to think that you need to stop what you're doing right now and read this article. And I mean need.

[granted]

I posted this on the Politics section but it deserves a much wider audience:

www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/feb/07/tax-city-heist-of-century?commentpage=last#end-of-comments

Quite possibly the best newspaper article I've ever read.

"beenbeta not ad hominim then ad paperim? what does attacking the newspaper have to do with the change in the law highlighted in the argument?"

I think it's called People in Glass Houses Shouldn't Throw Stones.

If the lovely peeps at the Smarmdian are no worried about companies avoiding tax, then they might want to consider paying some themselves and not taking advantage of equally questionable (or not) loop holes

claig havent you got better to do than try to bash us over the head with ur anti green bilge? if you seriously believe they're anti technology blah blah check out www.thevenusproject.com and then take a rest

no you are right, we should only listen to media that blindly suports the right wing agenda... so are youfor companies avoiding tax ? why are you complaining then?

Many of us don't support genetic modification, we don't like Frankenstein foods, we are real greens, we want natural food, the way nature intended. Fortunately, many of the green voters also think that way. It's the green leaders who often think differently.

My point is that the Guardian is already utlising tax loopholes to it's full advantage whilst complaining that other companies are being given the opportunity to do likewise.

They can't have it both ways.

Have read Venusproject, and whilst they may not be anti-technology they are seriously idealistic. I cant see the abolition of money thing gaining currency (excuse the pun) and they seem to have decided to avoid thinking about what happens the first time (eg) a harvest fails.

Monbiot is a public schoolboy who want to Oxford. Remember that other public schoolboy, educated at Eton and Cambridge, Peter Robert Henry Mond, 4th Baron Melchett. Lord Melchett was at one time a whip in Callaghan's Labour government. He got fed up of the 'lying game' of Westmintser politics and eventually became the Executive Director of Greenpeace. Remember how he shocked the loyal Guardianistas when they discovered that he had joined the PR firm that advised Monsanto.

www.guardian.co.uk/science/2002/jan/08/gm.activists

georgeorwell, you are sullying the great writer's name. The Venus Project - "Beyond poltics, poverty and war". Can't you see that that is straight out of '1984', don't you realise that it is the 'Brave New World', don't you realise that Zeitgeist is a con?

Take a few more steps on the journey and you will get closer to the truth.

claig you sound like youre out of an episode of lost cum x files...have fun!

p.s.what is "the truth"? pray enlighten us...and THEN have a rest

The truth is not what Monbiot, Miliband and the Marxists tell you. Keep searching, to believe it you have to find it yourself. Don't rely on others to tell you.

Btw- Heroine, I dont doubt that there will be some great green advances and that most of them will be technologically based. However, I think there are 2 factors to consider

• Many of these will be incremental to existing activities, so, for example, with lightweight metals which can increase fuel efficiency, it's more likely that existing steel mills will produce increasing quantities of these than that anyone would build a new steel mill just to make lightweight, super strength steels.

• A lot of commercialisation will depend on financial viability- the alternatives need to be as cost effective as using fossil fuels. For many fledgling technologies this is not clear to being a slam dunk

To summarise, I think green technology is important, but I dont think it's something that a country can decide to just annex and "make their thing", and being good at researching something is very different to being good at commercialising it.

but is, I suppose what the daily mail says??

still not sure what your point is baggedandtagged

Green technology will do nothing for the UK economy except raise the cost of electricity and make us even more uncompetitve.

It sucks huge amounts of public money (which we cannot afford) into the hands of green technology companies, green advocacy and lobby groups as well as university researchers who depend for funding and their entire livelihood on it.

Apart from perhaps burning municipal waste and biomass in combined heat & power plants no green technology can pay its own way. If it could, it would not need promoting and subsidising - private business would rush in to invest private capital.

Heroine, you are getting close. The Daily Mail is a good start. Also the speeches of David Cameron, William Hague and Michael Gove are like the philospher's stone.

My point is that whenever anyone says "we need to diversify our economy from financial services" (a point on which I wholeheartedly agree) the answer is always "yeah, we should get into green technology". It's presented as some obvious truth which will rebalance the economy and make us all affluent.

However, when questioned, these people are never able to focus on the specifics of

1. Why the UK would have a competitive advantage in "green technologies"

1. Exactly which "green technologies" we should be doing?

In my opinion, significant advances in fuel efficiency and waste reduction (which is what we're largely talking about) are likely to be tagged onto the existing operations of companies already operating in these areas, and if you take a look, very few of them are British. Yes, we might come up with a few niche ideas but we're not going to become global leaders in the production of lightweight metals, wind turbines etc.

I work in exactly this industry - I help governments around the world design their tax systems and policies, and calculate how changes will affect taxpayer behaviour.

It has taken me years of academic study and field work to even begin to understand this subject. Please believe me when I say that it's a thousand times more complicated than the article makes out, and that it's very heavily biased towards one political viewpoint (a valid viewpoint, of course, but nevertheless just one). I made representations to HM Treasury on CFC reform (the consultation closed yesterday) and met with Treasury officials.

well done, CinnabarRed. Could you please take some time out to explain it to Monbiot?

He has frightened a lot of good people

Cinnabarred- if you have time, can you explain what you think the logic of this change would be, from the government's POV?

CinnabarRed - looking forward to your further contributions.

claig - v off-topic, I know, but could you just confirm your gender for me? You write just like a patronising bloke talking down to a lot of silly women - just curious as to whether my hunch is true. :)

tee hee claig your incessant daily mail product placement is quite amusing. and the only marxist miliband is pater. so what if monbiot went to oxford? does that automatically exclude you from critical thought? i went to oxford and still managed to write 1984

Will do - have a meeting now but will try to write a brief summary of my views after.

So how did this happen? You don't have to look far to find out. Almost all the members of the seven committees the government set up "to provide strategic oversight of the development of corporate tax policy" are corporate executives. Among them are representatives of Vodafone, Tesco, BP, British American Tobacco and several of the major banks: HSBC, Santander, Standard Chartered, Citigroup, Schroders, RBS and Barclays.

Oh to be buggered by large companies

chocolateismyfriend, your hunch is not true.

georgeorwell, you are right. You also went to Eton, as did David Cameron and Boris Johnson, and other esteemed Bullingdon Club members. So a lot of good critical thought has emanated from that great school.

touchè!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

. Seriously, look at the criticisms of Zeitgeist and the whole "sustainability" movement, and you will see why it is part of an Orwellian nightmare.