No To Retro Tax – Campaign Against Section 58 Finance Act 2008

[andytp]

Contacted MP also

I have emailed my Conservative MP, who is not on the committee himself, but was sympathetic and is asking his own questions of Mr Osbourne et al. Yesterday I furnished him with more information about the stance of various members of his party members back in 2008 and how they can now put their money where there mouths are by backing Mr Bakers amendment. I have also given him a list of the fellow colleagues on the Finance Committee so that he can go and have a word in their shell like.

As yet am awaiting a reply as to what Mr O had to say etc., but will be hounding regularly over the next two weeks.

Cheers,
Andytp.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Good stuff everyone.

I'm told new toolkit/template will be emailed tomorrow morning.

There will also be further surprises coming down the line.

[Goinroamin]

Not all Surprises are Good

Good stuff everyone.

I'm told new toolkit/template will be emailed tomorrow morning.

There will also be further surprises coming down the line.

Nice ones I hope, I think we are all pretty done with bad surprises

[ready_to_leave]

Unfortunately I think we have 1 vote (apart from Gauke) definitely against as I just had a response back from Greg Hands (on the committee) basically stating that he is going to support whatever the governments's position is, as he is a Treaurey whip.

So it seems that Mr Hands is just going to put the little matter of centuries of legal expecation, breach of the Reece rules and a few constituency bankruptcies below the priority of his own back bench career path.

Nice to see that I therefore have no representation and yet a great deal of unfair taxation (now where have I heard that before?).

One wonders what the point of representative democracy is when your MP wants a civil servant type career path.

Nice ones I hope, I think we are all pretty done with bad surprises

[Buzby]

... he is going to support whatever the governments's position is, as he is a Treaurey whip.

maybe HMRC can lend him a time machine and he can go to 2008 when the Tory's did oppose retrospective taxation and he can support the amendment proposed by a DG?

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

Goner 10

Gentle Folk,
As you will know I have not posted here for some time. Just because you don't see a bike move does not mean there is serious peddling going on. As you are aware and as the likes of DP has pointed out, once the penny drops with any MP many do actually "get it". We're not perhaps "Number One on the runway" for many MP's but once they connect the points they are supportive. Of course there will always be a few who are taking the Government line. I'd expect them to. Going to your MP, writing to them until they take the time to actually READ THE FACTS is well worth it. You would have to be without morals, ethics, principle and honesty to then consider our case had no merits.

I recall the enthusiasm we all shared just prior to the initial JR case. I recall the huge devestation we all felt upon getting the Parker ruling. I recall how the hope seemed to fade away that we could ever find truth and justice in all this. Then NTRT rode into town and as a result of incredible effort and tenacity have mined the truth despite many FoI rejections to get to it.

Think back to when we were seen as a none entity with no case. Consider the position now. One thing which has changed is BELIEF - Not ours but that of those who needed to really understand what transpired over 21 years since 1987 - Your MP's. And as the likes of DP stated, once they get it, they really get it. And when yours know that their colleagues in the Commons are now starting to "get it", they might be more inclined to take another look and give it their full attention.

Goner 10 is still possible.

[foolishboy]

Unfortunately I think we have 1 vote (apart from Gauke) definitely against as I just had a response back from Greg Hands (on the committee) basically stating that he is going to support whatever the governments's position is, as he is a Treaurey whip.

So it seems that Mr Hands is just going to put the little matter of centuries of legal expecation, breach of the Reece rules and a few constituency bankruptcies below the priority of his own back bench career path.

Nice to see that I therefore have no representation and yet a great deal of unfair taxation (now where have I heard that before?).

One wonders what the point of representative democracy is when your MP wants a civil servant type career path.

I know the feeling. My MP is a Cabinet Minister and has said because of his position there is little he can do. I dont think he has bothered at all to even try and understand what the argument is. I wouldnt mind so much if he had really taken the trouble to understand the issue and then made his own mind up about whether he supported it or not. Where is the integrity in a person in that position taking that attitude?

Anyway gripe over, I still enjoy being a pain in his proverbial.....

[lucozade]

Gentle Folk,
As you will know I have not posted here for some time. Just because you don't see a bike move does not mean there is serious peddling going on. As you are aware and as the likes of DP has pointed out, once the penny drops with any MP many do actually "get it". We're not perhaps "Number One on the runway" for many MP's but once they connect the points they are supportive. Of course there will always be a few who are taking the Government line. I'd expect them to. Going to your MP, writing to them until they take the time to actually READ THE FACTS is well worth it. You would have to be without morals, ethics, principle and honesty to then consider our case had no merits.

I recall the enthusiasm we all shared just prior to the initial JR case. I recall the huge devestation we all felt upon getting the Parker ruling. I recall how the hope seemed to fade away that we could ever find truth and justice in all this. Then NTRT rode into town and as a result of incredible effort and tenacity have mined the truth despite many FoI rejections to get to it.

Think back to when we were seen as a none entity with no case. Consider the position now. One thing which has changed is BELIEF - Not ours but that of those who needed to really understand what transpired over 21 years since 1987 - Your MP's. And as the likes of DP stated, once they get it, they really get it. And when yours know that their colleagues in the Commons are now starting to "get it", they might be more inclined to take another look and give it their full attention.

Goner 10 is still possible.

Good to hear from you TSBT as usual you make valid points.

[Ninja]

I know the feeling. My MP is a Cabinet Minister and has said because of his position there is little he can do. I dont think he has bothered at all to even try and understand what the argument is. I wouldnt mind so much if he had really taken the trouble to understand the issue and then made his own mind up about whether he supported it or not. Where is the integrity in a person in that position taking that attitude?

Anyway gripe over, I still enjoy being a pain in his proverbial.....

This is an interesting point that is probably lost on most members of the public, that is when one's MP becomes a Cabinet Minister then he/she ceases to represent you, but now represents the Govt point of view only.
So what is the point of him/her holding surgeries? Unless, by coincidence, you want him/her to do something that is in line with Govt policy anyway or it is non-contentious.

But if you've gone to the trouble of contacting your MP, then surely it is contentious!

Or just call me a cynic.

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

This is an interesting point that is probably lost on most members of the public, that is when one's MP becomes a Cabinet Minister then he/she ceases to represent you, but now represents the Govt point of view only.
So what is the point of him/her holding surgeries? Unless, by coincidence, you want him/her to do something that is in line with Govt policy anyway or it is non-contentious.

But if you've gone to the trouble of contacting your MP, then surely it is contentious!

Or just call me a cynic.

You might find that this explains why Gauke has flipped his views since 2008 along with Osborne, Cameron and anyone else who used to be in Opposition. What they think as MP's is not the same as what they *think* as a Minister. Unfortunately, the office they hold dictates what they might agree on. Behind that is the Civil Service. Oddly, I feel quite sorry for Gauke. Imagine getting a job where what you REALLY believe in comes second to what you're told to say. I've heard of countries like that - North Korea comes to mind. Fortunately there are MP's with enough sense or morality and human decency to actually care about this and once they really understand the subtle but fundamental juxtaposition that is S58, they really do see our argument, logic and reasoning for not letting this drop. It's taken NTRT some years to fathom this out so harly suprising that even large brain pans need to really listen carefully and look hard for the penny to drop. 21 years between the 2 juxtaposed events makes that even a bigger ask. It takes time but as in all protracted battles - it's not a question of who is right but rather who is left...