The US will not negotiate a free trade deal with the UK unless a new digital services tax is dropped, according to a newspaper report – Source: Sky News
The measure, which was proposed in 2018 by then chancellor Philip Hammond in response to fears that technology giants were not paying their fair share of tax, is due to come into effect in April next year.
But US President Donald Trump’s administration is demanding that it be ditched, The Daily Telegraph reported.
The threat had been “communicated to the UK government at multiple levels”, the newspaper said, quoting a source as saying: “The message was, ‘if you go ahead and introduce this tax, we will not begin free trade negotiations with you’.”
Politically and news wise it’s been an interesting month.
News has been focused on Brexit, naturally, whilst we have witnessed the whittling down of candidates for new Prime Minister (Boris Johnson is the likely one in the polls to win with only the Conservative Party members and MPs decision to elect him. Then the sad almost forced resignation of Sir Kim Darroch following email leaks criticizing the Trump administration and Donald Trump personally threatening non-cooperation with the British US Ambassador. The untenable situation for the ambassador was further compounded with an obvious absence of support from Boris Johnson during his live televised debate with opposition candidate Jeremy Hunt who in reply to a question on the ambassadors future, supported him. The incident that ensued from the leak also brings into question how politics can affect the civil service that tries to remain obviously impartial when dealing with what looks like a chaotic diplomatic scenario under the Trump administration and a president who
The foreign office civil service is furious today describing the lack of support shown to Sir Kim by Boris (undoubtedly to keep an amicable relationship with President Donald Trump once elected as PM in two weeks).
Teresa May wanted to have a cash-giveaway before her tenure is up in two weeks including a spending plan to provide £27 Billion over 3 years on education and awarding pay raises to teachers in the plan, Some suggesting not surprisingly but perhaps cynically that the spending plans are a political sweetener before leaving office and Philip Hammond criticizing the lack of frugality of the spending plan
Ken Livingstone showed a very caring and emotional side of himself as he was overcome by watching a video by Londoner‘s backing his campaign. In the video members of the public implored him to do the best for London, should he become London Mayor a second time. One member of the public said in the promotional video ‘Go on Ken – do it for London!’
Mr. Livingstone who was visibly moved by the video, speaking to the Telegraph newspaper said that if he lost the electoral campaign that he would not stand again and that he would go back to doing his radio programme but added recounting his childhood :
‘if I lose the opportunity to help millions of ordinary Londoners for whom every day is now a terrible struggle. I grew up in that post-war Britain where parents had to count every penny, everything had to be used, it was a real struggle, and we are back in that world. If I fail to do that, it’s a guilt I carry to my grave. I want the chance to make life better for ordinary Londoners.’
He also has previously criticised Boris Johnson, the current Mayor, for not being present during the time that the London riots were taking place – as he had been on holiday – Mr. Livingstone saying that he had failed Londoners at their time of greatest need as their Mayor.
Ed Miliband who was also present during the screening of the video patted an overcome Ken Livingstone in support for his campaign for mayor.
For more information and to support Ken Livingstone in his campaign to be Mayor of London again please visit http://www.kenlivingstone.com/home
After last nights promice on Newsnight – the four main (Conservative, LibDem, Labour and Green Party) hopefuls for the London Mayor election have each produced details of their income and taxes. There now however is speculation over the transparency of the details produced and in particular the delay in Ken Livingstone producing his tax and income details.
GuidoFawkes.com has implied that the figures produced by the Labour candidate are only a partial summary of his income/taxes stating that it is based on personal tax/income and not his company’s tax details in full (Guido Fawkes) and that the figures were not produced by an accountant but by a former member of his team; his Climate Advisor, when he was Mayor of London.
It also raises concern over why he is paying himself through dividends rather than a salary and questioning whether Ken has been taking advantage of the National Insurance exemption in doing this.
LibDem hopeful Brian Paddick not only produced his full tax return over the last three years but in a slight oversight in his attempt to produce these figures neglected to shield the details of his personal National Insurance and home address for the public to view. Boris Johnson also had produced his tax details showing he paid 45.1 per cent of his income in tax in 2010/2011, a rise from 36.8 per cent in 2009/10.
On the Ken4London site the following statement has been produced to cut fares has been produced and a letter from his team to the parties concerning the details of Ken’s income and tax posted as this article goes to press.
The spectator online magazine have accused the Ken and his Labour team of silence in the delay of the details accusing his team of not answering the why the details were not ealier forthcoming. The Labour team had put out the following statement
‘We believe household publication is necessary for full disclosure as the question of Ken’s income and his wife’s income and their tax has been central the coverage of this issue. Publication of Ken’s returns alone will not address many of the questions that have been raised. The only way to answer all the questions about this issue and to move the debate on the real issues facing London is for full household income disclosure. This should apply to all the candidates equally to avoid any further questions about the income and tax affairs that may or may not be applicable to them through their households. The same principles need to be applied to all the candidates if this process is to be seen as open and fair.”