That’s true and it’s a disgrace. It is managed by a private company – what Local Authorities call an ‘arm’s length’ body – that enables the owners (regardless of political colour) to shrug off responsibility.

I hope that the first thing the public enquiry does is make available the currently un-released existing report and recommendations on tower block fire safety, and call those responsible for sitting on it to account. Again, not a party political point.

There may be some picture emerging here – sorry about the source, John – hope your wife doesn’t mind.. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/14/fire-safety-concerns-raised-by-grenfell-tower-residents-in-2012 It’s the fire regs that had needed revision via central gov acting on a report that they sat on instead – while the private contractors didn’t appear to do anything illegal they knowingly cladded the block in flammable material – also the residents committee and the local council knew this was happening.

Ryan, the ‘current’ Conservative party came into being with the drafting of the Tamworth Manifesto in 1834, so I doubt it.

I’m sure you have a graph to prove me wrong, though.

JG, maybe he did as well, I have only read a partial transcript. What did he say? Ah, wait, do you mean the bit that went “I believe we need to ask questions about what facilities and resources have been given to local authorities that have tower blocs (sic) in the area”? I am quoting from the Independent.

I agree it’s an odd one to ask Corbyn in the first place – and going back further it’s a curious thing to reach Whitehall – in that I would have thought fire safety measures taken by local authorities were not a ministerial issue or funded centrally – but I imagine it will all come out. I suppose that’s why these things are ‘questions that need to be asked’ and not statements of blame.

Another one for Ryan from the IFS, this time May 2017:

“Cuts to corporation tax rates announced between 2010 and 2016 are estimated to reduce revenues by at least £16.5 billion a year in the short to medium run. Accounting for measures that raise revenue, including anti-avoidance measures, onshore corporate tax policies over this period reduce revenues by an estimated £12.4 billion a year. Changes to corporate tax have represented some of the largest giveaways in both parliaments since 2010.

Onshore corporate tax receipts as a share of national income are set to be at the same level in 2021–22 as they were in 2010–11. This is not evidence that cuts to corporation tax rates have not reduced revenues. Instead, it reflects the effect of other factors, including the ongoing recovery of financial sector (and other) profits following the Great Recession”.

Come on, hit me with another graph.

Suddenly lacking in data? That’s unlike you..

Let me help you: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1475-5890.2014.12041.x/abstract – from the IFS, December 2015

“Revenues from corporate income taxes have remained relatively stable as a share of national income over the last three decades despite reductions in corporate tax rates and increased opportunities for multinational tax avoidance.

This is largely explained by an increase in the share of corporate profits in national income. ..these include a normal return to capital investment, returns to labour or entrepreneurial effort that are realised as dividends or capital gains, and returns to market power.”

Not as idiot-friendly as a nice graph, but no mention of multinational profits bought onshore.. in fact arguably the opposite (..increased opportunities for multinational tax avoidance).

The whole argument is a canard.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]254083[/ATTACH]

Yes, whoever asked this morning. I can see graphs showing increased coroporation tax takes and reduced rates in very recent years. Could hardly miss them, so often has that data been refered to and repeated as ‘proof’ of everyone else but Ryan’s stupidity.

Talking of which, higher education is ‘buy now, pay later’ now.

Overly tax a company and they might consider moving, maybe, but where? The ones that can operate from tax havens do so already. There are, as the FT have explained, a plethora of reasons for the location of a company – or they would ALL officially be in Ireland, Jersey or the Bahamas. There are also a plehora of reasons for recent raises in tax take – including banks paying more twice as much tax against reported profits and shifts in the recording month.

What the figures DO NOT demostrate are any companies moving to the UK for tax reasons.

The Euro clearing bank is moving to France. For tax reasons? Nope.

CD, Ryan’s premise was increasing rate of corppration tax decreases take, not that reducing it increases take.

Sure enough a selective sample shows decreasing rates and increasing take (but only that, not a causal link). A larger time-frame doesn’t even show that. Taking tax as a proportion of GDP weakens the negative correlation still further.

I have not produced a graph showing increasing corporation tax against tax take since the current system was introduced in 1972 because there hasn’t been a rise, not because of ‘intellectual dishonesty”.