Well, no, not really

And nothing she says and nothing she does will change that: this is the way liberal democracy works: there is, inevitably, a power structure. The purpose of democracy is to hold it to account.

It’s to be able to change it without bloodshed.

4 thoughts on “Well, no, not really”

  1. What a surprise! Ritchie’s burnt his bridges with Corbyn/McDonnell and so is denouncing Long-Bailey who isn’t likely to offer him a job or peerage. Expect him to start praise to Starmer or anyone else who can beat Long-Bailey.

  2. More bollocks from Spud on the loan charge;

    “The Loan Charge law needs to be withdrawn

    It was superseded by the Rangers decision”

    That’s the Glasgow Rangers decision he’s referring to but it shows a complete misunderstanding of the Glasgow Rangers case.

    The whole point about loan planning was that the payments were expected to be loans. i.e. theoretically repayable. In the Glasgow Rangers case all the planning was fatally flawed and the defence collapsed because it was shown that agents acting on behalf of the players had insisted on side agreements which accepted that the loans would never be repaid.

    The decision in the Rangers case was not that a loan should be considered as taxable income, but rather that if something is earnings it is taxable on the employee even if the recipient of the payment is a third party.

    In this case, the evidence was that the money was earnings even before it went into the EBT. They were not loans, as evidenced by the side agreements.

    You simply could not use that case as a precedent to go after other loan arrangements which had been set up properly.

    As is so often the case, my real frustration is that this twat goes on radio and talks as a tax ‘expert’. He really is the tax equivalent of Andrew Wakefield.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *