Partygate is now so bloody boring. Is anyone - literally anyone (apart from @Scott_xP) excited by that latest photo?
The damage is done. Boris needs to go. But hurry up this is arse-achingly dull, now
He's hoping time dilutes the poison.
It might. This is now being dragged out so long it is in danger of being filed, mentally, by half the population, into OMG JUST SHUT UP I DON”T CARE ANY MORE, and that in turn might lead to a slow uptick in Tory fortunes as everyone sighs and moves on
If Dom C has clinching material he needs to release it now, I suggest, or the moment will be gone. It may already be gone
Also, one has to ask what exactly can be worse than anything we have seen? I know Boris is a bit of a lad but I seriously doubt we are going to see photos of him frotting Dilyn the Dog in a Santa hat while doing poppers with 300 topless neo-Fascist Finnish interns, it will just be more of the same slightly-sad-Xmas-party crap
Publish or be damned. And get a wiggle on
What could be worse?
We'd find out that Johnson isn't paid directly for being PM, but via a service company so that he can avoid NI.
Although the word is that he's too lazy to arrange such tax avoidance arrangements.
If he was working only for the government, he’d be judged to be inside IR35 and have to pay two two lots of NI.
Yes, he published his tax return when challenged by Ken Livingstone in the mayor race - Boris was working as an MP and on the side as a sole trader, paying the full 40% income tax on every penny he was paid for journalist or speaking work. Ken, on the other hand, had a limited company and generous expenses.
The interesting one about that was he had set up that structure for paying the full 40% tax on his Telegraph earnings etc *before* the Expense scandal.
He must have paid an extra 7 figures in tax over the years, just to setup an elephant trap for an opponent.
No-one else in politics does this - and it must have been deliberately done with the Telegraph. Since no-one else deliberately pays the 40%, that would have taken special arrangements.
Or Bozo is an idiot who didn't investigate what options were available to reduce costs and just went for the easiest option...
You really do get the impression thie party story has run out of legs. Everyone knows he lied about it. It is a negative on the balance sheet. But how big a negative will vary according to taste. No doubt it will have a revival at some point when he lies about something else. Right now Boris is damaged but he is regaining control by the day.
I don't see him regaining any control. He looks like a (politically) dead man walking.
I think you see what you want to see. The moment of danger was very real but it is past.
And I take no satisfaction at all from that because for me lying to the Commons is a resigning matter whether it was important, trivial, criminal or stupid. It is an important principle which has been damaged and I deeply regret that.
"Australia’s largest pension fund to pour £23bn into UK and Europe"
Much more, per capita, is going into the UK than the EU
They are increasing UK investment by 114%, and EU investment by 122%. So a slight rebalance towards EU funds in a landscape of overall increased investment (as it says in the article, this means they are maintaining the overall level of investment in the region relative to others).
I read the same thing. Not wanting to rain on Leon's parade I thought it impolite to mention it " For those who can't be bothered to read Leon's Bullshit here's the quote from the article "
Australia’s largest pension scheme plans to invest £23bn in the UK and Europe over the next five years as it joins other global mega funds pushing further into private markets for returns.
AustralianSuper, which manages A$244bn (£128bn) on behalf of 2.5mn members, expects to more than double its UK assets from £7bn currently to more than £15bn by 2026. The superannuation fund manager is planning to increase its investment in Europe from £12.6bn to £28bn over the same period",
What part of Leon's quote is "bullshit"? The figure (23bn) is right, and so is the per capita stat.
The "bullshit" is using a meaningless statistic ("per capita" - a measure that has no sense in this context), to try to shoe-horn in a point, when the announcement shows that they are marginally rebalancing their *existing* investment *away* from the UK to the EU (a tiny amouint) while increasing the overall level of investment in both.
Why does it have no sense in this context? If they had invested the same amount of money in, say Liechtenstein, as in the entire EU, don't you think that would have been viewed a win for Liechtenstein?
A "win" in the sense that they were increasing overall levels of investment? Of course. "Over someone else"? Not really, no.
It is all relative the existing investment portfolio. If they were *already* heavily invested in Lichtenstein and decided to rebalance away from Lichtenstein a little and towards the EU, then that is a win for everyone in the region (overall increased investment), but a nod towards the fact that there may be some increased risk in Lichtenstein (slightly lower overall in the balance of things).
I don't see what information the "per capita" number gives you?
I suppose the better number to use would have been as a fraction of the size of the economy, but then the point would have still been the same. At some level comparing absolute amounts is meaningless, 1bn would represent a much larger investment to a very small country than a very big one.
It's definitely fair to say that we continue to outperform the EU average in terms of attracting inward investment, even if that outperformance is slightly declining.
"2021 was a record year of investment and growth for the European tech and venture ecosystem, and for the UK in particular. Building on the last five years of consecutive growth, the total amount of capital invested into European tech reached a staggering US$100B, according to Atomico’s 2021 State of European Tech (SoET) report. Our London office alone contributed to US$12B of that market.
"Data from the SoET report shows the strength of the UK as a driving force behind this thriving venture ecosystem."
I've just done a quick google about the London economy. Quietly, behind Covid and associated chaos, it is picking up speed in multiple ways
This is the real challenge of levelling up. London is not standing still, it is the most dynamic tech, particularly fintech, centre in Europe by an increasing distance. How do the north and Scotland hold onto their investments and talent in the face of such a behemoth? A few railways and roads are certainly not going to do it. They simply facilitate the departure of the young, ambitious and talented.
Very true. London had a critical mass of talent, money, liquidity, culture, universities, rich folk and the rest before Brexit, and it still has that critical mass now
"Levelling up" is going to be hard for anyone, and I do believe this government - for all its many terrible flaws - is having a sincere go at it
I don't know what you're basing that belief on. The government can’t 'level up' the country – it’s nonsensical - it can only level, ie help those with less at the expense of those with more. It’s what we badly need but no Tory government, let alone this one, is going to seriously try and do it. So it’s just a slogan like ‘Brexit Opportunities’ is. Slogans are this government’s specialist area. They are genuinely good at coining them – and note how each one is now getting its own ministry. We have a Minister for Leveling Up and we have a Minister for Brexit Opportunities. Next, we’ll see Nadhim Zahawi rebranded as the Minister for Great Schools For All Our Kids and Rishi Sunak will no longer be the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he’ll be the Secretary of State for Low Taxes and Shrewd Spending. It’s very cunning and also very post-truth and sinister. Straight out of Orwell.
"The government can’t 'level up' the country" - that's what the existing transfer payments from the richer regions of the country to the poorer regions are explicitly designed to do.
Basic economic spending theory for single currency areas.
Regardless of currency you can level - not 'up' but level - if you enact measures that disproportionately benefit people and places who are relatively poor. If this Tory government were to do this in any serious fashion I'd be properly flabbergasted.
"Australia’s largest pension fund to pour £23bn into UK and Europe"
Much more, per capita, is going into the UK than the EU
They are increasing UK investment by 114%, and EU investment by 122%. So a slight rebalance towards EU funds in a landscape of overall increased investment (as it says in the article, this means they are maintaining the overall level of investment in the region relative to others).
I read the same thing. Not wanting to rain on Leon's parade I thought it impolite to mention it " For those who can't be bothered to read Leon's Bullshit here's the quote from the article "
Australia’s largest pension scheme plans to invest £23bn in the UK and Europe over the next five years as it joins other global mega funds pushing further into private markets for returns.
AustralianSuper, which manages A$244bn (£128bn) on behalf of 2.5mn members, expects to more than double its UK assets from £7bn currently to more than £15bn by 2026. The superannuation fund manager is planning to increase its investment in Europe from £12.6bn to £28bn over the same period",
What part of Leon's quote is "bullshit"? The figure (23bn) is right, and so is the per capita stat.
The "bullshit" is using a meaningless statistic ("per capita" - a measure that has no sense in this context), to try to shoe-horn in a point, when the announcement shows that they are marginally rebalancing their *existing* investment *away* from the UK to the EU (a tiny amouint) while increasing the overall level of investment in both.
Why does it have no sense in this context? If they had invested the same amount of money in, say Liechtenstein, as in the entire EU, don't you think that would have been viewed a win for Liechtenstein?
A "win" in the sense that they were increasing overall levels of investment? Of course. "Over someone else"? Not really, no.
It is all relative the existing investment portfolio. If they were *already* heavily invested in Lichtenstein and decided to rebalance away from Lichtenstein a little and towards the EU, then that is a win for everyone in the region (overall increased investment), but a nod towards the fact that there may be some increased risk in Lichtenstein (slightly lower overall in the balance of things).
I don't see what information the "per capita" number gives you?
I suppose the better number to use would have been as a fraction of the size of the economy, but then the point would have still been the same. At some level comparing absolute amounts is meaningless, 1bn would represent a much larger investment to a very small country than a very big one.
It's definitely fair to say that we continue to outperform the EU average in terms of attracting inward investment, even if that outperformance is slightly declining.
"2021 was a record year of investment and growth for the European tech and venture ecosystem, and for the UK in particular. Building on the last five years of consecutive growth, the total amount of capital invested into European tech reached a staggering US$100B, according to Atomico’s 2021 State of European Tech (SoET) report. Our London office alone contributed to US$12B of that market.
"Data from the SoET report shows the strength of the UK as a driving force behind this thriving venture ecosystem."
I've just done a quick google about the London economy. Quietly, behind Covid and associated chaos, it is picking up speed in multiple ways
This is the real challenge of levelling up. London is not standing still, it is the most dynamic tech, particularly fintech, centre in Europe by an increasing distance. How do the north and Scotland hold onto their investments and talent in the face of such a behemoth? A few railways and roads are certainly not going to do it. They simply facilitate the departure of the young, ambitious and talented.
Very true. London had a critical mass of talent, money, liquidity, culture, universities, rich folk and the rest before Brexit, and it still has that critical mass now
"Levelling up" is going to be hard for anyone, and I do believe this government - for all its many terrible flaws - is having a sincere go at it
I don't know what you're basing that belief on. The government can’t 'level up' the country – it’s nonsensical - it can only level, ie help those with less at the expense of those with more. It’s what we badly need but no Tory government, let alone this one, is going to seriously try and do it. So it’s just a slogan like ‘Brexit Opportunities’ is. Slogans are this government’s specialist area. They are genuinely good at coining them – and note how each one is now getting its own ministry. We have a Minister for Leveling Up and we have a Minister for Brexit Opportunities. Next, we’ll see Nadhim Zahawi rebranded as the Minister for Great Schools For All Our Kids and Rishi Sunak will no longer be the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he’ll be the Secretary of State for Low Taxes and Shrewd Spending. It’s very cunning and also very post-truth and sinister. Straight out of Orwell.
I liked it when we had a Minister for War. None of this namby pamby, touchy feely stuff.
You really do get the impression thie party story has run out of legs. Everyone knows he lied about it. It is a negative on the balance sheet. But how big a negative will vary according to taste. No doubt it will have a revival at some point when he lies about something else. Right now Boris is damaged but he is regaining control by the day.
I don't see him regaining any control. He looks like a (politically) dead man walking.
Even May had periods of respite between the first and second leadership challenges.
I get the sense that what's holding back his overthrow at the moment is the lack of any clear ideological or policy schism that would allow factions to form.
Interesting tweet from dark horse Mark Harper this morning. I would guess his letter may already be in or teetering on the edge of going in. If so, then the CRG and some of the ERG may be close too.
I’ve just put a pony on Mark Harper as next Tory leader. Analysis. He clearly already has the nod as the backbench candidate of the right (those people who bragged couple of weeks back they installed Boris Johnson) this gives him foundation of a lot of MP support at the start to boost his profile and ensure he stays in safely for a few rounds. Meanwhile, he comes across very well, people who haven’t listened to him much before will be impressed by his communication skills and politeness, yet firm in conviction like Lady Thatcher, as he uses the oxygen of publicity of the election platforms. If he gets to the last two I think he beats everyone except Sunak, because his platform is so perfect in tune with the Conservative membership and their favourite newspapers.
What odds did you get?
40-1 on my PaddyPower account.
I have learnt from this site I could be getting better political odds on smarkets which I haven’t set up yet. I set up PaddyPower 8 years ago because I was told they were best for horse racing.
Yet again Harper, in his usual bench like unofficial leader of back bench opposition, got a question to the PM today.
Was that actually a straight answer from Boris to publish everything from Sue Gray the moment he got it?
Yes and no. He will publish everything he is given. Not that he will publish everything there is to publish. So they can do a heavily redacted report, he will publish and say "thats yer lot plebs"
I expect the key is if he receives a FPN and if FPNs are issued for the flat party
I just do not see him surviving the minute a FPN has been issued and leaked
Would you expect him to resign if he got a speeding ticket, Big G?
I think the response to that is you cannot be a rule maker and then break your own rules
It also needs to be viewed in the context of the restrictions on everyone at the time and the fury over the disregard and respect for people
Did he not set the parking laws?
Lol - You are stood on a valid pinhead there but context is all in this matter as you well know.
This windfall tax policy - is it smart politics by Starmer and Labour?
As the government are jacking up energy bills and forcing consumers to take out a loan to help out the poor energy companies it certainly feels like smart politics.
Wow. I'm sure it's possible to compose a bigger mischaracterisation of the situation, but this is a fine effort.
"forcing consumers to take out a loan" - the literal policy being imposed "to help out the poor energy companies" - a minor paraphrasing of what the PM has just said at the dispatch box.
So the first part of that is untrue - it's no more a loan than a student loan is a loan.
And the second, one man's minor paraphrasing is another's total invention.
Thanks Guto, we appreciate the official spin line. As the PM has just responded to a question about a photo of him at a party by telling the house it never happened, I can understand why his own words can be discarded as you propose.
I have no sympathy with Boris but he did not say it never happened and indeed has just said it is part of the Met investigation
Absolutely right. Boris needs an expensive police investigation and many weeks delay to inform him, what we are seeing in that photograph actually happened, so he can relay the answer to us… alongside how we are the fasting growing economy in the universe, first to open up from covid, how crime figures are down if you ignore this or that crime. Etc. Etc.
Did you notice Big G how Sunak was laughing when called loan shark chancellor - imagine a Conservative leader with a sense of humour, rather than one all red mist and bluster!
As has been noted Starmer is turning his attacks on Rishi as it is clear he would have a real fight on his hands with Rishi opposite him at the dispatch box
Laughing along at opponents jokes, rather than head down shaking head, completely disarms opponent I agree.
Partygate is now so bloody boring. Is anyone - literally anyone (apart from @Scott_xP) excited by that latest photo?
The damage is done. Boris needs to go. But hurry up this is arse-achingly dull, now
He's hoping time dilutes the poison.
It might. This is now being dragged out so long it is in danger of being filed, mentally, by half the population, into OMG JUST SHUT UP I DON”T CARE ANY MORE, and that in turn might lead to a slow uptick in Tory fortunes as everyone sighs and moves on
If Dom C has clinching material he needs to release it now, I suggest, or the moment will be gone. It may already be gone
Also, one has to ask what exactly can be worse than anything we have seen? I know Boris is a bit of a lad but I seriously doubt we are going to see photos of him frotting Dilyn the Dog in a Santa hat while doing poppers with 300 topless neo-Fascist Finnish interns, it will just be more of the same slightly-sad-Xmas-party crap
Publish or be damned. And get a wiggle on
What could be worse?
We'd find out that Johnson isn't paid directly for being PM, but via a service company so that he can avoid NI.
Although the word is that he's too lazy to arrange such tax avoidance arrangements.
If he was working only for the government, he’d be judged to be inside IR35 and have to pay two two lots of NI.
Yes, he published his tax return when challenged by Ken Livingstone in the mayor race - Boris was working as an MP and on the side as a sole trader, paying the full 40% income tax on every penny he was paid for journalist or speaking work. Ken, on the other hand, had a limited company and generous expenses.
The interesting one about that was he had set up that structure for paying the full 40% tax on his Telegraph earnings etc *before* the Expense scandal.
He must have paid an extra 7 figures in tax over the years, just to setup an elephant trap for an opponent.
No-one else in politics does this - and it must have been deliberately done with the Telegraph. Since no-one else deliberately pays the 40%, that would have taken special arrangements.
Or Bozo is an idiot who didn't investigate what options were available to reduce costs and just went for the easiest option...
If you do work for a company (such as the Telegraph), then you need to have setup a company. Which he did.
The accountants who run such companies for you will automatically setup the whole tax reduction thing.
So either BJ
- Did his own accounts and paid himself PAYE - Instructed his accountants to setup to pay full PAYE.
It was a non-standard arrangement and must have been done deliberately.
You really do get the impression thie party story has run out of legs. Everyone knows he lied about it. It is a negative on the balance sheet. But how big a negative will vary according to taste. No doubt it will have a revival at some point when he lies about something else. Right now Boris is damaged but he is regaining control by the day.
I don't see him regaining any control. He looks like a (politically) dead man walking.
He never had any control. That was his USP. Until he needed to take control and of course couldn't.
I bet he never imagined that the beastly public would care quite so much about what he gets up to 24 hrs a day.
As @felix rightly points out it is all about context but he would, given no pandemic, have broken likely numerous FPN-type offences and people would have loved him for it. .
"Australia’s largest pension fund to pour £23bn into UK and Europe"
Much more, per capita, is going into the UK than the EU
They are increasing UK investment by 114%, and EU investment by 122%. So a slight rebalance towards EU funds in a landscape of overall increased investment (as it says in the article, this means they are maintaining the overall level of investment in the region relative to others).
I read the same thing. Not wanting to rain on Leon's parade I thought it impolite to mention it " For those who can't be bothered to read Leon's Bullshit here's the quote from the article "
Australia’s largest pension scheme plans to invest £23bn in the UK and Europe over the next five years as it joins other global mega funds pushing further into private markets for returns.
AustralianSuper, which manages A$244bn (£128bn) on behalf of 2.5mn members, expects to more than double its UK assets from £7bn currently to more than £15bn by 2026. The superannuation fund manager is planning to increase its investment in Europe from £12.6bn to £28bn over the same period",
What part of Leon's quote is "bullshit"? The figure (23bn) is right, and so is the per capita stat.
The "bullshit" is using a meaningless statistic ("per capita" - a measure that has no sense in this context), to try to shoe-horn in a point, when the announcement shows that they are marginally rebalancing their *existing* investment *away* from the UK to the EU (a tiny amouint) while increasing the overall level of investment in both.
Why does it have no sense in this context? If they had invested the same amount of money in, say Liechtenstein, as in the entire EU, don't you think that would have been viewed a win for Liechtenstein?
A "win" in the sense that they were increasing overall levels of investment? Of course. "Over someone else"? Not really, no.
It is all relative the existing investment portfolio. If they were *already* heavily invested in Lichtenstein and decided to rebalance away from Lichtenstein a little and towards the EU, then that is a win for everyone in the region (overall increased investment), but a nod towards the fact that there may be some increased risk in Lichtenstein (slightly lower overall in the balance of things).
I don't see what information the "per capita" number gives you?
I suppose the better number to use would have been as a fraction of the size of the economy, but then the point would have still been the same. At some level comparing absolute amounts is meaningless, 1bn would represent a much larger investment to a very small country than a very big one.
It's definitely fair to say that we continue to outperform the EU average in terms of attracting inward investment, even if that outperformance is slightly declining.
"2021 was a record year of investment and growth for the European tech and venture ecosystem, and for the UK in particular. Building on the last five years of consecutive growth, the total amount of capital invested into European tech reached a staggering US$100B, according to Atomico’s 2021 State of European Tech (SoET) report. Our London office alone contributed to US$12B of that market.
"Data from the SoET report shows the strength of the UK as a driving force behind this thriving venture ecosystem."
I've just done a quick google about the London economy. Quietly, behind Covid and associated chaos, it is picking up speed in multiple ways
This is the real challenge of levelling up. London is not standing still, it is the most dynamic tech, particularly fintech, centre in Europe by an increasing distance. How do the north and Scotland hold onto their investments and talent in the face of such a behemoth? A few railways and roads are certainly not going to do it. They simply facilitate the departure of the young, ambitious and talented.
Very true. London had a critical mass of talent, money, liquidity, culture, universities, rich folk and the rest before Brexit, and it still has that critical mass now
"Levelling up" is going to be hard for anyone, and I do believe this government - for all its many terrible flaws - is having a sincere go at it
I don't know what you're basing that belief on. The government can’t 'level up' the country – it’s nonsensical - it can only level, ie help those with less at the expense of those with more. It’s what we badly need but no Tory government, let alone this one, is going to seriously try and do it. So it’s just a slogan like ‘Brexit Opportunities’ is. Slogans are this government’s specialist area. They are genuinely good at coining them – and note how each one is now getting its own ministry. We have a Minister for Leveling Up and we have a Minister for Brexit Opportunities. Next, we’ll see Nadhim Zahawi rebranded as the Minister for Great Schools For All Our Kids and Rishi Sunak will no longer be the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he’ll be the Secretary of State for Low Taxes and Shrewd Spending. It’s very cunning and also very post-truth and sinister. Straight out of Orwell.
I liked it when we had a Minister for War. None of this namby pamby, touchy feely stuff.
Partygate is now so bloody boring. Is anyone - literally anyone (apart from @Scott_xP) excited by that latest photo?
The damage is done. Boris needs to go. But hurry up this is arse-achingly dull, now
He's hoping time dilutes the poison.
It might. This is now being dragged out so long it is in danger of being filed, mentally, by half the population, into OMG JUST SHUT UP I DON”T CARE ANY MORE, and that in turn might lead to a slow uptick in Tory fortunes as everyone sighs and moves on
If Dom C has clinching material he needs to release it now, I suggest, or the moment will be gone. It may already be gone
Also, one has to ask what exactly can be worse than anything we have seen? I know Boris is a bit of a lad but I seriously doubt we are going to see photos of him frotting Dilyn the Dog in a Santa hat while doing poppers with 300 topless neo-Fascist Finnish interns, it will just be more of the same slightly-sad-Xmas-party crap
Publish or be damned. And get a wiggle on
What could be worse?
We'd find out that Johnson isn't paid directly for being PM, but via a service company so that he can avoid NI.
Although the word is that he's too lazy to arrange such tax avoidance arrangements.
If he was working only for the government, he’d be judged to be inside IR35 and have to pay two two lots of NI.
Yes, he published his tax return when challenged by Ken Livingstone in the mayor race - Boris was working as an MP and on the side as a sole trader, paying the full 40% income tax on every penny he was paid for journalist or speaking work. Ken, on the other hand, had a limited company and generous expenses.
The interesting one about that was he had set up that structure for paying the full 40% tax on his Telegraph earnings etc *before* the Expense scandal.
He must have paid an extra 7 figures in tax over the years, just to setup an elephant trap for an opponent.
No-one else in politics does this - and it must have been deliberately done with the Telegraph. Since no-one else deliberately pays the 40%, that would have taken special arrangements.
Or Bozo is an idiot who didn't investigate what options were available to reduce costs and just went for the easiest option...
If you do work for a company (such as the Telegraph), then you need to have setup a company. Which he did.
The accountants who run such companies for you will automatically setup the whole tax reduction thing.
So either BJ
- Did his own accounts and paid himself PAYE - Instructed his accountants to setup to pay full PAYE.
It was a non-standard arrangement and must have been done deliberately.
Um, ever heard of IR35 - what you are saying is why the BBC got itself into such a mess with it's presenters.
The Telegraph would have been perfectly happy to employ him as an employee which from memory was how it worked.
"Australia’s largest pension fund to pour £23bn into UK and Europe"
Much more, per capita, is going into the UK than the EU
They are increasing UK investment by 114%, and EU investment by 122%. So a slight rebalance towards EU funds in a landscape of overall increased investment (as it says in the article, this means they are maintaining the overall level of investment in the region relative to others).
I read the same thing. Not wanting to rain on Leon's parade I thought it impolite to mention it " For those who can't be bothered to read Leon's Bullshit here's the quote from the article "
Australia’s largest pension scheme plans to invest £23bn in the UK and Europe over the next five years as it joins other global mega funds pushing further into private markets for returns.
AustralianSuper, which manages A$244bn (£128bn) on behalf of 2.5mn members, expects to more than double its UK assets from £7bn currently to more than £15bn by 2026. The superannuation fund manager is planning to increase its investment in Europe from £12.6bn to £28bn over the same period",
What part of Leon's quote is "bullshit"? The figure (23bn) is right, and so is the per capita stat.
The "bullshit" is using a meaningless statistic ("per capita" - a measure that has no sense in this context), to try to shoe-horn in a point, when the announcement shows that they are marginally rebalancing their *existing* investment *away* from the UK to the EU (a tiny amouint) while increasing the overall level of investment in both.
Why does it have no sense in this context? If they had invested the same amount of money in, say Liechtenstein, as in the entire EU, don't you think that would have been viewed a win for Liechtenstein?
A "win" in the sense that they were increasing overall levels of investment? Of course. "Over someone else"? Not really, no.
It is all relative the existing investment portfolio. If they were *already* heavily invested in Lichtenstein and decided to rebalance away from Lichtenstein a little and towards the EU, then that is a win for everyone in the region (overall increased investment), but a nod towards the fact that there may be some increased risk in Lichtenstein (slightly lower overall in the balance of things).
I don't see what information the "per capita" number gives you?
I suppose the better number to use would have been as a fraction of the size of the economy, but then the point would have still been the same. At some level comparing absolute amounts is meaningless, 1bn would represent a much larger investment to a very small country than a very big one.
It's definitely fair to say that we continue to outperform the EU average in terms of attracting inward investment, even if that outperformance is slightly declining.
"2021 was a record year of investment and growth for the European tech and venture ecosystem, and for the UK in particular. Building on the last five years of consecutive growth, the total amount of capital invested into European tech reached a staggering US$100B, according to Atomico’s 2021 State of European Tech (SoET) report. Our London office alone contributed to US$12B of that market.
"Data from the SoET report shows the strength of the UK as a driving force behind this thriving venture ecosystem."
I've just done a quick google about the London economy. Quietly, behind Covid and associated chaos, it is picking up speed in multiple ways
This is the real challenge of levelling up. London is not standing still, it is the most dynamic tech, particularly fintech, centre in Europe by an increasing distance. How do the north and Scotland hold onto their investments and talent in the face of such a behemoth? A few railways and roads are certainly not going to do it. They simply facilitate the departure of the young, ambitious and talented.
Very true. London had a critical mass of talent, money, liquidity, culture, universities, rich folk and the rest before Brexit, and it still has that critical mass now
"Levelling up" is going to be hard for anyone, and I do believe this government - for all its many terrible flaws - is having a sincere go at it
I don't know what you're basing that belief on. The government can’t 'level up' the country – it’s nonsensical - it can only level, ie help those with less at the expense of those with more. It’s what we badly need but no Tory government, let alone this one, is going to seriously try and do it. So it’s just a slogan like ‘Brexit Opportunities’ is. Slogans are this government’s specialist area. They are genuinely good at coining them – and note how each one is now getting its own ministry. We have a Minister for Leveling Up and we have a Minister for Brexit Opportunities. Next, we’ll see Nadhim Zahawi rebranded as the Minister for Great Schools For All Our Kids and Rishi Sunak will no longer be the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he’ll be the Secretary of State for Low Taxes and Shrewd Spending. It’s very cunning and also very post-truth and sinister. Straight out of Orwell.
I liked it when we had a Minister for War. None of this namby pamby, touchy feely stuff.
During the first Gulf War, a chap tried to suddenly claim conscientious objector status. He said that he hadn't joined the military to kill people.
Partygate is now so bloody boring. Is anyone - literally anyone (apart from @Scott_xP) excited by that latest photo?
The damage is done. Boris needs to go. But hurry up this is arse-achingly dull, now
He's hoping time dilutes the poison.
It might. This is now being dragged out so long it is in danger of being filed, mentally, by half the population, into OMG JUST SHUT UP I DON”T CARE ANY MORE, and that in turn might lead to a slow uptick in Tory fortunes as everyone sighs and moves on
If Dom C has clinching material he needs to release it now, I suggest, or the moment will be gone. It may already be gone
Also, one has to ask what exactly can be worse than anything we have seen? I know Boris is a bit of a lad but I seriously doubt we are going to see photos of him frotting Dilyn the Dog in a Santa hat while doing poppers with 300 topless neo-Fascist Finnish interns, it will just be more of the same slightly-sad-Xmas-party crap
Publish or be damned. And get a wiggle on
What could be worse?
We'd find out that Johnson isn't paid directly for being PM, but via a service company so that he can avoid NI.
Although the word is that he's too lazy to arrange such tax avoidance arrangements.
If he was working only for the government, he’d be judged to be inside IR35 and have to pay two two lots of NI.
Yes, he published his tax return when challenged by Ken Livingstone in the mayor race - Boris was working as an MP and on the side as a sole trader, paying the full 40% income tax on every penny he was paid for journalist or speaking work. Ken, on the other hand, had a limited company and generous expenses.
The interesting one about that was he had set up that structure for paying the full 40% tax on his Telegraph earnings etc *before* the Expense scandal.
He must have paid an extra 7 figures in tax over the years, just to setup an elephant trap for an opponent.
No-one else in politics does this - and it must have been deliberately done with the Telegraph. Since no-one else deliberately pays the 40%, that would have taken special arrangements.
I disagree. Most politicians and those would-be politicians with serious intent would do it.
As Ed Balls famously responded when challenged over whether he really did keep receipts for the cash he paid his gardener: of course I bl**dy did I am the shadow chancellor of the exchequer.
"Australia’s largest pension fund to pour £23bn into UK and Europe"
Much more, per capita, is going into the UK than the EU
They are increasing UK investment by 114%, and EU investment by 122%. So a slight rebalance towards EU funds in a landscape of overall increased investment (as it says in the article, this means they are maintaining the overall level of investment in the region relative to others).
I read the same thing. Not wanting to rain on Leon's parade I thought it impolite to mention it " For those who can't be bothered to read Leon's Bullshit here's the quote from the article "
Australia’s largest pension scheme plans to invest £23bn in the UK and Europe over the next five years as it joins other global mega funds pushing further into private markets for returns.
AustralianSuper, which manages A$244bn (£128bn) on behalf of 2.5mn members, expects to more than double its UK assets from £7bn currently to more than £15bn by 2026. The superannuation fund manager is planning to increase its investment in Europe from £12.6bn to £28bn over the same period",
What part of Leon's quote is "bullshit"? The figure (23bn) is right, and so is the per capita stat.
The "bullshit" is using a meaningless statistic ("per capita" - a measure that has no sense in this context), to try to shoe-horn in a point, when the announcement shows that they are marginally rebalancing their *existing* investment *away* from the UK to the EU (a tiny amouint) while increasing the overall level of investment in both.
Why does it have no sense in this context? If they had invested the same amount of money in, say Liechtenstein, as in the entire EU, don't you think that would have been viewed a win for Liechtenstein?
A "win" in the sense that they were increasing overall levels of investment? Of course. "Over someone else"? Not really, no.
It is all relative the existing investment portfolio. If they were *already* heavily invested in Lichtenstein and decided to rebalance away from Lichtenstein a little and towards the EU, then that is a win for everyone in the region (overall increased investment), but a nod towards the fact that there may be some increased risk in Lichtenstein (slightly lower overall in the balance of things).
I don't see what information the "per capita" number gives you?
I suppose the better number to use would have been as a fraction of the size of the economy, but then the point would have still been the same. At some level comparing absolute amounts is meaningless, 1bn would represent a much larger investment to a very small country than a very big one.
It's definitely fair to say that we continue to outperform the EU average in terms of attracting inward investment, even if that outperformance is slightly declining.
"2021 was a record year of investment and growth for the European tech and venture ecosystem, and for the UK in particular. Building on the last five years of consecutive growth, the total amount of capital invested into European tech reached a staggering US$100B, according to Atomico’s 2021 State of European Tech (SoET) report. Our London office alone contributed to US$12B of that market.
"Data from the SoET report shows the strength of the UK as a driving force behind this thriving venture ecosystem."
I've just done a quick google about the London economy. Quietly, behind Covid and associated chaos, it is picking up speed in multiple ways
This is the real challenge of levelling up. London is not standing still, it is the most dynamic tech, particularly fintech, centre in Europe by an increasing distance. How do the north and Scotland hold onto their investments and talent in the face of such a behemoth? A few railways and roads are certainly not going to do it. They simply facilitate the departure of the young, ambitious and talented.
Very true. London had a critical mass of talent, money, liquidity, culture, universities, rich folk and the rest before Brexit, and it still has that critical mass now
"Levelling up" is going to be hard for anyone, and I do believe this government - for all its many terrible flaws - is having a sincere go at it
I don't know what you're basing that belief on. The government can’t 'level up' the country – it’s nonsensical - it can only level, ie help those with less at the expense of those with more. It’s what we badly need but no Tory government, let alone this one, is going to seriously try and do it. So it’s just a slogan like ‘Brexit Opportunities’ is. Slogans are this government’s specialist area. They are genuinely good at coining them – and note how each one is now getting its own ministry. We have a Minister for Leveling Up and we have a Minister for Brexit Opportunities. Next, we’ll see Nadhim Zahawi rebranded as the Minister for Great Schools For All Our Kids and Rishi Sunak will no longer be the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he’ll be the Secretary of State for Low Taxes and Shrewd Spending. It’s very cunning and also very post-truth and sinister. Straight out of Orwell.
"The government can’t 'level up' the country" - that's what the existing transfer payments from the richer regions of the country to the poorer regions are explicitly designed to do.
Basic economic spending theory for single currency areas.
Regardless of currency you can level - not 'up' but level - if you enact measures that disproportionately benefit people and places who are relatively poor. If this Tory government were to do this in any serious fashion I'd be properly flabbergasted.
Utter garbage, you can level down, or you can level up.
Improving the opportunities of those who are struggling, without damaging those who are doing well, is levelling up.
Pulling down tall poppies who are doing well, without improving the lives of those who are struggling, is levelling down.
A prime example is how in 2009 during the recession the official poverty levels fell, despite the fact more people were struggling due to the recession - the recession reduced inequality so reduced so-called "poverty" despite all being poorer as a result. That is levelling down.
This government has already done one thing to improve the lives of the poor, in reducing the real tax rate that those on benefits face from potentially 100% plus under Gordon Brown, down to 70% under Sunak. Still far, far too high but its good to see that going in the right direction.
Partygate is now so bloody boring. Is anyone - literally anyone (apart from @Scott_xP) excited by that latest photo?
The damage is done. Boris needs to go. But hurry up this is arse-achingly dull, now
I think the strategy is clear: destroy him very slowly until he looks so completely weak and ineffectual that even right wing believers in Brexit, think that he should go. It is clearly working. Unedifying sure, but he doesnt look in any better position today than he did last week. My prediction of VONC w/c 21st Feb looking quite likely.
Those Tory MPs' Whatsapp groups are going to be mighty busy during recess.....
You really do get the impression thie party story has run out of legs. Everyone knows he lied about it. It is a negative on the balance sheet. But how big a negative will vary according to taste. No doubt it will have a revival at some point when he lies about something else. Right now Boris is damaged but he is regaining control by the day.
I don't see him regaining any control. He looks like a (politically) dead man walking.
I think you see what you want to see. The moment of danger was very real but it is past.
And I take no satisfaction at all from that because for me lying to the Commons is a resigning matter whether it was important, trivial, criminal or stupid. It is an important principle which has been damaged and I deeply regret that.
Two slightly different things.
Boris is Not Yet Dead, sure. He's still in Downing Street, there's still no consensus on how to replace him. He can still move the pieces round the board- but does this reshuffle look like making anything better?
Equally, the spell has been broken for quite a lot of people. If he's still there in 2024, he loses badly. Which is incredible, really, given the situation even four months ago.
So the irresistible force of Boris Really Needing To Go and the immovable object of Boris Wanting To Stay meet. And that scenario could persist for quite some time. But glad confident morning isn't coming back.
You really do get the impression thie party story has run out of legs. Everyone knows he lied about it. It is a negative on the balance sheet. But how big a negative will vary according to taste. No doubt it will have a revival at some point when he lies about something else. Right now Boris is damaged but he is regaining control by the day.
I don't see him regaining any control. He looks like a (politically) dead man walking.
Yes - as I said earlier, the polls will probably edge up for him slightly, but the die is cast and it is difficult to see any way he could recover significant ground from here. The Party needs to realise this and act promptly - any new leader has a difficult job goven the economic circumstances. The only real glimmer for a new leader is the relative weakness of Starmer - he shines now but would look significantly weaker against a more competent leader without Boris's backstory.
‘The Kremlin spokesman admitted the joint drills were serious but he pointed out the nature of threats was higher than before. Mr Chizhov told the BBC that Russian troops currently stationed in Belarus would return to their permanent bases.’
Partygate is now so bloody boring. Is anyone - literally anyone (apart from @Scott_xP) excited by that latest photo?
The damage is done. Boris needs to go. But hurry up this is arse-achingly dull, now
He's hoping time dilutes the poison.
It might. This is now being dragged out so long it is in danger of being filed, mentally, by half the population, into OMG JUST SHUT UP I DON”T CARE ANY MORE, and that in turn might lead to a slow uptick in Tory fortunes as everyone sighs and moves on
If Dom C has clinching material he needs to release it now, I suggest, or the moment will be gone. It may already be gone
Also, one has to ask what exactly can be worse than anything we have seen? I know Boris is a bit of a lad but I seriously doubt we are going to see photos of him frotting Dilyn the Dog in a Santa hat while doing poppers with 300 topless neo-Fascist Finnish interns, it will just be more of the same slightly-sad-Xmas-party crap
Publish or be damned. And get a wiggle on
What could be worse?
We'd find out that Johnson isn't paid directly for being PM, but via a service company so that he can avoid NI.
Although the word is that he's too lazy to arrange such tax avoidance arrangements.
If he was working only for the government, he’d be judged to be inside IR35 and have to pay two two lots of NI.
Yes, he published his tax return when challenged by Ken Livingstone in the mayor race - Boris was working as an MP and on the side as a sole trader, paying the full 40% income tax on every penny he was paid for journalist or speaking work. Ken, on the other hand, had a limited company and generous expenses.
The interesting one about that was he had set up that structure for paying the full 40% tax on his Telegraph earnings etc *before* the Expense scandal.
He must have paid an extra 7 figures in tax over the years, just to setup an elephant trap for an opponent.
No-one else in politics does this - and it must have been deliberately done with the Telegraph. Since no-one else deliberately pays the 40%, that would have taken special arrangements.
Or Bozo is an idiot who didn't investigate what options were available to reduce costs and just went for the easiest option...
If you do work for a company (such as the Telegraph), then you need to have setup a company. Which he did.
The accountants who run such companies for you will automatically setup the whole tax reduction thing.
So either BJ
- Did his own accounts and paid himself PAYE - Instructed his accountants to setup to pay full PAYE.
It was a non-standard arrangement and must have been done deliberately.
Partygate is now so bloody boring. Is anyone - literally anyone (apart from @Scott_xP) excited by that latest photo?
The damage is done. Boris needs to go. But hurry up this is arse-achingly dull, now
I think the strategy is clear: destroy him very slowly until he looks so completely weak and ineffectual that even right wing believers in Brexit, think that he should go. It is clearly working. Unedifying sure, but he doesnt look in any better position today than he did last week. My prediction of VONC w/c 21st Feb looking quite likely.
Those Tory MPs' Whatsapp groups are going to be mighty busy during recess.....
I think many have already made up their minds, but haven't yet actioned. Recess is a time to take soundings form their constituency executive to confirm anything should they need to. If there were a VONC *during* recess (which I think unlikely), they can apparently use proxy votes .
Major is another fucking 2nd voter, like Starmer et al. Despicable piece of anti-democratic sh1t. Another British Trumpite marching on parliament to overthrow an election
"Former British prime minister John Major has called for a free vote in parliament on whether to hold a second EU referendum. He is the most senior Conservative yet to attack what he called the government’s “unrealistic” Brexit strategy.
In a speech in London that comes at the lowest point so far in the 18-month withdrawal negotiations, Major argued parliament had a duty to consider the “wellbeing of the people”, as well as the will of the people in the first referendum.
“This must be a decisive vote, in which parliament can accept or reject the final outcome; or send the negotiators back to seek improvements; or order a referendum,” he was due to say according to an advance copy of the speech. “That is what parliamentary sovereignty means.”
“No one can truly know what ‘the will of the people’ may then be. So, let parliament decide. Or put the issue back to the people,” he said."
Let him fuck off back to Huntingdonshire and his deserved obscurity. He has no credibility on anything
John Major was truly the king of the hypocrites.
There were no free votes or referendum on his precious Maastricht treaty.
And then there was his affair with Edwina Currie contrasted with his 'back to basics' morality drive.
I find Major an utterly repulsive figure, his canting lies about Europe are one reason we ended up where we did, as you say
There are a zillion reasons to dump Boris, and I think he should be dumped, but the opinion of John bloody Major is not one of them
I actually disagree with that. Maastricht, with its pillars, variable geometry, opt outs and subsidiarity created a place where the UK could be in the EU getting what we wanted out of it whilst not getting in the road of those who wanted more, such as the single currency. Of course we should have had a vote on it but it did offer us at least the foundations of the half way house we were looking for.
The problem was that Blair in particular, and Brown, wanted to be at the heart of Europe so they gave up some of the opt outs and put us back on the track to ever closer union, albeit at a slower pace, through Lisbon. And, of course, we still didn't get a vote on it.
If they had built on the path Major set out in Maastricht instead I think that we would still be in the EU, with the vast majority (if not all the fanatics) quite content with our half way house.
And that would also be Blair and Brown who were democratically elected to govern the UK according to their political philosophy.
No-one (sane) is disputing that Brown had the legal right to do what he did. It's just that, if he wanted us to remain part of the EU, what he did was very bad strategy, because it essentially forced the electorate to demand an in-out referendum to settle the matter, and therefore he takes a large share of the blame for why we left.
I agree that if Brown had followed through, allowed the referendum on Lisbon, and then refused to sign it after we voted No by (say) 65:35, we would still be in the EU. Unless of course, the EU had found another way to enact it anyway, and then we would have also left by now, having spotted that they don't actually care what we think.
Did the electorate really demand an in-out referendum, as you claim? I think that may be a bit of myth. Despite efforts in the media to ramp up hatred of the EU, my recollection is that prior to around 2015 the electorate wasn't that interested in the EU - although they did have concerns about immigration.
But the referendum was primarily about the Tory Party, and the threat to its right flank from UKIP, wasn't it? That's the boil that Cameron was seeking, and failed, to lance.
Oh, Cameron lanced the boil. By taking a chainsaw to his face.....
"Australia’s largest pension fund to pour £23bn into UK and Europe"
Much more, per capita, is going into the UK than the EU
They are increasing UK investment by 114%, and EU investment by 122%. So a slight rebalance towards EU funds in a landscape of overall increased investment (as it says in the article, this means they are maintaining the overall level of investment in the region relative to others).
I read the same thing. Not wanting to rain on Leon's parade I thought it impolite to mention it " For those who can't be bothered to read Leon's Bullshit here's the quote from the article "
Australia’s largest pension scheme plans to invest £23bn in the UK and Europe over the next five years as it joins other global mega funds pushing further into private markets for returns.
AustralianSuper, which manages A$244bn (£128bn) on behalf of 2.5mn members, expects to more than double its UK assets from £7bn currently to more than £15bn by 2026. The superannuation fund manager is planning to increase its investment in Europe from £12.6bn to £28bn over the same period",
What part of Leon's quote is "bullshit"? The figure (23bn) is right, and so is the per capita stat.
The "bullshit" is using a meaningless statistic ("per capita" - a measure that has no sense in this context), to try to shoe-horn in a point, when the announcement shows that they are marginally rebalancing their *existing* investment *away* from the UK to the EU (a tiny amouint) while increasing the overall level of investment in both.
Why does it have no sense in this context? If they had invested the same amount of money in, say Liechtenstein, as in the entire EU, don't you think that would have been viewed a win for Liechtenstein?
A "win" in the sense that they were increasing overall levels of investment? Of course. "Over someone else"? Not really, no.
It is all relative the existing investment portfolio. If they were *already* heavily invested in Lichtenstein and decided to rebalance away from Lichtenstein a little and towards the EU, then that is a win for everyone in the region (overall increased investment), but a nod towards the fact that there may be some increased risk in Lichtenstein (slightly lower overall in the balance of things).
I don't see what information the "per capita" number gives you?
I suppose the better number to use would have been as a fraction of the size of the economy, but then the point would have still been the same. At some level comparing absolute amounts is meaningless, 1bn would represent a much larger investment to a very small country than a very big one.
It's definitely fair to say that we continue to outperform the EU average in terms of attracting inward investment, even if that outperformance is slightly declining.
"2021 was a record year of investment and growth for the European tech and venture ecosystem, and for the UK in particular. Building on the last five years of consecutive growth, the total amount of capital invested into European tech reached a staggering US$100B, according to Atomico’s 2021 State of European Tech (SoET) report. Our London office alone contributed to US$12B of that market.
"Data from the SoET report shows the strength of the UK as a driving force behind this thriving venture ecosystem."
I've just done a quick google about the London economy. Quietly, behind Covid and associated chaos, it is picking up speed in multiple ways
This is the real challenge of levelling up. London is not standing still, it is the most dynamic tech, particularly fintech, centre in Europe by an increasing distance. How do the north and Scotland hold onto their investments and talent in the face of such a behemoth? A few railways and roads are certainly not going to do it. They simply facilitate the departure of the young, ambitious and talented.
Very true. London had a critical mass of talent, money, liquidity, culture, universities, rich folk and the rest before Brexit, and it still has that critical mass now
"Levelling up" is going to be hard for anyone, and I do believe this government - for all its many terrible flaws - is having a sincere go at it
I don't know what you're basing that belief on. The government can’t 'level up' the country – it’s nonsensical - it can only level, ie help those with less at the expense of those with more. It’s what we badly need but no Tory government, let alone this one, is going to seriously try and do it. So it’s just a slogan like ‘Brexit Opportunities’ is. Slogans are this government’s specialist area. They are genuinely good at coining them – and note how each one is now getting its own ministry. We have a Minister for Leveling Up and we have a Minister for Brexit Opportunities. Next, we’ll see Nadhim Zahawi rebranded as the Minister for Great Schools For All Our Kids and Rishi Sunak will no longer be the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he’ll be the Secretary of State for Low Taxes and Shrewd Spending. It’s very cunning and also very post-truth and sinister. Straight out of Orwell.
i agree much of this is bollocks. Minister for Brexit Opportunities my arse. It’s like the Hari Krishna Party having a Minister for Global Peace
There will be Brexit positives, but it doesn’t need a minister to “make them happen”
However I saw Gove being interviewed quite intensely on his Levelling Up Agenda, and he was pretty plausible. And I’ve read some close analyses of it, not by people always friendly to the Tories. It is not entirely vacuous. There are proper aspirations and genuine changes
Don’t ask me what they are tho, I am about to order my 3rd martini. They make them really well here*
"Australia’s largest pension fund to pour £23bn into UK and Europe"
Much more, per capita, is going into the UK than the EU
They are increasing UK investment by 114%, and EU investment by 122%. So a slight rebalance towards EU funds in a landscape of overall increased investment (as it says in the article, this means they are maintaining the overall level of investment in the region relative to others).
I read the same thing. Not wanting to rain on Leon's parade I thought it impolite to mention it " For those who can't be bothered to read Leon's Bullshit here's the quote from the article "
Australia’s largest pension scheme plans to invest £23bn in the UK and Europe over the next five years as it joins other global mega funds pushing further into private markets for returns.
AustralianSuper, which manages A$244bn (£128bn) on behalf of 2.5mn members, expects to more than double its UK assets from £7bn currently to more than £15bn by 2026. The superannuation fund manager is planning to increase its investment in Europe from £12.6bn to £28bn over the same period",
What part of Leon's quote is "bullshit"? The figure (23bn) is right, and so is the per capita stat.
The "bullshit" is using a meaningless statistic ("per capita" - a measure that has no sense in this context), to try to shoe-horn in a point, when the announcement shows that they are marginally rebalancing their *existing* investment *away* from the UK to the EU (a tiny amouint) while increasing the overall level of investment in both.
Why does it have no sense in this context? If they had invested the same amount of money in, say Liechtenstein, as in the entire EU, don't you think that would have been viewed a win for Liechtenstein?
A "win" in the sense that they were increasing overall levels of investment? Of course. "Over someone else"? Not really, no.
It is all relative the existing investment portfolio. If they were *already* heavily invested in Lichtenstein and decided to rebalance away from Lichtenstein a little and towards the EU, then that is a win for everyone in the region (overall increased investment), but a nod towards the fact that there may be some increased risk in Lichtenstein (slightly lower overall in the balance of things).
I don't see what information the "per capita" number gives you?
I suppose the better number to use would have been as a fraction of the size of the economy, but then the point would have still been the same. At some level comparing absolute amounts is meaningless, 1bn would represent a much larger investment to a very small country than a very big one.
It's definitely fair to say that we continue to outperform the EU average in terms of attracting inward investment, even if that outperformance is slightly declining.
"2021 was a record year of investment and growth for the European tech and venture ecosystem, and for the UK in particular. Building on the last five years of consecutive growth, the total amount of capital invested into European tech reached a staggering US$100B, according to Atomico’s 2021 State of European Tech (SoET) report. Our London office alone contributed to US$12B of that market.
"Data from the SoET report shows the strength of the UK as a driving force behind this thriving venture ecosystem."
I've just done a quick google about the London economy. Quietly, behind Covid and associated chaos, it is picking up speed in multiple ways
This is the real challenge of levelling up. London is not standing still, it is the most dynamic tech, particularly fintech, centre in Europe by an increasing distance. How do the north and Scotland hold onto their investments and talent in the face of such a behemoth? A few railways and roads are certainly not going to do it. They simply facilitate the departure of the young, ambitious and talented.
Very true. London had a critical mass of talent, money, liquidity, culture, universities, rich folk and the rest before Brexit, and it still has that critical mass now
"Levelling up" is going to be hard for anyone, and I do believe this government - for all its many terrible flaws - is having a sincere go at it
I don't know what you're basing that belief on. The government can’t 'level up' the country – it’s nonsensical - it can only level, ie help those with less at the expense of those with more. It’s what we badly need but no Tory government, let alone this one, is going to seriously try and do it. So it’s just a slogan like ‘Brexit Opportunities’ is. Slogans are this government’s specialist area. They are genuinely good at coining them – and note how each one is now getting its own ministry. We have a Minister for Leveling Up and we have a Minister for Brexit Opportunities. Next, we’ll see Nadhim Zahawi rebranded as the Minister for Great Schools For All Our Kids and Rishi Sunak will no longer be the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he’ll be the Secretary of State for Low Taxes and Shrewd Spending. It’s very cunning and also very post-truth and sinister. Straight out of Orwell.
I liked it when we had a Minister for War. None of this namby pamby, touchy feely stuff.
Originally it was “Secretary at War”, which had a pleasingly “hands-on” feel.
You really do get the impression thie party story has run out of legs. Everyone knows he lied about it. It is a negative on the balance sheet. But how big a negative will vary according to taste. No doubt it will have a revival at some point when he lies about something else. Right now Boris is damaged but he is regaining control by the day.
I don't see him regaining any control. He looks like a (politically) dead man walking.
Yes - as I said earlier, the polls will probably edge up for him slightly, but the die is cast and it is difficult to see any way he could recover significant ground from here. The Party needs to realise this and act promptly - any new leader has a difficult job goven the economic circumstances. The only real glimmer for a new leader is the relative weakness of Starmer - he shines now but would look significantly weaker against a more competent leader without Boris's backstory.
I think you possibly underestimate Starmer at your peril. I am not a labour supporter, but as someone who has studied leadership for most of my career I would say he has most traits I would look for in an effective leader. This has always been my concern about Johnson. I wouldn't have put him in charge of a Parish Council
"Australia’s largest pension fund to pour £23bn into UK and Europe"
Much more, per capita, is going into the UK than the EU
They are increasing UK investment by 114%, and EU investment by 122%. So a slight rebalance towards EU funds in a landscape of overall increased investment (as it says in the article, this means they are maintaining the overall level of investment in the region relative to others).
I read the same thing. Not wanting to rain on Leon's parade I thought it impolite to mention it " For those who can't be bothered to read Leon's Bullshit here's the quote from the article "
Australia’s largest pension scheme plans to invest £23bn in the UK and Europe over the next five years as it joins other global mega funds pushing further into private markets for returns.
AustralianSuper, which manages A$244bn (£128bn) on behalf of 2.5mn members, expects to more than double its UK assets from £7bn currently to more than £15bn by 2026. The superannuation fund manager is planning to increase its investment in Europe from £12.6bn to £28bn over the same period",
What part of Leon's quote is "bullshit"? The figure (23bn) is right, and so is the per capita stat.
The "bullshit" is using a meaningless statistic ("per capita" - a measure that has no sense in this context), to try to shoe-horn in a point, when the announcement shows that they are marginally rebalancing their *existing* investment *away* from the UK to the EU (a tiny amouint) while increasing the overall level of investment in both.
Why does it have no sense in this context? If they had invested the same amount of money in, say Liechtenstein, as in the entire EU, don't you think that would have been viewed a win for Liechtenstein?
A "win" in the sense that they were increasing overall levels of investment? Of course. "Over someone else"? Not really, no.
It is all relative the existing investment portfolio. If they were *already* heavily invested in Lichtenstein and decided to rebalance away from Lichtenstein a little and towards the EU, then that is a win for everyone in the region (overall increased investment), but a nod towards the fact that there may be some increased risk in Lichtenstein (slightly lower overall in the balance of things).
I don't see what information the "per capita" number gives you?
I suppose the better number to use would have been as a fraction of the size of the economy, but then the point would have still been the same. At some level comparing absolute amounts is meaningless, 1bn would represent a much larger investment to a very small country than a very big one.
It's definitely fair to say that we continue to outperform the EU average in terms of attracting inward investment, even if that outperformance is slightly declining.
"2021 was a record year of investment and growth for the European tech and venture ecosystem, and for the UK in particular. Building on the last five years of consecutive growth, the total amount of capital invested into European tech reached a staggering US$100B, according to Atomico’s 2021 State of European Tech (SoET) report. Our London office alone contributed to US$12B of that market.
"Data from the SoET report shows the strength of the UK as a driving force behind this thriving venture ecosystem."
I've just done a quick google about the London economy. Quietly, behind Covid and associated chaos, it is picking up speed in multiple ways
This is the real challenge of levelling up. London is not standing still, it is the most dynamic tech, particularly fintech, centre in Europe by an increasing distance. How do the north and Scotland hold onto their investments and talent in the face of such a behemoth? A few railways and roads are certainly not going to do it. They simply facilitate the departure of the young, ambitious and talented.
Very true. London had a critical mass of talent, money, liquidity, culture, universities, rich folk and the rest before Brexit, and it still has that critical mass now
"Levelling up" is going to be hard for anyone, and I do believe this government - for all its many terrible flaws - is having a sincere go at it
I don't know what you're basing that belief on. The government can’t 'level up' the country – it’s nonsensical - it can only level, ie help those with less at the expense of those with more. It’s what we badly need but no Tory government, let alone this one, is going to seriously try and do it. So it’s just a slogan like ‘Brexit Opportunities’ is. Slogans are this government’s specialist area. They are genuinely good at coining them – and note how each one is now getting its own ministry. We have a Minister for Leveling Up and we have a Minister for Brexit Opportunities. Next, we’ll see Nadhim Zahawi rebranded as the Minister for Great Schools For All Our Kids and Rishi Sunak will no longer be the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he’ll be the Secretary of State for Low Taxes and Shrewd Spending. It’s very cunning and also very post-truth and sinister. Straight out of Orwell.
i agree much of this is bollocks. Minister for Brexit Opportunities my arse. It’s like the Hari Krishna Party having a Minister for Global Peace
There will be Brexit positives, but it doesn’t need a minister to “make them happen”
However I saw Gove being interviewed quite intensely on his Levelling Up Agenda, and he was pretty plausible. And I’ve read some close analyses of it, not by people always friendly to the Tories. It is not entirely vacuous. There are proper aspirations and genuine changes
Don’t ask me what they are tho, I am about to order my 3rd martini. They make them really well here*
Michael Masi is a [moderated] who should be sacked then fired into the heart of the sun whilst the Dutch shunt should be stripped of his title.
Masi was doing Red Bull's bidding.
The FIA says it knows about radio messages from the Abu Dhabi Grand Prix that have raised fresh questions about last year's title-decider.
The messages seem to be further evidence of race director Michael Masi reacting to Red Bull's suggestions as to how to end a safety-car period.
And Masi echoes Red Bull's language in a response he gives to Mercedes.
A spokesman for Formula 1's governing body said: "We are aware of this and it is part of the investigation."
In the radio messages, Red Bull sporting director Jonathan Wheatley is heard advising Masi on how to deal with lapped cars that are on track between the leaders as he attempts to organise a restart before the laps run out.
At the time, Red Bull's Max Verstappen was on new tyres behind Mercedes driver Lewis Hamilton on old rubber, which meant that if the race was resumed Verstappen would have a huge advantage and would likely win the race and championship.
Wheatley says: "Those lapped cars; you don't need to let them go right the way around and catch up with the back of the pack. You only need to let them go, and then we've got a motor race on our hands."
Masi replies: "Understood."
After the race, Mercedes team principal Toto Wolff gets on the radio to tell Masi that what he has done is "not right".
Masi replies: "Toto, it's called a motor race, OK?"
The radio transmissions are not new - they were on a video released by Formula 1 on 16 December, four days after the race - but they appear to have missed general circulation in the storm that followed.
Their emergence into the public arena - they were trending on Twitter on Wednesday with the hashtag #F1xed - has come days before the FIA is due to reveal the outcome of its inquiry into Abu Dhabi to a meeting of the F1 Commission next Monday.
And it fits an impression of Masi acting in Red Bull's favour during the race and against Mercedes' interests.
Red Bull team principal Christian Horner had previously said to Masi: "Why aren't we getting these lapped cars out of the way? You only need one racing lap."
It is widely acknowledged within F1 that Masi failed to follow the rules correctly in Abu Dhabi, and that in doing so he had a direct effect on the outcome of the world championship.
‘The Kremlin spokesman admitted the joint drills were serious but he pointed out the nature of threats was higher than before. Mr Chizhov told the BBC that Russian troops currently stationed in Belarus would return to their permanent bases.’
"Vladimir Chizhov said his country had no intention of invading anybody, but warned it was important not to provoke Russia into changing its mind."
Ah, the old "We WEREN'T going to invade, until YOU made us....." defence.
These things are discussed across the jurisdictions so I wouldn’t be surprised to see others do similar - as Johnson has trailed for England today.
What about vaccine status. Just saw that France (and Denmark?) need a < 9 month vaccine to enter otherwise it's self-isolation.
They're going to have to update the rules come this summer otherwise they'll lose out on almost all tourists except from a few from Israel. Italy has the same requirement I think, in fact it may be 6 months. My holiday this summer involves driving through France, Belgium, Germany, Switzerland and Italy so anything involving isolation and PCRs would make it completely unfeasible.
Partygate is now so bloody boring. Is anyone - literally anyone (apart from @Scott_xP) excited by that latest photo?
The damage is done. Boris needs to go. But hurry up this is arse-achingly dull, now
He's hoping time dilutes the poison.
It might. This is now being dragged out so long it is in danger of being filed, mentally, by half the population, into OMG JUST SHUT UP I DON”T CARE ANY MORE, and that in turn might lead to a slow uptick in Tory fortunes as everyone sighs and moves on
If Dom C has clinching material he needs to release it now, I suggest, or the moment will be gone. It may already be gone
Also, one has to ask what exactly can be worse than anything we have seen? I know Boris is a bit of a lad but I seriously doubt we are going to see photos of him frotting Dilyn the Dog in a Santa hat while doing poppers with 300 topless neo-Fascist Finnish interns, it will just be more of the same slightly-sad-Xmas-party crap
Publish or be damned. And get a wiggle on
What could be worse?
We'd find out that Johnson isn't paid directly for being PM, but via a service company so that he can avoid NI.
Although the word is that he's too lazy to arrange such tax avoidance arrangements.
If he was working only for the government, he’d be judged to be inside IR35 and have to pay two two lots of NI.
Yes, he published his tax return when challenged by Ken Livingstone in the mayor race - Boris was working as an MP and on the side as a sole trader, paying the full 40% income tax on every penny he was paid for journalist or speaking work. Ken, on the other hand, had a limited company and generous expenses.
The interesting one about that was he had set up that structure for paying the full 40% tax on his Telegraph earnings etc *before* the Expense scandal.
He must have paid an extra 7 figures in tax over the years, just to setup an elephant trap for an opponent.
No-one else in politics does this - and it must have been deliberately done with the Telegraph. Since no-one else deliberately pays the 40%, that would have taken special arrangements.
I disagree. Most politicians and those would-be politicians with serious intent would do it.
As Ed Balls famously responded when challenged over whether he really did keep receipts for the cash he paid his gardener: of course I bl**dy did I am the shadow chancellor of the exchequer.
Giving up 100Ks of tax over many, many years, rather than *legally* paying far less?
Remember that Ken Livingstone and everyone else assumed that he was using the service company/dividend thing - they all were
"Australia’s largest pension fund to pour £23bn into UK and Europe"
Much more, per capita, is going into the UK than the EU
They are increasing UK investment by 114%, and EU investment by 122%. So a slight rebalance towards EU funds in a landscape of overall increased investment (as it says in the article, this means they are maintaining the overall level of investment in the region relative to others).
I read the same thing. Not wanting to rain on Leon's parade I thought it impolite to mention it " For those who can't be bothered to read Leon's Bullshit here's the quote from the article "
Australia’s largest pension scheme plans to invest £23bn in the UK and Europe over the next five years as it joins other global mega funds pushing further into private markets for returns.
AustralianSuper, which manages A$244bn (£128bn) on behalf of 2.5mn members, expects to more than double its UK assets from £7bn currently to more than £15bn by 2026. The superannuation fund manager is planning to increase its investment in Europe from £12.6bn to £28bn over the same period",
What part of Leon's quote is "bullshit"? The figure (23bn) is right, and so is the per capita stat.
The "bullshit" is using a meaningless statistic ("per capita" - a measure that has no sense in this context), to try to shoe-horn in a point, when the announcement shows that they are marginally rebalancing their *existing* investment *away* from the UK to the EU (a tiny amouint) while increasing the overall level of investment in both.
Why does it have no sense in this context? If they had invested the same amount of money in, say Liechtenstein, as in the entire EU, don't you think that would have been viewed a win for Liechtenstein?
A "win" in the sense that they were increasing overall levels of investment? Of course. "Over someone else"? Not really, no.
It is all relative the existing investment portfolio. If they were *already* heavily invested in Lichtenstein and decided to rebalance away from Lichtenstein a little and towards the EU, then that is a win for everyone in the region (overall increased investment), but a nod towards the fact that there may be some increased risk in Lichtenstein (slightly lower overall in the balance of things).
I don't see what information the "per capita" number gives you?
I suppose the better number to use would have been as a fraction of the size of the economy, but then the point would have still been the same. At some level comparing absolute amounts is meaningless, 1bn would represent a much larger investment to a very small country than a very big one.
It's definitely fair to say that we continue to outperform the EU average in terms of attracting inward investment, even if that outperformance is slightly declining.
"2021 was a record year of investment and growth for the European tech and venture ecosystem, and for the UK in particular. Building on the last five years of consecutive growth, the total amount of capital invested into European tech reached a staggering US$100B, according to Atomico’s 2021 State of European Tech (SoET) report. Our London office alone contributed to US$12B of that market.
"Data from the SoET report shows the strength of the UK as a driving force behind this thriving venture ecosystem."
I've just done a quick google about the London economy. Quietly, behind Covid and associated chaos, it is picking up speed in multiple ways
This is the real challenge of levelling up. London is not standing still, it is the most dynamic tech, particularly fintech, centre in Europe by an increasing distance. How do the north and Scotland hold onto their investments and talent in the face of such a behemoth? A few railways and roads are certainly not going to do it. They simply facilitate the departure of the young, ambitious and talented.
Very true. London had a critical mass of talent, money, liquidity, culture, universities, rich folk and the rest before Brexit, and it still has that critical mass now
"Levelling up" is going to be hard for anyone, and I do believe this government - for all its many terrible flaws - is having a sincere go at it
I don't know what you're basing that belief on. The government can’t 'level up' the country – it’s nonsensical - it can only level, ie help those with less at the expense of those with more. It’s what we badly need but no Tory government, let alone this one, is going to seriously try and do it. So it’s just a slogan like ‘Brexit Opportunities’ is. Slogans are this government’s specialist area. They are genuinely good at coining them – and note how each one is now getting its own ministry. We have a Minister for Leveling Up and we have a Minister for Brexit Opportunities. Next, we’ll see Nadhim Zahawi rebranded as the Minister for Great Schools For All Our Kids and Rishi Sunak will no longer be the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he’ll be the Secretary of State for Low Taxes and Shrewd Spending. It’s very cunning and also very post-truth and sinister. Straight out of Orwell.
I liked it when we had a Minister for War. None of this namby pamby, touchy feely stuff.
During the first Gulf War, a chap tried to suddenly claim conscientious objector status. He said that he hadn't joined the military to kill people.
He was in the Royal Artillery.
My father did 2-3 years attached to 42 Heavy Artillary. As far as I could work out most of the officers had joined the Army to help house their polo ponies.
Partygate is now so bloody boring. Is anyone - literally anyone (apart from @Scott_xP) excited by that latest photo?
The damage is done. Boris needs to go. But hurry up this is arse-achingly dull, now
He's hoping time dilutes the poison.
It might. This is now being dragged out so long it is in danger of being filed, mentally, by half the population, into OMG JUST SHUT UP I DON”T CARE ANY MORE, and that in turn might lead to a slow uptick in Tory fortunes as everyone sighs and moves on
If Dom C has clinching material he needs to release it now, I suggest, or the moment will be gone. It may already be gone
Also, one has to ask what exactly can be worse than anything we have seen? I know Boris is a bit of a lad but I seriously doubt we are going to see photos of him frotting Dilyn the Dog in a Santa hat while doing poppers with 300 topless neo-Fascist Finnish interns, it will just be more of the same slightly-sad-Xmas-party crap
Publish or be damned. And get a wiggle on
What could be worse?
We'd find out that Johnson isn't paid directly for being PM, but via a service company so that he can avoid NI.
Although the word is that he's too lazy to arrange such tax avoidance arrangements.
If he was working only for the government, he’d be judged to be inside IR35 and have to pay two two lots of NI.
Yes, he published his tax return when challenged by Ken Livingstone in the mayor race - Boris was working as an MP and on the side as a sole trader, paying the full 40% income tax on every penny he was paid for journalist or speaking work. Ken, on the other hand, had a limited company and generous expenses.
The interesting one about that was he had set up that structure for paying the full 40% tax on his Telegraph earnings etc *before* the Expense scandal.
He must have paid an extra 7 figures in tax over the years, just to setup an elephant trap for an opponent.
No-one else in politics does this - and it must have been deliberately done with the Telegraph. Since no-one else deliberately pays the 40%, that would have taken special arrangements.
Or Bozo is an idiot who didn't investigate what options were available to reduce costs and just went for the easiest option...
If you do work for a company (such as the Telegraph), then you need to have setup a company. Which he did.
The accountants who run such companies for you will automatically setup the whole tax reduction thing.
So either BJ
- Did his own accounts and paid himself PAYE - Instructed his accountants to setup to pay full PAYE.
It was a non-standard arrangement and must have been done deliberately.
Um, ever heard of IR35 - what you are saying is why the BBC got itself into such a mess with it's presenters.
The Telegraph would have been perfectly happy to employ him as an employee which from memory was how it worked.
The tax advantages of being a sole trader embodied as a PLC are much less obvious than is widely believed (AIUI they used to be significant, but the Treasury has slowly whittled them away)
There’s a shitload more paperwork and you gain some cash but not that much
It still makes a notable difference if you are earning over £1m a year or whatever, but i don’t think Boris was ever in that bracket?
If you take the PLC route you are also likelier to receive much closer Inland Revenue scrutiny, which is not always nice
"Australia’s largest pension fund to pour £23bn into UK and Europe"
Much more, per capita, is going into the UK than the EU
They are increasing UK investment by 114%, and EU investment by 122%. So a slight rebalance towards EU funds in a landscape of overall increased investment (as it says in the article, this means they are maintaining the overall level of investment in the region relative to others).
I read the same thing. Not wanting to rain on Leon's parade I thought it impolite to mention it " For those who can't be bothered to read Leon's Bullshit here's the quote from the article "
Australia’s largest pension scheme plans to invest £23bn in the UK and Europe over the next five years as it joins other global mega funds pushing further into private markets for returns.
AustralianSuper, which manages A$244bn (£128bn) on behalf of 2.5mn members, expects to more than double its UK assets from £7bn currently to more than £15bn by 2026. The superannuation fund manager is planning to increase its investment in Europe from £12.6bn to £28bn over the same period",
What part of Leon's quote is "bullshit"? The figure (23bn) is right, and so is the per capita stat.
The "bullshit" is using a meaningless statistic ("per capita" - a measure that has no sense in this context), to try to shoe-horn in a point, when the announcement shows that they are marginally rebalancing their *existing* investment *away* from the UK to the EU (a tiny amouint) while increasing the overall level of investment in both.
Why does it have no sense in this context? If they had invested the same amount of money in, say Liechtenstein, as in the entire EU, don't you think that would have been viewed a win for Liechtenstein?
A "win" in the sense that they were increasing overall levels of investment? Of course. "Over someone else"? Not really, no.
It is all relative the existing investment portfolio. If they were *already* heavily invested in Lichtenstein and decided to rebalance away from Lichtenstein a little and towards the EU, then that is a win for everyone in the region (overall increased investment), but a nod towards the fact that there may be some increased risk in Lichtenstein (slightly lower overall in the balance of things).
I don't see what information the "per capita" number gives you?
I suppose the better number to use would have been as a fraction of the size of the economy, but then the point would have still been the same. At some level comparing absolute amounts is meaningless, 1bn would represent a much larger investment to a very small country than a very big one.
It's definitely fair to say that we continue to outperform the EU average in terms of attracting inward investment, even if that outperformance is slightly declining.
"2021 was a record year of investment and growth for the European tech and venture ecosystem, and for the UK in particular. Building on the last five years of consecutive growth, the total amount of capital invested into European tech reached a staggering US$100B, according to Atomico’s 2021 State of European Tech (SoET) report. Our London office alone contributed to US$12B of that market.
"Data from the SoET report shows the strength of the UK as a driving force behind this thriving venture ecosystem."
I've just done a quick google about the London economy. Quietly, behind Covid and associated chaos, it is picking up speed in multiple ways
This is the real challenge of levelling up. London is not standing still, it is the most dynamic tech, particularly fintech, centre in Europe by an increasing distance. How do the north and Scotland hold onto their investments and talent in the face of such a behemoth? A few railways and roads are certainly not going to do it. They simply facilitate the departure of the young, ambitious and talented.
Very true. London had a critical mass of talent, money, liquidity, culture, universities, rich folk and the rest before Brexit, and it still has that critical mass now
"Levelling up" is going to be hard for anyone, and I do believe this government - for all its many terrible flaws - is having a sincere go at it
I don't know what you're basing that belief on. The government can’t 'level up' the country – it’s nonsensical - it can only level, ie help those with less at the expense of those with more. It’s what we badly need but no Tory government, let alone this one, is going to seriously try and do it. So it’s just a slogan like ‘Brexit Opportunities’ is. Slogans are this government’s specialist area. They are genuinely good at coining them – and note how each one is now getting its own ministry. We have a Minister for Leveling Up and we have a Minister for Brexit Opportunities. Next, we’ll see Nadhim Zahawi rebranded as the Minister for Great Schools For All Our Kids and Rishi Sunak will no longer be the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he’ll be the Secretary of State for Low Taxes and Shrewd Spending. It’s very cunning and also very post-truth and sinister. Straight out of Orwell.
I liked it when we had a Minister for War. None of this namby pamby, touchy feely stuff.
Originally it was “Secretary at War”, which had a pleasingly “hands-on” feel.
Slightly confusing a name, given that the Admiralty was always a separate department of state from the MoW till the MoD was instituted (IIRC - not sure about Churchill's arrangements in WW2). As if the matelots did not really bother with such a thing as fighting a war. It was not till the long 19th century was over that more money was spent on the brown jobs than the sailors. A good question who did more fighting and dying of disease - and who spent more time away from home.
"Australia’s largest pension fund to pour £23bn into UK and Europe"
Much more, per capita, is going into the UK than the EU
They are increasing UK investment by 114%, and EU investment by 122%. So a slight rebalance towards EU funds in a landscape of overall increased investment (as it says in the article, this means they are maintaining the overall level of investment in the region relative to others).
I read the same thing. Not wanting to rain on Leon's parade I thought it impolite to mention it " For those who can't be bothered to read Leon's Bullshit here's the quote from the article "
Australia’s largest pension scheme plans to invest £23bn in the UK and Europe over the next five years as it joins other global mega funds pushing further into private markets for returns.
AustralianSuper, which manages A$244bn (£128bn) on behalf of 2.5mn members, expects to more than double its UK assets from £7bn currently to more than £15bn by 2026. The superannuation fund manager is planning to increase its investment in Europe from £12.6bn to £28bn over the same period",
What part of Leon's quote is "bullshit"? The figure (23bn) is right, and so is the per capita stat.
The "bullshit" is using a meaningless statistic ("per capita" - a measure that has no sense in this context), to try to shoe-horn in a point, when the announcement shows that they are marginally rebalancing their *existing* investment *away* from the UK to the EU (a tiny amouint) while increasing the overall level of investment in both.
Why does it have no sense in this context? If they had invested the same amount of money in, say Liechtenstein, as in the entire EU, don't you think that would have been viewed a win for Liechtenstein?
A "win" in the sense that they were increasing overall levels of investment? Of course. "Over someone else"? Not really, no.
It is all relative the existing investment portfolio. If they were *already* heavily invested in Lichtenstein and decided to rebalance away from Lichtenstein a little and towards the EU, then that is a win for everyone in the region (overall increased investment), but a nod towards the fact that there may be some increased risk in Lichtenstein (slightly lower overall in the balance of things).
I don't see what information the "per capita" number gives you?
I suppose the better number to use would have been as a fraction of the size of the economy, but then the point would have still been the same. At some level comparing absolute amounts is meaningless, 1bn would represent a much larger investment to a very small country than a very big one.
It's definitely fair to say that we continue to outperform the EU average in terms of attracting inward investment, even if that outperformance is slightly declining.
"2021 was a record year of investment and growth for the European tech and venture ecosystem, and for the UK in particular. Building on the last five years of consecutive growth, the total amount of capital invested into European tech reached a staggering US$100B, according to Atomico’s 2021 State of European Tech (SoET) report. Our London office alone contributed to US$12B of that market.
"Data from the SoET report shows the strength of the UK as a driving force behind this thriving venture ecosystem."
I've just done a quick google about the London economy. Quietly, behind Covid and associated chaos, it is picking up speed in multiple ways
This is the real challenge of levelling up. London is not standing still, it is the most dynamic tech, particularly fintech, centre in Europe by an increasing distance. How do the north and Scotland hold onto their investments and talent in the face of such a behemoth? A few railways and roads are certainly not going to do it. They simply facilitate the departure of the young, ambitious and talented.
Very true. London had a critical mass of talent, money, liquidity, culture, universities, rich folk and the rest before Brexit, and it still has that critical mass now
"Levelling up" is going to be hard for anyone, and I do believe this government - for all its many terrible flaws - is having a sincere go at it
I don't know what you're basing that belief on. The government can’t 'level up' the country – it’s nonsensical - it can only level, ie help those with less at the expense of those with more. It’s what we badly need but no Tory government, let alone this one, is going to seriously try and do it. So it’s just a slogan like ‘Brexit Opportunities’ is. Slogans are this government’s specialist area. They are genuinely good at coining them – and note how each one is now getting its own ministry. We have a Minister for Leveling Up and we have a Minister for Brexit Opportunities. Next, we’ll see Nadhim Zahawi rebranded as the Minister for Great Schools For All Our Kids and Rishi Sunak will no longer be the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he’ll be the Secretary of State for Low Taxes and Shrewd Spending. It’s very cunning and also very post-truth and sinister. Straight out of Orwell.
I liked it when we had a Minister for War. None of this namby pamby, touchy feely stuff.
During the first Gulf War, a chap tried to suddenly claim conscientious objector status. He said that he hadn't joined the military to kill people.
He was in the Royal Artillery.
My father did 2-3 years attached to 42 Heavy Artillary. As far as I could work out most of the officers had joined the Army to help house their polo ponies.
rue - but surely he must of wondered about the large guns? They are a little bit OTT for pheasant, surely?
"Australia’s largest pension fund to pour £23bn into UK and Europe"
Much more, per capita, is going into the UK than the EU
They are increasing UK investment by 114%, and EU investment by 122%. So a slight rebalance towards EU funds in a landscape of overall increased investment (as it says in the article, this means they are maintaining the overall level of investment in the region relative to others).
I read the same thing. Not wanting to rain on Leon's parade I thought it impolite to mention it " For those who can't be bothered to read Leon's Bullshit here's the quote from the article "
Australia’s largest pension scheme plans to invest £23bn in the UK and Europe over the next five years as it joins other global mega funds pushing further into private markets for returns.
AustralianSuper, which manages A$244bn (£128bn) on behalf of 2.5mn members, expects to more than double its UK assets from £7bn currently to more than £15bn by 2026. The superannuation fund manager is planning to increase its investment in Europe from £12.6bn to £28bn over the same period",
What part of Leon's quote is "bullshit"? The figure (23bn) is right, and so is the per capita stat.
The "bullshit" is using a meaningless statistic ("per capita" - a measure that has no sense in this context), to try to shoe-horn in a point, when the announcement shows that they are marginally rebalancing their *existing* investment *away* from the UK to the EU (a tiny amouint) while increasing the overall level of investment in both.
Why does it have no sense in this context? If they had invested the same amount of money in, say Liechtenstein, as in the entire EU, don't you think that would have been viewed a win for Liechtenstein?
A "win" in the sense that they were increasing overall levels of investment? Of course. "Over someone else"? Not really, no.
It is all relative the existing investment portfolio. If they were *already* heavily invested in Lichtenstein and decided to rebalance away from Lichtenstein a little and towards the EU, then that is a win for everyone in the region (overall increased investment), but a nod towards the fact that there may be some increased risk in Lichtenstein (slightly lower overall in the balance of things).
I don't see what information the "per capita" number gives you?
I suppose the better number to use would have been as a fraction of the size of the economy, but then the point would have still been the same. At some level comparing absolute amounts is meaningless, 1bn would represent a much larger investment to a very small country than a very big one.
It's definitely fair to say that we continue to outperform the EU average in terms of attracting inward investment, even if that outperformance is slightly declining.
"2021 was a record year of investment and growth for the European tech and venture ecosystem, and for the UK in particular. Building on the last five years of consecutive growth, the total amount of capital invested into European tech reached a staggering US$100B, according to Atomico’s 2021 State of European Tech (SoET) report. Our London office alone contributed to US$12B of that market.
"Data from the SoET report shows the strength of the UK as a driving force behind this thriving venture ecosystem."
I've just done a quick google about the London economy. Quietly, behind Covid and associated chaos, it is picking up speed in multiple ways
This is the real challenge of levelling up. London is not standing still, it is the most dynamic tech, particularly fintech, centre in Europe by an increasing distance. How do the north and Scotland hold onto their investments and talent in the face of such a behemoth? A few railways and roads are certainly not going to do it. They simply facilitate the departure of the young, ambitious and talented.
Very true. London had a critical mass of talent, money, liquidity, culture, universities, rich folk and the rest before Brexit, and it still has that critical mass now
"Levelling up" is going to be hard for anyone, and I do believe this government - for all its many terrible flaws - is having a sincere go at it
I don't know what you're basing that belief on. The government can’t 'level up' the country – it’s nonsensical - it can only level, ie help those with less at the expense of those with more. It’s what we badly need but no Tory government, let alone this one, is going to seriously try and do it. So it’s just a slogan like ‘Brexit Opportunities’ is. Slogans are this government’s specialist area. They are genuinely good at coining them – and note how each one is now getting its own ministry. We have a Minister for Leveling Up and we have a Minister for Brexit Opportunities. Next, we’ll see Nadhim Zahawi rebranded as the Minister for Great Schools For All Our Kids and Rishi Sunak will no longer be the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he’ll be the Secretary of State for Low Taxes and Shrewd Spending. It’s very cunning and also very post-truth and sinister. Straight out of Orwell.
I liked it when we had a Minister for War. None of this namby pamby, touchy feely stuff.
During the first Gulf War, a chap tried to suddenly claim conscientious objector status. He said that he hadn't joined the military to kill people.
He was in the Royal Artillery.
My father did 2-3 years attached to 42 Heavy Artillary. As far as I could work out most of the officers had joined the Army to help house their polo ponies.
rue - but surely he must of wondered about the large guns? They are a little bit OTT for pheasant, surely?
Even by these standards....
Great photo. A punt gun, possibly one or two bore.
‘The Kremlin spokesman admitted the joint drills were serious but he pointed out the nature of threats was higher than before. Mr Chizhov told the BBC that Russian troops currently stationed in Belarus would return to their permanent bases.’
"Australia’s largest pension fund to pour £23bn into UK and Europe"
Much more, per capita, is going into the UK than the EU
They are increasing UK investment by 114%, and EU investment by 122%. So a slight rebalance towards EU funds in a landscape of overall increased investment (as it says in the article, this means they are maintaining the overall level of investment in the region relative to others).
I read the same thing. Not wanting to rain on Leon's parade I thought it impolite to mention it " For those who can't be bothered to read Leon's Bullshit here's the quote from the article "
Australia’s largest pension scheme plans to invest £23bn in the UK and Europe over the next five years as it joins other global mega funds pushing further into private markets for returns.
AustralianSuper, which manages A$244bn (£128bn) on behalf of 2.5mn members, expects to more than double its UK assets from £7bn currently to more than £15bn by 2026. The superannuation fund manager is planning to increase its investment in Europe from £12.6bn to £28bn over the same period",
What part of Leon's quote is "bullshit"? The figure (23bn) is right, and so is the per capita stat.
The "bullshit" is using a meaningless statistic ("per capita" - a measure that has no sense in this context), to try to shoe-horn in a point, when the announcement shows that they are marginally rebalancing their *existing* investment *away* from the UK to the EU (a tiny amouint) while increasing the overall level of investment in both.
Why does it have no sense in this context? If they had invested the same amount of money in, say Liechtenstein, as in the entire EU, don't you think that would have been viewed a win for Liechtenstein?
A "win" in the sense that they were increasing overall levels of investment? Of course. "Over someone else"? Not really, no.
It is all relative the existing investment portfolio. If they were *already* heavily invested in Lichtenstein and decided to rebalance away from Lichtenstein a little and towards the EU, then that is a win for everyone in the region (overall increased investment), but a nod towards the fact that there may be some increased risk in Lichtenstein (slightly lower overall in the balance of things).
I don't see what information the "per capita" number gives you?
I suppose the better number to use would have been as a fraction of the size of the economy, but then the point would have still been the same. At some level comparing absolute amounts is meaningless, 1bn would represent a much larger investment to a very small country than a very big one.
It's definitely fair to say that we continue to outperform the EU average in terms of attracting inward investment, even if that outperformance is slightly declining.
"2021 was a record year of investment and growth for the European tech and venture ecosystem, and for the UK in particular. Building on the last five years of consecutive growth, the total amount of capital invested into European tech reached a staggering US$100B, according to Atomico’s 2021 State of European Tech (SoET) report. Our London office alone contributed to US$12B of that market.
"Data from the SoET report shows the strength of the UK as a driving force behind this thriving venture ecosystem."
I've just done a quick google about the London economy. Quietly, behind Covid and associated chaos, it is picking up speed in multiple ways
This is the real challenge of levelling up. London is not standing still, it is the most dynamic tech, particularly fintech, centre in Europe by an increasing distance. How do the north and Scotland hold onto their investments and talent in the face of such a behemoth? A few railways and roads are certainly not going to do it. They simply facilitate the departure of the young, ambitious and talented.
Very true. London had a critical mass of talent, money, liquidity, culture, universities, rich folk and the rest before Brexit, and it still has that critical mass now
"Levelling up" is going to be hard for anyone, and I do believe this government - for all its many terrible flaws - is having a sincere go at it
I don't know what you're basing that belief on. The government can’t 'level up' the country – it’s nonsensical - it can only level, ie help those with less at the expense of those with more. It’s what we badly need but no Tory government, let alone this one, is going to seriously try and do it. So it’s just a slogan like ‘Brexit Opportunities’ is. Slogans are this government’s specialist area. They are genuinely good at coining them – and note how each one is now getting its own ministry. We have a Minister for Leveling Up and we have a Minister for Brexit Opportunities. Next, we’ll see Nadhim Zahawi rebranded as the Minister for Great Schools For All Our Kids and Rishi Sunak will no longer be the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he’ll be the Secretary of State for Low Taxes and Shrewd Spending. It’s very cunning and also very post-truth and sinister. Straight out of Orwell.
I liked it when we had a Minister for War. None of this namby pamby, touchy feely stuff.
During the first Gulf War, a chap tried to suddenly claim conscientious objector status. He said that he hadn't joined the military to kill people.
He was in the Royal Artillery.
My father did 2-3 years attached to 42 Heavy Artillary. As far as I could work out most of the officers had joined the Army to help house their polo ponies.
rue - but surely he must of wondered about the large guns? They are a little bit OTT for pheasant, surely?
Even by these standards....
Great photo. A punt gun, possibly one or two bore.
WTF is a punt gun? And what are they hunting? Mammoth?
Also the size of the neo-classical pillars behind is quite something, well chosen to emphasize the smallness of humans. Is it the Capitol in DC?
"Australia’s largest pension fund to pour £23bn into UK and Europe"
Much more, per capita, is going into the UK than the EU
They are increasing UK investment by 114%, and EU investment by 122%. So a slight rebalance towards EU funds in a landscape of overall increased investment (as it says in the article, this means they are maintaining the overall level of investment in the region relative to others).
I read the same thing. Not wanting to rain on Leon's parade I thought it impolite to mention it " For those who can't be bothered to read Leon's Bullshit here's the quote from the article "
Australia’s largest pension scheme plans to invest £23bn in the UK and Europe over the next five years as it joins other global mega funds pushing further into private markets for returns.
AustralianSuper, which manages A$244bn (£128bn) on behalf of 2.5mn members, expects to more than double its UK assets from £7bn currently to more than £15bn by 2026. The superannuation fund manager is planning to increase its investment in Europe from £12.6bn to £28bn over the same period",
What part of Leon's quote is "bullshit"? The figure (23bn) is right, and so is the per capita stat.
The "bullshit" is using a meaningless statistic ("per capita" - a measure that has no sense in this context), to try to shoe-horn in a point, when the announcement shows that they are marginally rebalancing their *existing* investment *away* from the UK to the EU (a tiny amouint) while increasing the overall level of investment in both.
Why does it have no sense in this context? If they had invested the same amount of money in, say Liechtenstein, as in the entire EU, don't you think that would have been viewed a win for Liechtenstein?
A "win" in the sense that they were increasing overall levels of investment? Of course. "Over someone else"? Not really, no.
It is all relative the existing investment portfolio. If they were *already* heavily invested in Lichtenstein and decided to rebalance away from Lichtenstein a little and towards the EU, then that is a win for everyone in the region (overall increased investment), but a nod towards the fact that there may be some increased risk in Lichtenstein (slightly lower overall in the balance of things).
I don't see what information the "per capita" number gives you?
I suppose the better number to use would have been as a fraction of the size of the economy, but then the point would have still been the same. At some level comparing absolute amounts is meaningless, 1bn would represent a much larger investment to a very small country than a very big one.
It's definitely fair to say that we continue to outperform the EU average in terms of attracting inward investment, even if that outperformance is slightly declining.
"2021 was a record year of investment and growth for the European tech and venture ecosystem, and for the UK in particular. Building on the last five years of consecutive growth, the total amount of capital invested into European tech reached a staggering US$100B, according to Atomico’s 2021 State of European Tech (SoET) report. Our London office alone contributed to US$12B of that market.
"Data from the SoET report shows the strength of the UK as a driving force behind this thriving venture ecosystem."
I've just done a quick google about the London economy. Quietly, behind Covid and associated chaos, it is picking up speed in multiple ways
This is the real challenge of levelling up. London is not standing still, it is the most dynamic tech, particularly fintech, centre in Europe by an increasing distance. How do the north and Scotland hold onto their investments and talent in the face of such a behemoth? A few railways and roads are certainly not going to do it. They simply facilitate the departure of the young, ambitious and talented.
Very true. London had a critical mass of talent, money, liquidity, culture, universities, rich folk and the rest before Brexit, and it still has that critical mass now
"Levelling up" is going to be hard for anyone, and I do believe this government - for all its many terrible flaws - is having a sincere go at it
I don't know what you're basing that belief on. The government can’t 'level up' the country – it’s nonsensical - it can only level, ie help those with less at the expense of those with more. It’s what we badly need but no Tory government, let alone this one, is going to seriously try and do it. So it’s just a slogan like ‘Brexit Opportunities’ is. Slogans are this government’s specialist area. They are genuinely good at coining them – and note how each one is now getting its own ministry. We have a Minister for Leveling Up and we have a Minister for Brexit Opportunities. Next, we’ll see Nadhim Zahawi rebranded as the Minister for Great Schools For All Our Kids and Rishi Sunak will no longer be the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he’ll be the Secretary of State for Low Taxes and Shrewd Spending. It’s very cunning and also very post-truth and sinister. Straight out of Orwell.
I liked it when we had a Minister for War. None of this namby pamby, touchy feely stuff.
During the first Gulf War, a chap tried to suddenly claim conscientious objector status. He said that he hadn't joined the military to kill people.
He was in the Royal Artillery.
My father did 2-3 years attached to 42 Heavy Artillary. As far as I could work out most of the officers had joined the Army to help house their polo ponies.
Presumably M107 SP guns in the 1970s with that name? Not much scope for polo in NI detachments I would have thought.
‘The Kremlin spokesman admitted the joint drills were serious but he pointed out the nature of threats was higher than before. Mr Chizhov told the BBC that Russian troops currently stationed in Belarus would return to their permanent bases.’
No.
He was never going to invade.
Why didn't you tell us? And the bloody Americans might like to have known, let alone the Ukrainians.
Partygate is now so bloody boring. Is anyone - literally anyone (apart from @Scott_xP) excited by that latest photo?
The damage is done. Boris needs to go. But hurry up this is arse-achingly dull, now
He's hoping time dilutes the poison.
It might. This is now being dragged out so long it is in danger of being filed, mentally, by half the population, into OMG JUST SHUT UP I DON”T CARE ANY MORE, and that in turn might lead to a slow uptick in Tory fortunes as everyone sighs and moves on
If Dom C has clinching material he needs to release it now, I suggest, or the moment will be gone. It may already be gone
Also, one has to ask what exactly can be worse than anything we have seen? I know Boris is a bit of a lad but I seriously doubt we are going to see photos of him frotting Dilyn the Dog in a Santa hat while doing poppers with 300 topless neo-Fascist Finnish interns, it will just be more of the same slightly-sad-Xmas-party crap
Publish or be damned. And get a wiggle on
What could be worse?
We'd find out that Johnson isn't paid directly for being PM, but via a service company so that he can avoid NI.
Although the word is that he's too lazy to arrange such tax avoidance arrangements.
If he was working only for the government, he’d be judged to be inside IR35 and have to pay two two lots of NI.
Yes, he published his tax return when challenged by Ken Livingstone in the mayor race - Boris was working as an MP and on the side as a sole trader, paying the full 40% income tax on every penny he was paid for journalist or speaking work. Ken, on the other hand, had a limited company and generous expenses.
The interesting one about that was he had set up that structure for paying the full 40% tax on his Telegraph earnings etc *before* the Expense scandal.
He must have paid an extra 7 figures in tax over the years, just to setup an elephant trap for an opponent.
No-one else in politics does this - and it must have been deliberately done with the Telegraph. Since no-one else deliberately pays the 40%, that would have taken special arrangements.
Or Bozo is an idiot who didn't investigate what options were available to reduce costs and just went for the easiest option...
If you do work for a company (such as the Telegraph), then you need to have setup a company. Which he did.
The accountants who run such companies for you will automatically setup the whole tax reduction thing.
So either BJ
- Did his own accounts and paid himself PAYE - Instructed his accountants to setup to pay full PAYE.
It was a non-standard arrangement and must have been done deliberately.
Um, ever heard of IR35 - what you are saying is why the BBC got itself into such a mess with it's presenters.
The Telegraph would have been perfectly happy to employ him as an employee which from memory was how it worked.
The tax advantages of being a sole trader embodied as a PLC are much less obvious than is widely believed (AIUI they used to be significant, but the Treasury has slowly whittled them away)
There’s a shitload more paperwork and you gain some cash but not that much
It still makes a notable difference if you are earning over £1m a year or whatever, but i don’t think Boris was ever in that bracket?
If you take the PLC route you are also likelier to receive much closer Inland Revenue scrutiny, which is not always nice
Back then it was the heyday of the Contractor - earn 6 figures and keep most of it.
It has been largely whittled away, as you say. The new rules and the scrutiny have deliberately ended much of it.
But back then you could end up paying much less than 20% on massive piles of cash.
These things are discussed across the jurisdictions so I wouldn’t be surprised to see others do similar - as Johnson has trailed for England today.
What about vaccine status. Just saw that France (and Denmark?) need a < 9 month vaccine to enter otherwise it's self-isolation.
They're going to have to update the rules come this summer otherwise they'll lose out on almost all tourists except from a few from Israel. Italy has the same requirement I think, in fact it may be 6 months. My holiday this summer involves driving through France, Belgium, Germany, Switzerland and Italy so anything involving isolation and PCRs would make it completely unfeasible.
If you're boostered you should be fine it seems from the press release.
"Australia’s largest pension fund to pour £23bn into UK and Europe"
Much more, per capita, is going into the UK than the EU
They are increasing UK investment by 114%, and EU investment by 122%. So a slight rebalance towards EU funds in a landscape of overall increased investment (as it says in the article, this means they are maintaining the overall level of investment in the region relative to others).
I read the same thing. Not wanting to rain on Leon's parade I thought it impolite to mention it " For those who can't be bothered to read Leon's Bullshit here's the quote from the article "
Australia’s largest pension scheme plans to invest £23bn in the UK and Europe over the next five years as it joins other global mega funds pushing further into private markets for returns.
AustralianSuper, which manages A$244bn (£128bn) on behalf of 2.5mn members, expects to more than double its UK assets from £7bn currently to more than £15bn by 2026. The superannuation fund manager is planning to increase its investment in Europe from £12.6bn to £28bn over the same period",
What part of Leon's quote is "bullshit"? The figure (23bn) is right, and so is the per capita stat.
The "bullshit" is using a meaningless statistic ("per capita" - a measure that has no sense in this context), to try to shoe-horn in a point, when the announcement shows that they are marginally rebalancing their *existing* investment *away* from the UK to the EU (a tiny amouint) while increasing the overall level of investment in both.
Why does it have no sense in this context? If they had invested the same amount of money in, say Liechtenstein, as in the entire EU, don't you think that would have been viewed a win for Liechtenstein?
A "win" in the sense that they were increasing overall levels of investment? Of course. "Over someone else"? Not really, no.
It is all relative the existing investment portfolio. If they were *already* heavily invested in Lichtenstein and decided to rebalance away from Lichtenstein a little and towards the EU, then that is a win for everyone in the region (overall increased investment), but a nod towards the fact that there may be some increased risk in Lichtenstein (slightly lower overall in the balance of things).
I don't see what information the "per capita" number gives you?
I suppose the better number to use would have been as a fraction of the size of the economy, but then the point would have still been the same. At some level comparing absolute amounts is meaningless, 1bn would represent a much larger investment to a very small country than a very big one.
It's definitely fair to say that we continue to outperform the EU average in terms of attracting inward investment, even if that outperformance is slightly declining.
"2021 was a record year of investment and growth for the European tech and venture ecosystem, and for the UK in particular. Building on the last five years of consecutive growth, the total amount of capital invested into European tech reached a staggering US$100B, according to Atomico’s 2021 State of European Tech (SoET) report. Our London office alone contributed to US$12B of that market.
"Data from the SoET report shows the strength of the UK as a driving force behind this thriving venture ecosystem."
I've just done a quick google about the London economy. Quietly, behind Covid and associated chaos, it is picking up speed in multiple ways
This is the real challenge of levelling up. London is not standing still, it is the most dynamic tech, particularly fintech, centre in Europe by an increasing distance. How do the north and Scotland hold onto their investments and talent in the face of such a behemoth? A few railways and roads are certainly not going to do it. They simply facilitate the departure of the young, ambitious and talented.
Very true. London had a critical mass of talent, money, liquidity, culture, universities, rich folk and the rest before Brexit, and it still has that critical mass now
"Levelling up" is going to be hard for anyone, and I do believe this government - for all its many terrible flaws - is having a sincere go at it
I don't know what you're basing that belief on. The government can’t 'level up' the country – it’s nonsensical - it can only level, ie help those with less at the expense of those with more. It’s what we badly need but no Tory government, let alone this one, is going to seriously try and do it. So it’s just a slogan like ‘Brexit Opportunities’ is. Slogans are this government’s specialist area. They are genuinely good at coining them – and note how each one is now getting its own ministry. We have a Minister for Leveling Up and we have a Minister for Brexit Opportunities. Next, we’ll see Nadhim Zahawi rebranded as the Minister for Great Schools For All Our Kids and Rishi Sunak will no longer be the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he’ll be the Secretary of State for Low Taxes and Shrewd Spending. It’s very cunning and also very post-truth and sinister. Straight out of Orwell.
I liked it when we had a Minister for War. None of this namby pamby, touchy feely stuff.
During the first Gulf War, a chap tried to suddenly claim conscientious objector status. He said that he hadn't joined the military to kill people.
He was in the Royal Artillery.
My father did 2-3 years attached to 42 Heavy Artillary. As far as I could work out most of the officers had joined the Army to help house their polo ponies.
rue - but surely he must of wondered about the large guns? They are a little bit OTT for pheasant, surely?
Even by these standards....
Great photo. A punt gun, possibly one or two bore.
WTF is a punt gun? And what are they hunting? Mammoth?
Also the size of the neo-classical pillars behind is quite something, well chosen to emphasize the smallness of humans. Is it the Capitol in DC?
Giant shotgun. You load it up, put it in your punt, and paddle quietly towards a flock of duck etc at dawn and then try and kill as many at once before they take flight.
‘The Kremlin spokesman admitted the joint drills were serious but he pointed out the nature of threats was higher than before. Mr Chizhov told the BBC that Russian troops currently stationed in Belarus would return to their permanent bases.’
No.
He was never going to invade.
You’ve said this all along, and kudos to you if it turns out you are right (I hope you are, obvs)
If this whole thing blows over and Russia gains nothing but some warm words from the West, then this might be Putin’s first serious geopolitical defeat in a long time. A lot of effort and zero gain
"Australia’s largest pension fund to pour £23bn into UK and Europe"
Much more, per capita, is going into the UK than the EU
They are increasing UK investment by 114%, and EU investment by 122%. So a slight rebalance towards EU funds in a landscape of overall increased investment (as it says in the article, this means they are maintaining the overall level of investment in the region relative to others).
I read the same thing. Not wanting to rain on Leon's parade I thought it impolite to mention it " For those who can't be bothered to read Leon's Bullshit here's the quote from the article "
Australia’s largest pension scheme plans to invest £23bn in the UK and Europe over the next five years as it joins other global mega funds pushing further into private markets for returns.
AustralianSuper, which manages A$244bn (£128bn) on behalf of 2.5mn members, expects to more than double its UK assets from £7bn currently to more than £15bn by 2026. The superannuation fund manager is planning to increase its investment in Europe from £12.6bn to £28bn over the same period",
What part of Leon's quote is "bullshit"? The figure (23bn) is right, and so is the per capita stat.
The "bullshit" is using a meaningless statistic ("per capita" - a measure that has no sense in this context), to try to shoe-horn in a point, when the announcement shows that they are marginally rebalancing their *existing* investment *away* from the UK to the EU (a tiny amouint) while increasing the overall level of investment in both.
Why does it have no sense in this context? If they had invested the same amount of money in, say Liechtenstein, as in the entire EU, don't you think that would have been viewed a win for Liechtenstein?
A "win" in the sense that they were increasing overall levels of investment? Of course. "Over someone else"? Not really, no.
It is all relative the existing investment portfolio. If they were *already* heavily invested in Lichtenstein and decided to rebalance away from Lichtenstein a little and towards the EU, then that is a win for everyone in the region (overall increased investment), but a nod towards the fact that there may be some increased risk in Lichtenstein (slightly lower overall in the balance of things).
I don't see what information the "per capita" number gives you?
I suppose the better number to use would have been as a fraction of the size of the economy, but then the point would have still been the same. At some level comparing absolute amounts is meaningless, 1bn would represent a much larger investment to a very small country than a very big one.
It's definitely fair to say that we continue to outperform the EU average in terms of attracting inward investment, even if that outperformance is slightly declining.
"2021 was a record year of investment and growth for the European tech and venture ecosystem, and for the UK in particular. Building on the last five years of consecutive growth, the total amount of capital invested into European tech reached a staggering US$100B, according to Atomico’s 2021 State of European Tech (SoET) report. Our London office alone contributed to US$12B of that market.
"Data from the SoET report shows the strength of the UK as a driving force behind this thriving venture ecosystem."
I've just done a quick google about the London economy. Quietly, behind Covid and associated chaos, it is picking up speed in multiple ways
This is the real challenge of levelling up. London is not standing still, it is the most dynamic tech, particularly fintech, centre in Europe by an increasing distance. How do the north and Scotland hold onto their investments and talent in the face of such a behemoth? A few railways and roads are certainly not going to do it. They simply facilitate the departure of the young, ambitious and talented.
Very true. London had a critical mass of talent, money, liquidity, culture, universities, rich folk and the rest before Brexit, and it still has that critical mass now
"Levelling up" is going to be hard for anyone, and I do believe this government - for all its many terrible flaws - is having a sincere go at it
I don't know what you're basing that belief on. The government can’t 'level up' the country – it’s nonsensical - it can only level, ie help those with less at the expense of those with more. It’s what we badly need but no Tory government, let alone this one, is going to seriously try and do it. So it’s just a slogan like ‘Brexit Opportunities’ is. Slogans are this government’s specialist area. They are genuinely good at coining them – and note how each one is now getting its own ministry. We have a Minister for Leveling Up and we have a Minister for Brexit Opportunities. Next, we’ll see Nadhim Zahawi rebranded as the Minister for Great Schools For All Our Kids and Rishi Sunak will no longer be the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he’ll be the Secretary of State for Low Taxes and Shrewd Spending. It’s very cunning and also very post-truth and sinister. Straight out of Orwell.
I liked it when we had a Minister for War. None of this namby pamby, touchy feely stuff.
During the first Gulf War, a chap tried to suddenly claim conscientious objector status. He said that he hadn't joined the military to kill people.
He was in the Royal Artillery.
My father did 2-3 years attached to 42 Heavy Artillary. As far as I could work out most of the officers had joined the Army to help house their polo ponies.
rue - but surely he must of wondered about the large guns? They are a little bit OTT for pheasant, surely?
Even by these standards....
Great photo. A punt gun, possibly one or two bore.
WTF is a punt gun? And what are they hunting? Mammoth?
Also the size of the neo-classical pillars behind is quite something, well chosen to emphasize the smallness of humans. Is it the Capitol in DC?
A punt gun was used for harvesting as many ducks or geese as one could with one shot. You kinda sneaked up on them while they are on the water in a punt and blasted as many of them as you could at once with one shot. It isn't intended to be sporting at all, just to get as many wildfowl as one could at once for the table. Must have produced a hell of a recoil and a lot of black powder smoke
You really do get the impression thie party story has run out of legs. Everyone knows he lied about it. It is a negative on the balance sheet. But how big a negative will vary according to taste. No doubt it will have a revival at some point when he lies about something else. Right now Boris is damaged but he is regaining control by the day.
I don't see him regaining any control. He looks like a (politically) dead man walking.
Yes - as I said earlier, the polls will probably edge up for him slightly, but the die is cast and it is difficult to see any way he could recover significant ground from here. The Party needs to realise this and act promptly - any new leader has a difficult job goven the economic circumstances. The only real glimmer for a new leader is the relative weakness of Starmer - he shines now but would look significantly weaker against a more competent leader without Boris's backstory.
I think you possibly underestimate Starmer at your peril. I am not a labour supporter, but as someone who has studied leadership for most of my career I would say he has most traits I would look for in an effective leader. This has always been my concern about Johnson. I wouldn't have put him in charge of a Parish Council
Time will tell - but he is significantly more left-wing than his current image implies and the electorate is not. A competent Conservative leader could do much to expose his backstory more effectively. No doubt at all that Boris was helped in 2019 by his opponent just as Starmer is currently basking in the reflections of Boris's only too obvious failings. Despite this in the last 2 PMQs for example, Starmer has been distinctly average. Little so far has been revealed of what his plans for the country's future are and even on current polling he would not be sure of a majority thanks to Scotland, where Labour continues to make no real progress.
"Australia’s largest pension fund to pour £23bn into UK and Europe"
Much more, per capita, is going into the UK than the EU
They are increasing UK investment by 114%, and EU investment by 122%. So a slight rebalance towards EU funds in a landscape of overall increased investment (as it says in the article, this means they are maintaining the overall level of investment in the region relative to others).
I read the same thing. Not wanting to rain on Leon's parade I thought it impolite to mention it " For those who can't be bothered to read Leon's Bullshit here's the quote from the article "
Australia’s largest pension scheme plans to invest £23bn in the UK and Europe over the next five years as it joins other global mega funds pushing further into private markets for returns.
AustralianSuper, which manages A$244bn (£128bn) on behalf of 2.5mn members, expects to more than double its UK assets from £7bn currently to more than £15bn by 2026. The superannuation fund manager is planning to increase its investment in Europe from £12.6bn to £28bn over the same period",
What part of Leon's quote is "bullshit"? The figure (23bn) is right, and so is the per capita stat.
The "bullshit" is using a meaningless statistic ("per capita" - a measure that has no sense in this context), to try to shoe-horn in a point, when the announcement shows that they are marginally rebalancing their *existing* investment *away* from the UK to the EU (a tiny amouint) while increasing the overall level of investment in both.
Why does it have no sense in this context? If they had invested the same amount of money in, say Liechtenstein, as in the entire EU, don't you think that would have been viewed a win for Liechtenstein?
A "win" in the sense that they were increasing overall levels of investment? Of course. "Over someone else"? Not really, no.
It is all relative the existing investment portfolio. If they were *already* heavily invested in Lichtenstein and decided to rebalance away from Lichtenstein a little and towards the EU, then that is a win for everyone in the region (overall increased investment), but a nod towards the fact that there may be some increased risk in Lichtenstein (slightly lower overall in the balance of things).
I don't see what information the "per capita" number gives you?
I suppose the better number to use would have been as a fraction of the size of the economy, but then the point would have still been the same. At some level comparing absolute amounts is meaningless, 1bn would represent a much larger investment to a very small country than a very big one.
It's definitely fair to say that we continue to outperform the EU average in terms of attracting inward investment, even if that outperformance is slightly declining.
"2021 was a record year of investment and growth for the European tech and venture ecosystem, and for the UK in particular. Building on the last five years of consecutive growth, the total amount of capital invested into European tech reached a staggering US$100B, according to Atomico’s 2021 State of European Tech (SoET) report. Our London office alone contributed to US$12B of that market.
"Data from the SoET report shows the strength of the UK as a driving force behind this thriving venture ecosystem."
I've just done a quick google about the London economy. Quietly, behind Covid and associated chaos, it is picking up speed in multiple ways
This is the real challenge of levelling up. London is not standing still, it is the most dynamic tech, particularly fintech, centre in Europe by an increasing distance. How do the north and Scotland hold onto their investments and talent in the face of such a behemoth? A few railways and roads are certainly not going to do it. They simply facilitate the departure of the young, ambitious and talented.
Very true. London had a critical mass of talent, money, liquidity, culture, universities, rich folk and the rest before Brexit, and it still has that critical mass now
"Levelling up" is going to be hard for anyone, and I do believe this government - for all its many terrible flaws - is having a sincere go at it
I don't know what you're basing that belief on. The government can’t 'level up' the country – it’s nonsensical - it can only level, ie help those with less at the expense of those with more. It’s what we badly need but no Tory government, let alone this one, is going to seriously try and do it. So it’s just a slogan like ‘Brexit Opportunities’ is. Slogans are this government’s specialist area. They are genuinely good at coining them – and note how each one is now getting its own ministry. We have a Minister for Leveling Up and we have a Minister for Brexit Opportunities. Next, we’ll see Nadhim Zahawi rebranded as the Minister for Great Schools For All Our Kids and Rishi Sunak will no longer be the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he’ll be the Secretary of State for Low Taxes and Shrewd Spending. It’s very cunning and also very post-truth and sinister. Straight out of Orwell.
I liked it when we had a Minister for War. None of this namby pamby, touchy feely stuff.
During the first Gulf War, a chap tried to suddenly claim conscientious objector status. He said that he hadn't joined the military to kill people.
He was in the Royal Artillery.
My father did 2-3 years attached to 42 Heavy Artillary. As far as I could work out most of the officers had joined the Army to help house their polo ponies.
rue - but surely he must of wondered about the large guns? They are a little bit OTT for pheasant, surely?
Even by these standards....
Great photo. A punt gun, possibly one or two bore.
WTF is a punt gun? And what are they hunting? Mammoth?
Also the size of the neo-classical pillars behind is quite something, well chosen to emphasize the smallness of humans. Is it the Capitol in DC?
Giant shotgun. You load it up, put it in your punt, and paddle quietly towards a flock of duck etc at dawn and then try and kill as many at once before they take flight.
Indeed - a punt gun. Used to blast an entire flock of birds out of the sky in one go, by commercial hunters.
They would be mounted on a punt (hence the name) - float you punt into the wetlands, line up on a flock of birds, the recoil would kick the boat back a bit...
IIRC that photo was a couple of Congressional aides who were bringing it to the hearings on a law to ban their use - the photo was indeed taken outside the Capitol in DC.
"Australia’s largest pension fund to pour £23bn into UK and Europe"
Much more, per capita, is going into the UK than the EU
They are increasing UK investment by 114%, and EU investment by 122%. So a slight rebalance towards EU funds in a landscape of overall increased investment (as it says in the article, this means they are maintaining the overall level of investment in the region relative to others).
I read the same thing. Not wanting to rain on Leon's parade I thought it impolite to mention it " For those who can't be bothered to read Leon's Bullshit here's the quote from the article "
Australia’s largest pension scheme plans to invest £23bn in the UK and Europe over the next five years as it joins other global mega funds pushing further into private markets for returns.
AustralianSuper, which manages A$244bn (£128bn) on behalf of 2.5mn members, expects to more than double its UK assets from £7bn currently to more than £15bn by 2026. The superannuation fund manager is planning to increase its investment in Europe from £12.6bn to £28bn over the same period",
What part of Leon's quote is "bullshit"? The figure (23bn) is right, and so is the per capita stat.
The "bullshit" is using a meaningless statistic ("per capita" - a measure that has no sense in this context), to try to shoe-horn in a point, when the announcement shows that they are marginally rebalancing their *existing* investment *away* from the UK to the EU (a tiny amouint) while increasing the overall level of investment in both.
Why does it have no sense in this context? If they had invested the same amount of money in, say Liechtenstein, as in the entire EU, don't you think that would have been viewed a win for Liechtenstein?
A "win" in the sense that they were increasing overall levels of investment? Of course. "Over someone else"? Not really, no.
It is all relative the existing investment portfolio. If they were *already* heavily invested in Lichtenstein and decided to rebalance away from Lichtenstein a little and towards the EU, then that is a win for everyone in the region (overall increased investment), but a nod towards the fact that there may be some increased risk in Lichtenstein (slightly lower overall in the balance of things).
I don't see what information the "per capita" number gives you?
I suppose the better number to use would have been as a fraction of the size of the economy, but then the point would have still been the same. At some level comparing absolute amounts is meaningless, 1bn would represent a much larger investment to a very small country than a very big one.
It's definitely fair to say that we continue to outperform the EU average in terms of attracting inward investment, even if that outperformance is slightly declining.
"2021 was a record year of investment and growth for the European tech and venture ecosystem, and for the UK in particular. Building on the last five years of consecutive growth, the total amount of capital invested into European tech reached a staggering US$100B, according to Atomico’s 2021 State of European Tech (SoET) report. Our London office alone contributed to US$12B of that market.
"Data from the SoET report shows the strength of the UK as a driving force behind this thriving venture ecosystem."
I've just done a quick google about the London economy. Quietly, behind Covid and associated chaos, it is picking up speed in multiple ways
This is the real challenge of levelling up. London is not standing still, it is the most dynamic tech, particularly fintech, centre in Europe by an increasing distance. How do the north and Scotland hold onto their investments and talent in the face of such a behemoth? A few railways and roads are certainly not going to do it. They simply facilitate the departure of the young, ambitious and talented.
Very true. London had a critical mass of talent, money, liquidity, culture, universities, rich folk and the rest before Brexit, and it still has that critical mass now
"Levelling up" is going to be hard for anyone, and I do believe this government - for all its many terrible flaws - is having a sincere go at it
I don't know what you're basing that belief on. The government can’t 'level up' the country – it’s nonsensical - it can only level, ie help those with less at the expense of those with more. It’s what we badly need but no Tory government, let alone this one, is going to seriously try and do it. So it’s just a slogan like ‘Brexit Opportunities’ is. Slogans are this government’s specialist area. They are genuinely good at coining them – and note how each one is now getting its own ministry. We have a Minister for Leveling Up and we have a Minister for Brexit Opportunities. Next, we’ll see Nadhim Zahawi rebranded as the Minister for Great Schools For All Our Kids and Rishi Sunak will no longer be the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he’ll be the Secretary of State for Low Taxes and Shrewd Spending. It’s very cunning and also very post-truth and sinister. Straight out of Orwell.
I liked it when we had a Minister for War. None of this namby pamby, touchy feely stuff.
During the first Gulf War, a chap tried to suddenly claim conscientious objector status. He said that he hadn't joined the military to kill people.
He was in the Royal Artillery.
My father did 2-3 years attached to 42 Heavy Artillary. As far as I could work out most of the officers had joined the Army to help house their polo ponies.
rue - but surely he must of wondered about the large guns? They are a little bit OTT for pheasant, surely?
Even by these standards....
Great photo. A punt gun, possibly one or two bore.
WTF is a punt gun? And what are they hunting? Mammoth?
Also the size of the neo-classical pillars behind is quite something, well chosen to emphasize the smallness of humans. Is it the Capitol in DC?
Giant shotgun. You load it up, put it in your punt, and paddle quietly towards a flock of duck etc at dawn and then try and kill as many at once before they take flight.
I'd always thought it was a small affair as guns go. I suppose I should have known because punt-drinks are forceful affairs. You can learn something everyday on PB!
"Australia’s largest pension fund to pour £23bn into UK and Europe"
Much more, per capita, is going into the UK than the EU
They are increasing UK investment by 114%, and EU investment by 122%. So a slight rebalance towards EU funds in a landscape of overall increased investment (as it says in the article, this means they are maintaining the overall level of investment in the region relative to others).
I read the same thing. Not wanting to rain on Leon's parade I thought it impolite to mention it " For those who can't be bothered to read Leon's Bullshit here's the quote from the article "
Australia’s largest pension scheme plans to invest £23bn in the UK and Europe over the next five years as it joins other global mega funds pushing further into private markets for returns.
AustralianSuper, which manages A$244bn (£128bn) on behalf of 2.5mn members, expects to more than double its UK assets from £7bn currently to more than £15bn by 2026. The superannuation fund manager is planning to increase its investment in Europe from £12.6bn to £28bn over the same period",
What part of Leon's quote is "bullshit"? The figure (23bn) is right, and so is the per capita stat.
The "bullshit" is using a meaningless statistic ("per capita" - a measure that has no sense in this context), to try to shoe-horn in a point, when the announcement shows that they are marginally rebalancing their *existing* investment *away* from the UK to the EU (a tiny amouint) while increasing the overall level of investment in both.
Why does it have no sense in this context? If they had invested the same amount of money in, say Liechtenstein, as in the entire EU, don't you think that would have been viewed a win for Liechtenstein?
A "win" in the sense that they were increasing overall levels of investment? Of course. "Over someone else"? Not really, no.
It is all relative the existing investment portfolio. If they were *already* heavily invested in Lichtenstein and decided to rebalance away from Lichtenstein a little and towards the EU, then that is a win for everyone in the region (overall increased investment), but a nod towards the fact that there may be some increased risk in Lichtenstein (slightly lower overall in the balance of things).
I don't see what information the "per capita" number gives you?
I suppose the better number to use would have been as a fraction of the size of the economy, but then the point would have still been the same. At some level comparing absolute amounts is meaningless, 1bn would represent a much larger investment to a very small country than a very big one.
It's definitely fair to say that we continue to outperform the EU average in terms of attracting inward investment, even if that outperformance is slightly declining.
"2021 was a record year of investment and growth for the European tech and venture ecosystem, and for the UK in particular. Building on the last five years of consecutive growth, the total amount of capital invested into European tech reached a staggering US$100B, according to Atomico’s 2021 State of European Tech (SoET) report. Our London office alone contributed to US$12B of that market.
"Data from the SoET report shows the strength of the UK as a driving force behind this thriving venture ecosystem."
I've just done a quick google about the London economy. Quietly, behind Covid and associated chaos, it is picking up speed in multiple ways
This is the real challenge of levelling up. London is not standing still, it is the most dynamic tech, particularly fintech, centre in Europe by an increasing distance. How do the north and Scotland hold onto their investments and talent in the face of such a behemoth? A few railways and roads are certainly not going to do it. They simply facilitate the departure of the young, ambitious and talented.
Very true. London had a critical mass of talent, money, liquidity, culture, universities, rich folk and the rest before Brexit, and it still has that critical mass now
"Levelling up" is going to be hard for anyone, and I do believe this government - for all its many terrible flaws - is having a sincere go at it
I don't know what you're basing that belief on. The government can’t 'level up' the country – it’s nonsensical - it can only level, ie help those with less at the expense of those with more. It’s what we badly need but no Tory government, let alone this one, is going to seriously try and do it. So it’s just a slogan like ‘Brexit Opportunities’ is. Slogans are this government’s specialist area. They are genuinely good at coining them – and note how each one is now getting its own ministry. We have a Minister for Leveling Up and we have a Minister for Brexit Opportunities. Next, we’ll see Nadhim Zahawi rebranded as the Minister for Great Schools For All Our Kids and Rishi Sunak will no longer be the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he’ll be the Secretary of State for Low Taxes and Shrewd Spending. It’s very cunning and also very post-truth and sinister. Straight out of Orwell.
I liked it when we had a Minister for War. None of this namby pamby, touchy feely stuff.
During the first Gulf War, a chap tried to suddenly claim conscientious objector status. He said that he hadn't joined the military to kill people.
He was in the Royal Artillery.
My father did 2-3 years attached to 42 Heavy Artillary. As far as I could work out most of the officers had joined the Army to help house their polo ponies.
rue - but surely he must of wondered about the large guns? They are a little bit OTT for pheasant, surely?
Even by these standards....
Great photo. A punt gun, possibly one or two bore.
WTF is a punt gun? And what are they hunting? Mammoth?
Also the size of the neo-classical pillars behind is quite something, well chosen to emphasize the smallness of humans. Is it the Capitol in DC?
Giant shotgun. You load it up, put it in your punt, and paddle quietly towards a flock of duck etc at dawn and then try and kill as many at once before they take flight.
Indeed - a punt gun. Used to blast an entire flock of birds out of the sky in one go, by commercial hunters.
They would be mounted on a punt (hence the name) - float you punt into the wetlands, line up on a flock of birds, the recoil would kick the boat back a bit...
IIRC that photo was a couple of Congressional aides who were bringing it to the hearings on a law to ban their use - the photo was indeed taken outside the Capitol in DC.
Not out of the sky lol, on a punt while they are still on the water.
"Australia’s largest pension fund to pour £23bn into UK and Europe"
Much more, per capita, is going into the UK than the EU
They are increasing UK investment by 114%, and EU investment by 122%. So a slight rebalance towards EU funds in a landscape of overall increased investment (as it says in the article, this means they are maintaining the overall level of investment in the region relative to others).
I read the same thing. Not wanting to rain on Leon's parade I thought it impolite to mention it " For those who can't be bothered to read Leon's Bullshit here's the quote from the article "
Australia’s largest pension scheme plans to invest £23bn in the UK and Europe over the next five years as it joins other global mega funds pushing further into private markets for returns.
AustralianSuper, which manages A$244bn (£128bn) on behalf of 2.5mn members, expects to more than double its UK assets from £7bn currently to more than £15bn by 2026. The superannuation fund manager is planning to increase its investment in Europe from £12.6bn to £28bn over the same period",
What part of Leon's quote is "bullshit"? The figure (23bn) is right, and so is the per capita stat.
The "bullshit" is using a meaningless statistic ("per capita" - a measure that has no sense in this context), to try to shoe-horn in a point, when the announcement shows that they are marginally rebalancing their *existing* investment *away* from the UK to the EU (a tiny amouint) while increasing the overall level of investment in both.
Why does it have no sense in this context? If they had invested the same amount of money in, say Liechtenstein, as in the entire EU, don't you think that would have been viewed a win for Liechtenstein?
A "win" in the sense that they were increasing overall levels of investment? Of course. "Over someone else"? Not really, no.
It is all relative the existing investment portfolio. If they were *already* heavily invested in Lichtenstein and decided to rebalance away from Lichtenstein a little and towards the EU, then that is a win for everyone in the region (overall increased investment), but a nod towards the fact that there may be some increased risk in Lichtenstein (slightly lower overall in the balance of things).
I don't see what information the "per capita" number gives you?
I suppose the better number to use would have been as a fraction of the size of the economy, but then the point would have still been the same. At some level comparing absolute amounts is meaningless, 1bn would represent a much larger investment to a very small country than a very big one.
It's definitely fair to say that we continue to outperform the EU average in terms of attracting inward investment, even if that outperformance is slightly declining.
"2021 was a record year of investment and growth for the European tech and venture ecosystem, and for the UK in particular. Building on the last five years of consecutive growth, the total amount of capital invested into European tech reached a staggering US$100B, according to Atomico’s 2021 State of European Tech (SoET) report. Our London office alone contributed to US$12B of that market.
"Data from the SoET report shows the strength of the UK as a driving force behind this thriving venture ecosystem."
I've just done a quick google about the London economy. Quietly, behind Covid and associated chaos, it is picking up speed in multiple ways
This is the real challenge of levelling up. London is not standing still, it is the most dynamic tech, particularly fintech, centre in Europe by an increasing distance. How do the north and Scotland hold onto their investments and talent in the face of such a behemoth? A few railways and roads are certainly not going to do it. They simply facilitate the departure of the young, ambitious and talented.
Very true. London had a critical mass of talent, money, liquidity, culture, universities, rich folk and the rest before Brexit, and it still has that critical mass now
"Levelling up" is going to be hard for anyone, and I do believe this government - for all its many terrible flaws - is having a sincere go at it
I don't know what you're basing that belief on. The government can’t 'level up' the country – it’s nonsensical - it can only level, ie help those with less at the expense of those with more. It’s what we badly need but no Tory government, let alone this one, is going to seriously try and do it. So it’s just a slogan like ‘Brexit Opportunities’ is. Slogans are this government’s specialist area. They are genuinely good at coining them – and note how each one is now getting its own ministry. We have a Minister for Leveling Up and we have a Minister for Brexit Opportunities. Next, we’ll see Nadhim Zahawi rebranded as the Minister for Great Schools For All Our Kids and Rishi Sunak will no longer be the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he’ll be the Secretary of State for Low Taxes and Shrewd Spending. It’s very cunning and also very post-truth and sinister. Straight out of Orwell.
Don’t ask me what they are tho, I am about to order my 3rd martini. They make them really well here*
Looks okay but I prefer hotels which provide separate villas. Always get noise issues in these huge buildings and I find that sort of thing a bit too gauche for my tastes. But then I like to be close to nature, not people, and certainly not cocktail bars.
For me a villa or even a simple house on the beach with nothing but the sound of the wind in the palms and the surf on the shore, and some great books.
‘The Kremlin spokesman admitted the joint drills were serious but he pointed out the nature of threats was higher than before. Mr Chizhov told the BBC that Russian troops currently stationed in Belarus would return to their permanent bases.’
No.
He was never going to invade.
Why didn't you tell us? And the bloody Americans might like to have known, let alone the Ukrainians.
As Herman Kahn pointed out - if the crisis is successfully resolved, the opponents of treating it as a crisis will claim there was no crisis.
Partygate is now so bloody boring. Is anyone - literally anyone (apart from @Scott_xP) excited by that latest photo?
The damage is done. Boris needs to go. But hurry up this is arse-achingly dull, now
He's hoping time dilutes the poison.
It might. This is now being dragged out so long it is in danger of being filed, mentally, by half the population, into OMG JUST SHUT UP I DON”T CARE ANY MORE, and that in turn might lead to a slow uptick in Tory fortunes as everyone sighs and moves on
If Dom C has clinching material he needs to release it now, I suggest, or the moment will be gone. It may already be gone
Also, one has to ask what exactly can be worse than anything we have seen? I know Boris is a bit of a lad but I seriously doubt we are going to see photos of him frotting Dilyn the Dog in a Santa hat while doing poppers with 300 topless neo-Fascist Finnish interns, it will just be more of the same slightly-sad-Xmas-party crap
Publish or be damned. And get a wiggle on
What could be worse?
We'd find out that Johnson isn't paid directly for being PM, but via a service company so that he can avoid NI.
Although the word is that he's too lazy to arrange such tax avoidance arrangements.
If he was working only for the government, he’d be judged to be inside IR35 and have to pay two two lots of NI.
Yes, he published his tax return when challenged by Ken Livingstone in the mayor race - Boris was working as an MP and on the side as a sole trader, paying the full 40% income tax on every penny he was paid for journalist or speaking work. Ken, on the other hand, had a limited company and generous expenses.
The interesting one about that was he had set up that structure for paying the full 40% tax on his Telegraph earnings etc *before* the Expense scandal.
He must have paid an extra 7 figures in tax over the years, just to setup an elephant trap for an opponent.
No-one else in politics does this - and it must have been deliberately done with the Telegraph. Since no-one else deliberately pays the 40%, that would have taken special arrangements.
Or Bozo is an idiot who didn't investigate what options were available to reduce costs and just went for the easiest option...
If you do work for a company (such as the Telegraph), then you need to have setup a company. Which he did.
The accountants who run such companies for you will automatically setup the whole tax reduction thing.
So either BJ
- Did his own accounts and paid himself PAYE - Instructed his accountants to setup to pay full PAYE.
It was a non-standard arrangement and must have been done deliberately.
Um, ever heard of IR35 - what you are saying is why the BBC got itself into such a mess with it's presenters.
The Telegraph would have been perfectly happy to employ him as an employee which from memory was how it worked.
The tax advantages of being a sole trader embodied as a PLC are much less obvious than is widely believed (AIUI they used to be significant, but the Treasury has slowly whittled them away)
There’s a shitload more paperwork and you gain some cash but not that much
It still makes a notable difference if you are earning over £1m a year or whatever, but i don’t think Boris was ever in that bracket?
If you take the PLC route you are also likelier to receive much closer Inland Revenue scrutiny, which is not always nice
Back then it was the heyday of the Contractor - earn 6 figures and keep most of it.
It has been largely whittled away, as you say. The new rules and the scrutiny have deliberately ended much of it.
But back then you could end up paying much less than 20% on massive piles of cash.
I had a couple of good years and my accountant said “Don’t bother, it’s a lot of hassle and the Feds come for you”
Whereas if you are a standard sole trader the taxman is reasonably generous in what they allow as expenses. Which seems fair
You really do get the impression thie party story has run out of legs. Everyone knows he lied about it. It is a negative on the balance sheet. But how big a negative will vary according to taste. No doubt it will have a revival at some point when he lies about something else. Right now Boris is damaged but he is regaining control by the day.
I don't see him regaining any control. He looks like a (politically) dead man walking.
I think you see what you want to see. The moment of danger was very real but it is past.
And I take no satisfaction at all from that because for me lying to the Commons is a resigning matter whether it was important, trivial, criminal or stupid. It is an important principle which has been damaged and I deeply regret that.
Two slightly different things.
Boris is Not Yet Dead, sure. He's still in Downing Street, there's still no consensus on how to replace him. He can still move the pieces round the board- but does this reshuffle look like making anything better?
Equally, the spell has been broken for quite a lot of people. If he's still there in 2024, he loses badly. Which is incredible, really, given the situation even four months ago.
So the irresistible force of Boris Really Needing To Go and the immovable object of Boris Wanting To Stay meet. And that scenario could persist for quite some time. But glad confident morning isn't coming back.
Once again, we can compare Johnsons with the Americans. LBJ went from winning what was then (I believe) the largest Electoral College victory and a pretty handy chunk of the popular vote to, four years later, being so unpopular he didn't run again.
‘The Kremlin spokesman admitted the joint drills were serious but he pointed out the nature of threats was higher than before. Mr Chizhov told the BBC that Russian troops currently stationed in Belarus would return to their permanent bases.’
No.
He was never going to invade.
Why didn't you tell us? And the bloody Americans might like to have known, let alone the Ukrainians.
Yeah I'd love to see Heathener's evidence given that this issue has the world's diplomats, military, and intelligence services scratching their heads.
You really do get the impression thie party story has run out of legs. Everyone knows he lied about it. It is a negative on the balance sheet. But how big a negative will vary according to taste. No doubt it will have a revival at some point when he lies about something else. Right now Boris is damaged but he is regaining control by the day.
I don't see him regaining any control. He looks like a (politically) dead man walking.
Yes - as I said earlier, the polls will probably edge up for him slightly, but the die is cast and it is difficult to see any way he could recover significant ground from here. The Party needs to realise this and act promptly - any new leader has a difficult job goven the economic circumstances. The only real glimmer for a new leader is the relative weakness of Starmer - he shines now but would look significantly weaker against a more competent leader without Boris's backstory.
I think you possibly underestimate Starmer at your peril. I am not a labour supporter, but as someone who has studied leadership for most of my career I would say he has most traits I would look for in an effective leader. This has always been my concern about Johnson. I wouldn't have put him in charge of a Parish Council
Time will tell - but he is significantly more left-wing than his current image implies and the electorate is not. .
Brexit aside (which he doesn't really believe in) we currently have the most left-wing Conservative leader of my lifetime. By a country mile.
If Boris Johnson were a Labour leader he would get panned for some of his policies. And I still can't believe he's presiding over such a massive high-spend, high-tax regime.
Tearing up the Conservative rule book does not for a happy membership make.
‘The Kremlin spokesman admitted the joint drills were serious but he pointed out the nature of threats was higher than before. Mr Chizhov told the BBC that Russian troops currently stationed in Belarus would return to their permanent bases.’
No.
He was never going to invade.
Why didn't you tell us? And the bloody Americans might like to have known, let alone the Ukrainians.
Yeah I'd love to see Heathener's evidence given that this issue has the world's diplomats, military, and intelligence services scratching their heads.
"Australia’s largest pension fund to pour £23bn into UK and Europe"
Much more, per capita, is going into the UK than the EU
They are increasing UK investment by 114%, and EU investment by 122%. So a slight rebalance towards EU funds in a landscape of overall increased investment (as it says in the article, this means they are maintaining the overall level of investment in the region relative to others).
I read the same thing. Not wanting to rain on Leon's parade I thought it impolite to mention it " For those who can't be bothered to read Leon's Bullshit here's the quote from the article "
Australia’s largest pension scheme plans to invest £23bn in the UK and Europe over the next five years as it joins other global mega funds pushing further into private markets for returns.
AustralianSuper, which manages A$244bn (£128bn) on behalf of 2.5mn members, expects to more than double its UK assets from £7bn currently to more than £15bn by 2026. The superannuation fund manager is planning to increase its investment in Europe from £12.6bn to £28bn over the same period",
What part of Leon's quote is "bullshit"? The figure (23bn) is right, and so is the per capita stat.
The "bullshit" is using a meaningless statistic ("per capita" - a measure that has no sense in this context), to try to shoe-horn in a point, when the announcement shows that they are marginally rebalancing their *existing* investment *away* from the UK to the EU (a tiny amouint) while increasing the overall level of investment in both.
Why does it have no sense in this context? If they had invested the same amount of money in, say Liechtenstein, as in the entire EU, don't you think that would have been viewed a win for Liechtenstein?
A "win" in the sense that they were increasing overall levels of investment? Of course. "Over someone else"? Not really, no.
It is all relative the existing investment portfolio. If they were *already* heavily invested in Lichtenstein and decided to rebalance away from Lichtenstein a little and towards the EU, then that is a win for everyone in the region (overall increased investment), but a nod towards the fact that there may be some increased risk in Lichtenstein (slightly lower overall in the balance of things).
I don't see what information the "per capita" number gives you?
I suppose the better number to use would have been as a fraction of the size of the economy, but then the point would have still been the same. At some level comparing absolute amounts is meaningless, 1bn would represent a much larger investment to a very small country than a very big one.
It's definitely fair to say that we continue to outperform the EU average in terms of attracting inward investment, even if that outperformance is slightly declining.
"2021 was a record year of investment and growth for the European tech and venture ecosystem, and for the UK in particular. Building on the last five years of consecutive growth, the total amount of capital invested into European tech reached a staggering US$100B, according to Atomico’s 2021 State of European Tech (SoET) report. Our London office alone contributed to US$12B of that market.
"Data from the SoET report shows the strength of the UK as a driving force behind this thriving venture ecosystem."
I've just done a quick google about the London economy. Quietly, behind Covid and associated chaos, it is picking up speed in multiple ways
This is the real challenge of levelling up. London is not standing still, it is the most dynamic tech, particularly fintech, centre in Europe by an increasing distance. How do the north and Scotland hold onto their investments and talent in the face of such a behemoth? A few railways and roads are certainly not going to do it. They simply facilitate the departure of the young, ambitious and talented.
Very true. London had a critical mass of talent, money, liquidity, culture, universities, rich folk and the rest before Brexit, and it still has that critical mass now
"Levelling up" is going to be hard for anyone, and I do believe this government - for all its many terrible flaws - is having a sincere go at it
I don't know what you're basing that belief on. The government can’t 'level up' the country – it’s nonsensical - it can only level, ie help those with less at the expense of those with more. It’s what we badly need but no Tory government, let alone this one, is going to seriously try and do it. So it’s just a slogan like ‘Brexit Opportunities’ is. Slogans are this government’s specialist area. They are genuinely good at coining them – and note how each one is now getting its own ministry. We have a Minister for Leveling Up and we have a Minister for Brexit Opportunities. Next, we’ll see Nadhim Zahawi rebranded as the Minister for Great Schools For All Our Kids and Rishi Sunak will no longer be the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he’ll be the Secretary of State for Low Taxes and Shrewd Spending. It’s very cunning and also very post-truth and sinister. Straight out of Orwell.
I liked it when we had a Minister for War. None of this namby pamby, touchy feely stuff.
During the first Gulf War, a chap tried to suddenly claim conscientious objector status. He said that he hadn't joined the military to kill people.
He was in the Royal Artillery.
My father did 2-3 years attached to 42 Heavy Artillary. As far as I could work out most of the officers had joined the Army to help house their polo ponies.
Presumably M107 SP guns in the 1970s with that name? Not much scope for polo in NI detachments I would have thought.
Yes it was the M107s. They were truly massive with each shell weighing the same as a VW Beetle. When they were fired all the windows in Fallingbostal shook. They were designed to take out attacking Soviet Armour coming across the Honhe Heath.
NI was a bit of a shock to the polo squad. The only way to stay relatvely safe there was to dress and arm yourself as a squaddie. Some idiots thought this infra dig and still wanted to carry revolvers. Quite a number left and the regiment was disbanded in 1977.
Partygate is now so bloody boring. Is anyone - literally anyone (apart from @Scott_xP) excited by that latest photo?
The damage is done. Boris needs to go. But hurry up this is arse-achingly dull, now
I think the strategy is clear: destroy him very slowly until he looks so completely weak and ineffectual that even right wing believers in Brexit, think that he should go. It is clearly working. Unedifying sure, but he doesnt look in any better position today than he did last week. My prediction of VONC w/c 21st Feb looking quite likely.
Those Tory MPs' Whatsapp groups are going to be mighty busy during recess.....
I think many have already made up their minds, but haven't yet actioned. Recess is a time to take soundings form their constituency executive to confirm anything should they need to. If there were a VONC *during* recess (which I think unlikely), they can apparently use proxy votes .
Do MPs really take "soundings" from their constituency execs? And then act accordingly? Suspect most hold to Burke's dictum on this sort of thing.
You really do get the impression thie party story has run out of legs. Everyone knows he lied about it. It is a negative on the balance sheet. But how big a negative will vary according to taste. No doubt it will have a revival at some point when he lies about something else. Right now Boris is damaged but he is regaining control by the day.
I don't see him regaining any control. He looks like a (politically) dead man walking.
Yes - as I said earlier, the polls will probably edge up for him slightly, but the die is cast and it is difficult to see any way he could recover significant ground from here. The Party needs to realise this and act promptly - any new leader has a difficult job goven the economic circumstances. The only real glimmer for a new leader is the relative weakness of Starmer - he shines now but would look significantly weaker against a more competent leader without Boris's backstory.
I think you possibly underestimate Starmer at your peril. I am not a labour supporter, but as someone who has studied leadership for most of my career I would say he has most traits I would look for in an effective leader. This has always been my concern about Johnson. I wouldn't have put him in charge of a Parish Council
Time will tell - but he is significantly more left-wing than his current image implies and the electorate is not. A competent Conservative leader could do much to expose his backstory more effectively. No doubt at all that Boris was helped in 2019 by his opponent just as Starmer is currently basking in the reflections of Boris's only too obvious failings. Despite this in the last 2 PMQs for example, Starmer has been distinctly average. Little so far has been revealed of what his plans for the country's future are and even on current polling he would not be sure of a majority thanks to Scotland, where Labour continues to make no real progress.
If PMQs were a measure of future electoral success then William Hague would have been PM
Partygate is now so bloody boring. Is anyone - literally anyone (apart from @Scott_xP) excited by that latest photo?
The damage is done. Boris needs to go. But hurry up this is arse-achingly dull, now
He's hoping time dilutes the poison.
It might. This is now being dragged out so long it is in danger of being filed, mentally, by half the population, into OMG JUST SHUT UP I DON”T CARE ANY MORE, and that in turn might lead to a slow uptick in Tory fortunes as everyone sighs and moves on
If Dom C has clinching material he needs to release it now, I suggest, or the moment will be gone. It may already be gone
Also, one has to ask what exactly can be worse than anything we have seen? I know Boris is a bit of a lad but I seriously doubt we are going to see photos of him frotting Dilyn the Dog in a Santa hat while doing poppers with 300 topless neo-Fascist Finnish interns, it will just be more of the same slightly-sad-Xmas-party crap
Publish or be damned. And get a wiggle on
What could be worse?
We'd find out that Johnson isn't paid directly for being PM, but via a service company so that he can avoid NI.
Although the word is that he's too lazy to arrange such tax avoidance arrangements.
If he was working only for the government, he’d be judged to be inside IR35 and have to pay two two lots of NI.
Yes, he published his tax return when challenged by Ken Livingstone in the mayor race - Boris was working as an MP and on the side as a sole trader, paying the full 40% income tax on every penny he was paid for journalist or speaking work. Ken, on the other hand, had a limited company and generous expenses.
The interesting one about that was he had set up that structure for paying the full 40% tax on his Telegraph earnings etc *before* the Expense scandal.
He must have paid an extra 7 figures in tax over the years, just to setup an elephant trap for an opponent.
No-one else in politics does this - and it must have been deliberately done with the Telegraph. Since no-one else deliberately pays the 40%, that would have taken special arrangements.
Or Bozo is an idiot who didn't investigate what options were available to reduce costs and just went for the easiest option...
If you do work for a company (such as the Telegraph), then you need to have setup a company. Which he did.
The accountants who run such companies for you will automatically setup the whole tax reduction thing.
So either BJ
- Did his own accounts and paid himself PAYE - Instructed his accountants to setup to pay full PAYE.
It was a non-standard arrangement and must have been done deliberately.
Um, ever heard of IR35 - what you are saying is why the BBC got itself into such a mess with it's presenters.
The Telegraph would have been perfectly happy to employ him as an employee which from memory was how it worked.
The tax advantages of being a sole trader embodied as a PLC are much less obvious than is widely believed (AIUI they used to be significant, but the Treasury has slowly whittled them away)
There’s a shitload more paperwork and you gain some cash but not that much
It still makes a notable difference if you are earning over £1m a year or whatever, but i don’t think Boris was ever in that bracket?
If you take the PLC route you are also likelier to receive much closer Inland Revenue scrutiny, which is not always nice
Back then it was the heyday of the Contractor - earn 6 figures and keep most of it.
It has been largely whittled away, as you say. The new rules and the scrutiny have deliberately ended much of it.
But back then you could end up paying much less than 20% on massive piles of cash.
I had a couple of good years and my accountant said “Don’t bother, it’s a lot of hassle and the Feds come for you”
Whereas if you are a standard sole trader the taxman is reasonably generous in what they allow as expenses. Which seems fair
“Don’t cheat us and we won’t screw you”
I work in IT - the numbers of people on £800+ a day, and paying less than 20% on any of it...
EDIT: that was how it was - that's mostly gone now.
‘The Kremlin spokesman admitted the joint drills were serious but he pointed out the nature of threats was higher than before. Mr Chizhov told the BBC that Russian troops currently stationed in Belarus would return to their permanent bases.’
No.
He was never going to invade.
Why didn't you tell us?
As Leon said, I've been saying all along on here that he isn't going to invade.
"Australia’s largest pension fund to pour £23bn into UK and Europe"
Much more, per capita, is going into the UK than the EU
They are increasing UK investment by 114%, and EU investment by 122%. So a slight rebalance towards EU funds in a landscape of overall increased investment (as it says in the article, this means they are maintaining the overall level of investment in the region relative to others).
I read the same thing. Not wanting to rain on Leon's parade I thought it impolite to mention it " For those who can't be bothered to read Leon's Bullshit here's the quote from the article "
Australia’s largest pension scheme plans to invest £23bn in the UK and Europe over the next five years as it joins other global mega funds pushing further into private markets for returns.
AustralianSuper, which manages A$244bn (£128bn) on behalf of 2.5mn members, expects to more than double its UK assets from £7bn currently to more than £15bn by 2026. The superannuation fund manager is planning to increase its investment in Europe from £12.6bn to £28bn over the same period",
What part of Leon's quote is "bullshit"? The figure (23bn) is right, and so is the per capita stat.
The "bullshit" is using a meaningless statistic ("per capita" - a measure that has no sense in this context), to try to shoe-horn in a point, when the announcement shows that they are marginally rebalancing their *existing* investment *away* from the UK to the EU (a tiny amouint) while increasing the overall level of investment in both.
Why does it have no sense in this context? If they had invested the same amount of money in, say Liechtenstein, as in the entire EU, don't you think that would have been viewed a win for Liechtenstein?
A "win" in the sense that they were increasing overall levels of investment? Of course. "Over someone else"? Not really, no.
It is all relative the existing investment portfolio. If they were *already* heavily invested in Lichtenstein and decided to rebalance away from Lichtenstein a little and towards the EU, then that is a win for everyone in the region (overall increased investment), but a nod towards the fact that there may be some increased risk in Lichtenstein (slightly lower overall in the balance of things).
I don't see what information the "per capita" number gives you?
I suppose the better number to use would have been as a fraction of the size of the economy, but then the point would have still been the same. At some level comparing absolute amounts is meaningless, 1bn would represent a much larger investment to a very small country than a very big one.
It's definitely fair to say that we continue to outperform the EU average in terms of attracting inward investment, even if that outperformance is slightly declining.
"2021 was a record year of investment and growth for the European tech and venture ecosystem, and for the UK in particular. Building on the last five years of consecutive growth, the total amount of capital invested into European tech reached a staggering US$100B, according to Atomico’s 2021 State of European Tech (SoET) report. Our London office alone contributed to US$12B of that market.
"Data from the SoET report shows the strength of the UK as a driving force behind this thriving venture ecosystem."
I've just done a quick google about the London economy. Quietly, behind Covid and associated chaos, it is picking up speed in multiple ways
This is the real challenge of levelling up. London is not standing still, it is the most dynamic tech, particularly fintech, centre in Europe by an increasing distance. How do the north and Scotland hold onto their investments and talent in the face of such a behemoth? A few railways and roads are certainly not going to do it. They simply facilitate the departure of the young, ambitious and talented.
Very true. London had a critical mass of talent, money, liquidity, culture, universities, rich folk and the rest before Brexit, and it still has that critical mass now
"Levelling up" is going to be hard for anyone, and I do believe this government - for all its many terrible flaws - is having a sincere go at it
I don't know what you're basing that belief on. The government can’t 'level up' the country – it’s nonsensical - it can only level, ie help those with less at the expense of those with more. It’s what we badly need but no Tory government, let alone this one, is going to seriously try and do it. So it’s just a slogan like ‘Brexit Opportunities’ is. Slogans are this government’s specialist area. They are genuinely good at coining them – and note how each one is now getting its own ministry. We have a Minister for Leveling Up and we have a Minister for Brexit Opportunities. Next, we’ll see Nadhim Zahawi rebranded as the Minister for Great Schools For All Our Kids and Rishi Sunak will no longer be the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he’ll be the Secretary of State for Low Taxes and Shrewd Spending. It’s very cunning and also very post-truth and sinister. Straight out of Orwell.
I liked it when we had a Minister for War. None of this namby pamby, touchy feely stuff.
During the first Gulf War, a chap tried to suddenly claim conscientious objector status. He said that he hadn't joined the military to kill people.
He was in the Royal Artillery.
My father did 2-3 years attached to 42 Heavy Artillary. As far as I could work out most of the officers had joined the Army to help house their polo ponies.
Presumably M107 SP guns in the 1970s with that name? Not much scope for polo in NI detachments I would have thought.
The first week I arrived in the Province I was offered a ride in the local point to point. I declined thinking if I am going to be casevacced out I want it to be following an heroic gun battle against the baddies rather than coming a cropper at the open ditch.
"Australia’s largest pension fund to pour £23bn into UK and Europe"
Much more, per capita, is going into the UK than the EU
They are increasing UK investment by 114%, and EU investment by 122%. So a slight rebalance towards EU funds in a landscape of overall increased investment (as it says in the article, this means they are maintaining the overall level of investment in the region relative to others).
I read the same thing. Not wanting to rain on Leon's parade I thought it impolite to mention it " For those who can't be bothered to read Leon's Bullshit here's the quote from the article "
Australia’s largest pension scheme plans to invest £23bn in the UK and Europe over the next five years as it joins other global mega funds pushing further into private markets for returns.
AustralianSuper, which manages A$244bn (£128bn) on behalf of 2.5mn members, expects to more than double its UK assets from £7bn currently to more than £15bn by 2026. The superannuation fund manager is planning to increase its investment in Europe from £12.6bn to £28bn over the same period",
What part of Leon's quote is "bullshit"? The figure (23bn) is right, and so is the per capita stat.
The "bullshit" is using a meaningless statistic ("per capita" - a measure that has no sense in this context), to try to shoe-horn in a point, when the announcement shows that they are marginally rebalancing their *existing* investment *away* from the UK to the EU (a tiny amouint) while increasing the overall level of investment in both.
Why does it have no sense in this context? If they had invested the same amount of money in, say Liechtenstein, as in the entire EU, don't you think that would have been viewed a win for Liechtenstein?
A "win" in the sense that they were increasing overall levels of investment? Of course. "Over someone else"? Not really, no.
It is all relative the existing investment portfolio. If they were *already* heavily invested in Lichtenstein and decided to rebalance away from Lichtenstein a little and towards the EU, then that is a win for everyone in the region (overall increased investment), but a nod towards the fact that there may be some increased risk in Lichtenstein (slightly lower overall in the balance of things).
I don't see what information the "per capita" number gives you?
I suppose the better number to use would have been as a fraction of the size of the economy, but then the point would have still been the same. At some level comparing absolute amounts is meaningless, 1bn would represent a much larger investment to a very small country than a very big one.
It's definitely fair to say that we continue to outperform the EU average in terms of attracting inward investment, even if that outperformance is slightly declining.
"2021 was a record year of investment and growth for the European tech and venture ecosystem, and for the UK in particular. Building on the last five years of consecutive growth, the total amount of capital invested into European tech reached a staggering US$100B, according to Atomico’s 2021 State of European Tech (SoET) report. Our London office alone contributed to US$12B of that market.
"Data from the SoET report shows the strength of the UK as a driving force behind this thriving venture ecosystem."
I've just done a quick google about the London economy. Quietly, behind Covid and associated chaos, it is picking up speed in multiple ways
This is the real challenge of levelling up. London is not standing still, it is the most dynamic tech, particularly fintech, centre in Europe by an increasing distance. How do the north and Scotland hold onto their investments and talent in the face of such a behemoth? A few railways and roads are certainly not going to do it. They simply facilitate the departure of the young, ambitious and talented.
Very true. London had a critical mass of talent, money, liquidity, culture, universities, rich folk and the rest before Brexit, and it still has that critical mass now
"Levelling up" is going to be hard for anyone, and I do believe this government - for all its many terrible flaws - is having a sincere go at it
I don't know what you're basing that belief on. The government can’t 'level up' the country – it’s nonsensical - it can only level, ie help those with less at the expense of those with more. It’s what we badly need but no Tory government, let alone this one, is going to seriously try and do it. So it’s just a slogan like ‘Brexit Opportunities’ is. Slogans are this government’s specialist area. They are genuinely good at coining them – and note how each one is now getting its own ministry. We have a Minister for Leveling Up and we have a Minister for Brexit Opportunities. Next, we’ll see Nadhim Zahawi rebranded as the Minister for Great Schools For All Our Kids and Rishi Sunak will no longer be the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he’ll be the Secretary of State for Low Taxes and Shrewd Spending. It’s very cunning and also very post-truth and sinister. Straight out of Orwell.
I liked it when we had a Minister for War. None of this namby pamby, touchy feely stuff.
During the first Gulf War, a chap tried to suddenly claim conscientious objector status. He said that he hadn't joined the military to kill people.
He was in the Royal Artillery.
My father did 2-3 years attached to 42 Heavy Artillary. As far as I could work out most of the officers had joined the Army to help house their polo ponies.
rue - but surely he must of wondered about the large guns? They are a little bit OTT for pheasant, surely?
Even by these standards....
Great photo. A punt gun, possibly one or two bore.
WTF is a punt gun? And what are they hunting? Mammoth?
Also the size of the neo-classical pillars behind is quite something, well chosen to emphasize the smallness of humans. Is it the Capitol in DC?
Giant shotgun. You load it up, put it in your punt, and paddle quietly towards a flock of duck etc at dawn and then try and kill as many at once before they take flight.
‘The Kremlin spokesman admitted the joint drills were serious but he pointed out the nature of threats was higher than before. Mr Chizhov told the BBC that Russian troops currently stationed in Belarus would return to their permanent bases.’
No.
He was never going to invade.
You’ve said this all along, and kudos to you if it turns out you are right (I hope you are, obvs)
If this whole thing blows over and Russia gains nothing but some warm words from the West, then this might be Putin’s first serious geopolitical defeat in a long time. A lot of effort and zero gain
Partygate is now so bloody boring. Is anyone - literally anyone (apart from @Scott_xP) excited by that latest photo?
The damage is done. Boris needs to go. But hurry up this is arse-achingly dull, now
I think the strategy is clear: destroy him very slowly until he looks so completely weak and ineffectual that even right wing believers in Brexit, think that he should go. It is clearly working. Unedifying sure, but he doesnt look in any better position today than he did last week. My prediction of VONC w/c 21st Feb looking quite likely.
Those Tory MPs' Whatsapp groups are going to be mighty busy during recess.....
I think many have already made up their minds, but haven't yet actioned. Recess is a time to take soundings form their constituency executive to confirm anything should they need to. If there were a VONC *during* recess (which I think unlikely), they can apparently use proxy votes .
Do MPs really take "soundings" from their constituency execs? And then act accordingly? Suspect most hold to Burke's dictum on this sort of thing.
Yes they do to an extent, although largely to reinforce what they already think, unless they think that a course of action might lead to a loss of support by their executive. It could be a quite important dynamic at the moment, because I imagine Johnson is still quite popular with the foot soldiers.
"Australia’s largest pension fund to pour £23bn into UK and Europe"
Much more, per capita, is going into the UK than the EU
They are increasing UK investment by 114%, and EU investment by 122%. So a slight rebalance towards EU funds in a landscape of overall increased investment (as it says in the article, this means they are maintaining the overall level of investment in the region relative to others).
I read the same thing. Not wanting to rain on Leon's parade I thought it impolite to mention it " For those who can't be bothered to read Leon's Bullshit here's the quote from the article "
Australia’s largest pension scheme plans to invest £23bn in the UK and Europe over the next five years as it joins other global mega funds pushing further into private markets for returns.
AustralianSuper, which manages A$244bn (£128bn) on behalf of 2.5mn members, expects to more than double its UK assets from £7bn currently to more than £15bn by 2026. The superannuation fund manager is planning to increase its investment in Europe from £12.6bn to £28bn over the same period",
What part of Leon's quote is "bullshit"? The figure (23bn) is right, and so is the per capita stat.
The "bullshit" is using a meaningless statistic ("per capita" - a measure that has no sense in this context), to try to shoe-horn in a point, when the announcement shows that they are marginally rebalancing their *existing* investment *away* from the UK to the EU (a tiny amouint) while increasing the overall level of investment in both.
Why does it have no sense in this context? If they had invested the same amount of money in, say Liechtenstein, as in the entire EU, don't you think that would have been viewed a win for Liechtenstein?
A "win" in the sense that they were increasing overall levels of investment? Of course. "Over someone else"? Not really, no.
It is all relative the existing investment portfolio. If they were *already* heavily invested in Lichtenstein and decided to rebalance away from Lichtenstein a little and towards the EU, then that is a win for everyone in the region (overall increased investment), but a nod towards the fact that there may be some increased risk in Lichtenstein (slightly lower overall in the balance of things).
I don't see what information the "per capita" number gives you?
I suppose the better number to use would have been as a fraction of the size of the economy, but then the point would have still been the same. At some level comparing absolute amounts is meaningless, 1bn would represent a much larger investment to a very small country than a very big one.
It's definitely fair to say that we continue to outperform the EU average in terms of attracting inward investment, even if that outperformance is slightly declining.
"2021 was a record year of investment and growth for the European tech and venture ecosystem, and for the UK in particular. Building on the last five years of consecutive growth, the total amount of capital invested into European tech reached a staggering US$100B, according to Atomico’s 2021 State of European Tech (SoET) report. Our London office alone contributed to US$12B of that market.
"Data from the SoET report shows the strength of the UK as a driving force behind this thriving venture ecosystem."
I've just done a quick google about the London economy. Quietly, behind Covid and associated chaos, it is picking up speed in multiple ways
This is the real challenge of levelling up. London is not standing still, it is the most dynamic tech, particularly fintech, centre in Europe by an increasing distance. How do the north and Scotland hold onto their investments and talent in the face of such a behemoth? A few railways and roads are certainly not going to do it. They simply facilitate the departure of the young, ambitious and talented.
Very true. London had a critical mass of talent, money, liquidity, culture, universities, rich folk and the rest before Brexit, and it still has that critical mass now
"Levelling up" is going to be hard for anyone, and I do believe this government - for all its many terrible flaws - is having a sincere go at it
I don't know what you're basing that belief on. The government can’t 'level up' the country – it’s nonsensical - it can only level, ie help those with less at the expense of those with more. It’s what we badly need but no Tory government, let alone this one, is going to seriously try and do it. So it’s just a slogan like ‘Brexit Opportunities’ is. Slogans are this government’s specialist area. They are genuinely good at coining them – and note how each one is now getting its own ministry. We have a Minister for Leveling Up and we have a Minister for Brexit Opportunities. Next, we’ll see Nadhim Zahawi rebranded as the Minister for Great Schools For All Our Kids and Rishi Sunak will no longer be the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he’ll be the Secretary of State for Low Taxes and Shrewd Spending. It’s very cunning and also very post-truth and sinister. Straight out of Orwell.
Don’t ask me what they are tho, I am about to order my 3rd martini. They make them really well here*
Looks okay but I prefer hotels which provide separate villas. Always get noise issues in these huge buildings and I find that sort of thing a bit too gauche for my tastes. But then I like to be close to nature, not people, and certainly not cocktail bars.
For me a villa or even a simple house on the beach with nothing but the sound of the wind in the palms and the surf on the shore, and some great books.
I spent my first week here at the Number 1 hotel in Colombo, on that ranking. The Merino Beach
It is a really good hotel with a great rooftop pool, but not a great location. Apart from the sea it’s a tedious bit of Colombo, 20 minutes from the fun colonial stuff
But if all you want to do is decompress from wintry Britain, soak up the sun, swim and gym and inhale lovely curries, for pennies, it is great. And INSANELY cheap for a 5 star
Partygate is now so bloody boring. Is anyone - literally anyone (apart from @Scott_xP) excited by that latest photo?
The damage is done. Boris needs to go. But hurry up this is arse-achingly dull, now
He's hoping time dilutes the poison.
It might. This is now being dragged out so long it is in danger of being filed, mentally, by half the population, into OMG JUST SHUT UP I DON”T CARE ANY MORE, and that in turn might lead to a slow uptick in Tory fortunes as everyone sighs and moves on
If Dom C has clinching material he needs to release it now, I suggest, or the moment will be gone. It may already be gone
Also, one has to ask what exactly can be worse than anything we have seen? I know Boris is a bit of a lad but I seriously doubt we are going to see photos of him frotting Dilyn the Dog in a Santa hat while doing poppers with 300 topless neo-Fascist Finnish interns, it will just be more of the same slightly-sad-Xmas-party crap
Publish or be damned. And get a wiggle on
What could be worse?
We'd find out that Johnson isn't paid directly for being PM, but via a service company so that he can avoid NI.
Although the word is that he's too lazy to arrange such tax avoidance arrangements.
If he was working only for the government, he’d be judged to be inside IR35 and have to pay two two lots of NI.
Yes, he published his tax return when challenged by Ken Livingstone in the mayor race - Boris was working as an MP and on the side as a sole trader, paying the full 40% income tax on every penny he was paid for journalist or speaking work. Ken, on the other hand, had a limited company and generous expenses.
The interesting one about that was he had set up that structure for paying the full 40% tax on his Telegraph earnings etc *before* the Expense scandal.
He must have paid an extra 7 figures in tax over the years, just to setup an elephant trap for an opponent.
No-one else in politics does this - and it must have been deliberately done with the Telegraph. Since no-one else deliberately pays the 40%, that would have taken special arrangements.
Or Bozo is an idiot who didn't investigate what options were available to reduce costs and just went for the easiest option...
If you do work for a company (such as the Telegraph), then you need to have setup a company. Which he did.
The accountants who run such companies for you will automatically setup the whole tax reduction thing.
So either BJ
- Did his own accounts and paid himself PAYE - Instructed his accountants to setup to pay full PAYE.
It was a non-standard arrangement and must have been done deliberately.
Um, ever heard of IR35 - what you are saying is why the BBC got itself into such a mess with it's presenters.
The Telegraph would have been perfectly happy to employ him as an employee which from memory was how it worked.
The tax advantages of being a sole trader embodied as a PLC are much less obvious than is widely believed (AIUI they used to be significant, but the Treasury has slowly whittled them away)
There’s a shitload more paperwork and you gain some cash but not that much
It still makes a notable difference if you are earning over £1m a year or whatever, but i don’t think Boris was ever in that bracket?
If you take the PLC route you are also likelier to receive much closer Inland Revenue scrutiny, which is not always nice
Back then it was the heyday of the Contractor - earn 6 figures and keep most of it.
It has been largely whittled away, as you say. The new rules and the scrutiny have deliberately ended much of it.
But back then you could end up paying much less than 20% on massive piles of cash.
I had a couple of good years and my accountant said “Don’t bother, it’s a lot of hassle and the Feds come for you”
Whereas if you are a standard sole trader the taxman is reasonably generous in what they allow as expenses. Which seems fair
“Don’t cheat us and we won’t screw you”
Didn't George Osborne stop that business of carrying income and expenses across a 12 month period? It always struck me as a really nasty thing to do because the life of a successful writer often involves a long time between lunches.
Partygate is now so bloody boring. Is anyone - literally anyone (apart from @Scott_xP) excited by that latest photo?
The damage is done. Boris needs to go. But hurry up this is arse-achingly dull, now
I think the strategy is clear: destroy him very slowly until he looks so completely weak and ineffectual that even right wing believers in Brexit, think that he should go. It is clearly working. Unedifying sure, but he doesnt look in any better position today than he did last week. My prediction of VONC w/c 21st Feb looking quite likely.
Those Tory MPs' Whatsapp groups are going to be mighty busy during recess.....
My view is that if Boris and his crowd are reasonably confident that they'd win a VONC then he'd be much better off triggering one. There is a chance it would clear the air, and make any subsequent revelations from Cummings, or whoever, seem "meh". He needs to take back control, to coin a phrase.
(And people do want to move on, it's just that the Boris circus doesn't let them. One pratfall after another. )
For avoidance of doubt, I really think he needs to go.
"Australia’s largest pension fund to pour £23bn into UK and Europe"
Much more, per capita, is going into the UK than the EU
They are increasing UK investment by 114%, and EU investment by 122%. So a slight rebalance towards EU funds in a landscape of overall increased investment (as it says in the article, this means they are maintaining the overall level of investment in the region relative to others).
I read the same thing. Not wanting to rain on Leon's parade I thought it impolite to mention it " For those who can't be bothered to read Leon's Bullshit here's the quote from the article "
Australia’s largest pension scheme plans to invest £23bn in the UK and Europe over the next five years as it joins other global mega funds pushing further into private markets for returns.
AustralianSuper, which manages A$244bn (£128bn) on behalf of 2.5mn members, expects to more than double its UK assets from £7bn currently to more than £15bn by 2026. The superannuation fund manager is planning to increase its investment in Europe from £12.6bn to £28bn over the same period",
What part of Leon's quote is "bullshit"? The figure (23bn) is right, and so is the per capita stat.
The "bullshit" is using a meaningless statistic ("per capita" - a measure that has no sense in this context), to try to shoe-horn in a point, when the announcement shows that they are marginally rebalancing their *existing* investment *away* from the UK to the EU (a tiny amouint) while increasing the overall level of investment in both.
Why does it have no sense in this context? If they had invested the same amount of money in, say Liechtenstein, as in the entire EU, don't you think that would have been viewed a win for Liechtenstein?
A "win" in the sense that they were increasing overall levels of investment? Of course. "Over someone else"? Not really, no.
It is all relative the existing investment portfolio. If they were *already* heavily invested in Lichtenstein and decided to rebalance away from Lichtenstein a little and towards the EU, then that is a win for everyone in the region (overall increased investment), but a nod towards the fact that there may be some increased risk in Lichtenstein (slightly lower overall in the balance of things).
I don't see what information the "per capita" number gives you?
I suppose the better number to use would have been as a fraction of the size of the economy, but then the point would have still been the same. At some level comparing absolute amounts is meaningless, 1bn would represent a much larger investment to a very small country than a very big one.
It's definitely fair to say that we continue to outperform the EU average in terms of attracting inward investment, even if that outperformance is slightly declining.
"2021 was a record year of investment and growth for the European tech and venture ecosystem, and for the UK in particular. Building on the last five years of consecutive growth, the total amount of capital invested into European tech reached a staggering US$100B, according to Atomico’s 2021 State of European Tech (SoET) report. Our London office alone contributed to US$12B of that market.
"Data from the SoET report shows the strength of the UK as a driving force behind this thriving venture ecosystem."
I've just done a quick google about the London economy. Quietly, behind Covid and associated chaos, it is picking up speed in multiple ways
This is the real challenge of levelling up. London is not standing still, it is the most dynamic tech, particularly fintech, centre in Europe by an increasing distance. How do the north and Scotland hold onto their investments and talent in the face of such a behemoth? A few railways and roads are certainly not going to do it. They simply facilitate the departure of the young, ambitious and talented.
Very true. London had a critical mass of talent, money, liquidity, culture, universities, rich folk and the rest before Brexit, and it still has that critical mass now
"Levelling up" is going to be hard for anyone, and I do believe this government - for all its many terrible flaws - is having a sincere go at it
I don't know what you're basing that belief on. The government can’t 'level up' the country – it’s nonsensical - it can only level, ie help those with less at the expense of those with more. It’s what we badly need but no Tory government, let alone this one, is going to seriously try and do it. So it’s just a slogan like ‘Brexit Opportunities’ is. Slogans are this government’s specialist area. They are genuinely good at coining them – and note how each one is now getting its own ministry. We have a Minister for Leveling Up and we have a Minister for Brexit Opportunities. Next, we’ll see Nadhim Zahawi rebranded as the Minister for Great Schools For All Our Kids and Rishi Sunak will no longer be the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he’ll be the Secretary of State for Low Taxes and Shrewd Spending. It’s very cunning and also very post-truth and sinister. Straight out of Orwell.
"The government can’t 'level up' the country" - that's what the existing transfer payments from the richer regions of the country to the poorer regions are explicitly designed to do.
Basic economic spending theory for single currency areas.
Regardless of currency you can level - not 'up' but level - if you enact measures that disproportionately benefit people and places who are relatively poor. If this Tory government were to do this in any serious fashion I'd be properly flabbergasted.
Utter garbage, you can level down, or you can level up.
Improving the opportunities of those who are struggling, without damaging those who are doing well, is levelling up.
Pulling down tall poppies who are doing well, without improving the lives of those who are struggling, is levelling down.
A prime example is how in 2009 during the recession the official poverty levels fell, despite the fact more people were struggling due to the recession - the recession reduced inequality so reduced so-called "poverty" despite all being poorer as a result. That is levelling down.
This government has already done one thing to improve the lives of the poor, in reducing the real tax rate that those on benefits face from potentially 100% plus under Gordon Brown, down to 70% under Sunak. Still far, far too high but its good to see that going in the right direction.
I know what you mean but we're talking about how government resource is directed. Every £1 directed at one thing is either £1 less directed at another thing or £1 *not* directed at another thing that otherwise it could have been. New spending is funded by real cuts or opportunity costs. So there can be no win/win or win/flat. If resource is switched *to* something it has by definition been switched *away* from something else. These are the hard choices that must be made within the parameters of tax and spend and borrowing. It's nice to think they can be avoided - hence why politicians of all parties make out they can - but it's bad for the conversation to go along with that. Those media questions (usually to Labour) along the lines of "How will you fund this?" are tedious but they're posed for a reason - to tease out how the proposed choices favour some things over other things. This is the exact same reason why 'leveling up' as anything but a slogan is nonsensical. But it's not a problem because it *is* just a slogan.
"Australia’s largest pension fund to pour £23bn into UK and Europe"
Much more, per capita, is going into the UK than the EU
They are increasing UK investment by 114%, and EU investment by 122%. So a slight rebalance towards EU funds in a landscape of overall increased investment (as it says in the article, this means they are maintaining the overall level of investment in the region relative to others).
I read the same thing. Not wanting to rain on Leon's parade I thought it impolite to mention it " For those who can't be bothered to read Leon's Bullshit here's the quote from the article "
Australia’s largest pension scheme plans to invest £23bn in the UK and Europe over the next five years as it joins other global mega funds pushing further into private markets for returns.
AustralianSuper, which manages A$244bn (£128bn) on behalf of 2.5mn members, expects to more than double its UK assets from £7bn currently to more than £15bn by 2026. The superannuation fund manager is planning to increase its investment in Europe from £12.6bn to £28bn over the same period",
What part of Leon's quote is "bullshit"? The figure (23bn) is right, and so is the per capita stat.
The "bullshit" is using a meaningless statistic ("per capita" - a measure that has no sense in this context), to try to shoe-horn in a point, when the announcement shows that they are marginally rebalancing their *existing* investment *away* from the UK to the EU (a tiny amouint) while increasing the overall level of investment in both.
Why does it have no sense in this context? If they had invested the same amount of money in, say Liechtenstein, as in the entire EU, don't you think that would have been viewed a win for Liechtenstein?
A "win" in the sense that they were increasing overall levels of investment? Of course. "Over someone else"? Not really, no.
It is all relative the existing investment portfolio. If they were *already* heavily invested in Lichtenstein and decided to rebalance away from Lichtenstein a little and towards the EU, then that is a win for everyone in the region (overall increased investment), but a nod towards the fact that there may be some increased risk in Lichtenstein (slightly lower overall in the balance of things).
I don't see what information the "per capita" number gives you?
I suppose the better number to use would have been as a fraction of the size of the economy, but then the point would have still been the same. At some level comparing absolute amounts is meaningless, 1bn would represent a much larger investment to a very small country than a very big one.
It's definitely fair to say that we continue to outperform the EU average in terms of attracting inward investment, even if that outperformance is slightly declining.
"2021 was a record year of investment and growth for the European tech and venture ecosystem, and for the UK in particular. Building on the last five years of consecutive growth, the total amount of capital invested into European tech reached a staggering US$100B, according to Atomico’s 2021 State of European Tech (SoET) report. Our London office alone contributed to US$12B of that market.
"Data from the SoET report shows the strength of the UK as a driving force behind this thriving venture ecosystem."
I've just done a quick google about the London economy. Quietly, behind Covid and associated chaos, it is picking up speed in multiple ways
This is the real challenge of levelling up. London is not standing still, it is the most dynamic tech, particularly fintech, centre in Europe by an increasing distance. How do the north and Scotland hold onto their investments and talent in the face of such a behemoth? A few railways and roads are certainly not going to do it. They simply facilitate the departure of the young, ambitious and talented.
Very true. London had a critical mass of talent, money, liquidity, culture, universities, rich folk and the rest before Brexit, and it still has that critical mass now
"Levelling up" is going to be hard for anyone, and I do believe this government - for all its many terrible flaws - is having a sincere go at it
I don't know what you're basing that belief on. The government can’t 'level up' the country – it’s nonsensical - it can only level, ie help those with less at the expense of those with more. It’s what we badly need but no Tory government, let alone this one, is going to seriously try and do it. So it’s just a slogan like ‘Brexit Opportunities’ is. Slogans are this government’s specialist area. They are genuinely good at coining them – and note how each one is now getting its own ministry. We have a Minister for Leveling Up and we have a Minister for Brexit Opportunities. Next, we’ll see Nadhim Zahawi rebranded as the Minister for Great Schools For All Our Kids and Rishi Sunak will no longer be the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he’ll be the Secretary of State for Low Taxes and Shrewd Spending. It’s very cunning and also very post-truth and sinister. Straight out of Orwell.
Don’t ask me what they are tho, I am about to order my 3rd martini. They make them really well here*
Looks okay but I prefer hotels which provide separate villas. Always get noise issues in these huge buildings and I find that sort of thing a bit too gauche for my tastes. But then I like to be close to nature, not people, and certainly not cocktail bars.
For me a villa or even a simple house on the beach with nothing but the sound of the wind in the palms and the surf on the shore, and some great books.
I spent my first week here at the Number 1 hotel in Colombo, on that ranking. The Merino Beach
It is a really good hotel with a great rooftop pool, but not a great location. Apart from the sea it’s a tedious bit of Colombo, 20 minutes from the fun colonial stuff
But if all you want to do is decompress from wintry Britain, soak up the sun, swim and gym and inhale lovely curries, for pennies, it is great. And INSANELY cheap for a 5 star
Which is the better one for my decompression? You're saying the Merino?
I like the sound of the old colonial area though. That's also my cup of (Ceylon) tea.
Partygate is now so bloody boring. Is anyone - literally anyone (apart from @Scott_xP) excited by that latest photo?
The damage is done. Boris needs to go. But hurry up this is arse-achingly dull, now
He's hoping time dilutes the poison.
It might. This is now being dragged out so long it is in danger of being filed, mentally, by half the population, into OMG JUST SHUT UP I DON”T CARE ANY MORE, and that in turn might lead to a slow uptick in Tory fortunes as everyone sighs and moves on
If Dom C has clinching material he needs to release it now, I suggest, or the moment will be gone. It may already be gone
Also, one has to ask what exactly can be worse than anything we have seen? I know Boris is a bit of a lad but I seriously doubt we are going to see photos of him frotting Dilyn the Dog in a Santa hat while doing poppers with 300 topless neo-Fascist Finnish interns, it will just be more of the same slightly-sad-Xmas-party crap
Publish or be damned. And get a wiggle on
What could be worse?
We'd find out that Johnson isn't paid directly for being PM, but via a service company so that he can avoid NI.
Although the word is that he's too lazy to arrange such tax avoidance arrangements.
If he was working only for the government, he’d be judged to be inside IR35 and have to pay two two lots of NI.
Yes, he published his tax return when challenged by Ken Livingstone in the mayor race - Boris was working as an MP and on the side as a sole trader, paying the full 40% income tax on every penny he was paid for journalist or speaking work. Ken, on the other hand, had a limited company and generous expenses.
The interesting one about that was he had set up that structure for paying the full 40% tax on his Telegraph earnings etc *before* the Expense scandal.
He must have paid an extra 7 figures in tax over the years, just to setup an elephant trap for an opponent.
No-one else in politics does this - and it must have been deliberately done with the Telegraph. Since no-one else deliberately pays the 40%, that would have taken special arrangements.
Or Bozo is an idiot who didn't investigate what options were available to reduce costs and just went for the easiest option...
If you do work for a company (such as the Telegraph), then you need to have setup a company. Which he did.
The accountants who run such companies for you will automatically setup the whole tax reduction thing.
So either BJ
- Did his own accounts and paid himself PAYE - Instructed his accountants to setup to pay full PAYE.
It was a non-standard arrangement and must have been done deliberately.
Um, ever heard of IR35 - what you are saying is why the BBC got itself into such a mess with it's presenters.
The Telegraph would have been perfectly happy to employ him as an employee which from memory was how it worked.
The tax advantages of being a sole trader embodied as a PLC are much less obvious than is widely believed (AIUI they used to be significant, but the Treasury has slowly whittled them away)
There’s a shitload more paperwork and you gain some cash but not that much
It still makes a notable difference if you are earning over £1m a year or whatever, but i don’t think Boris was ever in that bracket?
If you take the PLC route you are also likelier to receive much closer Inland Revenue scrutiny, which is not always nice
Back then it was the heyday of the Contractor - earn 6 figures and keep most of it.
It has been largely whittled away, as you say. The new rules and the scrutiny have deliberately ended much of it.
But back then you could end up paying much less than 20% on massive piles of cash.
I had a couple of good years and my accountant said “Don’t bother, it’s a lot of hassle and the Feds come for you”
Whereas if you are a standard sole trader the taxman is reasonably generous in what they allow as expenses. Which seems fair
“Don’t cheat us and we won’t screw you”
Didn't George Osborne stop that business of carrying income and expenses across a 12 month period? It always struck me as a really nasty thing to do because the life of a successful writer often involves a long time between lunches.
He gradually shut down all the loopholes via which people doing contract work for companies (and even the government) ended up paying *less* than tax on dividends. Minus expenses.
At one stage, it was looking like, in a couple of sectors, everyone would be a "contractor" like that.
‘The Kremlin spokesman admitted the joint drills were serious but he pointed out the nature of threats was higher than before. Mr Chizhov told the BBC that Russian troops currently stationed in Belarus would return to their permanent bases.’
No.
He was never going to invade.
You’ve said this all along, and kudos to you if it turns out you are right (I hope you are, obvs)
If this whole thing blows over and Russia gains nothing but some warm words from the West, then this might be Putin’s first serious geopolitical defeat in a long time. A lot of effort and zero gain
Probably not all lost from his point of view. Russia will have tested Western / NATO resolve and will have learned something about where their strong and weak points are for next time. It will also have confirmed that Russia is better off using the element of surprise and establishing facts on the ground, rather than building up the pressure and bluffing.
It presumably wouldn't be anywhere near as expensive as an actual war or even support for separatists. And it will leave Ukraine in no doubt what will happen if they do anything aggressively to try to change the situation in Donbass or Crimea.
On the flip side he'll also have some explaining to do to his military and government allies.
‘The Kremlin spokesman admitted the joint drills were serious but he pointed out the nature of threats was higher than before. Mr Chizhov told the BBC that Russian troops currently stationed in Belarus would return to their permanent bases.’
No.
He was never going to invade.
Why didn't you tell us? And the bloody Americans might like to have known, let alone the Ukrainians.
Yeah I'd love to see Heathener's evidence given that this issue has the world's diplomats, military, and intelligence services scratching their heads.
My expert mate said on Sunday that if they were going to they would have by now and that Biden gets it and is allowing just the right amount of wiggle room to climb down with dignity (offering concessions on measures that haven't been implemented, for example) that Putin can grab on to. The worry is that the hardliners in the Senate will override Biden but they haven't yet.
‘The Kremlin spokesman admitted the joint drills were serious but he pointed out the nature of threats was higher than before. Mr Chizhov told the BBC that Russian troops currently stationed in Belarus would return to their permanent bases.’
No.
He was never going to invade.
Why didn't you tell us? And the bloody Americans might like to have known, let alone the Ukrainians.
Yeah I'd love to see Heathener's evidence given that this issue has the world's diplomats, military, and intelligence services scratching their heads.
To back up Heatheners argument, Putin moved quickly and with surprise to snatch the parts of Ukraine he did. So what would you do yourself if you were serious about invading, do it quickly and with surprise, or put it up in lights for months and months to allow your opponents to turn it into one big booby trap death trap first?
More chillingly. Are we so sure what his motives and goals were before this began, so are we so sure behind the scenes he hadn’t achieved what he was hoping for already.
If we relate it to the historical fact of the allies holding back in 1945, allowing the soviets to create the Eastern Bloc and Warsaw Pact buffer zone, ourselves and historians took a long time to get to the truth. The truth here? Ukraine asking for NATO membership for long time, not getting it. Black ops we’ve been doing in Ukraine we don’t know about now called off?
Partygate is now so bloody boring. Is anyone - literally anyone (apart from @Scott_xP) excited by that latest photo?
The damage is done. Boris needs to go. But hurry up this is arse-achingly dull, now
I think the strategy is clear: destroy him very slowly until he looks so completely weak and ineffectual that even right wing believers in Brexit, think that he should go. It is clearly working. Unedifying sure, but he doesnt look in any better position today than he did last week. My prediction of VONC w/c 21st Feb looking quite likely.
Those Tory MPs' Whatsapp groups are going to be mighty busy during recess.....
My view is that if Boris and his crowd are reasonably confident that they'd win a VONC then he'd be much better off triggering one. There is a chance it would clear the air, and make any subsequent revelations from Cummings, or whoever, seem "meh". He needs to take back control, to coin a phrase.
(And people do want to move on, it's just that the Boris circus doesn't let them. One pratfall after another. )
For avoidance of doubt, I really think he needs to go.
That’s a risk, though. For there are surely a lot of MPs waiting for the best moment to get rid of him, and another lot not wanting a contest at all who know in their hearts that he is damaging them badly.
Remember that relatively few of the MPs liked or wanted him in the first place.
Would the clown really risk giving his colleagues a chance to show, in secret, what they really think?
‘The Kremlin spokesman admitted the joint drills were serious but he pointed out the nature of threats was higher than before. Mr Chizhov told the BBC that Russian troops currently stationed in Belarus would return to their permanent bases.’
No.
He was never going to invade.
Why didn't you tell us? And the bloody Americans might like to have known, let alone the Ukrainians.
Several of us did tell you. There comes a point when the "They're coming in 48 hours!!" US/UK warnings started to get counter-productive, as the Ukrainians pointed out. Zelenski played the issue well, gaining lots of support from Western countries without escalating unnecessarily.
Partygate is now so bloody boring. Is anyone - literally anyone (apart from @Scott_xP) excited by that latest photo?
The damage is done. Boris needs to go. But hurry up this is arse-achingly dull, now
He's hoping time dilutes the poison.
It might. This is now being dragged out so long it is in danger of being filed, mentally, by half the population, into OMG JUST SHUT UP I DON”T CARE ANY MORE, and that in turn might lead to a slow uptick in Tory fortunes as everyone sighs and moves on
If Dom C has clinching material he needs to release it now, I suggest, or the moment will be gone. It may already be gone
Also, one has to ask what exactly can be worse than anything we have seen? I know Boris is a bit of a lad but I seriously doubt we are going to see photos of him frotting Dilyn the Dog in a Santa hat while doing poppers with 300 topless neo-Fascist Finnish interns, it will just be more of the same slightly-sad-Xmas-party crap
Publish or be damned. And get a wiggle on
What could be worse?
We'd find out that Johnson isn't paid directly for being PM, but via a service company so that he can avoid NI.
Although the word is that he's too lazy to arrange such tax avoidance arrangements.
If he was working only for the government, he’d be judged to be inside IR35 and have to pay two two lots of NI.
Yes, he published his tax return when challenged by Ken Livingstone in the mayor race - Boris was working as an MP and on the side as a sole trader, paying the full 40% income tax on every penny he was paid for journalist or speaking work. Ken, on the other hand, had a limited company and generous expenses.
The interesting one about that was he had set up that structure for paying the full 40% tax on his Telegraph earnings etc *before* the Expense scandal.
He must have paid an extra 7 figures in tax over the years, just to setup an elephant trap for an opponent.
No-one else in politics does this - and it must have been deliberately done with the Telegraph. Since no-one else deliberately pays the 40%, that would have taken special arrangements.
Yes and no.
He sent the Telegraph an invoice from Boris Johnson, and they sent him a cheque to Boris Johnson, presumably with a note from their accountant that income tax had not been paid on the amount.
No company or formal arrangement needed. The company structure is what would have taken time and effort. As has been suggested, he’s never worried too much about money, presumably he just threw the invoices at his accountant at the end of the year, and he paid the tax.
Now he’s taken a big hit in income, and has exchanged a high-earning wife for a low-earning wife with high aspirations. Hence why he’s in the financial do-do.
You really do get the impression thie party story has run out of legs. Everyone knows he lied about it. It is a negative on the balance sheet. But how big a negative will vary according to taste. No doubt it will have a revival at some point when he lies about something else. Right now Boris is damaged but he is regaining control by the day.
I don't see him regaining any control. He looks like a (politically) dead man walking.
Yes - as I said earlier, the polls will probably edge up for him slightly, but the die is cast and it is difficult to see any way he could recover significant ground from here. The Party needs to realise this and act promptly - any new leader has a difficult job goven the economic circumstances. The only real glimmer for a new leader is the relative weakness of Starmer - he shines now but would look significantly weaker against a more competent leader without Boris's backstory.
I think you possibly underestimate Starmer at your peril. I am not a labour supporter, but as someone who has studied leadership for most of my career I would say he has most traits I would look for in an effective leader. This has always been my concern about Johnson. I wouldn't have put him in charge of a Parish Council
Time will tell - but he is significantly more left-wing than his current image implies and the electorate is not. A competent Conservative leader could do much to expose his backstory more effectively. No doubt at all that Boris was helped in 2019 by his opponent just as Starmer is currently basking in the reflections of Boris's only too obvious failings. Despite this in the last 2 PMQs for example, Starmer has been distinctly average. Little so far has been revealed of what his plans for the country's future are and even on current polling he would not be sure of a majority thanks to Scotland, where Labour continues to make no real progress.
If PMQs were a measure of future electoral success then William Hague would have been PM
Point well made but it does have some impact - for many the PMQ newsbytes are as much politics as they see. Does not alter the rest of what I wrote.
"Australia’s largest pension fund to pour £23bn into UK and Europe"
Much more, per capita, is going into the UK than the EU
They are increasing UK investment by 114%, and EU investment by 122%. So a slight rebalance towards EU funds in a landscape of overall increased investment (as it says in the article, this means they are maintaining the overall level of investment in the region relative to others).
I read the same thing. Not wanting to rain on Leon's parade I thought it impolite to mention it " For those who can't be bothered to read Leon's Bullshit here's the quote from the article "
Australia’s largest pension scheme plans to invest £23bn in the UK and Europe over the next five years as it joins other global mega funds pushing further into private markets for returns.
AustralianSuper, which manages A$244bn (£128bn) on behalf of 2.5mn members, expects to more than double its UK assets from £7bn currently to more than £15bn by 2026. The superannuation fund manager is planning to increase its investment in Europe from £12.6bn to £28bn over the same period",
What part of Leon's quote is "bullshit"? The figure (23bn) is right, and so is the per capita stat.
The "bullshit" is using a meaningless statistic ("per capita" - a measure that has no sense in this context), to try to shoe-horn in a point, when the announcement shows that they are marginally rebalancing their *existing* investment *away* from the UK to the EU (a tiny amouint) while increasing the overall level of investment in both.
Why does it have no sense in this context? If they had invested the same amount of money in, say Liechtenstein, as in the entire EU, don't you think that would have been viewed a win for Liechtenstein?
A "win" in the sense that they were increasing overall levels of investment? Of course. "Over someone else"? Not really, no.
It is all relative the existing investment portfolio. If they were *already* heavily invested in Lichtenstein and decided to rebalance away from Lichtenstein a little and towards the EU, then that is a win for everyone in the region (overall increased investment), but a nod towards the fact that there may be some increased risk in Lichtenstein (slightly lower overall in the balance of things).
I don't see what information the "per capita" number gives you?
I suppose the better number to use would have been as a fraction of the size of the economy, but then the point would have still been the same. At some level comparing absolute amounts is meaningless, 1bn would represent a much larger investment to a very small country than a very big one.
It's definitely fair to say that we continue to outperform the EU average in terms of attracting inward investment, even if that outperformance is slightly declining.
"2021 was a record year of investment and growth for the European tech and venture ecosystem, and for the UK in particular. Building on the last five years of consecutive growth, the total amount of capital invested into European tech reached a staggering US$100B, according to Atomico’s 2021 State of European Tech (SoET) report. Our London office alone contributed to US$12B of that market.
"Data from the SoET report shows the strength of the UK as a driving force behind this thriving venture ecosystem."
I've just done a quick google about the London economy. Quietly, behind Covid and associated chaos, it is picking up speed in multiple ways
This is the real challenge of levelling up. London is not standing still, it is the most dynamic tech, particularly fintech, centre in Europe by an increasing distance. How do the north and Scotland hold onto their investments and talent in the face of such a behemoth? A few railways and roads are certainly not going to do it. They simply facilitate the departure of the young, ambitious and talented.
Very true. London had a critical mass of talent, money, liquidity, culture, universities, rich folk and the rest before Brexit, and it still has that critical mass now
"Levelling up" is going to be hard for anyone, and I do believe this government - for all its many terrible flaws - is having a sincere go at it
I don't know what you're basing that belief on. The government can’t 'level up' the country – it’s nonsensical - it can only level, ie help those with less at the expense of those with more. It’s what we badly need but no Tory government, let alone this one, is going to seriously try and do it. So it’s just a slogan like ‘Brexit Opportunities’ is. Slogans are this government’s specialist area. They are genuinely good at coining them – and note how each one is now getting its own ministry. We have a Minister for Leveling Up and we have a Minister for Brexit Opportunities. Next, we’ll see Nadhim Zahawi rebranded as the Minister for Great Schools For All Our Kids and Rishi Sunak will no longer be the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he’ll be the Secretary of State for Low Taxes and Shrewd Spending. It’s very cunning and also very post-truth and sinister. Straight out of Orwell.
I liked it when we had a Minister for War. None of this namby pamby, touchy feely stuff.
During the first Gulf War, a chap tried to suddenly claim conscientious objector status. He said that he hadn't joined the military to kill people.
He was in the Royal Artillery.
My father did 2-3 years attached to 42 Heavy Artillary. As far as I could work out most of the officers had joined the Army to help house their polo ponies.
rue - but surely he must of wondered about the large guns? They are a little bit OTT for pheasant, surely?
Even by these standards....
Great photo. A punt gun, possibly one or two bore.
WTF is a punt gun? And what are they hunting? Mammoth?
Also the size of the neo-classical pillars behind is quite something, well chosen to emphasize the smallness of humans. Is it the Capitol in DC?
Giant shotgun. You load it up, put it in your punt, and paddle quietly towards a flock of duck etc at dawn and then try and kill as many at once before they take flight.
Can only assume that both of them in that picture were deaf as a post!
I don't think they would have been firing it like that! I have seen a few, though much smaller than that one. The punt gunner lies down in the punt and the muzzle is forward of the front of the punt resting on the bow. It would have certainly made a lot of noise, significantly more than a 12 bore and was way before people started wearing ear defenders!
"Australia’s largest pension fund to pour £23bn into UK and Europe"
Much more, per capita, is going into the UK than the EU
They are increasing UK investment by 114%, and EU investment by 122%. So a slight rebalance towards EU funds in a landscape of overall increased investment (as it says in the article, this means they are maintaining the overall level of investment in the region relative to others).
I read the same thing. Not wanting to rain on Leon's parade I thought it impolite to mention it " For those who can't be bothered to read Leon's Bullshit here's the quote from the article "
Australia’s largest pension scheme plans to invest £23bn in the UK and Europe over the next five years as it joins other global mega funds pushing further into private markets for returns.
AustralianSuper, which manages A$244bn (£128bn) on behalf of 2.5mn members, expects to more than double its UK assets from £7bn currently to more than £15bn by 2026. The superannuation fund manager is planning to increase its investment in Europe from £12.6bn to £28bn over the same period",
What part of Leon's quote is "bullshit"? The figure (23bn) is right, and so is the per capita stat.
The "bullshit" is using a meaningless statistic ("per capita" - a measure that has no sense in this context), to try to shoe-horn in a point, when the announcement shows that they are marginally rebalancing their *existing* investment *away* from the UK to the EU (a tiny amouint) while increasing the overall level of investment in both.
Why does it have no sense in this context? If they had invested the same amount of money in, say Liechtenstein, as in the entire EU, don't you think that would have been viewed a win for Liechtenstein?
A "win" in the sense that they were increasing overall levels of investment? Of course. "Over someone else"? Not really, no.
It is all relative the existing investment portfolio. If they were *already* heavily invested in Lichtenstein and decided to rebalance away from Lichtenstein a little and towards the EU, then that is a win for everyone in the region (overall increased investment), but a nod towards the fact that there may be some increased risk in Lichtenstein (slightly lower overall in the balance of things).
I don't see what information the "per capita" number gives you?
I suppose the better number to use would have been as a fraction of the size of the economy, but then the point would have still been the same. At some level comparing absolute amounts is meaningless, 1bn would represent a much larger investment to a very small country than a very big one.
It's definitely fair to say that we continue to outperform the EU average in terms of attracting inward investment, even if that outperformance is slightly declining.
"2021 was a record year of investment and growth for the European tech and venture ecosystem, and for the UK in particular. Building on the last five years of consecutive growth, the total amount of capital invested into European tech reached a staggering US$100B, according to Atomico’s 2021 State of European Tech (SoET) report. Our London office alone contributed to US$12B of that market.
"Data from the SoET report shows the strength of the UK as a driving force behind this thriving venture ecosystem."
I've just done a quick google about the London economy. Quietly, behind Covid and associated chaos, it is picking up speed in multiple ways
This is the real challenge of levelling up. London is not standing still, it is the most dynamic tech, particularly fintech, centre in Europe by an increasing distance. How do the north and Scotland hold onto their investments and talent in the face of such a behemoth? A few railways and roads are certainly not going to do it. They simply facilitate the departure of the young, ambitious and talented.
Very true. London had a critical mass of talent, money, liquidity, culture, universities, rich folk and the rest before Brexit, and it still has that critical mass now
"Levelling up" is going to be hard for anyone, and I do believe this government - for all its many terrible flaws - is having a sincere go at it
I don't know what you're basing that belief on. The government can’t 'level up' the country – it’s nonsensical - it can only level, ie help those with less at the expense of those with more. It’s what we badly need but no Tory government, let alone this one, is going to seriously try and do it. So it’s just a slogan like ‘Brexit Opportunities’ is. Slogans are this government’s specialist area. They are genuinely good at coining them – and note how each one is now getting its own ministry. We have a Minister for Leveling Up and we have a Minister for Brexit Opportunities. Next, we’ll see Nadhim Zahawi rebranded as the Minister for Great Schools For All Our Kids and Rishi Sunak will no longer be the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he’ll be the Secretary of State for Low Taxes and Shrewd Spending. It’s very cunning and also very post-truth and sinister. Straight out of Orwell.
Don’t ask me what they are tho, I am about to order my 3rd martini. They make them really well here*
Looks okay but I prefer hotels which provide separate villas. Always get noise issues in these huge buildings and I find that sort of thing a bit too gauche for my tastes. But then I like to be close to nature, not people, and certainly not cocktail bars.
For me a villa or even a simple house on the beach with nothing but the sound of the wind in the palms and the surf on the shore, and some great books.
I spent my first week here at the Number 1 hotel in Colombo, on that ranking. The Merino Beach
It is a really good hotel with a great rooftop pool, but not a great location. Apart from the sea it’s a tedious bit of Colombo, 20 minutes from the fun colonial stuff
But if all you want to do is decompress from wintry Britain, soak up the sun, swim and gym and inhale lovely curries, for pennies, it is great. And INSANELY cheap for a 5 star
Which is the better one for my decompression? You're saying the Merino?
I like the sound of the old colonial area though. That's also my cup of (Ceylon) tea.
Yes, the Merino. Certainly for the first few days when you are concussed by jet lag. It’s extremely comfortable, the food is great, there’s a couple of lovely restaurants nearby, and all you probably want to do is sleep, drink, eat, swim, sunbathe, perfect. Then move on to more interesting places once you are up to speed
The colonial bits are FAR more interesting, but you need your wits.
Eg the other day I went to Slave Island, an inner city burb near here. It’s where the Portuguese and Dutch kept their slaves, on a near-island fortuitously surrounded by croc infested waters (back then, no crocs now). As a result it has an incredible legacy of multiracial denizens: Javanese to Malay to halfwhite Burghers to Afghans to Keralans to Arabs to what have you, Brilliant. Mosques next to temples next to animist shrines. One of the great surviving historic slums of Asia (to be blunt)
But it is edgy. No question. The whole burb is threatened with demolition by the expanding Chinese-financed skyscrapers, which surround it, and they are not happy
"Australia’s largest pension fund to pour £23bn into UK and Europe"
Much more, per capita, is going into the UK than the EU
They are increasing UK investment by 114%, and EU investment by 122%. So a slight rebalance towards EU funds in a landscape of overall increased investment (as it says in the article, this means they are maintaining the overall level of investment in the region relative to others).
I read the same thing. Not wanting to rain on Leon's parade I thought it impolite to mention it " For those who can't be bothered to read Leon's Bullshit here's the quote from the article "
Australia’s largest pension scheme plans to invest £23bn in the UK and Europe over the next five years as it joins other global mega funds pushing further into private markets for returns.
AustralianSuper, which manages A$244bn (£128bn) on behalf of 2.5mn members, expects to more than double its UK assets from £7bn currently to more than £15bn by 2026. The superannuation fund manager is planning to increase its investment in Europe from £12.6bn to £28bn over the same period",
What part of Leon's quote is "bullshit"? The figure (23bn) is right, and so is the per capita stat.
The "bullshit" is using a meaningless statistic ("per capita" - a measure that has no sense in this context), to try to shoe-horn in a point, when the announcement shows that they are marginally rebalancing their *existing* investment *away* from the UK to the EU (a tiny amouint) while increasing the overall level of investment in both.
Why does it have no sense in this context? If they had invested the same amount of money in, say Liechtenstein, as in the entire EU, don't you think that would have been viewed a win for Liechtenstein?
A "win" in the sense that they were increasing overall levels of investment? Of course. "Over someone else"? Not really, no.
It is all relative the existing investment portfolio. If they were *already* heavily invested in Lichtenstein and decided to rebalance away from Lichtenstein a little and towards the EU, then that is a win for everyone in the region (overall increased investment), but a nod towards the fact that there may be some increased risk in Lichtenstein (slightly lower overall in the balance of things).
I don't see what information the "per capita" number gives you?
I suppose the better number to use would have been as a fraction of the size of the economy, but then the point would have still been the same. At some level comparing absolute amounts is meaningless, 1bn would represent a much larger investment to a very small country than a very big one.
It's definitely fair to say that we continue to outperform the EU average in terms of attracting inward investment, even if that outperformance is slightly declining.
"2021 was a record year of investment and growth for the European tech and venture ecosystem, and for the UK in particular. Building on the last five years of consecutive growth, the total amount of capital invested into European tech reached a staggering US$100B, according to Atomico’s 2021 State of European Tech (SoET) report. Our London office alone contributed to US$12B of that market.
"Data from the SoET report shows the strength of the UK as a driving force behind this thriving venture ecosystem."
I've just done a quick google about the London economy. Quietly, behind Covid and associated chaos, it is picking up speed in multiple ways
This is the real challenge of levelling up. London is not standing still, it is the most dynamic tech, particularly fintech, centre in Europe by an increasing distance. How do the north and Scotland hold onto their investments and talent in the face of such a behemoth? A few railways and roads are certainly not going to do it. They simply facilitate the departure of the young, ambitious and talented.
Very true. London had a critical mass of talent, money, liquidity, culture, universities, rich folk and the rest before Brexit, and it still has that critical mass now
"Levelling up" is going to be hard for anyone, and I do believe this government - for all its many terrible flaws - is having a sincere go at it
I don't know what you're basing that belief on. The government can’t 'level up' the country – it’s nonsensical - it can only level, ie help those with less at the expense of those with more. It’s what we badly need but no Tory government, let alone this one, is going to seriously try and do it. So it’s just a slogan like ‘Brexit Opportunities’ is. Slogans are this government’s specialist area. They are genuinely good at coining them – and note how each one is now getting its own ministry. We have a Minister for Leveling Up and we have a Minister for Brexit Opportunities. Next, we’ll see Nadhim Zahawi rebranded as the Minister for Great Schools For All Our Kids and Rishi Sunak will no longer be the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he’ll be the Secretary of State for Low Taxes and Shrewd Spending. It’s very cunning and also very post-truth and sinister. Straight out of Orwell.
"The government can’t 'level up' the country" - that's what the existing transfer payments from the richer regions of the country to the poorer regions are explicitly designed to do.
Basic economic spending theory for single currency areas.
Regardless of currency you can level - not 'up' but level - if you enact measures that disproportionately benefit people and places who are relatively poor. If this Tory government were to do this in any serious fashion I'd be properly flabbergasted.
Utter garbage, you can level down, or you can level up.
Improving the opportunities of those who are struggling, without damaging those who are doing well, is levelling up.
Pulling down tall poppies who are doing well, without improving the lives of those who are struggling, is levelling down.
A prime example is how in 2009 during the recession the official poverty levels fell, despite the fact more people were struggling due to the recession - the recession reduced inequality so reduced so-called "poverty" despite all being poorer as a result. That is levelling down.
This government has already done one thing to improve the lives of the poor, in reducing the real tax rate that those on benefits face from potentially 100% plus under Gordon Brown, down to 70% under Sunak. Still far, far too high but its good to see that going in the right direction.
I know what you mean but that's a teeny bit shallow and fatuous. We're talking here about how government resource is directed. Every £1 directed at one thing is either £1 less directed at another thing or is £1 not directed at another thing that otherwise it could have been. Real cuts or opportunity costs. So there can be no win/win or win/flat. If resource is switched *to* something it has by definition been switched *away* from something else. These are the hard choices we must make within our parameters of tax and spend and borrowing. It's seductive to think they can be avoided - hence why politicians of all parties make out they can - but it's deleterious to the conversation to go along with that. Those media questions (usually to Labour) along the lines of "How will you fund this?" are tedious but they're posed for a reason - to tease out how the proposed choices favour some things over other things. This is the exact same reason why 'leveling up' as anything but a slogan is nonsensical. But it's not a problem because it is just a slogan.
What we have repeatedly seen over recent decades in particular is that there is a critical mass to growth. For really rapid growth you need businesses who generate the skills, innovation, entrepreneurial spirit and opportunity to attract skilled and enthusuastic workers in from around the world. We have seen this in California, in London and in several other places. That is fantastic for the likes of London but it also means that other areas lose out in that talent and innovators are enticed away.
The key question for levelling up is not whether public spending is increased in northern areas or Scotland. There is even some evidence that such spending actually diminishes growth rather than encouraging it because it attracts too many of the able young into public service and a less risky but adequately rewarding life. The key question is how do we create these hubs? Cambridge and Oxford are having some success but I don't see many other examples. We need to encourage our cities to specialise and attract particular kinds of business.
You really do get the impression thie party story has run out of legs. Everyone knows he lied about it. It is a negative on the balance sheet. But how big a negative will vary according to taste. No doubt it will have a revival at some point when he lies about something else. Right now Boris is damaged but he is regaining control by the day.
I don't see him regaining any control. He looks like a (politically) dead man walking.
Yes - as I said earlier, the polls will probably edge up for him slightly, but the die is cast and it is difficult to see any way he could recover significant ground from here. The Party needs to realise this and act promptly - any new leader has a difficult job goven the economic circumstances. The only real glimmer for a new leader is the relative weakness of Starmer - he shines now but would look significantly weaker against a more competent leader without Boris's backstory.
I think you possibly underestimate Starmer at your peril. I am not a labour supporter, but as someone who has studied leadership for most of my career I would say he has most traits I would look for in an effective leader. This has always been my concern about Johnson. I wouldn't have put him in charge of a Parish Council
Time will tell - but he is significantly more left-wing than his current image implies and the electorate is not. A competent Conservative leader could do much to expose his backstory more effectively. No doubt at all that Boris was helped in 2019 by his opponent just as Starmer is currently basking in the reflections of Boris's only too obvious failings. Despite this in the last 2 PMQs for example, Starmer has been distinctly average. Little so far has been revealed of what his plans for the country's future are and even on current polling he would not be sure of a majority thanks to Scotland, where Labour continues to make no real progress.
If PMQs were a measure of future electoral success then William Hague would have been PM
Point well made but it does have some impact - for many the PMQ newsbytes are as much politics as they see. Does not alter the rest of what I wrote.
For sure, and I wouldn't want to diminish what you said. For those that don't particularly want to see a Labour government (includes me), they need to hope the Conservatives wake up. Starmer is a very effective opponent and he is only going to get better. They need someone to take over form Johnson pdq, and someone that is going to be effective at all levels of competence.
It was thanks to Leon's advice that I did my one and only trip to Thailand about 5 years ago. (I ignored the fact that a massive protest was going on outside the hotel at the time, which included people being shot dead. In fact I walked through the tents and crowds of people at one point). The hotel was the Novotel Ploenchit.
"Australia’s largest pension fund to pour £23bn into UK and Europe"
Much more, per capita, is going into the UK than the EU
They are increasing UK investment by 114%, and EU investment by 122%. So a slight rebalance towards EU funds in a landscape of overall increased investment (as it says in the article, this means they are maintaining the overall level of investment in the region relative to others).
I read the same thing. Not wanting to rain on Leon's parade I thought it impolite to mention it " For those who can't be bothered to read Leon's Bullshit here's the quote from the article "
Australia’s largest pension scheme plans to invest £23bn in the UK and Europe over the next five years as it joins other global mega funds pushing further into private markets for returns.
AustralianSuper, which manages A$244bn (£128bn) on behalf of 2.5mn members, expects to more than double its UK assets from £7bn currently to more than £15bn by 2026. The superannuation fund manager is planning to increase its investment in Europe from £12.6bn to £28bn over the same period",
What part of Leon's quote is "bullshit"? The figure (23bn) is right, and so is the per capita stat.
The "bullshit" is using a meaningless statistic ("per capita" - a measure that has no sense in this context), to try to shoe-horn in a point, when the announcement shows that they are marginally rebalancing their *existing* investment *away* from the UK to the EU (a tiny amouint) while increasing the overall level of investment in both.
Why does it have no sense in this context? If they had invested the same amount of money in, say Liechtenstein, as in the entire EU, don't you think that would have been viewed a win for Liechtenstein?
A "win" in the sense that they were increasing overall levels of investment? Of course. "Over someone else"? Not really, no.
It is all relative the existing investment portfolio. If they were *already* heavily invested in Lichtenstein and decided to rebalance away from Lichtenstein a little and towards the EU, then that is a win for everyone in the region (overall increased investment), but a nod towards the fact that there may be some increased risk in Lichtenstein (slightly lower overall in the balance of things).
I don't see what information the "per capita" number gives you?
I suppose the better number to use would have been as a fraction of the size of the economy, but then the point would have still been the same. At some level comparing absolute amounts is meaningless, 1bn would represent a much larger investment to a very small country than a very big one.
It's definitely fair to say that we continue to outperform the EU average in terms of attracting inward investment, even if that outperformance is slightly declining.
"2021 was a record year of investment and growth for the European tech and venture ecosystem, and for the UK in particular. Building on the last five years of consecutive growth, the total amount of capital invested into European tech reached a staggering US$100B, according to Atomico’s 2021 State of European Tech (SoET) report. Our London office alone contributed to US$12B of that market.
"Data from the SoET report shows the strength of the UK as a driving force behind this thriving venture ecosystem."
I've just done a quick google about the London economy. Quietly, behind Covid and associated chaos, it is picking up speed in multiple ways
This is the real challenge of levelling up. London is not standing still, it is the most dynamic tech, particularly fintech, centre in Europe by an increasing distance. How do the north and Scotland hold onto their investments and talent in the face of such a behemoth? A few railways and roads are certainly not going to do it. They simply facilitate the departure of the young, ambitious and talented.
Very true. London had a critical mass of talent, money, liquidity, culture, universities, rich folk and the rest before Brexit, and it still has that critical mass now
"Levelling up" is going to be hard for anyone, and I do believe this government - for all its many terrible flaws - is having a sincere go at it
I don't know what you're basing that belief on. The government can’t 'level up' the country – it’s nonsensical - it can only level, ie help those with less at the expense of those with more. It’s what we badly need but no Tory government, let alone this one, is going to seriously try and do it. So it’s just a slogan like ‘Brexit Opportunities’ is. Slogans are this government’s specialist area. They are genuinely good at coining them – and note how each one is now getting its own ministry. We have a Minister for Leveling Up and we have a Minister for Brexit Opportunities. Next, we’ll see Nadhim Zahawi rebranded as the Minister for Great Schools For All Our Kids and Rishi Sunak will no longer be the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he’ll be the Secretary of State for Low Taxes and Shrewd Spending. It’s very cunning and also very post-truth and sinister. Straight out of Orwell.
"The government can’t 'level up' the country" - that's what the existing transfer payments from the richer regions of the country to the poorer regions are explicitly designed to do.
Basic economic spending theory for single currency areas.
Regardless of currency you can level - not 'up' but level - if you enact measures that disproportionately benefit people and places who are relatively poor. If this Tory government were to do this in any serious fashion I'd be properly flabbergasted.
Utter garbage, you can level down, or you can level up.
Improving the opportunities of those who are struggling, without damaging those who are doing well, is levelling up.
Pulling down tall poppies who are doing well, without improving the lives of those who are struggling, is levelling down.
A prime example is how in 2009 during the recession the official poverty levels fell, despite the fact more people were struggling due to the recession - the recession reduced inequality so reduced so-called "poverty" despite all being poorer as a result. That is levelling down.
This government has already done one thing to improve the lives of the poor, in reducing the real tax rate that those on benefits face from potentially 100% plus under Gordon Brown, down to 70% under Sunak. Still far, far too high but its good to see that going in the right direction.
I know what you mean but we're talking here about how government resource is directed. Every £1 directed at one thing is either £1 less directed at another thing or is £1 not directed at another thing that otherwise it could have been. New spending is funded by real cuts or opportunity costs. So there can be no win/win or win/flat. If resource is switched *to* something it has by definition been switched *away* from something else. These are the hard choices we must make within our parameters of tax and spend and borrowing. It's seductive to think they can be avoided - hence why politicians of all parties make out they can - but it's deleterious to the conversation to go along with that. Those media questions (usually to Labour) along the lines of "How will you fund this?" are tedious but they're posed for a reason - to tease out how the proposed choices favour some things over other things. This is the exact same reason why 'leveling up' as anything but a slogan is nonsensical. But it's not a problem because it is just a slogan.
'Levelling up' could be meaningful in one way Kinabalu overlooks. His analysis, generally sound, ignores the issue of the size of the cake.
It is feasible to level up thus:
A nation manages to get incrementally wealthier in terms of disposable wealth per head
and
uses social policies/redistribution/tax policies to ensure that the poorer you are the more you gain from this additional resource
and that there is maximally great equality of opportunity.
Contemplating the way some of the academies/free schools are doing in London some of this is possible. But don't hold your breath about other aspects of wealth distribution.
Comments
And I take no satisfaction at all from that because for me lying to the Commons is a resigning matter whether it was important, trivial, criminal or stupid. It is an important principle which has been damaged and I deeply regret that.
I get the sense that what's holding back his overthrow at the moment is the lack of any clear ideological or policy schism that would allow factions to form.
Interesting tweet from dark horse Mark Harper this morning. I would guess his letter may already be in or teetering on the edge of going in. If so, then the CRG and some of the ERG may be close too.
https://twitter.com/Mark_J_Harper/status/1491124629184065542?s=20&t=wjd9XmHopBPqUJtcGTheqQ
In fact look at his entire recent feed. It has leadership campaign written all over it.
Er, I mean Boris, Go!
The accountants who run such companies for you will automatically setup the whole tax reduction thing.
So either BJ
- Did his own accounts and paid himself PAYE
- Instructed his accountants to setup to pay full PAYE.
It was a non-standard arrangement and must have been done deliberately.
I bet he never imagined that the beastly public would care quite so much about what he gets up to 24 hrs a day.
As @felix rightly points out it is all about context but he would, given no pandemic, have broken likely numerous FPN-type offences and people would have loved him for it.
.
The Telegraph would have been perfectly happy to employ him as an employee which from memory was how it worked.
He was in the Royal Artillery.
The High Street Task Force are through levelling up going to support another 68 councils all of who are in desperate need for help
Including Kensington and Chelsea see https://www.highstreetstaskforce.org.uk/news/task-force-announces-68-local-authorities-to-receive-expert-support/
As Ed Balls famously responded when challenged over whether he really did keep receipts for the cash he paid his gardener: of course I bl**dy did I am the shadow chancellor of the exchequer.
Improving the opportunities of those who are struggling, without damaging those who are doing well, is levelling up.
Pulling down tall poppies who are doing well, without improving the lives of those who are struggling, is levelling down.
A prime example is how in 2009 during the recession the official poverty levels fell, despite the fact more people were struggling due to the recession - the recession reduced inequality so reduced so-called "poverty" despite all being poorer as a result. That is levelling down.
This government has already done one thing to improve the lives of the poor, in reducing the real tax rate that those on benefits face from potentially 100% plus under Gordon Brown, down to 70% under Sunak. Still far, far too high but its good to see that going in the right direction.
Boris is Not Yet Dead, sure. He's still in Downing Street, there's still no consensus on how to replace him. He can still move the pieces round the board- but does this reshuffle look like making anything better?
Equally, the spell has been broken for quite a lot of people. If he's still there in 2024, he loses badly. Which is incredible, really, given the situation even four months ago.
So the irresistible force of Boris Really Needing To Go and the immovable object of Boris Wanting To Stay meet. And that scenario could persist for quite some time. But glad confident morning isn't coming back.
https://twitter.com/govgg/status/1491399063149092864?s=21
These things are discussed across the jurisdictions so I wouldn’t be surprised to see others do similar - as Johnson has trailed for England today.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-60315906
‘The Kremlin spokesman admitted the joint drills were serious but he pointed out the nature of threats was higher than before. Mr Chizhov told the BBC that Russian troops currently stationed in Belarus would return to their permanent bases.’
Masi was doing Red Bull's bidding.
The FIA says it knows about radio messages from the Abu Dhabi Grand Prix that have raised fresh questions about last year's title-decider.
The messages seem to be further evidence of race director Michael Masi reacting to Red Bull's suggestions as to how to end a safety-car period.
And Masi echoes Red Bull's language in a response he gives to Mercedes.
A spokesman for Formula 1's governing body said: "We are aware of this and it is part of the investigation."
In the radio messages, Red Bull sporting director Jonathan Wheatley is heard advising Masi on how to deal with lapped cars that are on track between the leaders as he attempts to organise a restart before the laps run out.
At the time, Red Bull's Max Verstappen was on new tyres behind Mercedes driver Lewis Hamilton on old rubber, which meant that if the race was resumed Verstappen would have a huge advantage and would likely win the race and championship.
Wheatley says: "Those lapped cars; you don't need to let them go right the way around and catch up with the back of the pack. You only need to let them go, and then we've got a motor race on our hands."
Masi replies: "Understood."
After the race, Mercedes team principal Toto Wolff gets on the radio to tell Masi that what he has done is "not right".
Masi replies: "Toto, it's called a motor race, OK?"
The radio transmissions are not new - they were on a video released by Formula 1 on 16 December, four days after the race - but they appear to have missed general circulation in the storm that followed.
Their emergence into the public arena - they were trending on Twitter on Wednesday with the hashtag #F1xed - has come days before the FIA is due to reveal the outcome of its inquiry into Abu Dhabi to a meeting of the F1 Commission next Monday.
And it fits an impression of Masi acting in Red Bull's favour during the race and against Mercedes' interests.
Red Bull team principal Christian Horner had previously said to Masi: "Why aren't we getting these lapped cars out of the way? You only need one racing lap."
It is widely acknowledged within F1 that Masi failed to follow the rules correctly in Abu Dhabi, and that in doing so he had a direct effect on the outcome of the world championship.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/60318052
Ah, the old "We WEREN'T going to invade, until YOU made us....." defence.
Remember that Ken Livingstone and everyone else assumed that he was using the service company/dividend thing - they all were
There’s a shitload more paperwork and you gain some cash but not that much
It still makes a notable difference if you are earning over £1m a year or whatever, but i don’t think Boris was ever in that bracket?
If you take the PLC route you are also likelier to receive much closer Inland Revenue scrutiny, which is not always nice
https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1491374056113082373?s=20&t=wjd9XmHopBPqUJtcGTheqQ
Another poll with the Lab-Lib-Grn vote in the 55-57% zone (56%).
Even by these standards....
And Wolff was just as bad (as his Red Bull team mate) pleading for no safety car as it would negatively affect his driver.
He was never going to invade.
Also the size of the neo-classical pillars behind is quite something, well chosen to emphasize the smallness of humans. Is it the Capitol in DC?
Happily Smarkets have learned the lesson and you can only risk 2.3% on fridays.
It has been largely whittled away, as you say. The new rules and the scrutiny have deliberately ended much of it.
But back then you could end up paying much less than 20% on massive piles of cash.
PS nice pic here
https://norfolktalesmyths.com/2018/09/17/breydon-water-a-step-back-in-time/breydon-water-punt-gunning2/
If this whole thing blows over and Russia gains nothing but some warm words from the West, then this might be Putin’s first serious geopolitical defeat in a long time. A lot of effort and zero gain
They would be mounted on a punt (hence the name) - float you punt into the wetlands, line up on a flock of birds, the recoil would kick the boat back a bit...
IIRC that photo was a couple of Congressional aides who were bringing it to the hearings on a law to ban their use - the photo was indeed taken outside the Capitol in DC.
They may have to revisit - but for the moment it is back to the status quo ante.
Ranked 16th best Colombo hotel on tripadvisor.
https://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/Hotel_Review-g293962-d2038179-Reviews-Galle_Face_Hotel-Colombo_Western_Province.html
For me a villa or even a simple house on the beach with nothing but the sound of the wind in the palms and the surf on the shore, and some great books.
Whereas if you are a standard sole trader the taxman is reasonably generous in what they allow as expenses. Which seems fair
“Don’t cheat us and we won’t screw you”
Electorates are mercurial.
If Boris Johnson were a Labour leader he would get panned for some of his policies. And I still can't believe he's presiding over such a massive high-spend, high-tax regime.
Tearing up the Conservative rule book does not for a happy membership make.
NI was a bit of a shock to the polo squad. The only way to stay relatvely safe there was to dress and arm yourself as a squaddie. Some idiots thought this infra dig and still wanted to carry revolvers. Quite a number left and the regiment was disbanded in 1977.
EDIT: that was how it was - that's mostly gone now.
I don't remember any polo ponies, that said.
https://www.iiss.org/blogs/analysis/2022/02/russia-choices-and-prospect-of-war-in-ukraine
At present, aggression is the only option that is not certain to leave Russia in a worse diplomatic position than before its build-up.
It is a really good hotel with a great rooftop pool, but not a great location. Apart from the sea it’s a tedious bit of Colombo, 20 minutes from the fun colonial stuff
But if all you want to do is decompress from wintry Britain, soak up the sun, swim and gym and inhale lovely curries, for pennies, it is great. And INSANELY cheap for a 5 star
Although for shitz n gigglez, he might reveal how many letters were from within the Cabinet!
(And people do want to move on, it's just that the Boris circus doesn't let them. One pratfall after another. )
For avoidance of doubt, I really think he needs to go.
I like the sound of the old colonial area though. That's also my cup of (Ceylon) tea.
At one stage, it was looking like, in a couple of sectors, everyone would be a "contractor" like that.
It presumably wouldn't be anywhere near as expensive as an actual war or even support for separatists. And it will leave Ukraine in no doubt what will happen if they do anything aggressively to try to change the situation in Donbass or Crimea.
On the flip side he'll also have some explaining to do to his military and government allies.
More chillingly. Are we so sure what his motives and goals were before this began, so are we so sure behind the scenes he hadn’t achieved what he was hoping for already.
If we relate it to the historical fact of the allies holding back in 1945, allowing the soviets to create the Eastern Bloc and Warsaw Pact buffer zone, ourselves and historians took a long time to get to the truth. The truth here? Ukraine asking for NATO membership for long time, not getting it. Black ops we’ve been doing in Ukraine we don’t know about now called off?
Remember that relatively few of the MPs liked or wanted him in the first place.
Would the clown really risk giving his colleagues a chance to show, in secret, what they really think?
https://www.channel5.com/show/world-s-most-scenic-railway-journeys/season-2/episode-7-sri-lanka
Touch wood.
He sent the Telegraph an invoice from Boris Johnson, and they sent him a cheque to Boris Johnson, presumably with a note from their accountant that income tax had not been paid on the amount.
No company or formal arrangement needed. The company structure is what would have taken time and effort. As has been suggested, he’s never worried too much about money, presumably he just threw the invoices at his accountant at the end of the year, and he paid the tax.
Now he’s taken a big hit in income, and has exchanged a high-earning wife for a low-earning wife with high aspirations. Hence why he’s in the financial do-do.
"Do they wear glasses?
"Do they have brown hair?"
"Are they weird looking?"
The colonial bits are FAR more interesting, but you need your wits.
Eg the other day I went to Slave Island, an inner city burb near here. It’s where the Portuguese and Dutch kept their slaves, on a near-island fortuitously surrounded by croc infested waters (back then, no crocs now). As a result it has an incredible legacy of multiracial denizens: Javanese to Malay to halfwhite Burghers to Afghans to Keralans to Arabs to what have you, Brilliant. Mosques next to temples next to animist shrines. One of the great surviving historic slums of Asia (to be blunt)
But it is edgy. No question. The whole burb is threatened with demolition by the expanding Chinese-financed skyscrapers, which surround it, and they are not happy
You wouldn’t want to go there on your first DAY
That is fantastic for the likes of London but it also means that other areas lose out in that talent and innovators are enticed away.
The key question for levelling up is not whether public spending is increased in northern areas or Scotland. There is even some evidence that such spending actually diminishes growth rather than encouraging it because it attracts too many of the able young into public service and a less risky but adequately rewarding life. The key question is how do we create these hubs? Cambridge and Oxford are having some success but I don't see many other examples. We need to encourage our cities to specialise and attract particular kinds of business.
Need sharper question than that to narrow it down
It is feasible to level up thus:
A nation manages to get incrementally wealthier in terms of disposable wealth per head
and
uses social policies/redistribution/tax policies to ensure that the poorer you are the more you gain from this additional resource
and that there is maximally great equality of opportunity.
Contemplating the way some of the academies/free schools are doing in London some of this is possible. But don't hold your breath about other aspects of wealth distribution.