regulation and incorrect claims about ending boom and bust
search.app search.app

At the moment the £22bn black hole has yet to be proved, and as it currently stands they are not a political party that are looking like paragons of integrity………despite spending their wilderness years building it back up.
 


C

cunning fergus

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jan 18, 2009
4,874
chip said:
Yes, I do. I don't think it is a political radar that is needed, the gaffes could have been avoided by most ordinary people. I think the conservatives normalised what most think of entitled, unacceptable and seemingly unaccountable behaviour. I agree with you after the last lot I stupidly hoped for better. I didn't expect them to be better a doing simple things badly.

With a £68K a year photographer for the DPM, at least the pictures will look better despite the subject matter.
Click to expand...
Sure, but this is the point about the radar or should I refer to it as political instinct, and how important it is because public expectations change from when a party is in opposition to in leadership.

Starmer’s MO has been to present as an honest sort, which is why all the grubbiness about the gifts for clobber etc. are so damaging. When Rayner was exposed with 2 houses I don’t think she was damaged publicly because she behaves like a chancer and she’s not got a few mill in the bank from her time as a QC.

As it stands Starmer is proving to be a technocratic PM without a shred of political nous. He’s already more unpopular than Sunak, he needs to find some rabbits sharpish otherwise he could be on the receiving end of undignified abuse everywhere he goes. That’s the end for him.
 










D

dsr-burnley

Well-known member
Aug 15, 2014
2,582
Weststander said:
Admin …. I’m suggesting it as a new law on new ultimate owners. Fine if owned in territories not on a tax haven blacklist. No need to do any tracking down, the new ultimate owner (person of significant control) or entity under them cannot be in a tax haven.

I’ve tracked these scenarios down. Brits who’ve moved to Jersey set up an investment vehicle there, private equity, to acquire UK businesses. For example vets. There’s literally only one possible reason to be in Jersey …. to pay bugger all tax on the dividends and capital gains.
Click to expand...
But it's too broad a brush. If UK companies can't have foreign ownership then companies like HSBC and Shell and Starbucks will have to cease operations in the UK, or else do it entirely as an overseas company thus (presumably) dodging corporation tax altogether.
 


Weststander

Weststander

Well-known member
Aug 25, 2011
69,007
Withdean area
dsr-burnley said:
But it's too broad a brush. If UK companies can't have foreign ownership then companies like HSBC and Shell and Starbucks will have to cease operations in the UK, or else do it entirely as an overseas company thus (presumably) dodging corporation tax altogether.
Click to expand...

Missing my underlying points:
- new changes of ownership only.
- only affecting a new tax havens blacklist of Panama, BVI, Cayman, Bahamas, Jersey, Guernsey, IoM, etc.

Entities new or old based in Amsterdam, NYC, Frankfurt would be unaffected.

Investment? Are companies based in Jersey driving our economy, injecting £10b's of cash? From what I've seen at the very most they're buying out businesses. The overriding raison d'etre is is to pay bugger all corporation, income and capital gains tax from dealings in the UK. Harming us.
 
Last edited:




beorhthelm

beorhthelm

A. Virgo, Football Genius
Jul 21, 2003
35,968
Weststander said:
Missing my underlying points:
- pm changes of ownership only.
- only affecting a new tax havens blacklist of Panama, BVI, Cayman, Bahamas, Jersey, Guernsey, IoM, etc.

Entities new or old based in Amsterdam, NYC, Frankfurt would be unaffected.

Investment? Are companies based in Jersey driving our economy, injecting £10b's of cash? From what I've seen at the very most they're buying out businesses. The overriding raison d'etre is is to pay bugger all corporation, income and capital gains tax from dealings in the UK. Harming us.
Click to expand...
until they want to spend their money. at which point it comes into the country and gets taxed. not a lot to spend money on in Jersey, Cayman etc, other than reinvest into something else.
 


D

dsr-burnley

Well-known member
Aug 15, 2014
2,582
Weststander said:
Missing my underlying points:
- pm changes of ownership only.
- only affecting a new tax havens blacklist of Panama, BVI, Cayman, Bahamas, Jersey, Guernsey, IoM, etc.

Entities new or old based in Amsterdam, NYC, Frankfurt would be unaffected.

Investment? Are companies based in Jersey driving our economy, injecting £10b's of cash? From what I've seen at the very most they're buying out businesses. The overriding raison d'etre is is to pay bugger all corporation, income and capital gains tax from dealings in the UK. Harming us.
Click to expand...
I don't disagree the principle about fake investment companies in Jersey. I just disagree that your solution could be practical, especially to the degree that you are talking about. Companies cannot practically be made responsible for the ultimate beneficial ownership of their shares. If (say) a Delaware company buys the shares, how can anyone find out who the ultimate beneficial owner is?
 


You must log in or register to reply here.
Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports

Share this page


Top
Link Here