BS: Welcome back Boris

Subject: RE: BS: Welcome back Boris
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 07 May 12 - 05:52 PM

GIGANTIC VANITY DRIFT - talking of Mayors

My Uncle David was Mayor of Ipswich in the year of the Silver Jubilee so got to welcome Her Maj & all that. Predictable; everyone knew when the Jubilee was & Uncle David was the man they chose for the job. But they couldn't have predicted that he and Auntie Nan, who was an Alderman herself as well as Mayoress, would get the even more important job of welcoming home the FA-Cup Winning Ipswich Town team from Wembley ~~ the only time they have won it.

Goodie for Uncle David, eh?

~M~

GIGANTIC VANITY DRIFT ENDS

Subject: RE: BS: Welcome back Boris
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 07 May 12 - 06:53 PM

when has Boris ever played the spoons, or anything as newsworthy.

if he could have played the spoons , he would have been on all the talk programmes - boring us all shitless.

Subject: RE: BS: Welcome back Boris
From: GUEST,Allan Conn
Date: 08 May 12 - 02:18 AM

"Why go to the bother of electing councillors if you'ree going to pass on executive power to some 'Mayor' - makes no sense at all. I can't believe it is, as you say it is."

And not just London of course. Various other English cities have mayors. Some voted against setting up a mayor in votes last week

http://www.london.gov.uk/who-runs-london/mayor/role


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: RE: BS: Welcome back Boris
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 08 May 12 - 03:22 AM

But, Al ~~ the analogy is not with other cities, but with states like the USA: Congress doesn't appoint the President; he is separately elected to fulfil a real governing function in consultation with the elected representatives, rather than just a ceremonial symbolic role like those of countries where the government chooses the president, or cities where the council chooses the mayor. So the purpose of the recently created post of London's Mayor. Within the City, you still have the Lord Mayor for symbolic and ceremonial stuff.

Best

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Welcome back Boris
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 May 12 - 03:43 AM

"GIGANTIC VANITY DRIFT"
And another.
I had the pleasure of encountering Ken Livingstone several times while we were recording Travellers in London in the 70s and 80s. This would be before Thatcher showed her dedication to democracy by operating her scorched earth 'what you can't control, you destroy' policy by banning the democratically elected Greater London Council and selling off its headquarters to a Japanese millionaire to create a luxury hotel for the very, very rich.
Livingstone always struck me as a dedicated and compassionate politician who was prepared to stick his neck out for causes that were more likely to make him unpopular with the electorate than to be vote winners (this would be his support for Bozo the Dodo's "crippled homosexuals" and "lisping fools" activities).
The Travellers we knew were grateful, and more than a little surprised to receive help, advice and compassionate understanding for their campaign for getting stopping places, drinking water, sanitation and education for their children, from a politician.
All a little different from when a later John Major Government abolished the 1968 Caravan and Camping Act which required councils to provide a set number of sites, throwing thousands of families onto illegal stopping places at the side of Britain's roads.      
It's hard not to notice that despite the fact that Livingstone was first voted out of office with the aid of a scabloid press (backbone of Tory power in Britain today) campaign against the congestion charge – still in place after four years of Borisrule and still helping to make Central London's roads negotiable.
Also that the "Boris's Bikes" scheme was in fact a Livingstone proposal in the first place. Who said Boris has no policies or ideas – pity the ones he does have are not his own.
I have no idea if Livingstone fiddled his taxes – that seems to be 'what politicians do' – to borrow a phrase – not acceptable, but nothing to do with the present argument of who is most suitable to lead London. At least he wasn't claiming expenses for building palaces for his ducks – or newts.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Welcome back Boris
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 08 May 12 - 04:26 AM

Jim - I agree - except that AFAIK there was nothing wrong with Ken's tax planning - it was nowhere near "aggressive" policies not did it involve shipping money or activity to offshore low-tax areas.

Facts - from a tax journal - here - http://www.taxation.co.uk/taxation/38091/blog/how-much-did-ken-save

It is worth pointing out (as I can't expect Bozo to do the honest thing) that if money is retained (for the time being) in the company it will be taxed later when it comes out, one way or another.

It is also worth pointing out that Ken's company does indeed have other shareholders and employees and expenses. The right-wing propagandist Gilligan could not figure this out.

Boris will save about £16,000 per year from the cut that he supported in top rate tax - £48,000 over 3 years. Source http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/04/05/ken-livingstone-boris-johnson-tax-figures_n_1405547.html

Ken saved (ignoring the point I made about other employees and the the further point about deferred taxation) about £77,000 over 3 years using a company. But at least he did not lobby for changes in the law to reduce his tax bill.

Subject: RE: BS: Welcome back Boris
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 08 May 12 - 04:32 AM

It all seems a bit pointless to me - the leader of the council used to do that job. My wife was on Nottingham council as a disability awareness consultant. Councillors aren't bad eggs - they sort of do their best - according to their own lights.

I remember one day we had to go round all these tourist attractions - they were all astonished to find out that it was dufficult to push a wheelchair along deep gravel paths. Cross party amazement...! Brilliant!

Surely this new Mayor business is an additional expense for the taxpayer, and we're supposed to trying for financial austerity. Presumably we have to give this bugger a salary - be it Ken or Boris. If theres a lot of money involved - they'll all want to do it.

Subject: RE: BS: Welcome back Boris
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 08 May 12 - 05:10 AM

Now wouldn't it be absolutely excellent if prospective Mayors performed a party piece before the cameras in order to persuade people to vote for them? Playing the spoons is just a start. What about a quick burst of Morris Dancing, or a melodeon solo? Or a few hearty choruses of well-known folk songs? Further suggestions please, on a postcard...

Subject: RE: BS: Welcome back Boris
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 08 May 12 - 06:01 AM

I have no idea if Livingstone fiddled his taxes – that seems to be 'what politicians do'

Childish comment.

To put fee income through a limited company is perfectly within current tax legislation introduced I believe by a Labour government - you may not like it but there it is, and if an accountant is not advising his clients accordingly, he is not acting in their best interest.

The downside of owning a limited company is compliance with numerous filing deadlines, and the requirement for expensive software in order to produce accounts in accordance with Companies Act and Accounting Standards and also in ixbrl format now required by HMRC, and in the near future to be required by Companies House.

Subject: RE: BS: Welcome back Boris
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 08 May 12 - 06:17 AM

Eliza's idea is a good one; but I think it would be unfair to confine party-pieces purely to folk. How about some acrobatics or pole-dancing or opera-singing. It is after all only a few years since we had a Speaker of the House of Commons who began her working life as a Tiller Girl.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Welcome back Boris
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 May 12 - 06:19 AM

Bozo - As I said, bit difficult here to sort out the wheat from the scabloid chaff.
The worst that can be said of Livingstone's tax affairs is that they was certainly no worse than the practises that have been common in Britain for a long time and which have been either openly supported or excused by the Tories as long as I can remember.
However - none of this addresses the shameful and dishonest (not to say blatently undemocratic) behaviour of your particular knights in shining armour regarding bulldozing out of existence anything that gets in their predatory way.
Perhaps instead of your triumphalism over the London circus, you might like to comment on the council election results, or even stretch your limited imagination even further and have a look at what's happening in France and Greece, where there does seem a serious effort is being made to clear up the devastating results of the greedfest indulged in by corporate big business and rubber-stamped by crooked and incompetent politicians of all persuasions.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Welcome back Boris
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 08 May 12 - 06:32 AM

No, I am far too busy saving our clients tax!

Subject: RE: BS: Welcome back Boris
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 08 May 12 - 06:40 AM

LOL MtheGM! I'd love to see our Boris doing a spot of pole dancing! (Dressed in a pair of spangled budgie smugglers perhaps?)

Subject: RE: BS: Welcome back Boris
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 08 May 12 - 07:23 AM

What I think you would do well to focus on Bonzo is artificiality. It is a somewhat elusive concept, but it is very odd that Osborne promised to come down "like a ton of bricks" on certain things (in fact only really stamp duty), missed the boat entirely by failing to account for long leases, and utterly failed to reverse the principle in IRC -v- Westminster.   Of course some say we should reverse Saloman -v- Saloman, and that would stop the use of companies for tax planning as such.

Ken's arrangements were AFAIK not in the least artificial although I don't immediately see why they were not caught by close company principles. Maybe deemed distributions disappeared while I was not looking.

What, I think, we need is a truly general anti-avoidance principle, and I have explained my views in more detail before.

Part of the problem is that the press is largely more than somewhat right of centre, and it became quite difficult to get to any grips with what Ken actually did in the face of wholly ignorant flak like Gilligan's - and in the face of outbursts like Boris's comment "fucking lies".

Subject: RE: BS: Welcome back Boris
From: Musket
Date: 08 May 12 - 12:01 PM

On the subject of Boris... as opposed to tax arrangements etc.

Whatever his policies, whatever his person, whatever his background...

1. His book The Dream of Rome is perhaps one of the most thoughtful well written books I have enjoyed in a long time.

2. His car reviews used to make me chuckle.

The problem is that both he and Livingstone are characters, and we need more of them instead of the faceless spokesmen for PR spinners. A pity in some ways that two colourful characters had to be in for the same job.

That said, Boris running the country? Nah, the civil servants would never have it. Cameron is safe for the time being. At least until we have a leader of the opposition to weigh up against him.

Subject: RE: BS: Welcome back Boris
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 May 12 - 02:09 PM

Looking at the actual voting figures it is apparent that it wasn't a matter of lots of people who voted Labout being reluctant to vote for Ken. His acual vote was pretty well in line with the Labour vote generally, a vote which resulted in a landside for Labour in the London Assembly.

The trouble was that Boris got a much higher vote than the Tories generally - probably because a lot of non-Tories see him as a laugh. The same way that when elected mayors were introduced in 2002 the voters in Hartlepool elected a man dressed as a monkey. (And in this picture he actually looks quite a lot like Boris, but with a darker mane.)

Subject: RE: BS: Welcome back Boris
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 May 12 - 03:53 PM

Figures to substantiate what I wrote in my previous post:

Total votes for Labour in the London Assembly election: 911,204
Total votes for Conservatives in London Assembly election: 708,528

Total first preference votes for Ken Livingstone: 992,273
Total first preference votes for Boris Johnson: 1,054,811

So in fact Ken Livingstone's vote was higher than the vote for Labour in the Assembly election. Just not higher enough.

Subject: RE: BS: Welcome back Boris
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 May 12 - 03:58 PM

Which goes to demonstrate how we are conned and let down by journalists who fail to actually check the facts - and who gaily went on writing about how Ken had done far worse in the mayoral election than Labour had done in the Assembly election.

And we believe what they write and say...

Subject: RE: BS: Welcome back Boris
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 08 May 12 - 03:58 PM

Well it's a great pity that Screaming Lord Sutch isn't still around!

Subject: RE: BS: Welcome back Boris
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 May 12 - 04:00 PM

"Screaming Lord Sutch" With a title like that surely he must have a clone in the cabinet?

Subject: RE: BS: Welcome back Boris
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 08 May 12 - 04:17 PM

'Well it's a great pity that Screaming Lord Sutch isn't still around! '

well we agree about one thing at least Bonzo. David Sutch was an original. One ofthe most original rock and rollers ever. Precursor of Theatre in Rock and Roll. A great influence on Alex Harvey, The Doors, Alice Cooper. A great performer.

Most of the stuff he campaigned for - votes at 18, etc are accepted parts of the political process.

mental illness is a terrible thing, and i'm sorry it robbed us of him.

Subject: RE: BS: Welcome back Boris
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 May 12 - 04:19 PM

Sorry - those figures I gave were for the mayoral vote after second preferences had been included.

The first preference votes were 971,931 for Boris Johnson and 889,918 for Ken Livingstone.

So Ken did get a few thousand less than the overall Labour vote - but the big difference was that Boris got several hundred thousand votes more than the Tories as a whole.

Subject: RE: BS: Welcome back Boris
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 08 May 12 - 04:40 PM

McGrath - he didn't win. No prizes for runners up in that game.

Subject: RE: BS: Welcome back Boris
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 May 12 - 04:55 PM

Of course he didn't win. That's not relevant to the point I'm making, which is it that Ken Livingstone did about as well as Labour, which did well - but Boris Johnson did a great deal better than the Tories in general, who did badly.

People like a laugh, and Boris is a laugh.

Subject: RE: BS: Welcome back Boris
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 08 May 12 - 05:20 PM

That is a very sad comment on my country.

Subject: RE: BS: Welcome back Boris
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 08 May 12 - 05:52 PM

""Doubtless he has his faults, but many Londoners really liked him and he was elected despite Thatcher wriggling and jiggling with democratic process with the aim of ousting him.

Why am I reading your post and getting the impression that you are gibbering with rage....?""

Not gibbering at all Al. I really don't give stuff who runs London. I don't even live there.

On the subject of biased reporting, Ken's financial arrangements made all the papers and Radio and TV too. RB is the one that's gibbering, after all it is he who waxes strong on the subject of Tories in general (not just Tory politicians) and their, according to him, corrupt and evil nature. It really gripes him that his socialist hero has been caught out behaving like the rich he so envies and avoiding tax.

Far from gibbering, this accords me quiet satisfaction.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Welcome back Boris
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 08 May 12 - 06:10 PM

""Ken saved (ignoring the point I made about other employees and the the further point about deferred taxation) about £77,000 over 3 years using a company.""

About seven years household income for me and my wife combined, and you would have been raving had he been a Tory. Nice to see such even handedness.....NOT!

""What, I think, we need is a truly general anti-avoidance principle, and I have explained my views in more detail before.""

Well now, that's a departure.

Until your favourite socialist was found wanting, it was all about the "rich Tories" of whom you are so envious.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Welcome back Boris
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 08 May 12 - 10:11 PM

'Ken Livingstone did about as well as Labour,'

no he didn't. He lost and Labour won.

Subject: RE: BS: Welcome back Boris
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 09 May 12 - 01:16 AM

Don - Ken saved about £77,000 tax. Boris supported changing the rules to save himself £48,000 tax. In each case over 3 years. Why can you not see that changing the rules to benefit yourself is the less acceptable?

Subject: RE: BS: Welcome back Boris
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 09 May 12 - 02:56 AM

You are forgetting that livingstone's company will have paid corporation tax - little can escape that.

Subject: RE: BS: Welcome back Boris
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 09 May 12 - 03:29 AM

Richard ~ Sorry, but I can't help thinking that Don is right: you wouldn't be so comparatively insouciant about K.Liv's peculations if it had been a tory who had committed them. In that indispensable formulation of that lawyer character in one of Shaw's early plays ~ "You think you would, but you wouldn't."

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Welcome back Boris
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 09 May 12 - 05:05 AM

Comes down to if you trust the law, and the press. When they 'investigated' MP's expenses. Three Labour MP's went to jail and one black guy.

Nuff said.

Subject: RE: BS: Welcome back Boris
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 09 May 12 - 06:26 AM

""Don - Ken saved about £77,000 tax. Boris supported changing the rules to save himself £48,000 tax. In each case over 3 years. Why can you not see that changing the rules to benefit yourself is the less acceptable?""

And why can you not see (through your red tinted specs) that neither is acceptable.

You scream blue murder about legal tax avoidance by the rich, who, according to you, are all Tories (very sloppy thinking there for a legal mind), yet it's all right for Red Ken to use similar tactics, because he's on your side of the fence.

NEWSFLASH!!   Neither is acceptable, and the answer is to change the tax system so nobody can do it. No political party has grasped, does grasp, or ever will grasp that particular nettle, simply because what they all really want (in common with your recent comments) is to stop the other side doing it while retaining their own fiddles.

Don T.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Welcome back Boris
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 09 May 12 - 06:56 AM

"It is worth pointing out (as I can't expect Bozo to do the honest thing) that if money is retained (for the time being) in the company it will be taxed later when it comes out, one way or another."

Have you forgotten Entrepreneurs' Relief?

Subject: RE: BS: Welcome back Boris
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 09 May 12 - 08:24 AM

I don't think that had been invented when I was young, Bonzo!

Don - there is tax evasion (and this is not it) and there is tax avoidance. Tax avoidance occupies a continuum from actually claiming the allowances to which you ARE entitled and to which you are intended to be entitled, to creating very artificial structures and transaction sequences to try to get round parliamentary intention. What Ken was up to is at the less dodgy end of the spectrum. Not nice, but not that nasty. What Boris did was get his mates to change tax law for his betterment. Verging on corruption.

Subject: RE: BS: Welcome back Boris
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 09 May 12 - 09:03 AM

I doubt that very much.

Subject: RE: BS: Welcome back Boris
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 May 12 - 09:10 AM

I never understand tax stuff - but as I understand it, the money concerned wasn't personal income available for use on personal expenditure, it was political income, reserved for expenditure on political activities such as employing political workers. No different in principal from a lawn machine maker using money from selling lawnmowers to employ people to make them for his company.

Perhaps the money taken in by companies like that should be taxed at the same rate as personal income, but that's not how it's done. I can't see how it can be seen as a tax fiddle, using loopholes in the law, like a company setting up a fictitious branch overseas where tax rates are lower.

The criticism seems to be assuming that political activity is a luxury hobby, like playing golf or buying yachts, and that taxed accordingly.

Subject: RE: BS: Welcome back Boris
From: GUEST,Ian Mather sans cookie
Date: 09 May 12 - 09:44 AM

Who's mithering now?

Wrong is right if I agree with it? No wonder you left school and wanted to be a legal eagle. Takes a certain blinkered logic chopping to defend the indefensible.

Limiting your liability is a sound business practice and I commend it. Ken has done what I would do. However, the business owns the money not the person so getting at the money for your own use is where the tax first comes in.

I fail to see many differences between their situations. If one is clean so is the other and vice versa unless either happened to commit an offence, which neither has been charged with.

Wanting to change the law is what politics is about. Are you saying you shouldn't vote for someone if you benefit from their manifesto?


Tut tut.

Subject: RE: BS: Welcome back Boris
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 09 May 12 - 09:57 AM

Richard, please stop trying to patronise me. You aren't qualified to do so.

I am well aware of the difference between tax evasion and tax avoidance, and the subject of this discussion is the latter.

If it were evasion in either case, legal action would take care of it quite nicely.

The only way to stop avoidance is to close the loopholes which make it possible, something which I would heartily applaud, as would anyone with six or more working brain cells, who was not involved in exploiting them.

Meanwhile, you have a lot of clever people legally saving themselves money, and fulminate as you may, the law cannot touch them, not even the Tory ones.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Welcome back Boris
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 09 May 12 - 12:16 PM

Using power to change the law for personal gain not the gain of the country should NOT be what politics is all about. But it does alas typify Boris and most conservatives.

Subject: RE: BS: Welcome back Boris
From: Musket
Date: 09 May 12 - 01:26 PM

If you were elected then, how would you ensure you could never gain by your policies? After all, politicians should be "of the people" and your aim is to further the cause of "the people."

The problem is; the gain of the country and the gain of the individual are not mutually exclusive. Especially if you are a one nation Tory...........

Subject: RE: BS: Welcome back Boris
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 09 May 12 - 01:45 PM

yes but if more money is going in Boris's pocket. Chances are, its coming from a poorer person's pocket.

A school will not be built or a library closed cos Boris's mates in number 11 are seeing Boris (and all the other Boris's) all right - usually to the exclusion of the rest of us.

Subject: RE: BS: Welcome back Boris
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 09 May 12 - 01:48 PM

Bloody good job - you would all only spend it on beer.

Subject: RE: BS: Welcome back Boris
From: GUEST,petecockermouth
Date: 09 May 12 - 02:02 PM

i would spend more money on beer if i could afford it. great english product (sorry scotland -the beer is one thing that is definitely better south of the border)and while we are on the subject, it is long past time that more of us spent more time in the local pub. we are in danger of losing one of the really good things about this country - it's your duty to community and your country to drink more. and where else do we (when this pub closes) plan the revolution? cheers!

Subject: RE: BS: Welcome back Boris
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 May 12 - 03:53 PM

Doesn't Boris drink rather a lot of beer?

Subject: RE: BS: Welcome back Boris
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 09 May 12 - 05:42 PM

""A school will not be built or a library closed cos Boris's mates in number 11 are seeing Boris (and all the other Boris's) all right - usually to the exclusion of the rest of us.""

Whereas of course Red Ken doing the same thing will affect nobody??

Take a reality pill will you?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Welcome back Boris
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 09 May 12 - 07:29 PM

I don't know much about the newt man - except if Thatcher needed to get rid of him - he was probably all right.

Its you who needs the reality pill Don. These tories - they laugh at you. Unless you are very rich, theres nothing for you in voting for them.

For about a year I went to a public school through my church - a sort of scholarship, an exhibition grant. the kids called me Fred - they thought that was a working class name. The local grammar school were referred to as 'grammar school thickos'. I was told to get back in the gutter because of my northern accent and cheap unfashionable clothes.

Some of those buggers are tory MPs nowadays. I'm abit sorry you don't get it. Sorry I can't communicate to you why the tories would never have thought of a health service or an Open University - why such generosity of spirit just isn't in their emotional vocabulary

Subject: RE: BS: Welcome back Boris
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 10 May 12 - 11:15 AM

Since more of the public voted Tory than Labour, your wild generalisation is meaningless Al.

WE ARE THE MAJORITY until another election changes that, maybe not even then.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Welcome back Boris
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 10 May 12 - 11:45 AM

So there you go!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Welcome back Boris
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 May 12 - 11:47 AM

WE ARE THE MAJORITY - that's dubious. Opinion polls have indicated that most of those who voted LibDem disagreed with the decision to sign up to a Tory agenda. They felt conned, and without them there wasn't any "MAJORITY".

In an electoralsystem where the number of people voting is so small, no party should ever claim the right to say they speak for "the people". Even on those occasions where they are not doing stuff they promised not to do when they were standing for eection.