Westministenders: Hey Hey we're the Monkies.

[RedToothBrush]

Welcome to the Listening Parliament.

Have you noticed it yet?

The Three Monkeys of See No Evil, Hear No Evil and Speak No Evil have been in a bit of a fight with didn’t fair well. Its funny how politicians of all shades and levels are desperate to prove just how good they at listening and how they see the problems.

Its quite incredible to think that officials elected to serve the public are even in this position where they are having suddenly think about how they show they are listening. It rather shows up that they have been accustomed to telling the public what to think and what to believe.

What they are still to work out, is that in saying they are listening, they also have to demonstrate they are listening and be credible.

The trouble is, that even though some of the monkeys have been killed off, we still have a lot of monkeys in parliament. 'Monkey say, Monkey do' actions still lurk. Politicians who imitate others without understanding the consequences.

There is no point in listening if you are only listening to one group and don’t understand the consequences of simply repeating the words of others.

Politicians saying they are listening when you can find dozens of incidents where they have said completely the opposition, without having the gumption to explain they have changed their position and without having the grace to explain the evidence that has lead them to change that position rather undermines the idea they are listening.

U-Turns are not a bad thing. U-Turns can show that you were making an error but were wise enough to admit that and why you were wrong. U-Turns are bad when you fail to acknowledge your failings and only do it to chase votes. This is where cynicism creeps in and lack of trust in politicians occurs.

Listening also requires actions to reflect words. There is no good in saying one thing, if your actions don’t reflect that. This is where the Listening Parliament is already failing. And I’m sure we will see it more.

Above all, listening is only part of a conversation. A politician is supposed to be accountable. They are supposed to have their eyes open to evil, not deaf to it and not unwilling to speak inconvenient truths where they recognise the evil.

Any politician who tells you they listen needs to back it up somehow. They need to demonstrate and justify their positions accurately. If they don’t they aren’t listening properly.

Isn’t it funny how it was in Hartlepool that the monkey got hung for being a Frenchman? No one was there to explain differently.

Ah I see BigChoc got there with reasons for the anti-EU vote while I was typing.

Slow down you move too fast … you can sing along if you want to!

Someone a few pages back mentioned those using our legal framework to reduce their tax payment. Changing that would be a good step forward.

That's especially true of companies like Amazon, Apple, Starbucks and so on, as well as individuals like Philip Green, etc. I don't know enough about the tax system nor economics to feel bold enough to suggest anything specific, apart from some form of sales tax.

I don't mean VAT, which is a costly system to administer, even more expensive to inspect.

Starbucks knows exactly how much profit it makes from every cup of coffee it sells in the UK. Amazon/Apple et al the same, sell a good or service in this country and tax is paid in this country.

As someone else has said, we need to think differently (see Apple advert 1984!)

I'm sure there are flaws, look forward to reading them on here, but the current system seems broken – ask anyone on PAYE.

Pensioners. As one whose total income is below average of people working, I'm in favour of including WFA and free TV licence as part of my income. For those who receive only an OAP, they still wouldn't pay any tax.

Starbucks knows exactly how much profit it makes from every cup of coffee it sells in the UK.

Good for them.

The problem is HMRC don't.

Brexit happened because the UK ruling class & rightwing media blamed the EU for their own disfunctional way of ruling:

blamed them for the results of structural problems of the UK economy and class system going back more than a century
the results of the UK wasting its Marshall Aid on Imperial delusions, while Germany, France & others used theirs to rebuild their infrastructure and industries
the results of UK voters being conned into choosing low taxes / low services to benefit the wealthy

I see the Times is warning that UK industry is grinding to a halt.

Although it could just be Wimbledon ....

Re UK bankers taking lobbying matters into their own hands, one of the think tanks urging such action is The Centre for the Study of Financial Innovation, publishers of Insurance and Banking Banana Skins series. Someone was asking about Tax Simplification earlier and there seems to be a podcast about that also. (NB have not listened but hoping to learn from the scarily informed economists and finance specialists on here). www.csfi.org

the results of the UK wasting its Marshall Aid on Imperial delusions, while Germany, France & others used theirs to rebuild their infrastructure and industries

Which we - rather helpfully in hindsight - flattened ready for the upgrade ...

Lurking, thanks, that made me laugh - initially.

The problem is HMRC don't

Thus the next simple question should be, 'Why not?'

Article in Business section of today's Times reckons we're now making a loss on North Sea Oil - £300mn last year.

The problem is HMRC don't

Thus the next simple question should be, 'Why not?'

Because their job is not - and never has been to "collect tax". It's been to enable the political classes have enough resources to prosecute whatever the policy du jour is. Historically war. After all, the entire rationale behind the civil war wasn't any noble minded protection of the rights of the citizens (Sod the proles !). It was because a King had a hissy fit when parliament refused to give him money to squander on another foreign venture.

I defy anyone to prove I am wrong. You may use anything in the previous 2 centuries as evidence that HRMC (and Inland Revenue, and Customs and Excise as were) have ever been an efficient, egalitarian, public-minded institution.

This is well worth 58 minutes of anyones time.

Apologies for link, but YouTube has gone all "can't see this in the UK", which isn't an issue for some know, but this is a UK-centric thread.

Here's the iPlayer page, in case it ever gets re-shown.

How easy is it for a standardised, medium sized domestic company to pay its taxes? How do countries compare?www.pwc.com/gx/en/paying-taxes/pdf/pwc-paying-taxes-2017.pdf

Theresa May sitting on report on foreign funding of UK extremists

Saudi funding ?
She's certainly been sucking up to their loathsome theocratic dictatorship since she first became PM
If you buy zillions in weapons from the UK, then your money talks - and reports are silenced

Cut police numbers, suck up to those funding terrorism - how the Tories keep us safe ?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jul/03/theresa-may-report-foreign-funding-extremists-saudi-arabia

"The whereabouts of the report into foreign funding of extremism and radicalisation in the UK became a controversial issue in the final days of the general election after the terror attacks in Manchester and London Bridge.

It was commissioned by David Cameron and approved by May as part of a deal with the Liberal Democrats to secure the party’s support before a crucial vote on airstrikes in Syria in December 2015."
So deals don't outlast a PM after all - or did Clegg trust a handshake and Arlene demanded a signed and itemized deal ?

because our tax system is incredibly complicated.

Again ... why ?

In any system the chance of fucking up increases with the square of the number of entities ... if we take tax avoidance as a fuck up, them more rules exponentially increase the scope for them ...

The only people who seem to benefit from a complex tax system appear to be large corporations and the accountants they employ. It's certainly not the average taxpayer.

cf.

The only people who seem to benefit from a complex legal system are large corporations and the lawyers they employ. It's certainly not the average citizen.

(I leave it as homework for someone to extend the principle Ecclesiastically ).

I guess the modern day response is that we shall only be free when the last accountant has been hanged with the guts of the last lawyer ...

Struggling to keep up with the thread today, but whoever was asking about economic growth (lurkinghusband?), have you heard of a book called Prosperity without growth? en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosperity_Without_Growth

I've heard of it but never read it I'm afraid

Rer Starbucks profits, the definition of key bits of its business and the countries in which they are located is incredibly complex in terms of establishing compliance and tax due. Where the raw coffee is imported from? Where it is roasted? Where the end product is actually sold? etc etc. been Presumably each individual stores have budgetary targets for coffee sales but that's not profit.

Rafael Behr‏Verified account @rafaelbehr
Rafael Behr Retweeted Lionel Barber
This is extraordinary. UK govt had no position on what wanted from Brexit but May set clock running anyway.

Lionel Barber‏Verified account @lionelbarber
Well worth reading: UK civil service in turf war over Brexit www.ft.com/content/46926410-5ffb-11e7-91a7-502f7ee26895 via @FT

I can't access this but it sounds like it's interesting, for those that can see it!

LotisBlue

Many thanks - I'll see if I can Kindle it .

I'm sure it is possible to keep the economy going without growth. However it needs a massive realignment of expectations and reality for a start.

It could be that Marx was spot on, and we are moving naturally into a communist economy. (Feudal->Capitalist->Communist if my dim memory of history is correct). Maybe Corbyn is closer to the truth of it than we realise ?

The do nothing option is always considered alongside other strategic options that an organisation has (some hopefully generated by brainstorming and thinking outside the box), if only to highlight the risks and dangers faced by the organisation. When it has come to investment in industry and infrastructure, or implementation of change, the government have almost always tended to go for that option, if not from dogma, or inaction, or sheer ignorance, then from prevaricating and arguing about it until it is too late.

Bigchoc Pain The thing that struck me about that list is that it correlates with exposure in the media and the degree of positivity delusion about Brexit, and indeed the Conservative Party. I suspect with May though she has just become embarrassing....

I have long suspected that even if the UK can get its act together and capitalise on its sources of competitive advantage in the global economy that the competitive pressures are such that even peddling harder it will stand still. I have highlighted the trend for wealth to be growing in the East especially in the form of a growing Middle Class as it stagnates in the west, helped by the uneven impact of the financial crisis. In a way Margaret Thatcher was recognising that threat in reengineering the economy towards services and the EU. I wonder if she actually realised how successful that strategy would be, rather than it being a defence against continuing recessions and stagnation? Obviously at the moment we are not even peddling harder, we are proposing to take off the wheels....

It would have been funny if it wasn't the guy wrecking NHS.

www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jul/04/hard-brexit-means-people-fleeing-uk-jeremy-hunt-note-says?CMP=twt_gu

I'm a little disturbed about the nuances of language here ...

fleeing ?

Why not "leaving" ?

People "fled" Nazi Europe, but also criminals "flee" the scene of a crime.

Or is it just the Metropolitan Liberal Elite in me that "knows words and stuff" ?

Extracts from that FT article

“But the way in which they [Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill] hounded ministers and officials meant many issues were never properly thought through in a collaborative way.”

Another official said: “We have got to a stage where a lot of key questions on Brexit still need to be properly thrashed out in conversations. For example, we have not had a detailed discussion across departments about what the impact of leaving the single market will be for specific sectors of the UK economy. This has to change.”

Also an interesting guardian article on the future of the State:
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/04/leaders-believe-state-thatcherite-cuts-privatisation-reverse