3 ms·

The only taxes I can see them being exempt from are local council taxes, not income/VAT/corporation tax. And whilst they are nominally not subject to the Monar

by adwf 12y ago

The only taxes I can see them being exempt from are local council taxes, not income/VAT/corporation tax. And whilst they are nominally not subject to the Monarchy, nor is the rest of the country really. Much like the Monarchy, the City's regulatory power is largely paper thin and only exists within the square mile. The moment they tried to exercise any kind of open egregious use of power (like evading, rather than avoiding corporation tax), they'd find their priviledges revoked near-instantly. However that doesn't prevent them from using the usual methods of bribery and corruption from influencing the government. But then how is that any different from any country in the world?

toyg 12y ago
> how is that any different from any country in the world? Well, other countries at least try to maintain the idea that democratic power comes from the electorate, rather than special interests. So corruption, where it is, has to pass through the electorate (which it often does, but that's another matter). Whereas in Britain, the City is an institutional body openly and directly representing business and "free trade" in Parliament and elsewhere. This arrangement is closer to what Mussolini implemented in Italy, based on the idea that Parliament should be a zone of mediation between competing private interests, rather than a body dedicated to represent and discover the Will of the People as a whole (which is the traditional French model).
- gadders 12y ago
  But in a similar way, you get Unions fund housing in London for Labour MPs, and Labour as a party is totally beholden to Unions for its funding.
  - phaemon 12y ago
    There's a big difference between being supported by corporate interests and being supported by union interests. Am I actually defending Labour? After their appalling behaviour? Umm...take it as a defense of the principle rather than the party, please!
    - gadders 12y ago
      I would say both are morally equivalent.
  - toyg 12y ago
    From an ideological standpoint, Labour policy has been very far from unionism for almost 20 years now, and there is an ongoing attempt to cut all remaining ties.

by adwf 12y ago

toyg 12y ago

> how is that any different from any country in the world? Well, other countries at least try to maintain the idea that democratic power comes from the electorate, rather than special interests. So corruption, where it is, has to pass through the electorate (which it often does, but that's another matter). Whereas in Britain, the City is an institutional body openly and directly representing business and "free trade" in Parliament and elsewhere. This arrangement is closer to what Mussolini implemented in Italy, based on the idea that Parliament should be a zone of mediation between competing private interests, rather than a body dedicated to represent and discover the Will of the People as a whole (which is the traditional French model).

gadders 12y ago
But in a similar way, you get Unions fund housing in London for Labour MPs, and Labour as a party is totally beholden to Unions for its funding.
- phaemon 12y ago
  There's a big difference between being supported by corporate interests and being supported by union interests. Am I actually defending Labour? After their appalling behaviour? Umm...take it as a defense of the principle rather than the party, please!
  - gadders 12y ago
    I would say both are morally equivalent.
- toyg 12y ago
  From an ideological standpoint, Labour policy has been very far from unionism for almost 20 years now, and there is an ongoing attempt to cut all remaining ties.