How anyone seriously thought that an ex-hedge fund banker with 4 cars, million pound houses, £300 shoes and a billionaire wife with non-dom status could possibly be suitable to lead this country is baffling. Yet as recently as a fortnight ago he was still being promoted by the hard right posters on here.
The more I see of this Government the more it feels like 1992-7. Boris is making the same mistakes as John Major with his back to basics: a retreat into the core value of the hard right: nastiness.
Derby was richer. More recently Home had a bob or two. More recently still Blair Clegg Osborne and in hisdreams Cameron were headed in that direction, it's just they got it in afterwards. Anyway all senior politicians are multi millionaires these days in the sense of being worth more than 2m including houses. They are North of the great dividing line between worrying about money every day and worrying about it once a year on 31 Jan when the tax return is due in
Some ruthlessly snobbish Old Etonian poshboi writing about the lower classes in the 1930s said they envied only those of the rich whom they would emulate if they had the money. So not the professional classes because they realised they continued to work hard despite being wealthy. Sunak did some things right: 4 cars is not many, and they aren't Bugattis. But the jetting to California and the non dom status should have gone. Clean up a bit more and he'd have been fine.
My final morning in Kent before heading home. Has there been much talk of the growing catastrophe that is the channel crossings?
It's the perfect storm - trade is picking back up to Spring levels from the winter lulls, P&OF did the Bad Thing, Dover and the inland customs sites never did create a solution to how to manage the checks we chose to impose, and now for shits and giggles the decrepit CHIEF customs computer has been down for the best part of a week. Amazingly enough it has - as HMRC warned this government back in 2016 - collapsed under a workload it was never designed to handle
What that means is that we now have Brock Zero in place. This is the uncontrolled collapse of traffic management as trucks have overtopped the planned storage sites. The front of the queue has been moved forward to J11 which means the whole J8-J11 section of M20 is closed but in practice it's back to J7 already. With the ensuing disastrous effect on Kent traffic that creates.
I am sure that neanderthal Tory MPs like Elphicke will be desperately trying to say this has nothing to do with Brexit despite their government's abject failure to invest in Brexit systems and facilities being at the heart of this disaster.
My heart bleeds for the inconvenience this must be causing Brexit voters in Kent.
Does this only affect Brexit supporters in Kent ?
No sadly not, the Brexit shit show is inconveniencing and impoverishing all of us. But you will have to permit us bitter remoaners these fleeting moments of life-affirming schadenfreude, the only Brexit dividend available to us.
I am a remainer too but I see little point. Quite frankly fighting the brexit battle still is a bit like the Japanese soldier stuck on the island thinking the war hadn't ended.
The privatisation of C4 fails on the same lines as Christian Wolmar’s classic question: What is rail franchising for? (The point being nobody can give a good answer).
What is C4 privatisation for?
"Why should the Government own a TV station?" is an equally good question.
Rail franchising has been part of the process of getting investment, improved reliability, improved capacity, and improved quality into our rail system.
All of which have been achieved.
We subsidise the railways more under privatisation than at any period when they were publicly owned.
Oh lordy, not this again. Whether such a soundbite is accurate depends on many factors, such as whether you factor in the increase in passengers, mileages travelled, include infrastructure enhancements (e.g. Crossrail/HS2), etc, etc.
Blindly talking about the subsidy without factoring these in is untruthful IMO, because you are comparing apples and oranges.
If you could talk to a single benefit of privatisation let's hear it.
There are many, but let's take an important one: safety. The 2020 Carmont crash was the first fatal rail crash on the UK heavy-rail network since Grayrigg 13 years earlier. That is an unprecedented period, and one massively better than BR achieved.
The most remarkable thing about Brexit is how incompetent the Brexiteers still are at implementing it. 6 years on and it is still a total shitshow.
Except that's not remarkable at all. "Project Fear" predicted much of this chaos.
And lo, it came to pass...
I'm becoming increasingly confident that the further the UK decends down the toilet with Johnson and his UKIP Party the greater the chance that we'll rejoin or do something similar in the next few years. Every stamp on our passports when we enter an EU country is an infringment on our freedom.
We won't, as rejoining now would require the Euro, Schengen etc. At more we would rejoin the EEA.
There is more chance non Eurozone Denmark, Sweden, Hungary and Poland leave the full EU as it moves towards a Federal EU superstate than the UK rejoins it
I saw a poll in the last few days that suggested by quite a large majority voters now regretted leaving. If the anticipated financial crisis and accompanying chaos materialise and get pinned on Brexit (which is quite likely then a movement to rejoin could quickly take hold.
All the pieces are in place for it to happen quickly. The diehard Remainers haven't gone away even in parliament.
No they aren't, rarely does any poll have over 50% wanting to rejoin the full EU. Certainly not if that means the Euro too.
Plus it is not just the Tories opposed to rejoining (all the Tory diehard Remainers no longer MPs), Starmer will not do so either as he needs to win the redwall seats back for power.
Even the LDs only now back rejoining the EEA or close to it, not the full EU
Doesn't the UK's double taxation agreement with India imply that her income there is taxed there and not in the UK (as well)?
You still declare your income for tax and you may not get to offset all you have paid in a foreign country. It is then up to you to try and reclaim that from the foreign tax authorities. I speak as someone who has to do that with Swiss shares.
Just to clarify I posted the above as a domiciled person, and to demonstrate the tax situation isn't effectively the same between domiciled and non domiciled because of double taxation agreement. A domiciled person may still pay more.
The privatisation of C4 fails on the same lines as Christian Wolmar’s classic question: What is rail franchising for? (The point being nobody can give a good answer).
What is C4 privatisation for?
"Why should the Government own a TV station?" is an equally good question.
Rail franchising has been part of the process of getting investment, improved reliability, improved capacity, and improved quality into our rail system.
All of which have been achieved.
We subsidise the railways more under privatisation than at any period when they were publicly owned.
Oh lordy, not this again. Whether such a soundbite is accurate depends on many factors, such as whether you factor in the increase in passengers, mileages travelled, include infrastructure enhancements (e.g. Crossrail/HS2), etc, etc.
Blindly talking about the subsidy without factoring these in is untruthful IMO, because you are comparing apples and oranges.
If you could talk to a single benefit of privatisation let's hear it.
There are many, but let's take an important one: safety. The 2020 Carmont crash was the first fatal rail crash on the UK heavy-rail network since Grayrigg 13 years earlier. That is an unprecedented period, and one massively better than BR achieved.
...err, wasn't Network Rail in public ownership during the years you have quoted?
Safety is not just about NR-infrastructure. Causal factors can generally be roughly shoehorned into three areas: *) Infrastructure failure, e.g. Carmont. *) Human failure *) Rolling stock failure.
Though causal factors often fall into multiple of these; e.g. a driver's inattention may be human failure, but he might have had insufficient training, or the wrong shift pattern. Or a derailment caused by a broken wheel might be rolling stock failure, but it might have been contributed to by rough track (infrastructure issues) *and* human failure to detect issues early.
All three of these have been reduced. And privatisation has an effect on NR's output as well, as they need to pay fines for delays caused to operators by broken infrastructure.
So it is complex. But there is zero doubt safety has improved massively since privatisation.
I don't think anyone in the real world is going to be concerned about who owns channel 4. Most people are more worried about their energy bills doubling.
I think this must be right. It's not only Nadine D who had no idea of its structure, I very much doubt if 10% of those polled could give a coherent account of the status quo before (or even after) the row broke. So that's the reality.
The voting in polls (but note the high DK number) will spread roughly thus: those who always oppose change and those who basically support maximal state management will vote NO. Libertarians and Boris fans and those who hate anything run by self regarding elites and prefer it in the hands of other self regarding elites will vote YES.
Much more interesting are questions about what contents people want. The general public's views on how to bring want they want about will be singularly simplistic.
FWIW what I would like from C4 is sometimes news when C4 news is on form (as recently), and universal free test match coverage. It can go off air for all other purposes. In don't think I am going to get it.
I also think that it's miles away from a subject of keen public interest. But the Conservatives are making a more subtle error. By seeming preoccupied with ideological projects (and getting rid of Channel 4 feels at heart to be an ideological project) and going on about culture war issues (however much Leon likes them), they are ostentatiously ignoring the issues that really do concern people. It's perfectly possible for people to agree with Johnson on trans questions and to shrug off what happens to Channel 4, but to think that if that's all the Government has to say at the moment, then they've ceased to be relevant to most people. The cost of living? Rushing out more boosters to curb the new spread of Covid? NHS waiting times? The Conservatives seem to feel these issues are all secondary.
Why are they doing it? Probably because Johnson feels he needs to show he's a proper Tory for when the crunch comes over Partygate. It's understandable from his viewpoint, but it's not sensible government.
I agree. I think also that the issue of enriching an elite group at the expense of others is becoming an issue, while nowhere near where it is in Africa and Russia. So that the moment a government led issue like this is raised you have to ask Cui bono?
Does Rishi's wife live in the UK? It's not my area of expertise but if you spend 183 days in one tax year in the UK I thought you were automatically resident here?
I think that’s more related to people who don’t want to be caught in the UK tax net full stop. First year you can spend 183 days then after that no more than 90 days without being liable for tax by the UK (details could have changed since it was of interest to me).
She’s apparently Res non-Dom so has to pay tax on any UK earnings in UK regardless and I think it only lasts 15 years.
It was so much easier in the good old days when a man could just control his wife’s finances and not have independent women making financial decisions that suit them…..
Look at the documentary series Downton Abbey where the Lord’s American wife gladly hands over her family fortune to her husband so she doesn’t do anything silly being a lady and all that.
I have some (slight) sympathy in that India does not recognise dual nationals. I have Indian friends long resident in the US who have never taken US citizenship.
So, she would have to relinquish her Indian citizenship to become a UK national. I believe it is also true that it is very difficult to own property in India, if you are no longer an Indian citizen.
But, I think this is politically damaging and looks very bad. Sunak should haver realised this long ago.
Personally, I think the tax affairs of all politicians and their immediate family should be publicly available and open to scrutiny.
Well the tax affairs of the Sunaks are now largely out there and it will just lead to mud slinging and probably his withdrawal from politics.
The lovely thing about it is that when everyone is whingeing about why we don’t get a better quality of politician who’ve got life experience and ability this will be the example - why on earth, if you’ve had a successful career and followed allowable tax laws to make sensible financial planning decisions, would you then stand for parliament and have your private financial affairs used as a political football.
The real victims in this are the poor upstanding British soldiers who died on the dusty plains of India to ensure that all money made by Indians should find its way to the British exchequer - they must be spinning in their graves. Was so much better under the empire when we could tell foreign people that they had to give us their money.
At a time when Britain is committed to reinforcing Nato’s defences in Europe, the fact that Ukraine’s success ultimately depends on the same equipment and resources that Whitehall is determined to deny our own military is nothing short of a national scandal.
The most remarkable thing about Brexit is how incompetent the Brexiteers still are at implementing it. 6 years on and it is still a total shitshow.
Except that's not remarkable at all. "Project Fear" predicted much of this chaos.
And lo, it came to pass...
I'm becoming increasingly confident that the further the UK decends down the toilet with Johnson and his UKIP Party the greater the chance that we'll rejoin or do something similar in the next few years. Every stamp on our passports when we enter an EU country is an infringment on our freedom.
Do you regard the stamp into NZ. Australia, US or indeed ANYWHERE as an infringement on your freedom? Not being able to go at all would the thing you describe. Can you show me anyone from the UK who has been denied entry into an EU country (not including criminals etc)
We are reminded of our loss of freedom of movement as we queue with the Russians (not so much now, granted) to clear immigration at an EU airport. It is just like flying into the US. Nine lanes for domestic citizens and one for the rest of the world, of which we are now part of in the EU.
We won't rejoin the EU anytime soon, but Schengen under a non-Johnsonian Government. Perhaps?
How anyone seriously thought that an ex-hedge fund banker with 4 cars, million pound houses, £300 shoes and a billionaire wife with non-dom status could possibly be suitable to lead this country is baffling. Yet as recently as a fortnight ago he was still being promoted by the hard right posters on here.
The more I see of this Government the more it feels like 1992-7. Boris is making the same mistakes as John Major with his back to basics: a retreat into the core value of the hard right: nastiness.
You evidently lived through a different 1992-97 to me. I wonder if you were even in the same country...
One thing politics needs to avoid is tribalism. "My side is always right; our opponents are always wrong/evil." This goes for *all* parties. It is a view that leads to excusing your own side when it does wrong. It is easy to point to many occasions between 1997 and 2010 where Labour supporters excused clear Labour wrongdoing. And we saw the same under Jeremy Corbyn.
The same holds true for the Conservatives, Lib Dems, SNP etc. The best thing any supporter of a party can do for their party is to be a supportive critic. Blind support always ends up hurting a party. But sadly, politics is often a little like football: "My team is brilliant; your team stinks", even after 'my team' has had a 5-0 thrashing.
I support Leeds United, and did so during the Ken Bates years. I credit this with my ability to despair at my political 'team' while wishing they would be better.
I agree with everything you've written, but I'd caveat that some partisanship can be a good thing. I think you need a dash of it in an adversarial system.
Same here on Leeds United - even longer than you, I suspect.
Supporting the Labour Party is an absolute doddle compared to supporting Leeds; at least Labour has won something in the last 30 years. But both Leeds and Labour test one's loyalty massively and help us develop great resilience.
The privatisation of C4 fails on the same lines as Christian Wolmar’s classic question: What is rail franchising for? (The point being nobody can give a good answer).
What is C4 privatisation for?
"Why should the Government own a TV station?" is an equally good question.
Rail franchising has been part of the process of getting investment, improved reliability, improved capacity, and improved quality into our rail system.
All of which have been achieved.
We subsidise the railways more under privatisation than at any period when they were publicly owned.
Oh lordy, not this again. Whether such a soundbite is accurate depends on many factors, such as whether you factor in the increase in passengers, mileages travelled, include infrastructure enhancements (e.g. Crossrail/HS2), etc, etc.
Blindly talking about the subsidy without factoring these in is untruthful IMO, because you are comparing apples and oranges.
If you could talk to a single benefit of privatisation let's hear it.
Do you remember British Rail of the 70's? Utterly shit, decrepit rolling stock. You may not like how it is paid for, but we now have modern railways with decent passenger rolling stock and more coming. The new Hitachi's are vastly better than the old HST's, but even the Mark 3 carriages were upgraded and comfortable.
I'm not a fan of the privatised franchise model. Competition works for some sectors - where there is a choice of a service on the day say for a service. That will never be the case for railways - you can't turn up to a station and choose which provider you use - their is usually only one option. But thats not the same as saying there have been no benefits.
And lastly a tongue in cheek benefit - huge numbers of liveries for railway modellers (and the companies that produce the models) to copy. A not insignificant leisure sector.
The privatisation of C4 fails on the same lines as Christian Wolmar’s classic question: What is rail franchising for? (The point being nobody can give a good answer).
What is C4 privatisation for?
"Why should the Government own a TV station?" is an equally good question.
Rail franchising has been part of the process of getting investment, improved reliability, improved capacity, and improved quality into our rail system.
All of which have been achieved.
We subsidise the railways more under privatisation than at any period when they were publicly owned.
Oh lordy, not this again. Whether such a soundbite is accurate depends on many factors, such as whether you factor in the increase in passengers, mileages travelled, include infrastructure enhancements (e.g. Crossrail/HS2), etc, etc.
Blindly talking about the subsidy without factoring these in is untruthful IMO, because you are comparing apples and oranges.
If you could talk to a single benefit of privatisation let's hear it.
There are many, but let's take an important one: safety. The 2020 Carmont crash was the first fatal rail crash on the UK heavy-rail network since Grayrigg 13 years earlier. That is an unprecedented period, and one massively better than BR achieved.
And what makes you say that is because of privatisation?
Several things. A major one is the much-derided internal fines system for delays. It is in NR's interests to keep the infrastructure in a good state, since they have to pay for any delays caused by infrastructure failure. In the (not) good olden days of BR, they would just chuck TSR's and PSR's at it, then wonder why things derailed.
But it's a bit of a silly argument, because you could just deny *anything* I mentioned is a result of privatisation.
How anyone seriously thought that an ex-hedge fund banker with 4 cars, million pound houses, £300 shoes and a billionaire wife with non-dom status could possibly be suitable to lead this country is baffling. Yet as recently as a fortnight ago he was still being promoted by the hard right posters on here.
The more I see of this Government the more it feels like 1992-7. Boris is making the same mistakes as John Major with his back to basics: a retreat into the core value of the hard right: nastiness.
Derby was richer. More recently Home had a bob or two. More recently still Blair Clegg Osborne and in hisdreams Cameron were headed in that direction, it's just they got it in afterwards. Anyway all senior politicians are multi millionaires these days in the sense of being worth more than 2m including houses. They are North of the great dividing line between worrying about money every day and worrying about it once a year on 31 Jan when the tax return is due in
Some ruthlessly snobbish Old Etonian poshboi writing about the lower classes in the 1930s said they envied only those of the rich whom they would emulate if they had the money. So not the professional classes because they realised they continued to work hard despite being wealthy. Sunak did some things right: 4 cars is not many, and they aren't Bugattis. But the jetting to California and the non dom status should have gone. Clean up a bit more and he'd have been fine.
"But the jetting to California and the non dom status should have gone. Clean up a bit more and he'd have been fine. "
How anyone seriously thought that an ex-hedge fund banker with 4 cars, million pound houses, £300 shoes and a billionaire wife with non-dom status could possibly be suitable to lead this country is baffling. Yet as recently as a fortnight ago he was still being promoted by the hard right posters on here.
The more I see of this Government the more it feels like 1992-7. Boris is making the same mistakes as John Major with his back to basics: a retreat into the core value of the hard right: nastiness.
Derby was richer. More recently Home had a bob or two. More recently still Blair Clegg Osborne and in hisdreams Cameron were headed in that direction, it's just they got it in afterwards. Anyway all senior politicians are multi millionaires these days in the sense of being worth more than 2m including houses. They are North of the great dividing line between worrying about money every day and worrying about it once a year on 31 Jan when the tax return is due in
Some ruthlessly snobbish Old Etonian poshboi writing about the lower classes in the 1930s said they envied only those of the rich whom they would emulate if they had the money. So not the professional classes because they realised they continued to work hard despite being wealthy. Sunak did some things right: 4 cars is not many, and they aren't Bugattis. But the jetting to California and the non dom status should have gone. Clean up a bit more and he'd have been fine.
"But the jetting to California and the non dom status should have gone. Clean up a bit more and he'd have been fine. "
How anyone seriously thought that an ex-hedge fund banker with 4 cars, million pound houses, £300 shoes and a billionaire wife with non-dom status could possibly be suitable to lead this country is baffling. Yet as recently as a fortnight ago he was still being promoted by the hard right posters on here.
The more I see of this Government the more it feels like 1992-7. Boris is making the same mistakes as John Major with his back to basics: a retreat into the core value of the hard right: nastiness.
Derby was richer. More recently Home had a bob or two. More recently still Blair Clegg Osborne and in hisdreams Cameron were headed in that direction, it's just they got it in afterwards. Anyway all senior politicians are multi millionaires these days in the sense of being worth more than 2m including houses. They are North of the great dividing line between worrying about money every day and worrying about it once a year on 31 Jan when the tax return is due in
Some ruthlessly snobbish Old Etonian poshboi writing about the lower classes in the 1930s said they envied only those of the rich whom they would emulate if they had the money. So not the professional classes because they realised they continued to work hard despite being wealthy. Sunak did some things right: 4 cars is not many, and they aren't Bugattis. But the jetting to California and the non dom status should have gone. Clean up a bit more and he'd have been fine.
"But the jetting to California and the non dom status should have gone. Clean up a bit more and he'd have been fine. "
We have some of the best offshore facilities for wind in the world with a relatively shallow sea and much more consistent wind. Offshore wind can be much larger, and therefore more efficient. I am not saying we don't do both in our urgent need to reduce dependency on imported gas but the focus on onshore wind, which is generally unpopular with locals, seemed odd at the time.
As it's the only option which can make any difference to energy prices in the short term (within a year, as opposed to at least five for offshore), it's entirely understandable.
The most remarkable thing about Brexit is how incompetent the Brexiteers still are at implementing it. 6 years on and it is still a total shitshow.
Except that's not remarkable at all. "Project Fear" predicted much of this chaos.
And lo, it came to pass...
I'm becoming increasingly confident that the further the UK decends down the toilet with Johnson and his UKIP Party the greater the chance that we'll rejoin or do something similar in the next few years. Every stamp on our passports when we enter an EU country is an infringment on our freedom.
Do you regard the stamp into NZ. Australia, US or indeed ANYWHERE as an infringement on your freedom? Not being able to go at all would the thing you describe. Can you show me anyone from the UK who has been denied entry into an EU country (not including criminals etc)
We are reminded of our loss of freedom of movement as we queue with the Russians (not so much now, granted) to clear immigration at an EU airport. It is just like flying into the US. Nine lanes for domestic citizens and one for the rest of the world, of which we are now part of in the EU.
We won't rejoin the EU anytime soon, but Schengen under a non-Johnsonian Government. Perhaps?
That last part of your first para will I think be much less of a thing once Brussels get their electronic border system up and running.
We've chosen to be a part of the wider world rather than inside a walled garden, and to keep our autonomy as a country intact. That's a deal I'll take.
How anyone seriously thought that an ex-hedge fund banker with 4 cars, million pound houses, £300 shoes and a billionaire wife with non-dom status could possibly be suitable to lead this country is baffling. Yet as recently as a fortnight ago he was still being promoted by the hard right posters on here.
The more I see of this Government the more it feels like 1992-7. Boris is making the same mistakes as John Major with his back to basics: a retreat into the core value of the hard right: nastiness.
Could you define ‘hard right posters’ and say who you mean? I don’t recognise anyone by that description. I also think almost everyone on pb has been saying that his chance has gone for months.
I think she means those who would support a Blue Rosette even if it was pinned on a donkey.As it was in 2019
Don't think you need to be particularly "far right" to vote against Corbyn, tbh.
I'd reckon about 90% of the population is to the right of him. Hotelling's law would suggest that would backfire spectacularly. And it did.
Thank you for introducing me to 'Hotelling's Law'! I've just looked it up and it's quite fascinating.
(I'm sure I'm the only person on here who had never heard of it)
How anyone seriously thought that an ex-hedge fund banker with 4 cars, million pound houses, £300 shoes and a billionaire wife with non-dom status could possibly be suitable to lead this country is baffling. Yet as recently as a fortnight ago he was still being promoted by the hard right posters on here.
The more I see of this Government the more it feels like 1992-7. Boris is making the same mistakes as John Major with his back to basics: a retreat into the core value of the hard right: nastiness.
You evidently lived through a different 1992-97 to me. I wonder if you were even in the same country...
One thing politics needs to avoid is tribalism. "My side is always right; our opponents are always wrong/evil." This goes for *all* parties. It is a view that leads to excusing your own side when it does wrong. It is easy to point to many occasions between 1997 and 2010 where Labour supporters excused clear Labour wrongdoing. And we saw the same under Jeremy Corbyn.
The same holds true for the Conservatives, Lib Dems, SNP etc. The best thing any supporter of a party can do for their party is to be a supportive critic. Blind support always ends up hurting a party. But sadly, politics is often a little like football: "My team is brilliant; your team stinks", even after 'my team' has had a 5-0 thrashing.
I support Leeds United, and did so during the Ken Bates years. I credit this with my ability to despair at my political 'team' while wishing they would be better.
I agree with everything you've written, but I'd caveat that some partisanship can be a good thing. I think you need a dash of it in an adversarial system.
Same here on Leeds United - even longer than you, I suspect.
Supporting the Labour Party is an absolute doddle compared to supporting Leeds; at least Labour has won something in the last 30 years. But both Leeds and Labour test one's loyalty massively and help us develop great resilience.
You call that resilience; I support the LDs. Now that is resilience.
The most remarkable thing about Brexit is how incompetent the Brexiteers still are at implementing it. 6 years on and it is still a total shitshow.
Except that's not remarkable at all. "Project Fear" predicted much of this chaos.
And lo, it came to pass...
I'm becoming increasingly confident that the further the UK decends down the toilet with Johnson and his UKIP Party the greater the chance that we'll rejoin or do something similar in the next few years. Every stamp on our passports when we enter an EU country is an infringment on our freedom.
Do you regard the stamp into NZ. Australia, US or indeed ANYWHERE as an infringement on your freedom? Not being able to go at all would the thing you describe. Can you show me anyone from the UK who has been denied entry into an EU country (not including criminals etc)
We are reminded of our loss of freedom of movement as we queue with the Russians (not so much now, granted) to clear immigration at an EU airport. It is just like flying into the US. Nine lanes for domestic citizens and one for the rest of the world, of which we are now part of in the EU.
We won't rejoin the EU anytime soon, but Schengen under a non-Johnsonian Government. Perhaps?
That last I think will be much less of a thing once Brussels get their electronic border system up and running.
We've chosen to be a part of the wider world rather than inside a walled garden, and to keep our autonomy as a country intact. That's a deal I'll take.
With all due respect that is mendacious Brexiteer b*******. We always were part of the wider world.
At a time when Britain is committed to reinforcing Nato’s defences in Europe, the fact that Ukraine’s success ultimately depends on the same equipment and resources that Whitehall is determined to deny our own military is nothing short of a national scandal.
We probably don't need tanks for our own defence, even in a WW3 scenario Britain will never ever be invaded. Anti-air capability is probably the most important part of our defense.*
Does Rishi's wife live in the UK? It's not my area of expertise but if you spend 183 days in one tax year in the UK I thought you were automatically resident here?
Not my area of expertise but I would assume she is “resident non domiciled”.
She is taxed on any uk income as normal but on foreign income she would be taxed abroad (although would assume it is set up efficiently). She would only pay UK taxed on any money that is remitted to the UK.
Thus - for illustration as I have no idea - if their California property is owned offshore then all the bills and expenses could be paid out of dividends from Infosys that are not subject to UK tax (but would be subject to Indian or other taxes).
You can hold this status provided that you are resident in the UK for less than 15 years in any 20 year period. (On practice I’d assume that means you can spend fewer than 90 days in the UK during that given tax year)
How anyone seriously thought that an ex-hedge fund banker with 4 cars, million pound houses, £300 shoes and a billionaire wife with non-dom status could possibly be suitable to lead this country is baffling. Yet as recently as a fortnight ago he was still being promoted by the hard right posters on here.
The more I see of this Government the more it feels like 1992-7. Boris is making the same mistakes as John Major with his back to basics: a retreat into the core value of the hard right: nastiness.
Derby was richer. More recently Home had a bob or two. More recently still Blair Clegg Osborne and in hisdreams Cameron were headed in that direction, it's just they got it in afterwards. Anyway all senior politicians are multi millionaires these days in the sense of being worth more than 2m including houses. They are North of the great dividing line between worrying about money every day and worrying about it once a year on 31 Jan when the tax return is due in
Some ruthlessly snobbish Old Etonian poshboi writing about the lower classes in the 1930s said they envied only those of the rich whom they would emulate if they had the money. So not the professional classes because they realised they continued to work hard despite being wealthy. Sunak did some things right: 4 cars is not many, and they aren't Bugattis. But the jetting to California and the non dom status should have gone. Clean up a bit more and he'd have been fine.
"But the jetting to California and the non dom status should have gone. Clean up a bit more and he'd have been fine. "
Her brother is a famous Professor at CalTech.
Optics innit.
One of the ironies is that this government has a better sense of image management than any other, and Rishi more than almost anyone else.
But then things like this, and the parties, and Matt Handsy happen. It's as if they overestimate their powers to make anything look good.
Does Rishi's wife live in the UK? It's not my area of expertise but if you spend 183 days in one tax year in the UK I thought you were automatically resident here?
I think that’s more related to people who don’t want to be caught in the UK tax net full stop. First year you can spend 183 days then after that no more than 90 days without being liable for tax by the UK (details could have changed since it was of interest to me).
She’s apparently Res non-Dom so has to pay tax on any UK earnings in UK regardless and I think it only lasts 15 years.
It was so much easier in the good old days when a man could just control his wife’s finances and not have independent women making financial decisions that suit them…..
Look at the documentary series Downton Abbey where the Lord’s American wife gladly hands over her family fortune to her husband so she doesn’t do anything silly being a lady and all that.
I have some (slight) sympathy in that India does not recognise dual nationals. I have Indian friends long resident in the US who have never taken US citizenship.
So, she would have to relinquish her Indian citizenship to become a UK national. I believe it is also true that it is very difficult to own property in India, if you are no longer an Indian citizen.
But, I think this is politically damaging and looks very bad. Sunak should haver realised this long ago.
Personally, I think the tax affairs of all politicians and their immediate family should be publicly available and open to scrutiny.
Well the tax affairs of the Sunaks are now largely out there and it will just lead to mud slinging and probably his withdrawal from politics.
The lovely thing about it is that when everyone is whingeing about why we don’t get a better quality of politician who’ve got life experience and ability this will be the example - why on earth, if you’ve had a successful career and followed allowable tax laws to make sensible financial planning decisions, would you then stand for parliament and have your private financial affairs used as a political football.
The real victims in this are the poor upstanding British soldiers who died on the dusty plains of India to ensure that all money made by Indians should find its way to the British exchequer - they must be spinning in their graves. Was so much better under the empire when we could tell foreign people that they had to give us their money.
"The lovely thing about it is that when everyone is whingeing about why we don’t get a better quality of politician who’ve got life experience and ability this will be the example - why on earth, if you’ve had a successful career and followed allowable tax laws to make sensible financial planning decisions, would you then stand for parliament and have your private financial affairs used as a political football. "
Everyone's tax affairs should be publicly available. As in most of the Nordic countries.
Also, it would be fascinating to read about the tax affairs of Tony Blair, Nick Clegg and David Cameron.
Sure, they were red, yellow and blue .. but all the colours look the same when it comes to their own tax affairs.
"Why should the Government own a TV station?" is an equally good question.
It's a public good
That’s a technical definition.
It does not need to be a public good as evidenced by the existence of private competitors. By your use of the definition you are saying Facebook is a public good
How anyone seriously thought that an ex-hedge fund banker with 4 cars, million pound houses, £300 shoes and a billionaire wife with non-dom status could possibly be suitable to lead this country is baffling. Yet as recently as a fortnight ago he was still being promoted by the hard right posters on here.
The more I see of this Government the more it feels like 1992-7. Boris is making the same mistakes as John Major with his back to basics: a retreat into the core value of the hard right: nastiness.
Derby was richer. More recently Home had a bob or two. More recently still Blair Clegg Osborne and in hisdreams Cameron were headed in that direction, it's just they got it in afterwards. Anyway all senior politicians are multi millionaires these days in the sense of being worth more than 2m including houses. They are North of the great dividing line between worrying about money every day and worrying about it once a year on 31 Jan when the tax return is due in
Some ruthlessly snobbish Old Etonian poshboi writing about the lower classes in the 1930s said they envied only those of the rich whom they would emulate if they had the money. So not the professional classes because they realised they continued to work hard despite being wealthy. Sunak did some things right: 4 cars is not many, and they aren't Bugattis. But the jetting to California and the non dom status should have gone. Clean up a bit more and he'd have been fine.
"But the jetting to California and the non dom status should have gone. Clean up a bit more and he'd have been fine. "
Her brother is a famous Professor at CalTech.
Optics innit.
One of the ironies is that this government has a better sense of image management than any other, and Rishi more than almost anyone else.
But then things like this, and the parties, and Matt Handsy happen. It's as if they overestimate their powers to make anything look good.
yes, all those treasury announcement posters signed with his own name
At a time when Britain is committed to reinforcing Nato’s defences in Europe, the fact that Ukraine’s success ultimately depends on the same equipment and resources that Whitehall is determined to deny our own military is nothing short of a national scandal.
We probably don't need tanks for our own defence, even in a WW3 scenario Britain will never ever be invaded. Anti-air capability is probably the most important part of our defense.*
* Yes yes I know nukes et al.
UK plans to send armored vehicles to Ukraine, believing that next 3 weeks will be critical to outcome of war
How anyone seriously thought that an ex-hedge fund banker with 4 cars, million pound houses, £300 shoes and a billionaire wife with non-dom status could possibly be suitable to lead this country is baffling. Yet as recently as a fortnight ago he was still being promoted by the hard right posters on here.
The more I see of this Government the more it feels like 1992-7. Boris is making the same mistakes as John Major with his back to basics: a retreat into the core value of the hard right: nastiness.
Could you define ‘hard right posters’ and say who you mean? I don’t recognise anyone by that description. I also think almost everyone on pb has been saying that his chance has gone for months.
I think she means those who would support a Blue Rosette even if it was pinned on a donkey.As it was in 2019
Don't think you need to be particularly "far right" to vote against Corbyn, tbh.
I'd reckon about 90% of the population is to the right of him. Hotelling's law would suggest that would backfire spectacularly. And it did.
Thank you for introducing me to 'Hotelling's Law'! I've just looked it up and it's quite fascinating.
(I'm sure I'm the only person on here who had never heard of it)
Same here. Having studied logic to quite some extent and economics to a lesser extent I would have thought I would have come across it, but no, not at all.
The privatisation of C4 fails on the same lines as Christian Wolmar’s classic question: What is rail franchising for? (The point being nobody can give a good answer).
What is C4 privatisation for?
"Why should the Government own a TV station?" is an equally good question.
Rail franchising has been part of the process of getting investment, improved reliability, improved capacity, and improved quality into our rail system.
All of which have been achieved.
We subsidise the railways more under privatisation than at any period when they were publicly owned.
Oh lordy, not this again. Whether such a soundbite is accurate depends on many factors, such as whether you factor in the increase in passengers, mileages travelled, include infrastructure enhancements (e.g. Crossrail/HS2), etc, etc.
Blindly talking about the subsidy without factoring these in is untruthful IMO, because you are comparing apples and oranges.
If you could talk to a single benefit of privatisation let's hear it.
There are many, but let's take an important one: safety. The 2020 Carmont crash was the first fatal rail crash on the UK heavy-rail network since Grayrigg 13 years earlier. That is an unprecedented period, and one massively better than BR achieved.
And what makes you say that is because of privatisation?
Several things. A major one is the much-derided internal fines system for delays. It is in NR's interests to keep the infrastructure in a good state, since they have to pay for any delays caused by infrastructure failure. In the (not) good olden days of BR, they would just chuck TSR's and PSR's at it, then wonder why things derailed.
But it's a bit of a silly argument, because you could just deny *anything* I mentioned is a result of privatisation.
One of the east coast franchise collapses was because the company running the franchise overestimated the amount of money they'd get from Network Rail due to infrastructure delays.
The most remarkable thing about Brexit is how incompetent the Brexiteers still are at implementing it. 6 years on and it is still a total shitshow.
Except that's not remarkable at all. "Project Fear" predicted much of this chaos.
And lo, it came to pass...
I'm becoming increasingly confident that the further the UK decends down the toilet with Johnson and his UKIP Party the greater the chance that we'll rejoin or do something similar in the next few years. Every stamp on our passports when we enter an EU country is an infringment on our freedom.
Do you regard the stamp into NZ. Australia, US or indeed ANYWHERE as an infringement on your freedom? Not being able to go at all would the thing you describe. Can you show me anyone from the UK who has been denied entry into an EU country (not including criminals etc)
We are reminded of our loss of freedom of movement as we queue with the Russians (not so much now, granted) to clear immigration at an EU airport. It is just like flying into the US. Nine lanes for domestic citizens and one for the rest of the world, of which we are now part of in the EU.
We won't rejoin the EU anytime soon, but Schengen under a non-Johnsonian Government. Perhaps?
That last part of your first para will I think be much less of a thing once Brussels get their electronic border system up and running.
We've chosen to be a part of the wider world rather than inside a walled garden, and to keep our autonomy as a country intact. That's a deal I'll take.
Jeesh, countries have automony within the EU. Witness Poland and Hungary's differing attitudes towards Russia right now, if that's not autonomy I don't know what is.
Proof that @BorisJohnson bottled it on onshore wind. 🌬️We have a leaked draft of the energy strategy [left] from just a few weeks ago showing clear targets and planning changes 👀Compare/contrast with the actual strategy [right].
The most remarkable thing about Brexit is how incompetent the Brexiteers still are at implementing it. 6 years on and it is still a total shitshow.
Except that's not remarkable at all. "Project Fear" predicted much of this chaos.
And lo, it came to pass...
I'm becoming increasingly confident that the further the UK decends down the toilet with Johnson and his UKIP Party the greater the chance that we'll rejoin or do something similar in the next few years. Every stamp on our passports when we enter an EU country is an infringment on our freedom.
"Infringement on your freedom" is what is going on in Ukraine.
They both are. Just degrees. But the implication of Brexit was that it would increase our sovereignty and therefore our freedom. Having a stamp in your passport restricting the number of days you can stay in any of 27 countries was not something spelled out on the Red Bus Manifesto
Just seen the non-dom story. On top of other stuff, looks like Sunak utterly blew his chances when he didn't knife the PM when he had the chance.
Yes. It's all over for him bar the shouting, I think. He could have got rid of Johnson that Monday in the Commons when the PM was patently flailing and on the ropes, but the obsession with the self-fulfilling Heseltine mythology, for him and in the Tory Party more broadly, stopped him.
Just possibly could he have seen what was coming down the track in Ukraine and decided that the best outcome for the world was to have a UK PM that was in situ?
At a time when Britain is committed to reinforcing Nato’s defences in Europe, the fact that Ukraine’s success ultimately depends on the same equipment and resources that Whitehall is determined to deny our own military is nothing short of a national scandal.
We probably don't need tanks for our own defence, even in a WW3 scenario Britain will never ever be invaded. Anti-air capability is probably the most important part of our defense.*
* Yes yes I know nukes et al.
UK plans to send armored vehicles to Ukraine, believing that next 3 weeks will be critical to outcome of war
I'm not keen on this. I think we're going through a clear period of over-confidence about the war from the western side, with no clear end game in sight.
In the short-term it's very propitious for western politicians to ride along with this tide, but the long-term objectives are unclear.
The most remarkable thing about Brexit is how incompetent the Brexiteers still are at implementing it. 6 years on and it is still a total shitshow.
Except that's not remarkable at all. "Project Fear" predicted much of this chaos.
And lo, it came to pass...
I'm becoming increasingly confident that the further the UK decends down the toilet with Johnson and his UKIP Party the greater the chance that we'll rejoin or do something similar in the next few years. Every stamp on our passports when we enter an EU country is an infringment on our freedom.
Do you regard the stamp into NZ. Australia, US or indeed ANYWHERE as an infringement on your freedom? Not being able to go at all would the thing you describe. Can you show me anyone from the UK who has been denied entry into an EU country (not including criminals etc)
We are reminded of our loss of freedom of movement as we queue with the Russians (not so much now, granted) to clear immigration at an EU airport. It is just like flying into the US. Nine lanes for domestic citizens and one for the rest of the world, of which we are now part of in the EU.
We won't rejoin the EU anytime soon, but Schengen under a non-Johnsonian Government. Perhaps?
That last part of your first para will I think be much less of a thing once Brussels get their electronic border system up and running.
We've chosen to be a part of the wider world rather than inside a walled garden, and to keep our autonomy as a country intact. That's a deal I'll take.
Jeesh, countries have automony within the EU. Witness Poland and Hungary's differing attitudes towards Russia right now, if that's not autonomy I don't know what is.
But, the EU are pursuing sanctions against both and also want to move to QMV on foreign policy as well.
At a time when Britain is committed to reinforcing Nato’s defences in Europe, the fact that Ukraine’s success ultimately depends on the same equipment and resources that Whitehall is determined to deny our own military is nothing short of a national scandal.
I'm not actually sure what he is arguing for in that piece.
It is the case that we have seen more emphasis on the RAF and RN recently (appropriate, surely, for an island country), and that arguably funding has been insufficient (take pensions out of the Defence Budget?), and the much trumpeted 12% (?) or so boost recently is being seriously eroded by extra inflation.
And the Treasury by insisting on a slow build tempo (eg rather than frigates being 20-25% less money if we built a very small number extra - remember the Gordon Brown trick of making the aircraft carriers a couple of billion more expensive whilst also delaying them for 1-2 years simultaneously) is not exactly helping.
But the RN/RAF procurement is becoming more organised, whilst the Army is still in a shambles.
eg If we had gone for an off-the-shelf set of armoured vehicles - the ones that make soldiers deaf, rather than piddling away £3.5bn (so far) on Ajax, we would have 1-2 billion left over for more tanks.
The privatisation of C4 fails on the same lines as Christian Wolmar’s classic question: What is rail franchising for? (The point being nobody can give a good answer).
What is C4 privatisation for?
"Why should the Government own a TV station?" is an equally good question.
Rail franchising has been part of the process of getting investment, improved reliability, improved capacity, and improved quality into our rail system.
All of which have been achieved.
We subsidise the railways more under privatisation than at any period when they were publicly owned.
Oh lordy, not this again. Whether such a soundbite is accurate depends on many factors, such as whether you factor in the increase in passengers, mileages travelled, include infrastructure enhancements (e.g. Crossrail/HS2), etc, etc.
Blindly talking about the subsidy without factoring these in is untruthful IMO, because you are comparing apples and oranges.
If you could talk to a single benefit of privatisation let's hear it.
The most remarkable thing about Brexit is how incompetent the Brexiteers still are at implementing it. 6 years on and it is still a total shitshow.
Except that's not remarkable at all. "Project Fear" predicted much of this chaos.
And lo, it came to pass...
I'm becoming increasingly confident that the further the UK decends down the toilet with Johnson and his UKIP Party the greater the chance that we'll rejoin or do something similar in the next few years. Every stamp on our passports when we enter an EU country is an infringment on our freedom.
Do you regard the stamp into NZ. Australia, US or indeed ANYWHERE as an infringement on your freedom? Not being able to go at all would the thing you describe. Can you show me anyone from the UK who has been denied entry into an EU country (not including criminals etc)
We are reminded of our loss of freedom of movement as we queue with the Russians (not so much now, granted) to clear immigration at an EU airport. It is just like flying into the US. Nine lanes for domestic citizens and one for the rest of the world, of which we are now part of in the EU.
We won't rejoin the EU anytime soon, but Schengen under a non-Johnsonian Government. Perhaps?
That last part of your first para will I think be much less of a thing once Brussels get their electronic border system up and running.
We've chosen to be a part of the wider world rather than inside a walled garden, and to keep our autonomy as a country intact. That's a deal I'll take.
Jeesh, countries have automony within the EU. Witness Poland and Hungary's differing attitudes towards Russia right now, if that's not autonomy I don't know what is.
But, the EU are pursuing sanctions against both and also want to move to QMV on foreign policy as well.
There's a very nasty and specific issue for business that export to the EU that's really flown under the radar. I'll explain more on here when we've resolved it - but it's taking up loads of my bosses' time & effort and it's going to cost us as a business. You'd think leaving the EU it could be treated as if it were the rest of the world, unfortunately it doesn't work that way >< Orban is a pragmatist, he's not going to leave the EU even though he's as far from it culturally as you can get pretty much.
No sympathy whatsoever for Rishi and his non-dom wife. If you’re going to dictate British peoples taxes, you can’t live a deracinated existence for tax purposes.
Boris gave up his foreign citizenship - the Sunaks should have done the same, before he became chancellor.
BBC - Last week, Russian forces occupying the site left, Ukraine's state nuclear company Energoatom, said. The company also confirmed reports that Russian troops had dug trenches in the most contaminated part of the Chernobyl exclusion zone, receiving "significant doses" of radiation.
Its interesting to see how this story has traversed the media over the past week. It appears to be "fact" now.
The privatisation of C4 fails on the same lines as Christian Wolmar’s classic question: What is rail franchising for? (The point being nobody can give a good answer).
What is C4 privatisation for?
"Why should the Government own a TV station?" is an equally good question.
Rail franchising has been part of the process of getting investment, improved reliability, improved capacity, and improved quality into our rail system.
All of which have been achieved.
We subsidise the railways more under privatisation than at any period when they were publicly owned.
Oh lordy, not this again. Whether such a soundbite is accurate depends on many factors, such as whether you factor in the increase in passengers, mileages travelled, include infrastructure enhancements (e.g. Crossrail/HS2), etc, etc.
Blindly talking about the subsidy without factoring these in is untruthful IMO, because you are comparing apples and oranges.
If you could talk to a single benefit of privatisation let's hear it.
Do you remember British Rail of the 70's? Utterly shit, decrepit rolling stock. You may not like how it is paid for, but we now have modern railways with decent passenger rolling stock and more coming. The new Hitachi's are vastly better than the old HST's, but even the Mark 3 carriages were upgraded and comfortable.
I'm not a fan of the privatised franchise model. Competition works for some sectors - where there is a choice of a service on the day say for a service. That will never be the case for railways - you can't turn up to a station and choose which provider you use - their is usually only one option. But thats not the same as saying there have been no benefits.
And lastly a tongue in cheek benefit - huge numbers of liveries for railway modellers (and the companies that produce the models) to copy. A not insignificant leisure sector.
One of the reason for privatisation in the first place for the various utilities was the investment issue.
Investment in water etc wasn't sexy. So politically it was easier to use government fiat to keep water standards low (for example) and spend the money on the NHS.
Post privatisation, raising standards for water (say) was free - for the politicians.
Not really. I hold no pen for Boris but he's just announced a strategy that provides energy supply security for the UK and decarbonises 95% of the grid.
But, Harabin majors on the environmental nutjobs who aren't happy because HMG aren't annoucing hairshirts instead.
At a time when Britain is committed to reinforcing Nato’s defences in Europe, the fact that Ukraine’s success ultimately depends on the same equipment and resources that Whitehall is determined to deny our own military is nothing short of a national scandal.
We probably don't need tanks for our own defence, even in a WW3 scenario Britain will never ever be invaded. Anti-air capability is probably the most important part of our defense.*
* Yes yes I know nukes et al.
UK plans to send armored vehicles to Ukraine, believing that next 3 weeks will be critical to outcome of war
I'm not keen on this. I think we're going through a clear period of over-confidence about the war from the western side, with no clear end game in sight.
In the short-term it's very propitious for western politicians to ride along with this tide, but the long-term objectives are unclear.
The objective is very clear - halt the coming Russian offensive in the east. Either we abandon Ukraine to possible defeat, or we supply them with the weapons they need.
How anyone seriously thought that an ex-hedge fund banker with 4 cars, million pound houses, £300 shoes and a billionaire wife with non-dom status could possibly be suitable to lead this country is baffling. Yet as recently as a fortnight ago he was still being promoted by the hard right posters on here.
The more I see of this Government the more it feels like 1992-7. Boris is making the same mistakes as John Major with his back to basics: a retreat into the core value of the hard right: nastiness.
Could you define ‘hard right posters’ and say who you mean? I don’t recognise anyone by that description. I also think almost everyone on pb has been saying that his chance has gone for months.
I think she means those who would support a Blue Rosette even if it was pinned on a donkey.As it was in 2019
Don't think you need to be particularly "far right" to vote against Corbyn, tbh.
I'd reckon about 90% of the population is to the right of him. Hotelling's law would suggest that would backfire spectacularly. And it did.
Thank you for introducing me to 'Hotelling's Law'! I've just looked it up and it's quite fascinating.
(I'm sure I'm the only person on here who had never heard of it)
Same here. Having studied logic to quite some extent and economics to a lesser extent I would have thought I would have come across it, but no, not at all.
I've heard the principle before, but not the name. But this requires some thought: Hotelling's law clearly works in one dimensional space (a street) with two actors (two shops, or two parties). I think it works with two actors in a two dimensional space, and probably an n-dimensional space. I'm not sure it works with three actors in a one dimensional space, and I'm fairly sure - off the top of my head, and without doing the calculations - that it doesn't work with three actors in an n-dimensional space. A fascinating modelling exercise to see how this ought to pan out.
The most remarkable thing about Brexit is how incompetent the Brexiteers still are at implementing it. 6 years on and it is still a total shitshow.
Except that's not remarkable at all. "Project Fear" predicted much of this chaos.
And lo, it came to pass...
I'm becoming increasingly confident that the further the UK decends down the toilet with Johnson and his UKIP Party the greater the chance that we'll rejoin or do something similar in the next few years. Every stamp on our passports when we enter an EU country is an infringment on our freedom.
Do you regard the stamp into NZ. Australia, US or indeed ANYWHERE as an infringement on your freedom? Not being able to go at all would the thing you describe. Can you show me anyone from the UK who has been denied entry into an EU country (not including criminals etc)
We are reminded of our loss of freedom of movement as we queue with the Russians (not so much now, granted) to clear immigration at an EU airport. It is just like flying into the US. Nine lanes for domestic citizens and one for the rest of the world, of which we are now part of in the EU.
We won't rejoin the EU anytime soon, but Schengen under a non-Johnsonian Government. Perhaps?
That last part of your first para will I think be much less of a thing once Brussels get their electronic border system up and running.
We've chosen to be a part of the wider world rather than inside a walled garden, and to keep our autonomy as a country intact. That's a deal I'll take.
Jeesh, countries have automony within the EU. Witness Poland and Hungary's differing attitudes towards Russia right now, if that's not autonomy I don't know what is.
But, the EU are pursuing sanctions against both and also want to move to QMV on foreign policy as well.
There's a very nasty and specific issue for business that export to the EU that's really flown under the radar. I'll explain more on here when we've resolved it - but it's taking up loads of my bosses' time & effort and it's going to cost us as a business. You'd think leaving the EU it could be treated as if it were the rest of the world, unfortunately it doesn't work that way >< Orban is a pragmatist, he's not going to leave the EU even though he's as far from it culturally as you can get pretty much.
I look forward to the explanation.
I think the point is that autonomy within the EU is pretended. See what is built next on the foundation of the common debt obligation recently embraced, for example.
Reading the rhetoric since we left, the Brussels establishment believes in a European Govt, and that they will be it - regardless of anything else. I'm not up for that.
I would far prefer a reformed, flexible EU, which may happen. But if it is not to be, then I prefer to be out.
The privatisation of C4 fails on the same lines as Christian Wolmar’s classic question: What is rail franchising for? (The point being nobody can give a good answer).
What is C4 privatisation for?
"Why should the Government own a TV station?" is an equally good question.
Rail franchising has been part of the process of getting investment, improved reliability, improved capacity, and improved quality into our rail system.
All of which have been achieved.
We subsidise the railways more under privatisation than at any period when they were publicly owned.
Oh lordy, not this again. Whether such a soundbite is accurate depends on many factors, such as whether you factor in the increase in passengers, mileages travelled, include infrastructure enhancements (e.g. Crossrail/HS2), etc, etc.
Blindly talking about the subsidy without factoring these in is untruthful IMO, because you are comparing apples and oranges.
If you could talk to a single benefit of privatisation let's hear it.
Do you remember British Rail of the 70's? Utterly shit, decrepit rolling stock. You may not like how it is paid for, but we now have modern railways with decent passenger rolling stock and more coming. The new Hitachi's are vastly better than the old HST's, but even the Mark 3 carriages were upgraded and comfortable.
I'm not a fan of the privatised franchise model. Competition works for some sectors - where there is a choice of a service on the day say for a service. That will never be the case for railways - you can't turn up to a station and choose which provider you use - their is usually only one option. But thats not the same as saying there have been no benefits.
And lastly a tongue in cheek benefit - huge numbers of liveries for railway modellers (and the companies that produce the models) to copy. A not insignificant leisure sector.
One of the reason for privatisation in the first place for the various utilities was the investment issue.
Investment in water etc wasn't sexy. So politically it was easier to use government fiat to keep water standards low (for example) and spend the money on the NHS.
Post privatisation, raising standards for water (say) was free - for the politicians.
The problem is we now have the highest prices in western europe, for some of the worst service. Rail privatisation has been a clear failure in this respect.
My own personal memories of British Rail are remarkably similar levels of punctuality to now, generally quite tatty carriages, seats and 'presentational' station-front issues, but rounded off with quite unbelievably cheaper journeys to now.
The privatisation of C4 fails on the same lines as Christian Wolmar’s classic question: What is rail franchising for? (The point being nobody can give a good answer).
What is C4 privatisation for?
"Why should the Government own a TV station?" is an equally good question.
Rail franchising has been part of the process of getting investment, improved reliability, improved capacity, and improved quality into our rail system.
All of which have been achieved.
We subsidise the railways more under privatisation than at any period when they were publicly owned.
Oh lordy, not this again. Whether such a soundbite is accurate depends on many factors, such as whether you factor in the increase in passengers, mileages travelled, include infrastructure enhancements (e.g. Crossrail/HS2), etc, etc.
Blindly talking about the subsidy without factoring these in is untruthful IMO, because you are comparing apples and oranges.
If you could talk to a single benefit of privatisation let's hear it.
Do you remember British Rail of the 70's? Utterly shit, decrepit rolling stock. You may not like how it is paid for, but we now have modern railways with decent passenger rolling stock and more coming. The new Hitachi's are vastly better than the old HST's, but even the Mark 3 carriages were upgraded and comfortable.
I'm not a fan of the privatised franchise model. Competition works for some sectors - where there is a choice of a service on the day say for a service. That will never be the case for railways - you can't turn up to a station and choose which provider you use - their is usually only one option. But thats not the same as saying there have been no benefits.
And lastly a tongue in cheek benefit - huge numbers of liveries for railway modellers (and the companies that produce the models) to copy. A not insignificant leisure sector.
Do you remember the Reliant Robin? Stuff was shit because it was the seventies, not nationalisation status.
The most remarkable thing about Brexit is how incompetent the Brexiteers still are at implementing it. 6 years on and it is still a total shitshow.
Except that's not remarkable at all. "Project Fear" predicted much of this chaos.
And lo, it came to pass...
I'm becoming increasingly confident that the further the UK decends down the toilet with Johnson and his UKIP Party the greater the chance that we'll rejoin or do something similar in the next few years. Every stamp on our passports when we enter an EU country is an infringment on our freedom.
Do you regard the stamp into NZ. Australia, US or indeed ANYWHERE as an infringement on your freedom? Not being able to go at all would the thing you describe. Can you show me anyone from the UK who has been denied entry into an EU country (not including criminals etc)
We are reminded of our loss of freedom of movement as we queue with the Russians (not so much now, granted) to clear immigration at an EU airport. It is just like flying into the US. Nine lanes for domestic citizens and one for the rest of the world, of which we are now part of in the EU.
We won't rejoin the EU anytime soon, but Schengen under a non-Johnsonian Government. Perhaps?
That last part of your first para will I think be much less of a thing once Brussels get their electronic border system up and running.
We've chosen to be a part of the wider world rather than inside a walled garden, and to keep our autonomy as a country intact. That's a deal I'll take.
Jeesh, countries have automony within the EU. Witness Poland and Hungary's differing attitudes towards Russia right now, if that's not autonomy I don't know what is.
But, the EU are pursuing sanctions against both and also want to move to QMV on foreign policy as well.
There's a very nasty and specific issue for business that export to the EU that's really flown under the radar. I'll explain more on here when we've resolved it - but it's taking up loads of my bosses' time & effort and it's going to cost us as a business. You'd think leaving the EU it could be treated as if it were the rest of the world, unfortunately it doesn't work that way >< Orban is a pragmatist, he's not going to leave the EU even though he's as far from it culturally as you can get pretty much.
This hasn't made it to the news in a big way but I work for one of the Big 4 now and our economic analysis report showed that our exports to the EU have almost entirely recovered whilst it's imports from the EU that have declined - the exact opposite of what you'd expect.
Fresh food/fish is affected, as are SMEs that can't afford the bureaucracy, but these challenges are heavily overrepresented in the media because they self-report their problems but don't represent a balanced view of the overall macro picture - which is very different.
The privatisation of C4 fails on the same lines as Christian Wolmar’s classic question: What is rail franchising for? (The point being nobody can give a good answer).
What is C4 privatisation for?
"Why should the Government own a TV station?" is an equally good question.
Rail franchising has been part of the process of getting investment, improved reliability, improved capacity, and improved quality into our rail system.
All of which have been achieved.
We subsidise the railways more under privatisation than at any period when they were publicly owned.
Oh lordy, not this again. Whether such a soundbite is accurate depends on many factors, such as whether you factor in the increase in passengers, mileages travelled, include infrastructure enhancements (e.g. Crossrail/HS2), etc, etc.
Blindly talking about the subsidy without factoring these in is untruthful IMO, because you are comparing apples and oranges.
If you could talk to a single benefit of privatisation let's hear it.
Do you remember British Rail of the 70's? Utterly shit, decrepit rolling stock. You may not like how it is paid for, but we now have modern railways with decent passenger rolling stock and more coming. The new Hitachi's are vastly better than the old HST's, but even the Mark 3 carriages were upgraded and comfortable.
I'm not a fan of the privatised franchise model. Competition works for some sectors - where there is a choice of a service on the day say for a service. That will never be the case for railways - you can't turn up to a station and choose which provider you use - their is usually only one option. But thats not the same as saying there have been no benefits.
And lastly a tongue in cheek benefit - huge numbers of liveries for railway modellers (and the companies that produce the models) to copy. A not insignificant leisure sector.
One of the reason for privatisation in the first place for the various utilities was the investment issue.
Investment in water etc wasn't sexy. So politically it was easier to use government fiat to keep water standards low (for example) and spend the money on the NHS.
Post privatisation, raising standards for water (say) was free - for the politicians.
Indeed, all the water people I've spoken to admit that it was privatisation that allowed / forced them to clean up the rivers.
The River Don used to have a foam layer 6 feet high forming below a particular weir, blowing away in the wind and butting up against a bridge downstream. Dredged silt had to be treated as toxic waste.
No sympathy whatsoever for Rishi and his non-dom wife. If you’re going to dictate British peoples taxes, you can’t live a deracinated existence for tax purposes.
Boris gave up his foreign citizenship - the Sunaks should have done the same, before he became chancellor.
So his wife should be sacrificed to her husband’s career? How very modern of you.
Totally O/t, I'm afraid, but Norman Scott, Jeremy Thorpe's ex (allegedly) resurfaced on Breakfast Time this morning. It was all rather odd. Apparently he's written a book, to put his side of the story, and claimed he was well known in the 'horsey' world. Oddly, says he's been living in Devon for the past 35 years, whereas at the time of the 2018 programme it was said he was in Ireland.
Just seen the non-dom story. On top of other stuff, looks like Sunak utterly blew his chances when he didn't knife the PM when he had the chance.
Yes. It's all over for him bar the shouting, I think. He could have got rid of Johnson that Monday in the Commons when the PM was patently flailing and on the ropes, but the obsession with the self-fulfilling Heseltine mythology, for him and in the Tory Party more broadly, stopped him.
Just possibly could he have seen what was coming down the track in Ukraine and decided that the best outcome for the world was to have a UK PM that was in situ?
Poppycock. We would have had an in situ PM whatever, it's how the constitution works.
The privatisation of C4 fails on the same lines as Christian Wolmar’s classic question: What is rail franchising for? (The point being nobody can give a good answer).
What is C4 privatisation for?
"Why should the Government own a TV station?" is an equally good question.
Rail franchising has been part of the process of getting investment, improved reliability, improved capacity, and improved quality into our rail system.
All of which have been achieved.
We subsidise the railways more under privatisation than at any period when they were publicly owned.
Oh lordy, not this again. Whether such a soundbite is accurate depends on many factors, such as whether you factor in the increase in passengers, mileages travelled, include infrastructure enhancements (e.g. Crossrail/HS2), etc, etc.
Blindly talking about the subsidy without factoring these in is untruthful IMO, because you are comparing apples and oranges.
If you could talk to a single benefit of privatisation let's hear it.
Do you remember British Rail of the 70's? Utterly shit, decrepit rolling stock. You may not like how it is paid for, but we now have modern railways with decent passenger rolling stock and more coming. The new Hitachi's are vastly better than the old HST's, but even the Mark 3 carriages were upgraded and comfortable.
I'm not a fan of the privatised franchise model. Competition works for some sectors - where there is a choice of a service on the day say for a service. That will never be the case for railways - you can't turn up to a station and choose which provider you use - their is usually only one option. But thats not the same as saying there have been no benefits.
And lastly a tongue in cheek benefit - huge numbers of liveries for railway modellers (and the companies that produce the models) to copy. A not insignificant leisure sector.
Do you remember the Reliant Robin? Stuff was shit because it was the seventies, not nationalisation status.
No sympathy whatsoever for Rishi and his non-dom wife. If you’re going to dictate British peoples taxes, you can’t live a deracinated existence for tax purposes.
Boris gave up his foreign citizenship - the Sunaks should have done the same, before he became chancellor.
Am I right in thinking you lose non domiciled status after 15 years? So in a couple of years time she would have to pay "normal" tax, or move, anyway?
Does Rishi's wife live in the UK? It's not my area of expertise but if you spend 183 days in one tax year in the UK I thought you were automatically resident here?
I think that’s more related to people who don’t want to be caught in the UK tax net full stop. First year you can spend 183 days then after that no more than 90 days without being liable for tax by the UK (details could have changed since it was of interest to me).
She’s apparently Res non-Dom so has to pay tax on any UK earnings in UK regardless and I think it only lasts 15 years.
It was so much easier in the good old days when a man could just control his wife’s finances and not have independent women making financial decisions that suit them…..
Look at the documentary series Downton Abbey where the Lord’s American wife gladly hands over her family fortune to her husband so she doesn’t do anything silly being a lady and all that.
I have some (slight) sympathy in that India does not recognise dual nationals. I have Indian friends long resident in the US who have never taken US citizenship.
So, she would have to relinquish her Indian citizenship to become a UK national. I believe it is also true that it is very difficult to own property in India, if you are no longer an Indian citizen.
But, I think this is politically damaging and looks very bad. Sunak should haver realised this long ago.
Personally, I think the tax affairs of all politicians and their immediate family should be publicly available and open to scrutiny.
Well the tax affairs of the Sunaks are now largely out there and it will just lead to mud slinging and probably his withdrawal from politics.
The lovely thing about it is that when everyone is whingeing about why we don’t get a better quality of politician who’ve got life experience and ability this will be the example - why on earth, if you’ve had a successful career and followed allowable tax laws to make sensible financial planning decisions, would you then stand for parliament and have your private financial affairs used as a political football.
The real victims in this are the poor upstanding British soldiers who died on the dusty plains of India to ensure that all money made by Indians should find its way to the British exchequer - they must be spinning in their graves. Was so much better under the empire when we could tell foreign people that they had to give us their money.
"The lovely thing about it is that when everyone is whingeing about why we don’t get a better quality of politician who’ve got life experience and ability this will be the example - why on earth, if you’ve had a successful career and followed allowable tax laws to make sensible financial planning decisions, would you then stand for parliament and have your private financial affairs used as a political football. "
Everyone's tax affairs should be publicly available. As in most of the Nordic countries.
Also, it would be fascinating to read about the tax affairs of Tony Blair, Nick Clegg and David Cameron.
Sure, they were red, yellow and blue .. but all the colours look the same when it comes to their own tax affairs.
Blair and Clegg and Cameron's combined wealth, even now with Clegg a big figure at Meta, does not come close to the Sunaks.
The Sunaks are genuinely super rich, he alone is worth £200 million while his father in law is a billionaire
At a time when Britain is committed to reinforcing Nato’s defences in Europe, the fact that Ukraine’s success ultimately depends on the same equipment and resources that Whitehall is determined to deny our own military is nothing short of a national scandal.
We probably don't need tanks for our own defence, even in a WW3 scenario Britain will never ever be invaded. Anti-air capability is probably the most important part of our defense.*
* Yes yes I know nukes et al.
UK plans to send armored vehicles to Ukraine, believing that next 3 weeks will be critical to outcome of war
I'm not keen on this. I think we're going through a clear period of over-confidence about the war from the western side, with no clear end game in sight.
In the short-term it's very propitious for western politicians to ride along with this tide, but the long-term objectives are unclear.
I agree with that. It was clearly right to help Ukraine beat the threat to Kyiv. It's probably right to help them fend off an expansion of the Donbas area under pro-Russian leadership since 2014. It's probably wrong to encourage them to go for broke and retake the whole Donbas and Crimea, because that muddies the waters and will lead to a long extension of the conflict. But if we do indeed want to do that, we need to have it as an explicit war aim, rather than something we've drifted into.
No sympathy whatsoever for Rishi and his non-dom wife. If you’re going to dictate British peoples taxes, you can’t live a deracinated existence for tax purposes.
Boris gave up his foreign citizenship - the Sunaks should have done the same, before he became chancellor.
I've got to say I find it a bit odd that so many people are basically saying "tell or make your wife do this". Normally the left would be up in arms about any suggestion that a husband should be bossing his wife around. If she is at fault that's her problem, not Rishi's. It may be embarassing for him, but it's not his fault.
Totally O/t, I'm afraid, but Norman Scott, Jeremy Thorpe's ex (allegedly) resurfaced on Breakfast Time this morning. It was all rather odd. Apparently he's written a book, to put his side of the story, and claimed he was well known in the 'horsey' world. Oddly, says he's been living in Devon for the past 35 years, whereas at the time of the 2018 programme it was said he was in Ireland.
Wikipedia says he moved from Ireland to Devon between 2014 and 2018. Seems to be an inconsistent witness, but the account could still be fun...
Agree with the Header - the CH4 hatchet job is probably not happening and neither should it. The reasons given just don't stack up. It's a spiteful proposal aimed at neutering a distinctive voice purely because the tone of it isn't to the government's taste.
At a time when Britain is committed to reinforcing Nato’s defences in Europe, the fact that Ukraine’s success ultimately depends on the same equipment and resources that Whitehall is determined to deny our own military is nothing short of a national scandal.
We probably don't need tanks for our own defence, even in a WW3 scenario Britain will never ever be invaded. Anti-air capability is probably the most important part of our defense.*
* Yes yes I know nukes et al.
UK plans to send armored vehicles to Ukraine, believing that next 3 weeks will be critical to outcome of war
I'm not keen on this. I think we're going through a clear period of over-confidence about the war from the western side, with no clear end game in sight.
In the short-term it's very propitious for western politicians to ride along with this tide, but the long-term objectives are unclear.
The objective is very clear - halt the coming Russian offensive in the east. Either we abandon Ukraine to possible defeat, or we supply them with the weapons they need.
It's not as clear as that, though, I would say ; the general mood music at the moment is "wind in their sails", and the implication of increasingly offensive weapons shipments from various countries is not only pushback, but that the Russians can be driven all the way out of Ukraine without an agreement.
I agree that the case for keeping the Ukrainians armed and defended is a strong one, but I think the second point above is a current delusion, which it's now difficult to politically challenge in the West.
Totally O/t, I'm afraid, but Norman Scott, Jeremy Thorpe's ex (allegedly) resurfaced on Breakfast Time this morning. It was all rather odd. Apparently he's written a book, to put his side of the story, and claimed he was well known in the 'horsey' world. Oddly, says he's been living in Devon for the past 35 years, whereas at the time of the 2018 programme it was said he was in Ireland.
He is in Devon, I met him a couple of years back.
That Encounter In Full:
Scott [opens gate for me and another bloke to ride through]
No sympathy whatsoever for Rishi and his non-dom wife. If you’re going to dictate British peoples taxes, you can’t live a deracinated existence for tax purposes.
Boris gave up his foreign citizenship - the Sunaks should have done the same, before he became chancellor.
I've got to say I find it a bit odd that so many people are basically saying "tell or make your wife do this". Normally the left would be up in arms about any suggestion that a husband should be bossing his wife around. If she is at fault that's her problem, not Rishi's. It may be embarassing for him, but it's not his fault.
All a bit Chumley Warner....women know your limits....tell the little lady to sell her shares in a company.
Not really. I hold no pen for Boris but he's just announced a strategy that provides energy supply security for the UK and decarbonises 95% of the grid.
But, Harabin majors on the environmental nutjobs who aren't happy because HMG aren't annoucing hairshirts instead.
I think it was @Benpointer yesterday who said his energy costs have risen from around £1250pa to near £4,000pa which does give rise to the question just how much we will see homeowners proactively insulating their homes and installing solar to mitigate the energy cost implications going forward
Indeed I would suggest all homeowners will now have a real incentive to look into this as it is certain that should they decide to sell, buyers will be looking for energy efficiency savings or will reduce their offers to allow them to implement them
I would suggest this is the market working as it should and that HMG intervention in this field should only be at the margins
The privatisation of C4 fails on the same lines as Christian Wolmar’s classic question: What is rail franchising for? (The point being nobody can give a good answer).
What is C4 privatisation for?
"Why should the Government own a TV station?" is an equally good question.
Rail franchising has been part of the process of getting investment, improved reliability, improved capacity, and improved quality into our rail system.
All of which have been achieved.
We subsidise the railways more under privatisation than at any period when they were publicly owned.
Oh lordy, not this again. Whether such a soundbite is accurate depends on many factors, such as whether you factor in the increase in passengers, mileages travelled, include infrastructure enhancements (e.g. Crossrail/HS2), etc, etc.
Blindly talking about the subsidy without factoring these in is untruthful IMO, because you are comparing apples and oranges.
If you could talk to a single benefit of privatisation let's hear it.
Do you remember British Rail of the 70's? Utterly shit, decrepit rolling stock. You may not like how it is paid for, but we now have modern railways with decent passenger rolling stock and more coming. The new Hitachi's are vastly better than the old HST's, but even the Mark 3 carriages were upgraded and comfortable.
I'm not a fan of the privatised franchise model. Competition works for some sectors - where there is a choice of a service on the day say for a service. That will never be the case for railways - you can't turn up to a station and choose which provider you use - their is usually only one option. But thats not the same as saying there have been no benefits.
And lastly a tongue in cheek benefit - huge numbers of liveries for railway modellers (and the companies that produce the models) to copy. A not insignificant leisure sector.
One of the reason for privatisation in the first place for the various utilities was the investment issue.
Investment in water etc wasn't sexy. So politically it was easier to use government fiat to keep water standards low (for example) and spend the money on the NHS.
Post privatisation, raising standards for water (say) was free - for the politicians.
The problem is we now have the highest prices in western europe, for some of the worst service. Rail privatisation has been a clear failure in this respect. (Snip)
No sympathy whatsoever for Rishi and his non-dom wife. If you’re going to dictate British peoples taxes, you can’t live a deracinated existence for tax purposes.
Boris gave up his foreign citizenship - the Sunaks should have done the same, before he became chancellor.
So his wife should be sacrificed to her husband’s career? How very modern of you.
It's terribly unfair.
So what? The top end of capitalism is terribly unfair. We accept that becuase of the good it generates, not because it's morally right.
Politics is terribly unfair, as a lot of personally blameless council candidates will find over the next four weeks.
Not really. I hold no pen for Boris but he's just announced a strategy that provides energy supply security for the UK and decarbonises 95% of the grid.
But, Harabin majors on the environmental nutjobs who aren't happy because HMG aren't annoucing hairshirts instead.
I think it was @Benpointer yesterday who said his energy costs have risen from around £1250pa to near £4,000pa which does give rise to the question just how much we will see homeowners proactively insulating their homes and installing solar to mitigate the energy cost implications going forward
Indeed I would suggest all homeowners will now have a real incentive to look into this as it is certain that should they decide to sell, buyers will be looking for energy efficiency savings or will reduce their offers to allow them to implement them
I would suggest this is the market working as it should and that HMG intervention in this field should only be at the margins
It's still surprising the government doesn't have more to say about insulation.
How anyone seriously thought that an ex-hedge fund banker with 4 cars, million pound houses, £300 shoes and a billionaire wife with non-dom status could possibly be suitable to lead this country is baffling. Yet as recently as a fortnight ago he was still being promoted by the hard right posters on here.
The more I see of this Government the more it feels like 1992-7. Boris is making the same mistakes as John Major with his back to basics: a retreat into the core value of the hard right: nastiness.
You evidently lived through a different 1992-97 to me. I wonder if you were even in the same country...
One thing politics needs to avoid is tribalism. "My side is always right; our opponents are always wrong/evil." This goes for *all* parties. It is a view that leads to excusing your own side when it does wrong. It is easy to point to many occasions between 1997 and 2010 where Labour supporters excused clear Labour wrongdoing. And we saw the same under Jeremy Corbyn.
The same holds true for the Conservatives, Lib Dems, SNP etc. The best thing any supporter of a party can do for their party is to be a supportive critic. Blind support always ends up hurting a party. But sadly, politics is often a little like football: "My team is brilliant; your team stinks", even after 'my team' has had a 5-0 thrashing.
I support Leeds United, and did so during the Ken Bates years. I credit this with my ability to despair at my political 'team' while wishing they would be better.
I agree with everything you've written, but I'd caveat that some partisanship can be a good thing. I think you need a dash of it in an adversarial system.
Same here on Leeds United - even longer than you, I suspect.
Supporting the Labour Party is an absolute doddle compared to supporting Leeds; at least Labour has won something in the last 30 years. But both Leeds and Labour test one's loyalty massively and help us develop great resilience.
You call that resilience; I support the LDs. Now that is resilience.
UK politics is much like Scottish football when you think about it. A big two, with tribal hatred of each other and a load of also rans who occasionally get the odd victory but are never going to win overall.
Despite the colours, Labour are probably Rangers in this scenario, coming close to total collapse under Corbyn and coming back up through the divisions under Starmer to win compete in 2020/21 2023 or 2024.
The most remarkable thing about Brexit is how incompetent the Brexiteers still are at implementing it. 6 years on and it is still a total shitshow.
Except that's not remarkable at all. "Project Fear" predicted much of this chaos.
And lo, it came to pass...
I'm becoming increasingly confident that the further the UK decends down the toilet with Johnson and his UKIP Party the greater the chance that we'll rejoin or do something similar in the next few years. Every stamp on our passports when we enter an EU country is an infringment on our freedom.
Do you regard the stamp into NZ. Australia, US or indeed ANYWHERE as an infringement on your freedom? Not being able to go at all would the thing you describe. Can you show me anyone from the UK who has been denied entry into an EU country (not including criminals etc)
We are reminded of our loss of freedom of movement as we queue with the Russians (not so much now, granted) to clear immigration at an EU airport. It is just like flying into the US. Nine lanes for domestic citizens and one for the rest of the world, of which we are now part of in the EU.
We won't rejoin the EU anytime soon, but Schengen under a non-Johnsonian Government. Perhaps?
That last part of your first para will I think be much less of a thing once Brussels get their electronic border system up and running.
We've chosen to be a part of the wider world rather than inside a walled garden, and to keep our autonomy as a country intact. That's a deal I'll take.
Jeesh, countries have automony within the EU. Witness Poland and Hungary's differing attitudes towards Russia right now, if that's not autonomy I don't know what is.
But, the EU are pursuing sanctions against both and also want to move to QMV on foreign policy as well.
There's a very nasty and specific issue for business that export to the EU that's really flown under the radar. I'll explain more on here when we've resolved it - but it's taking up loads of my bosses' time & effort and it's going to cost us as a business. You'd think leaving the EU it could be treated as if it were the rest of the world, unfortunately it doesn't work that way >< Orban is a pragmatist, he's not going to leave the EU even though he's as far from it culturally as you can get pretty much.
This hasn't made it to the news in a big way but I work for one of the Big 4 now and our economic analysis report showed that our exports to the EU have almost entirely recovered whilst it's imports from the EU that have declined - the exact opposite of what you'd expect.
Fresh food/fish is affected, as are SMEs that can't afford the bureaucracy, but these challenges are heavily overrepresented in the media because they self-report their problems but don't represent a balanced view of the overall macro picture - which is very different.
On Sunak, sometimes it's the little stories that are more damaging than the big stories.
I have in mind the bizarre photo stunt of him filling up somebody else's car to illustrate a pretty small cut in fuel duty. So many things were wrong with that, I think the public noticed. It smacked of deceit, and intention to mislead. Why not fill up his own car (I think we know?). Why pick a modest Kia (I think we know)? What on earth was he thinking of? The whole thing, though minor, smacked of childish desperation to please and was, I think, noticed.
Just seen the non-dom story. On top of other stuff, looks like Sunak utterly blew his chances when he didn't knife the PM when he had the chance.
I am not sure he ever did have the chance
To successfully oust Boris he needed support of his mps and the membership to win a coronation and that support was not there
He has seen an astonishing fall from grace with his misjudged budget and many of us who thought he was the future have been let down and are very disappointed
I would imagine he may well be moved in the reshuffle that is coming post the may elections which looks very bleak for the conservatives and in a large part down to Rishi tin ear
I can't really see past Hunt, Truss or Mordaunt as possibilities , now.
Mordaunt would be the most effective electorally of those three.
The Sub Lt (Acting) uniform would be out 24/7 in the GE campaign.
The privatisation of C4 fails on the same lines as Christian Wolmar’s classic question: What is rail franchising for? (The point being nobody can give a good answer).
What is C4 privatisation for?
"Why should the Government own a TV station?" is an equally good question.
Rail franchising has been part of the process of getting investment, improved reliability, improved capacity, and improved quality into our rail system.
All of which have been achieved.
We subsidise the railways more under privatisation than at any period when they were publicly owned.
Oh lordy, not this again. Whether such a soundbite is accurate depends on many factors, such as whether you factor in the increase in passengers, mileages travelled, include infrastructure enhancements (e.g. Crossrail/HS2), etc, etc.
Blindly talking about the subsidy without factoring these in is untruthful IMO, because you are comparing apples and oranges.
If you could talk to a single benefit of privatisation let's hear it.
Do you remember British Rail of the 70's? Utterly shit, decrepit rolling stock. You may not like how it is paid for, but we now have modern railways with decent passenger rolling stock and more coming. The new Hitachi's are vastly better than the old HST's, but even the Mark 3 carriages were upgraded and comfortable.
I'm not a fan of the privatised franchise model. Competition works for some sectors - where there is a choice of a service on the day say for a service. That will never be the case for railways - you can't turn up to a station and choose which provider you use - their is usually only one option. But thats not the same as saying there have been no benefits.
And lastly a tongue in cheek benefit - huge numbers of liveries for railway modellers (and the companies that produce the models) to copy. A not insignificant leisure sector.
One of the reason for privatisation in the first place for the various utilities was the investment issue.
Investment in water etc wasn't sexy. So politically it was easier to use government fiat to keep water standards low (for example) and spend the money on the NHS.
Post privatisation, raising standards for water (say) was free - for the politicians.
Indeed, all the water people I've spoken to admit that it was privatisation that allowed / forced them to clean up the rivers.
The River Don used to have a foam layer 6 feet high forming below a particular weir, blowing away in the wind and butting up against a bridge downstream. Dredged silt had to be treated as toxic waste.
Now the same weir has a salmon pass.
IIRC the killer argument for water privatisation was that new rules about water purity were coming in. Drum roll - European rules.
So the Treasury switched from "NO" to "Sell the fuckers NOW!"
Just seen the non-dom story. On top of other stuff, looks like Sunak utterly blew his chances when he didn't knife the PM when he had the chance.
I am not sure he ever did have the chance
To successfully oust Boris he needed support of his mps and the membership to win a coronation and that support was not there
He has seen an astonishing fall from grace with his misjudged budget and many of us who thought he was the future have been let down and are very disappointed
I would imagine he may well be moved in the reshuffle that is coming post the may elections which looks very bleak for the conservatives and in a large part down to Rishi tin ear
I can't really see past Hunt, Truss or Mordaunt as possibilities , now.
Mordaunt would be the most effective electorally of those three.
The Sub Lt (Acting) uniform would be out 24/7 in the GE campaign.
Penny looks great in any uniform, and also that bikini for her "Splash" photo shoot..
[Clears throat) ; and er.. yes, that's all a very interesting political point.
Not really. I hold no pen for Boris but he's just announced a strategy that provides energy supply security for the UK and decarbonises 95% of the grid.
But, Harabin majors on the environmental nutjobs who aren't happy because HMG aren't annoucing hairshirts instead.
I don't care about Harabin, but announcing nuclear power stations to be built sometime in the future doesn't solve much. Every government for the last two decades has said something similar. I'm not anti nuclear at all, but to describe this as a strategy is generous.
On Sunak, sometimes it's the little stories that are more damaging than the big stories.
I have in mind the bizarre photo stunt of him filling up somebody else's car to illustrate a pretty small cut in fuel duty. So many things were wrong with that, I think the public noticed. It smacked of deceit, and intention to mislead. Why not fill up his own car (I think we know?). Why pick a modest Kia (I think we know)? What on earth was he thinking of? The whole thing, though minor, smacked of childish desperation to please and was, I think, noticed.
I doubt anybody other than social media really noticed. It was the 5p when petrol has gone up 50% that people were like an I supposed to be giving you credit for that...
But it was an odd one, given he owns a golf for driving around the city ( obvs among other cars). If he filled up the golf, no real deceit and its not an overly fancy car. Given it was a planned PR stunt, why not just do that.
No sympathy whatsoever for Rishi and his non-dom wife. If you’re going to dictate British peoples taxes, you can’t live a deracinated existence for tax purposes.
Boris gave up his foreign citizenship - the Sunaks should have done the same, before he became chancellor.
I've got to say I find it a bit odd that so many people are basically saying "tell or make your wife do this". Normally the left would be up in arms about any suggestion that a husband should be bossing his wife around. If she is at fault that's her problem, not Rishi's. It may be embarassing for him, but it's not his fault.
He should not be telling his wife how to sort out her tax, but having a family discussion on whether he should accept a job where there is potential for a conflict of interest does not sound unreasonable.
I don't think it is appropriate for him to be Chancellor (or PM) with his wife having that tax arrangement but wouldn't see it as a block from him being Home Sec, Foreign Sec, Health Sec or most cabinet jobs. So I see it as she is paying tax by the rules, not at fault; whereas he is accepting a job he should not have done, at fault.
On Sunak, sometimes it's the little stories that are more damaging than the big stories.
I have in mind the bizarre photo stunt of him filling up somebody else's car to illustrate a pretty small cut in fuel duty. So many things were wrong with that, I think the public noticed. It smacked of deceit, and intention to mislead. Why not fill up his own car (I think we know?). Why pick a modest Kia (I think we know)? What on earth was he thinking of? The whole thing, though minor, smacked of childish desperation to please and was, I think, noticed.
The politician photo stunt with an old/small/cheap car has been used for as along as I can remember.
At a time when Britain is committed to reinforcing Nato’s defences in Europe, the fact that Ukraine’s success ultimately depends on the same equipment and resources that Whitehall is determined to deny our own military is nothing short of a national scandal.
We probably don't need tanks for our own defence, even in a WW3 scenario Britain will never ever be invaded. Anti-air capability is probably the most important part of our defense.*
* Yes yes I know nukes et al.
UK plans to send armored vehicles to Ukraine, believing that next 3 weeks will be critical to outcome of war
I'm not keen on this. I think we're going through a clear period of over-confidence about the war from the western side, with no clear end game in sight.
In the short-term it's very propitious for western politicians to ride along with this tide, but the long-term objectives are unclear.
I agree with that. It was clearly right to help Ukraine beat the threat to Kyiv. It's probably right to help them fend off an expansion of the Donbas area under pro-Russian leadership since 2014. It's probably wrong to encourage them to go for broke and retake the whole Donbas and Crimea, because that muddies the waters and will lead to a long extension of the conflict. But if we do indeed want to do that, we need to have it as an explicit war aim, rather than something we've drifted into.
Has anyone in western governments even mentioned 'retaking Crimea', or 'going for broke' ? This is straw man stuff.
nise dual nationals. I have Indian friends long resident in the US who have never taken US citizenship.
So, she would have to relinquish her Indian citizenship to become a UK national. I believe it is also true that it is very difficult to own property in India, if you are no longer an Indian citizen.
You can get NRI (Non Resident Indian) status when you give up your Indian citizenship. Mrs DA did this when she became a British citizen. There are some restrictions on purchasing property but it's not particularly onerous. As far as I can remember you can't buy a banana plantation or similar agricultural land.
Just seen the non-dom story. On top of other stuff, looks like Sunak utterly blew his chances when he didn't knife the PM when he had the chance.
Yes. It's all over for him bar the shouting, I think. He could have got rid of Johnson that Monday in the Commons when the PM was patently flailing and on the ropes, but the obsession with the self-fulfilling Heseltine mythology, for him and in the Tory Party more broadly, stopped him.
Just possibly could he have seen what was coming down the track in Ukraine and decided that the best outcome for the world was to have a UK PM that was in situ?
Poppycock. We would have had an in situ PM whatever, it's how the constitution works.
I was looking for a simple way to say “PM who was not distracted by a no confidence campaign and/or a caretaker PM who had lost the leadership and was just keeping the seat warm while a new leader was selected”
But if you want the full paragraph knock yourself out
At a time when Britain is committed to reinforcing Nato’s defences in Europe, the fact that Ukraine’s success ultimately depends on the same equipment and resources that Whitehall is determined to deny our own military is nothing short of a national scandal.
We probably don't need tanks for our own defence, even in a WW3 scenario Britain will never ever be invaded. Anti-air capability is probably the most important part of our defense.*
* Yes yes I know nukes et al.
UK plans to send armored vehicles to Ukraine, believing that next 3 weeks will be critical to outcome of war
I'm not keen on this. I think we're going through a clear period of over-confidence about the war from the western side, with no clear end game in sight.
In the short-term it's very propitious for western politicians to ride along with this tide, but the long-term objectives are unclear.
I agree with that. It was clearly right to help Ukraine beat the threat to Kyiv. It's probably right to help them fend off an expansion of the Donbas area under pro-Russian leadership since 2014. It's probably wrong to encourage them to go for broke and retake the whole Donbas and Crimea, because that muddies the waters and will lead to a long extension of the conflict. But if we do indeed want to do that, we need to have it as an explicit war aim, rather than something we've drifted into.
Why does it 'muddy the waters'? Why should the imperialist, fascist Russian regime get to keep any territory in the Donbass that it stole through violence? Especially as their governorship of those areas has turned them into mafia statelets?
We should be saying that the ideal aim is for Russia to keep none of the territory their evil regime has stolen. Anything else will just lead to more imperial expansionism in a few years.
And I'd like to be clear about this: Russia is trying to build a new empire through war and invasion. Their leadership are acting like fascists - the very model of the 'Nazis' they decry. That is what Europe and the world is facing.
The privatisation of C4 fails on the same lines as Christian Wolmar’s classic question: What is rail franchising for? (The point being nobody can give a good answer).
What is C4 privatisation for?
"Why should the Government own a TV station?" is an equally good question.
Rail franchising has been part of the process of getting investment, improved reliability, improved capacity, and improved quality into our rail system.
All of which have been achieved.
We subsidise the railways more under privatisation than at any period when they were publicly owned.
Oh lordy, not this again. Whether such a soundbite is accurate depends on many factors, such as whether you factor in the increase in passengers, mileages travelled, include infrastructure enhancements (e.g. Crossrail/HS2), etc, etc.
Blindly talking about the subsidy without factoring these in is untruthful IMO, because you are comparing apples and oranges.
If you could talk to a single benefit of privatisation let's hear it.
Do you remember British Rail of the 70's? Utterly shit, decrepit rolling stock. You may not like how it is paid for, but we now have modern railways with decent passenger rolling stock and more coming. The new Hitachi's are vastly better than the old HST's, but even the Mark 3 carriages were upgraded and comfortable.
I'm not a fan of the privatised franchise model. Competition works for some sectors - where there is a choice of a service on the day say for a service. That will never be the case for railways - you can't turn up to a station and choose which provider you use - their is usually only one option. But thats not the same as saying there have been no benefits.
And lastly a tongue in cheek benefit - huge numbers of liveries for railway modellers (and the companies that produce the models) to copy. A not insignificant leisure sector.
Do you remember the Reliant Robin? Stuff was shit because it was the seventies, not nationalisation status.
Quite. Much of the so-called benefit of privatisation was on the benefits of the innovation by BR.
At a time when Britain is committed to reinforcing Nato’s defences in Europe, the fact that Ukraine’s success ultimately depends on the same equipment and resources that Whitehall is determined to deny our own military is nothing short of a national scandal.
We probably don't need tanks for our own defence, even in a WW3 scenario Britain will never ever be invaded. Anti-air capability is probably the most important part of our defense.*
* Yes yes I know nukes et al.
UK plans to send armored vehicles to Ukraine, believing that next 3 weeks will be critical to outcome of war
I'm not keen on this. I think we're going through a clear period of over-confidence about the war from the western side, with no clear end game in sight.
In the short-term it's very propitious for western politicians to ride along with this tide, but the long-term objectives are unclear.
I agree with that. It was clearly right to help Ukraine beat the threat to Kyiv. It's probably right to help them fend off an expansion of the Donbas area under pro-Russian leadership since 2014. It's probably wrong to encourage them to go for broke and retake the whole Donbas and Crimea, because that muddies the waters and will lead to a long extension of the conflict. But if we do indeed want to do that, we need to have it as an explicit war aim, rather than something we've drifted into.
So you are willing to legitimise Russia’s previous imperialism and the horrific life of civilians in the occupied Donbas because…?
No sympathy whatsoever for Rishi and his non-dom wife. If you’re going to dictate British peoples taxes, you can’t live a deracinated existence for tax purposes.
Boris gave up his foreign citizenship - the Sunaks should have done the same, before he became chancellor.
I've got to say I find it a bit odd that so many people are basically saying "tell or make your wife do this". Normally the left would be up in arms about any suggestion that a husband should be bossing his wife around. If she is at fault that's her problem, not Rishi's. It may be embarassing for him, but it's not his fault.
He should not be telling his wife how to sort out her tax, but having a family discussion on whether he should accept a job where there is potential for a conflict of interest does not sound unreasonable.
I don't think it is appropriate for him to be Chancellor (or PM) with his wife having that tax arrangement but wouldn't see it as a block from him being Home Sec, Foreign Sec, Health Sec or most cabinet jobs. So I see it as she is paying tax by the rules, not at fault; whereas he is accepting a job he should not have done, at fault.
Oh you don't but the Treasury and Cabinet Office who probably know the rules better than you didn't find a problem. Maybe they are more modern and egalitarian minded than Sunak's critics and consider his wife's tax affairs to be her own matter, not Rishi's.
Interesting the Sunak non-dom story is a rehash of a private eye story from a way back.
Two days in a row the media being pointed to more obscure publications to read page 87 for hit pieces.
Private Eye is the source of a huge number of stories about corruption or similar that only surface elsewhere after months or years.
Its been very carefully timed though with him away and NI rise. Somebody knows what they are doing, rather than the media having been proactive i.e. they absolutely didn't just find an alumni magazine from 2 years ago and the non-story that was one sentence buried deep in it.
The most remarkable thing about Brexit is how incompetent the Brexiteers still are at implementing it. 6 years on and it is still a total shitshow.
Except that's not remarkable at all. "Project Fear" predicted much of this chaos.
And lo, it came to pass...
I'm becoming increasingly confident that the further the UK decends down the toilet with Johnson and his UKIP Party the greater the chance that we'll rejoin or do something similar in the next few years. Every stamp on our passports when we enter an EU country is an infringment on our freedom.
Do you regard the stamp into NZ. Australia, US or indeed ANYWHERE as an infringement on your freedom? Not being able to go at all would the thing you describe. Can you show me anyone from the UK who has been denied entry into an EU country (not including criminals etc)
We are reminded of our loss of freedom of movement as we queue with the Russians (not so much now, granted) to clear immigration at an EU airport. It is just like flying into the US. Nine lanes for domestic citizens and one for the rest of the world, of which we are now part of in the EU.
We won't rejoin the EU anytime soon, but Schengen under a non-Johnsonian Government. Perhaps?
That last part of your first para will I think be much less of a thing once Brussels get their electronic border system up and running.
We've chosen to be a part of the wider world rather than inside a walled garden, and to keep our autonomy as a country intact. That's a deal I'll take.
Jeesh, countries have automony within the EU. Witness Poland and Hungary's differing attitudes towards Russia right now, if that's not autonomy I don't know what is.
But, the EU are pursuing sanctions against both and also want to move to QMV on foreign policy as well.
There's a very nasty and specific issue for business that export to the EU that's really flown under the radar. I'll explain more on here when we've resolved it - but it's taking up loads of my bosses' time & effort and it's going to cost us as a business. You'd think leaving the EU it could be treated as if it were the rest of the world, unfortunately it doesn't work that way >< Orban is a pragmatist, he's not going to leave the EU even though he's as far from it culturally as you can get pretty much.
This hasn't made it to the news in a big way but I work for one of the Big 4 now and our economic analysis report showed that our exports to the EU have almost entirely recovered whilst it's imports from the EU that have declined - the exact opposite of what you'd expect.
Fresh food/fish is affected, as are SMEs that can't afford the bureaucracy, but these challenges are heavily overrepresented in the media because they self-report their problems but don't represent a balanced view of the overall macro picture - which is very different.
The UK's trade balance with the EU has certainly improved from a £77bn deficit in 2019 down to £32bn in 2021:
But there have been so many new factors and uncertainties affecting that during the last two years it will be a while before we know what the true situation is.
No sympathy whatsoever for Rishi and his non-dom wife. If you’re going to dictate British peoples taxes, you can’t live a deracinated existence for tax purposes.
Boris gave up his foreign citizenship - the Sunaks should have done the same, before he became chancellor.
I've got to say I find it a bit odd that so many people are basically saying "tell or make your wife do this". Normally the left would be up in arms about any suggestion that a husband should be bossing his wife around. If she is at fault that's her problem, not Rishi's. It may be embarassing for him, but it's not his fault.
He should not be telling his wife how to sort out her tax, but having a family discussion on whether he should accept a job where there is potential for a conflict of interest does not sound unreasonable.
I don't think it is appropriate for him to be Chancellor (or PM) with his wife having that tax arrangement but wouldn't see it as a block from him being Home Sec, Foreign Sec, Health Sec or most cabinet jobs. So I see it as she is paying tax by the rules, not at fault; whereas he is accepting a job he should not have done, at fault.
Oh you don't but the Treasury and Cabinet Office who probably know the rules better than you didn't find a problem. Maybe they are more modern and egalitarian minded than Sunak's critics and consider his wife's tax affairs to be her own matter, not Rishi's.
This government, including the civil service is not exactly well known for managing conflicts of interests in a prudent way!
Agree with the Header - the CH4 hatchet job is probably not happening and neither should it. The reasons given just don't stack up. It's a spiteful proposal aimed at neutering a distinctive voice purely because the tone of it isn't to the government's taste.
I would look at the model of an employee ownership plan (from a transaction perspective)
Set up Channel 4 as a “company with a purpose” and transfer the assets with an agreed value being paid to the government over 5 years
Comments
Some ruthlessly snobbish Old Etonian poshboi writing about the lower classes in the 1930s said they envied only those of the rich whom they would emulate if they had the money. So not the professional classes because they realised they continued to work hard despite being wealthy. Sunak did some things right: 4 cars is not many, and they aren't Bugattis. But the jetting to California and the non dom status should have gone. Clean up a bit more and he'd have been fine.
It is pointless really.
That also applies to diehard Brexiters.
Plus it is not just the Tories opposed to rejoining (all the Tory diehard Remainers no longer MPs), Starmer will not do so either as he needs to win the redwall seats back for power.
Even the LDs only now back rejoining the EEA or close to it, not the full EU
*) Infrastructure failure, e.g. Carmont.
*) Human failure
*) Rolling stock failure.
Though causal factors often fall into multiple of these; e.g. a driver's inattention may be human failure, but he might have had insufficient training, or the wrong shift pattern. Or a derailment caused by a broken wheel might be rolling stock failure, but it might have been contributed to by rough track (infrastructure issues) *and* human failure to detect issues early.
All three of these have been reduced. And privatisation has an effect on NR's output as well, as they need to pay fines for delays caused to operators by broken infrastructure.
So it is complex. But there is zero doubt safety has improved massively since privatisation.
The lovely thing about it is that when everyone is whingeing about why we don’t get a better quality of politician who’ve got life experience and ability this will be the example - why on earth, if you’ve had a successful career and followed allowable tax laws to make sensible financial planning decisions, would you then stand for parliament and have your private financial affairs used as a political football.
The real victims in this are the poor upstanding British soldiers who died on the dusty plains of India to ensure that all money made by Indians should find its way to the British exchequer - they must be spinning in their graves. Was so much better under the empire when we could tell foreign people that they had to give us their money.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2022/04/07/gross-folly-britain-give-tanks/
We won't rejoin the EU anytime soon, but Schengen under a non-Johnsonian Government. Perhaps?
Supporting the Labour Party is an absolute doddle compared to supporting Leeds; at least Labour has won something in the last 30 years. But both Leeds and Labour test one's loyalty massively and help us develop great resilience.
I'm not a fan of the privatised franchise model. Competition works for some sectors - where there is a choice of a service on the day say for a service. That will never be the case for railways - you can't turn up to a station and choose which provider you use - their is usually only one option. But thats not the same as saying there have been no benefits.
And lastly a tongue in cheek benefit - huge numbers of liveries for railway modellers (and the companies that produce the models) to copy. A not insignificant leisure sector.
But it's a bit of a silly argument, because you could just deny *anything* I mentioned is a result of privatisation.
Her brother is a famous Professor at CalTech.
We've chosen to be a part of the wider world rather than inside a walled garden, and to keep our autonomy as a country intact. That's a deal I'll take.
(I'm sure I'm the only person on here who had never heard of it)
Am I missing something can you be non - domiciled and spend more than that length of time in the UK.
* Yes yes I know nukes et al.
She is taxed on any uk income as normal but on foreign income she would be taxed abroad (although would assume it is set up efficiently). She would only pay UK taxed on any money that is remitted to the UK.
Thus - for illustration as I have no idea - if their California property is owned offshore then all the bills and expenses could be paid out of dividends from Infosys that are not subject to UK tax (but would be subject to Indian or other taxes).
You can hold this status provided that you are resident in the UK for less than 15 years in any 20 year period. (On practice I’d assume that means you can spend fewer than 90 days in the UK during that given tax year)
But then things like this, and the parties, and Matt Handsy happen. It's as if they overestimate their powers to make anything look good.
Everyone's tax affairs should be publicly available. As in most of the Nordic countries.
Also, it would be fascinating to read about the tax affairs of Tony Blair, Nick Clegg and David Cameron.
Sure, they were red, yellow and blue .. but all the colours look the same when it comes to their own tax affairs.
It does not need to be a public good as evidenced by the existence of private competitors. By your use of the definition you are saying Facebook is a public good
Options under consideration: Mastiff or Jackal, which could enable Ukrainian forces to push further forward towards Russian lines
https://thetimes.co.uk/article/uk-to-send-armoured-vehicles-to-aid-ukraine-vzvsk6s5t
https://mobile.twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1511949767718363136
🌬️We have a leaked draft of the energy strategy [left] from just a few weeks ago showing clear targets and planning changes
👀Compare/contrast with the actual strategy [right].
https://inews.co.uk/news/politics
https://mobile.twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1511972056472162304
In the short-term it's very propitious for western politicians to ride along with this tide, but the long-term objectives are unclear.
It is the case that we have seen more emphasis on the RAF and RN recently (appropriate, surely, for an island country), and that arguably funding has been insufficient (take pensions out of the Defence Budget?), and the much trumpeted 12% (?) or so boost recently is being seriously eroded by extra inflation.
And the Treasury by insisting on a slow build tempo (eg rather than frigates being 20-25% less money if we built a very small number extra - remember the Gordon Brown trick of making the aircraft carriers a couple of billion more expensive whilst also delaying them for 1-2 years simultaneously) is not exactly helping.
But the RN/RAF procurement is becoming more organised, whilst the Army is still in a shambles.
eg If we had gone for an off-the-shelf set of armoured vehicles - the ones that make soldiers deaf, rather than piddling away £3.5bn (so far) on Ajax, we would have 1-2 billion left over for more tanks.
Orban is a pragmatist, he's not going to leave the EU even though he's as far from it culturally as you can get pretty much.
Boris gave up his foreign citizenship - the Sunaks should have done the same, before he became chancellor.
Its interesting to see how this story has traversed the media over the past week. It appears to be "fact" now.
Investment in water etc wasn't sexy. So politically it was easier to use government fiat to keep water standards low (for example) and spend the money on the NHS.
Post privatisation, raising standards for water (say) was free - for the politicians.
But, Harabin majors on the environmental nutjobs who aren't happy because HMG aren't annoucing hairshirts instead.
Either we abandon Ukraine to possible defeat, or we supply them with the weapons they need.
I think the point is that autonomy within the EU is pretended. See what is built next on the foundation of the common debt obligation recently embraced, for example.
Reading the rhetoric since we left, the Brussels establishment believes in a European Govt, and that they will be it - regardless of anything else. I'm not up for that.
I would far prefer a reformed, flexible EU, which may happen. But if it is not to be, then I prefer to be out.
My own personal memories of British Rail are remarkably similar levels of punctuality to now, generally quite tatty carriages, seats and 'presentational' station-front issues, but rounded off with quite unbelievably cheaper journeys to now.
If we can get a situation where the Scott Trust actually pays its taxes rather than avoids them, then I would not necessarily oppose that.
Fresh food/fish is affected, as are SMEs that can't afford the bureaucracy, but these challenges are heavily overrepresented in the media because they self-report their problems but don't represent a balanced view of the overall macro picture - which is very different.
The River Don used to have a foam layer 6 feet high forming below a particular weir, blowing away in the wind and butting up against a bridge downstream. Dredged silt had to be treated as toxic waste.
Now the same weir has a salmon pass.
It was all rather odd. Apparently he's written a book, to put his side of the story, and claimed he was well known in the 'horsey' world. Oddly, says he's been living in Devon for the past 35 years, whereas at the time of the 2018 programme it was said he was in Ireland.
Two days in a row the media being pointed to more obscure publications to read page 87 for hit pieces.
The Sunaks are genuinely super rich, he alone is worth £200 million while his father in law is a billionaire
I agree that the case for keeping the Ukrainians armed and defended is a strong one, but I think the second point above is a current delusion, which it's now difficult to politically challenge in the West.
That Encounter In Full:
Scott [opens gate for me and another bloke to ride through]
Me thank you very much
Other Bloke OMG Do you know who that was?
Indeed I would suggest all homeowners will now have a real incentive to look into this as it is certain that should they decide to sell, buyers will be looking for energy efficiency savings or will reduce their offers to allow them to implement them
I would suggest this is the market working as it should and that HMG intervention in this field should only be at the margins
https://www.bcg.com/publications/2017/transportation-travel-tourism-2017-european-railway-performance-index
So what? The top end of capitalism is terribly unfair. We accept that becuase of the good it generates, not because it's morally right.
Politics is terribly unfair, as a lot of personally blameless council candidates will find over the next four weeks.
That's life.
Despite the colours, Labour are probably Rangers in this scenario, coming close to total collapse under Corbyn and coming back up through the divisions under Starmer to win compete in 2020/21 2023 or 2024.
I have in mind the bizarre photo stunt of him filling up somebody else's car to illustrate a pretty small cut in fuel duty. So many things were wrong with that, I think the public noticed. It smacked of deceit, and intention to mislead. Why not fill up his own car (I think we know?). Why pick a modest Kia (I think we know)? What on earth was he thinking of? The whole thing, though minor, smacked of childish desperation to please and was, I think, noticed.
So the Treasury switched from "NO" to "Sell the fuckers NOW!"
[Clears throat) ; and er.. yes, that's all a very interesting political point.
I'm not anti nuclear at all, but to describe this as a strategy is generous.
But it was an odd one, given he owns a golf for driving around the city ( obvs among other cars). If he filled up the golf, no real deceit and its not an overly fancy car. Given it was a planned PR stunt, why not just do that.
I don't think it is appropriate for him to be Chancellor (or PM) with his wife having that tax arrangement but wouldn't see it as a block from him being Home Sec, Foreign Sec, Health Sec or most cabinet jobs. So I see it as she is paying tax by the rules, not at fault; whereas he is accepting a job he should not have done, at fault.
And never works.
This is straw man stuff.
You can get NRI (Non Resident Indian) status when you give up your Indian citizenship. Mrs DA did this when she became a British citizen. There are some restrictions on purchasing property but it's not particularly onerous. As far as I can remember you can't buy a banana plantation or similar agricultural land.
But if you want the full paragraph knock yourself out
We should be saying that the ideal aim is for Russia to keep none of the territory their evil regime has stolen. Anything else will just lead to more imperial expansionism in a few years.
And I'd like to be clear about this: Russia is trying to build a new empire through war and invasion. Their leadership are acting like fascists - the very model of the 'Nazis' they decry. That is what Europe and the world is facing.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/nationalaccounts/balanceofpayments/timeseries/l86i/pnbp
But there have been so many new factors and uncertainties affecting that during the last two years it will be a while before we know what the true situation is.
Set up Channel 4 as a “company with a purpose” and transfer the assets with an agreed value being paid to the government over 5 years