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...
He must have been in Ireland in 2018; there's a report in the Irish Times. Says he competed at Badminton, among other things. I don't recall that coming out either at the trial or on the TV, and as a one-time Liberal activist who met Thorpe a couple of times..... always in the company of others ..... I was very interested. On TV this morning he said he'd been in Devon, in a house he'd been given, or at lest had been made available to him, for 35years.
As you say, inconsistent, but presumably anyone who could sue is now dead.
German intelligence has intercepted radio transmissions from Russian military officers in which murders of civilians in Butscha were discussed. Some of them are said to be related to specific corpses photographed in Bucha. @derspiegel https://twitter.com/mathieuvonrohr/status/1511968324007170051
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.
Care to give examples? Things like High-output trains are all German and other kit. Little comes from the UK AIUI.
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.
The RAF got fucking hammered in the review. They lost C-130J, E-3, Puma, 50 odd Typhoons and Hawk T1 with F-35 acquisitions being slowed.
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.
EU research refutes most of that. We now have a system and service level which is just below the top 3 or 4 across the EU. Have a dig around on Eurostat. (* Subject slightly to changes everywhere after COVID.)
And the "most expensive fairs" claim is mainly media cherry-picking.
"So the next time someone says (or you read) "Britain has the highest rail fares in Europe", you'll know this is only 15% of the story. The other 85% is that we have similar or even cheaper fares, too. The big picture is that Britain has the most commercially aggressive fares in Europe, with the highest fares designed to get maximum revenue from business travel, and some of the lowest fares designed to get more revenue by filling more seats. This is exactly what airlines have known, and been doing, for decades. But don't take my word for it, see for yourself, check some UK train fares at www.nationalrail.co.uk..."
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.
Can I suggest it's because it is both too trivial and too unrevealing to be important. Basically it says you imitate the others except when you don't, location matters, and parties converge on similar policies in politics except when you diverge.
The genius is knowing when and how to do which. There's no law for that. Trump didn't win an election by closely modelling Hilary.
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 a very PB thing, gammons falling over themselves to look "with it" and making themselves look more gammontastic than they did to start with. Marriages are rather regarded as partnerships on Planet Normal, so the question is really do they jointly want to forego the tax breaks in being non dom in favour of having a stab at being PM and PMs wife.
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.
That's life.
That’s not the point I’m making.
I’m sure that the Sunaks were aware of this risk and discussed it and decided to do what was best for them as a family unit.
I’m objecting to the people saying his wife “should” have done X and Y to protect his career. She’s an independent woman who can do what she likes.
German intelligence has intercepted radio transmissions from Russian military officers in which murders of civilians in Butscha were discussed. Some of them are said to be related to specific corpses photographed in Bucha. @derspiegel https://twitter.com/mathieuvonrohr/status/1511968324007170051
The SAS are bloody good aren't they...managing to get into a Russian held town, kill a load of cilvians, use Russian radio transmissions (speaking fluent Russian) in order to implicate the Russian army, without anybody noticing.
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!
Neither Rishi or his wife appear to have broken any rules or laws. He appears to be coming under attack because his wife is rich. What is he meant to do? It's her money, not his, and her taxes affairs, not his. The "sort your wife out" tone of many of the complaints is unseemly.
The material is also said to show that members of Russian mercenary troops such as "Wagner Group" were significantly involved in the atrocities. The latter had already attracted attention for their particular cruelty during their deployment in Syria.
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!
Neither Rishi or his wife appear to have broken any rules or laws. He appears to be coming under attack because his wife is rich. What is he meant to do? It's her money, not his, and her taxes affairs, not his. The "sort your wife out" tone of many of the complaints is unseemly.
As I said, I don't agree with the sort out your wife tone either. It is up to her where she pays tax. They should have had a conversation about what is best for their family, but ultimately her choice and she is within the rules.
What is in Rishi's control is what jobs he accepts. I have turned down good financial opportunities (relative to my income at least) where I perceive a conflict of interest exists, even if I would have got away with it and was not breaking any laws.
Is it really too much to expect our top leaders to think about are their personal circumstances that make them unsuitable for a given role?
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.
EU research refutes most of that. We now have a system and service level which is just below the top 3 or 4 across the EU. Have a dig around on Eurostat. (* Subject slightly to changes everywhere after COVID.)
And the "most expensive fairs" claim is mainly media cherry-picking.
"So the next time someone says (or you read) "Britain has the highest rail fares in Europe", you'll know this is only 15% of the story. The other 85% is that we have similar or even cheaper fares, too. The big picture is that Britain has the most commercially aggressive fares in Europe, with the highest fares designed to get maximum revenue from business travel, and some of the lowest fares designed to get more revenue by filling more seats. This is exactly what airlines have known, and been doing, for decades. But don't take my word for it, see for yourself, check some UK train fares at www.nationalrail.co.uk..."
One thing worth noting is that some fares are now way higher than they were pre covid. 1 example is the £120 Eek Twin A has been asked to pay to get back from Edinburgh on April 24th.
But that's because the trains are already full with the very cheapest seats sold out months ago.
There are reportedly indications of potential atrocities in the area surrounding Mariupol, the large city in southern Ukraine that has been besieged by the Russian military.
It is clear this is going to be absolutely horrific.
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.
45 years ago I would have got my pencil and paper out. I have now forgotten 90% of what I knew then and have lost that desire I had to do that level of maths when it was the focus of my life. Real life intervened.
Also my limitations (then and now) have become so obvious because of my son. My son, whom I am incredibly proud of, has put this in perspective. He is brilliant and completely out of my league and I have no clue what he is talking about most of the time. I was lucky to have the maths background because I was able to teach him some A level maths stuff when he was at primary school.
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!
Neither Rishi or his wife appear to have broken any rules or laws. He appears to be coming under attack because his wife is rich. What is he meant to do? It's her money, not his, and her taxes affairs, not his. The "sort your wife out" tone of many of the complaints is unseemly.
As I said, I don't agree with the sort out your wife tone either. It is up to her where she pays tax. They should have had a conversation about what is best for their family, but ultimately her choice and she is within the rules.
What is in Rishi's control is what jobs he accepts. I have turned down good financial opportunities (relative to my income at least) where I perceive a conflict of interest exists, even if I would have got away with it and was not breaking any laws.
Is it really too much to expect our top leaders to think about are their personal circumstances that make them unsuitable for a given role?
I’m just looking forward to the Margaret Hodge article in the Scott Trust, sorry Guardian, about the evils of tax planning and how a politician should be ensuring his wife does what’s best for his career.
Paul Sonne @PaulSonne · 13h Lavrov's daughter, who was sanctioned by Treasury today, was born in the U.S., went to school at the private Dwight School in New York and graduated from Barnard. This will have a substantive impact on her life.
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
Still poppycock. How different would things look with Raab in charge?
and you are doing the hindsight thing. We weren't thinking about Ukraine, we didn't know the invasion would actually happen tii it did, we were thinking about
German intelligence has intercepted radio transmissions from Russian military officers in which murders of civilians in Butscha were discussed. Some of them are said to be related to specific corpses photographed in Bucha. @derspiegel https://twitter.com/mathieuvonrohr/status/1511968324007170051
The SAS are bloody good aren't they...managing to get into a Russian held town, kill a load of cilvians, use Russian radio transmissions (speaking fluent Russian) in order to implicate the Russian army, without anybody noticing.
Truly best of the best.
.,.. and repaint the boat club a new colour, all before tea.
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.
While your comment is accurate on a standalone basis, I would be cautious about implying that legal tax planning is a story about “corruption or similar”
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.
One feature of BR was being able to turn up and buy a ticket to wherever without having to make all sorts of complicated calculations. When my wife and I were students we used to buy tickets between home and college without much thought, apart from how we could afford them. Our grandchildren, on the other hand, have had to make all sorts of calculations about Sunday travel, advance booking and split ticketing.
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.
It was in the wrong place? I suppose he could have had a flunky drive it t the patrol station for him?
There are reportedly indications of potential atrocities in the area surrounding Mariupol, the large city in southern Ukraine that has been besieged by the Russian military.
It is clear this is going to be absolutely horrific.
Even without any atrocities the body count there is going to be enormous, ~ 14,000 encircled Ukranian troops (Both sides est) and very little if any surrender amongst them. Last estimate I saw was 3,000 mainly in the Azovstal plant - which seems to be quite a tricky area to assault. So you can do the maths on that.
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.
EU research refutes most of that. We now have a system and service level which is just below the top 3 or 4 across the EU. Have a dig around on Eurostat. (* Subject slightly to changes everywhere after COVID.)
And the "most expensive fairs" claim is mainly media cherry-picking.
"So the next time someone says (or you read) "Britain has the highest rail fares in Europe", you'll know this is only 15% of the story. The other 85% is that we have similar or even cheaper fares, too. The big picture is that Britain has the most commercially aggressive fares in Europe, with the highest fares designed to get maximum revenue from business travel, and some of the lowest fares designed to get more revenue by filling more seats. This is exactly what airlines have known, and been doing, for decades. But don't take my word for it, see for yourself, check some UK train fares at www.nationalrail.co.uk..."
One thing worth noting is that some fares are now way higher than they were pre covid. 1 example is the £120 Eek Twin A has been asked to pay to get back from Edinburgh on April 24th.
But that's because the trains are already full with the very cheapest seats sold out months ago.
Yes, Covid's had a major impact on rail (and bus) travel, and it'll be interesting to see what the situation is in a few years. Certainly I'd expect commuting to fall in the medium term, but the increase in fuel prices might end up offsetting that a little. I wouldn't expect long-distance to be much affected.
Events move so crazily fast at the moment, I sometimes feel that only a fool tries to predict the medium-term future ...
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.
The RAF got fucking hammered in the review. They lost C-130J, E-3, Puma, 50 odd Typhoons and Hawk T1 with F-35 acquisitions being slowed.
I'd go some way to agree on that on some of the points. Though I don't think you can argue that army procurement is anything other than a shambles at present.
I wonder how many Batch 1 Typhoons were already essentially abandoned beforehand?
What would you have proposed, given unchanged funds? (Serious question)
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 a very PB thing, gammons falling over themselves to look "with it" and making themselves look more gammontastic than they did to start with. Marriages are rather regarded as partnerships on Planet Normal, so the question is really do they jointly want to forego the tax breaks in being non dom in favour of having a stab at being PM and PMs wife.
Of course, which is pretty much what I said in another post
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.
What makes you say that ? I would be interested to know. She is a bit of an unknown quantity.
Antidote to Johnson, a woman versus Starmer, she comes over pretty well in interview (sparse data), back story, projects enough gravitas but also a bit of humour. Truss and Hunt have big image issues I think. Hunt would be better than Truss both in terms of getting votes and probably actually being PM. I cans see both las no better than or worse than Starmer campaing wise. Of course, Mordaunt could lose to Starmer as we have no real idea of what the state of anything will be at the GE. But pretty sure that Mordaunt would be a better PM candidate than Starmer unless anything emerges against her.
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.
It was in the wrong place? I suppose he could have had a flunky drive it t the patrol station for him?
I'd expect there might be security implications as well: although the pictures did not show the car's registration plate, he might not want his own registration widely known. I certainly wouldn't in his situation.
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!
Neither Rishi or his wife appear to have broken any rules or laws. He appears to be coming under attack because his wife is rich. What is he meant to do? It's her money, not his, and her taxes affairs, not his. The "sort your wife out" tone of many of the complaints is unseemly.
As I said, I don't agree with the sort out your wife tone either. It is up to her where she pays tax. They should have had a conversation about what is best for their family, but ultimately her choice and she is within the rules.
What is in Rishi's control is what jobs he accepts. I have turned down good financial opportunities (relative to my income at least) where I perceive a conflict of interest exists, even if I would have got away with it and was not breaking any laws.
Is it really too much to expect our top leaders to think about are their personal circumstances that make them unsuitable for a given role?
I saw a post on here saying he had discussed it with the treasury before taking up the role (although presumably the chief secretary role not the chancellor).
The problem is that you can be too purist about conflicts and saying it means you can’t do anything. Disclosure and transparency is the solution as that allows for appropriate mechanisms to be put in place.
For example it’s probably more of an issue that his FIL is chairman of infosys (I’m assuming they have contracts with HMG). But that can be managed by making sure that Rishi has no role in those contracts.
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
Excellent, excellent, excellent. That must really grate with Boris.
I do so like to think of Boris & Carrie playing the poor couple in a "considerably richer than you" Enfield sketch.
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.
What makes you say that ? I would be interested to know. She is a bit of an unknown quantity.
Antidote to Johnson, a woman versus Starmer, she comes over pretty well in interview (sparse data), back story, projects enough gravitas but also a bit of humour. Truss and Hunt have big image issues I think. Hunt would be better than Truss both in terms of getting votes and probably actually being PM. I cans see both las no better than or worse than Starmer campaing wise. Of course, Mordaunt could lose to Starmer as we have no real idea of what the state of anything will be at the GE. But pretty sure that Mordaunt would be a better PM candidate than Starmer unless anything emerges against her.
Yes ; unusually "normal"-sounding for a modern politician ; I think has the capacity to attract back a particular branch and kind of female voters that the Tories have lost for years ; more competent-seeming than Truss, without potentially been seen as dull by some, like Hunt.
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.
One feature of BR was being able to turn up and buy a ticket to wherever without having to make all sorts of complicated calculations. When my wife and I were students we used to buy tickets between home and college without much thought, apart from how we could afford them. Our grandchildren, on the other hand, have had to make all sorts of calculations about Sunday travel, advance booking and split ticketing.
That's a nice thing about Japanese trains, there are a few special promotions and things but generally they just have reasonable prices, and no discounts, not even for a return trip. You just swipe your card as you go in, get on the train, get off the train at your destination and swipe on the way out, without ever needing to waste precious brain cells thinking about train fares.
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
Still poppycock. How different would things look with Raab in charge?
and you are doing the hindsight thing. We weren't thinking about Ukraine, we didn't know the invasion would actually happen tii it did, we were thinking about
a) Raab - potentially very different if he was campaigning. There would have been a risk of a less unified front and more political calculation about whether supporting Ukraine wholeheartedly or not was right.
b) I suspect that HMG had a very good idea in December that it was a real risk. Sunak would have been briefed on that intelligence assessment.
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.
Care to give examples? Things like High-output trains are all German and other kit. Little comes from the UK AIUI.
I'm thinking very much of the way BR was on an upward trajectory in the years before privatization. The IC225 and ECML electrificatioon (to budget!) happened only a ferw years before privatization. Basically the main London-Edinburgh services sicvne them have been repainted and renationalised. The Azumas are much later.
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!
Neither Rishi or his wife appear to have broken any rules or laws. He appears to be coming under attack because his wife is rich. What is he meant to do? It's her money, not his, and her taxes affairs, not his. The "sort your wife out" tone of many of the complaints is unseemly.
As I said, I don't agree with the sort out your wife tone either. It is up to her where she pays tax. They should have had a conversation about what is best for their family, but ultimately her choice and she is within the rules.
What is in Rishi's control is what jobs he accepts. I have turned down good financial opportunities (relative to my income at least) where I perceive a conflict of interest exists, even if I would have got away with it and was not breaking any laws.
Is it really too much to expect our top leaders to think about are their personal circumstances that make them unsuitable for a given role?
I’m just looking forward to the Margaret Hodge article in the Scott Trust, sorry Guardian, about the evils of tax planning and how a politician should be ensuring his wife does what’s best for his career.
I'm surprised this has become a thing. As far as I can see Ms Sunak has done nothing wrong, and has followed the rules in place - which themselves seem fine.
I'm equally surprised that Angela Rayner has gone after it. Half a dozen tweets in the last day or so. About a non-story from a newspaper owned by an oligarch and a Saudi, with AR previously making claims about the relationship between BJ and the oligarch.
But I don't think the current Tories (except perhaps Gove or Mordaunt) will give AR the contemptuous response she deserves: Feminist Deputy Leader of Labour attacks Chancellor by using his wife as ammunition
A more interesting angle is perhaps why do rich so-called supporters of poorer people want taxes due in India tramsferred to the UK?
I’m well on my way from Figueres to Roses; about six miles in, and nine and a half to go. The walk should have been a couple of miles less, but I had to make a detour on the way out of Figueres to the huge Carrefour on the edge of town as I remembered I didn’t have any provisions for the journey. I bought myself two Espetecs (cured Catalan sausage snacks, like huge pepperamis) and eight cans of beer.
That might sound like a lot of beer for a fifteen mile walk, but they didn’t have any smaller multipacks and eight 5.4% San Miguel Especials for four quid was as cheap as five individual cans of any beer. So, in order to reduce my payload, I’ve been drinking a bit more than normal and already on my third!
I still haven’t seen much wildlife, but did see a beautiful big cock in a cage earlier. Unfortunately by the time I’d got close enough to take a picture without the cage showing, he was trying to hide from me and had put away his plumage.. I’ve stopped to write this on the bank of La Muga river, just before where it joins El Manol.
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!
Neither Rishi or his wife appear to have broken any rules or laws. He appears to be coming under attack because his wife is rich. What is he meant to do? It's her money, not his, and her taxes affairs, not his. The "sort your wife out" tone of many of the complaints is unseemly.
As I said, I don't agree with the sort out your wife tone either. It is up to her where she pays tax. They should have had a conversation about what is best for their family, but ultimately her choice and she is within the rules.
What is in Rishi's control is what jobs he accepts. I have turned down good financial opportunities (relative to my income at least) where I perceive a conflict of interest exists, even if I would have got away with it and was not breaking any laws.
Is it really too much to expect our top leaders to think about are their personal circumstances that make them unsuitable for a given role?
I’m just looking forward to the Margaret Hodge article in the Scott Trust, sorry Guardian, about the evils of tax planning and how a politician should be ensuring his wife does what’s best for his career.
I'm surprised this has become a thing. As far as I can see Ms Sunak has done nothing wrong, and has followed the rules in place - which themselves seem fine.
I'm equally surprised that Angela Rayner has gone after it. Half a dozen tweets in the last day or so.
But I don't think the current Tories will give AR the contemptuous response she deserves: Feminist Deputy Leader of Labour attacks Chancellor by using his wife as ammunition
A more interesting angle is perhaps why do rich so-called supporters of poorer people want taxes due in India tramsferred to the UK?
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.
Care to give examples? Things like High-output trains are all German and other kit. Little comes from the UK AIUI.
I'm thinking very much of the way BR was on an upward trajectory in the years before privatization. The IC225 and ECML electrificatioon (to budget!) happened only a ferw years before privatization. Basically the main London-Edinburgh services sicvne them have been repainted and renationalised. The Azumas are much later.
That happened under a Conservative government.
I'm unsure 'upward trajectory' before privatisation is correct. Yes, the ECML was electrified, but elsewhere there was retrenchment, e.g. rationalisation (single-tracking double-track lines). The Pacers are an example of the cost-cutting that was required.
BR was very efficient - but it was efficient at managing a declining railway. The privatised structure has had to manage a massively-expanding railway in terms of traffic. And that's very difficult.
(One of the odd things about UK's railways, so ignored by some, is that the vast majority of electrifications in England occurred under Conservative governments. ISTR New Labour only electrified 15-odd miles during their 13 years - Crewe to Stoke.)
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.
Obviously tin ears and not got a clue about humanity and morals. Any half intelligent person would have seen it as a huge impediment and sorted it before going in , what difference would a few million make to them , it would be just a rounding. Shows he is not fit for any great responsibility and likely along with dumbo teh clown shows why we are circling the drain as a country. How do these idiots make so much money when I doubt they could run a bath.
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.
One feature of BR was being able to turn up and buy a ticket to wherever without having to make all sorts of complicated calculations. When my wife and I were students we used to buy tickets between home and college without much thought, apart from how we could afford them. Our grandchildren, on the other hand, have had to make all sorts of calculations about Sunday travel, advance booking and split ticketing.
That's a nice thing about Japanese trains, there are a few special promotions and things but generally they just have reasonable prices, and no discounts, not even for a return trip. You just swipe your card as you go in, get on the train, get off the train at your destination and swipe on the way out, without ever needing to waste precious brain cells thinking about train fares.
A few years ago it was the worst. Now all the operators give you basically the same experience, and you bcan buy through tickets fine.
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!
Neither Rishi or his wife appear to have broken any rules or laws. He appears to be coming under attack because his wife is rich. What is he meant to do? It's her money, not his, and her taxes affairs, not his. The "sort your wife out" tone of many of the complaints is unseemly.
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.
You’re right about C4, it’s a niche issue (which means it won’t matter either way, virtually no one will change their vote coz of this, unless they actually work for C4)
You’re wrong about culture wars, they really do win/lose elections, and it will only get more important. See Virginia. See France - where “wokeisme” is driving the surge of the Right
Just as a clarification to my post below, I meant that Mordaunt would be a better candidate than any of the other main Tory frontrunners, I think, not necessarily than Starmer.
I logged on here today fully expecting something along the lines of Why the Akshata Murty affair proves lefties are racist -- my article for Unherd, but I did not anticipate you're stealing the chapatis from the mouths of starving Indians
On the news apparently Ukraine are favourites for Eurovision. Well not much of a surprise. How many countries are not going to give them maximum point. Russia obviously. Could be an emotional moment I think. I might watch it for once.
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.
The RAF got fucking hammered in the review. They lost C-130J, E-3, Puma, 50 odd Typhoons and Hawk T1 with F-35 acquisitions being slowed.
I'd go some way to agree on that on some of the points. Though I don't think you can argue that army procurement is anything other than a shambles at present.
I wonder how many Batch 1 Typhoons were already essentially abandoned beforehand?
What would you have proposed, given unchanged funds? (Serious question)
Cancel Tempest. National vanity project/job creation scheme that's going to suck up billions for decades to come. Stop buying F-35B. We're never going to able to deploy 2 x CSG anyway so we only need one air wing. Close down the Typhoon OCU and do a joint conversion unit with Spain in Spain where the weather's good. (Typhoon mates would love this. Good for recruitment and more importantly retention.) Half the Chinook fleet and transfer to the AAC where they don't have to be flown by commissioned officers. Ditto Puma replacement. Close down Akrotiri. Bin RAFAT. Close Scampton. Bin BoBMF or turn it into a charity where people can pay for it if they want.
With the money saved...
Increase E-7 buy back to the pre-cut level of 5 though not by buying 10 year old Chinese donor aircraft as the MoD have done with two of the three E-7s. Buy Typhoon ECR and operate them jointly with Germany restoring SEAD capability. Buy more MQ-9B Buy more A400M and operate jointly with Belgium and Luxembourg. (This already happens to some extent.) Buy AN/APS-154 for the P-8 to restore the AGS capability lost by letting Sentinel decay into obsolescence.
Result: smaller, better balanced, more efficient fixed wing only RAF with a much more complete spread of capabilities that better meets the strategic threats.
On the news apparently Ukrainian are favourites for Eurovision. Well not much of a surprise. How many countries are not going to give them maximum point. Russia obviously. Could be an emotional moment I think. I might watch it for once.
Not sure Russia will be allowed to participate! Yes it's possible Ukraine will get more points than United Kingdom.
On the news apparently Ukraine are favourites for Eurovision. Well not much of a surprise. How many countries are not going to give them maximum point. Russia obviously. Could be an emotional moment I think. I might watch it for once.
They will be the hosts in 2023, which will be interesting if the war is not over.
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.
You’re right about C4, it’s a niche issue (which means it won’t matter either way, virtually no one will change their vote coz of this, unless they actually work for C4)
You’re wrong about culture wars, they really do win/lose elections, and it will only get more important. See Virginia. See France - where “wokeisme” is driving the surge of the Right
The trans issue alone fires up many people. Have a look at Mumsnet one day. Ask female sports players and fans. Ask @cyclefree on here
Sadly for once Leon is right. Tories probably get re-elected on anti-wokeism, mostly aimed at trans. And won't put much thought or effort at all into fixing the things that actually need radical change and investment to improve the country.
Speaking to a Tory agent he is convinced this is a disaster for the Tories.
If this leads to the end of Countdown then older Tory voters are going to switch to Labour.
What would poor old Richard Whitely have made of it. Generations, and thousands, of students might have otherwise had to actually do some work around teatime, too.
On the news apparently Ukrainian are favourites for Eurovision. Well not much of a surprise. How many countries are not going to give them maximum point. Russia obviously. Could be an emotional moment I think. I might watch it for once.
Not sure Russia will be allowed to participate! Yes it's possible Ukraine will get more points than United Kingdom.
I thought getting more points than us was part of the rules.
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!
Neither Rishi or his wife appear to have broken any rules or laws. He appears to be coming under attack because his wife is rich. What is he meant to do? It's her money, not his, and her taxes affairs, not his. The "sort your wife out" tone of many of the complaints is unseemly.
As I said, I don't agree with the sort out your wife tone either. It is up to her where she pays tax. They should have had a conversation about what is best for their family, but ultimately her choice and she is within the rules.
What is in Rishi's control is what jobs he accepts. I have turned down good financial opportunities (relative to my income at least) where I perceive a conflict of interest exists, even if I would have got away with it and was not breaking any laws.
Is it really too much to expect our top leaders to think about are their personal circumstances that make them unsuitable for a given role?
I’m just looking forward to the Margaret Hodge article in the Scott Trust, sorry Guardian, about the evils of tax planning and how a politician should be ensuring his wife does what’s best for his career.
I'm surprised this has become a thing. As far as I can see Ms Sunak has done nothing wrong, and has followed the rules in place - which themselves seem fine.
I'm equally surprised that Angela Rayner has gone after it. Half a dozen tweets in the last day or so.
But I don't think the current Tories will give AR the contemptuous response she deserves: Feminist Deputy Leader of Labour attacks Chancellor by using his wife as ammunition
A more interesting angle is perhaps why do rich so-called supporters of poorer people want taxes due in India transferred to the UK?
😂 amazing
You think it's OK to weaponise politicians' partners?
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.
You’re right about C4, it’s a niche issue (which means it won’t matter either way, virtually no one will change their vote coz of this, unless they actually work for C4)
You’re wrong about culture wars, they really do win/lose elections, and it will only get more important. See Virginia. See France - where “wokeisme” is driving the surge of the Right
The trans issue alone fires up many people. Have a look at Mumsnet one day. Ask female sports players and fans. Ask @cyclefree on here
Sadly for once Leon is right. Tories probably get re-elected on anti-wokeism, mostly aimed at trans. And won't put much thought or effort at all into fixing the things that actually need radical change and investment to improve the country.
There's a relatively simply answer to that for Labour ; try and steer clear of culture war issues, which Starmer needs to do a bit of a better job of, without planting six union jacks behind him at all times.
Speaking to a Tory agent he is convinced this is a disaster for the Tories.
If this leads to the end of Countdown then older Tory voters are going to switch to Labour.
The only upside I can see to flogging Channel 4 is a billion quid. The politics for the Tories are all negative, probably a pillow talk request from mad Nad which has gotten out of hand tbh.
German intelligence has intercepted radio transmissions from Russian military officers in which murders of civilians in Butscha were discussed. Some of them are said to be related to specific corpses photographed in Bucha. @derspiegel https://twitter.com/mathieuvonrohr/status/1511968324007170051
The SAS are bloody good aren't they...managing to get into a Russian held town, kill a load of cilvians, use Russian radio transmissions (speaking fluent Russian) in order to implicate the Russian army, without anybody noticing.
Truly best of the best.
Russia is utterly banged to rights on this - yet doesn't give a damn. And its troops are being given absolution from the church because, well, they are only Ukrainian untermenschen....
The irony of their supposedly being in Ukraine to fight Nazis is off the scale.
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!
Neither Rishi or his wife appear to have broken any rules or laws. He appears to be coming under attack because his wife is rich. What is he meant to do? It's her money, not his, and her taxes affairs, not his. The "sort your wife out" tone of many of the complaints is unseemly.
As I said, I don't agree with the sort out your wife tone either. It is up to her where she pays tax. They should have had a conversation about what is best for their family, but ultimately her choice and she is within the rules.
What is in Rishi's control is what jobs he accepts. I have turned down good financial opportunities (relative to my income at least) where I perceive a conflict of interest exists, even if I would have got away with it and was not breaking any laws.
Is it really too much to expect our top leaders to think about are their personal circumstances that make them unsuitable for a given role?
I’m just looking forward to the Margaret Hodge article in the Scott Trust, sorry Guardian, about the evils of tax planning and how a politician should be ensuring his wife does what’s best for his career.
I'm surprised this has become a thing. As far as I can see Ms Sunak has done nothing wrong, and has followed the rules in place - which themselves seem fine.
I'm equally surprised that Angela Rayner has gone after it. Half a dozen tweets in the last day or so.
But I don't think the current Tories will give AR the contemptuous response she deserves: Feminist Deputy Leader of Labour attacks Chancellor by using his wife as ammunition
A more interesting angle is perhaps why do rich so-called supporters of poorer people want taxes due in India transferred to the UK?
😂 amazing
You think it's OK to weaponise politicians' partners?
It's a view, I suppose.
If you’re going to live in number 11 Downing Street, you should have to pay British tax.
The PB tories are way out of whack with public opinion on this.
I think the High Peak one is probably the most interesting and could see a Conservative gain from Labour because the ward was split in 2019 and the Greens are standing this time. Labour could therefore lose their majority on High Peak council.
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!
Neither Rishi or his wife appear to have broken any rules or laws. He appears to be coming under attack because his wife is rich. What is he meant to do? It's her money, not his, and her taxes affairs, not his. The "sort your wife out" tone of many of the complaints is unseemly.
As I said, I don't agree with the sort out your wife tone either. It is up to her where she pays tax. They should have had a conversation about what is best for their family, but ultimately her choice and she is within the rules.
What is in Rishi's control is what jobs he accepts. I have turned down good financial opportunities (relative to my income at least) where I perceive a conflict of interest exists, even if I would have got away with it and was not breaking any laws.
Is it really too much to expect our top leaders to think about are their personal circumstances that make them unsuitable for a given role?
I’m just looking forward to the Margaret Hodge article in the Scott Trust, sorry Guardian, about the evils of tax planning and how a politician should be ensuring his wife does what’s best for his career.
I'm surprised this has become a thing. As far as I can see Ms Sunak has done nothing wrong, and has followed the rules in place - which themselves seem fine.
I'm equally surprised that Angela Rayner has gone after it. Half a dozen tweets in the last day or so.
But I don't think the current Tories will give AR the contemptuous response she deserves: Feminist Deputy Leader of Labour attacks Chancellor by using his wife as ammunition
A more interesting angle is perhaps why do rich so-called supporters of poorer people want taxes due in India transferred to the UK?
😂 amazing
You think it's OK to weaponise politicians' partners?
It's a view, I suppose.
I seem to recall Cherie Blair getting a lot of stick for her private, legal financial arrangements. Doesn't make it right, but I'm in favour of a level playing field.
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!
Neither Rishi or his wife appear to have broken any rules or laws. He appears to be coming under attack because his wife is rich. What is he meant to do? It's her money, not his, and her taxes affairs, not his. The "sort your wife out" tone of many of the complaints is unseemly.
As I said, I don't agree with the sort out your wife tone either. It is up to her where she pays tax. They should have had a conversation about what is best for their family, but ultimately her choice and she is within the rules.
What is in Rishi's control is what jobs he accepts. I have turned down good financial opportunities (relative to my income at least) where I perceive a conflict of interest exists, even if I would have got away with it and was not breaking any laws.
Is it really too much to expect our top leaders to think about are their personal circumstances that make them unsuitable for a given role?
I’m just looking forward to the Margaret Hodge article in the Scott Trust, sorry Guardian, about the evils of tax planning and how a politician should be ensuring his wife does what’s best for his career.
I'm surprised this has become a thing. As far as I can see Ms Sunak has done nothing wrong, and has followed the rules in place - which themselves seem fine.
I'm equally surprised that Angela Rayner has gone after it. Half a dozen tweets in the last day or so.
But I don't think the current Tories will give AR the contemptuous response she deserves: Feminist Deputy Leader of Labour attacks Chancellor by using his wife as ammunition
A more interesting angle is perhaps why do rich so-called supporters of poorer people want taxes due in India transferred to the UK?
😂 amazing
You think it's OK to weaponise politicians' partners?
It's a view, I suppose.
If you’re going to live in number 11 Downing Street, you should have to pay British tax.
The PB tories are way out of whack with public opinion on this.
You don't really understand what non-dom status is, do you. It doesn't absolve you of paying all British tax.
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.
One feature of BR was being able to turn up and buy a ticket to wherever without having to make all sorts of complicated calculations. When my wife and I were students we used to buy tickets between home and college without much thought, apart from how we could afford them. Our grandchildren, on the other hand, have had to make all sorts of calculations about Sunday travel, advance booking and split ticketing.
And yet everything is also vastly easier, because smartphones
I am in Turkey. Yesterday afternoon I wanted to get from Kusadasi on the Aegean coast, to Izmir, about an hour north
rome2rio.com gave me all the options in 5 minutes: train, taxi, car rental, bus, plus prices and timetables
Bus looked best (quicker, most options). Using the app FlixBus I was able to buy - in seconds - a ticket and reserve a seat on the next luxury coach (Turkish buses are now amazing). £4
They sent my phone a QR code. No actual ticket. No queueing at a booth. Like an airline but much smoother. Paid with Apple Pay
It was a marvellous example of what technology can now do. Imagine working all that out and getting it done in Turkey 30 years ago (and it was all in English, natch)
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.
You’re right about C4, it’s a niche issue (which means it won’t matter either way, virtually no one will change their vote coz of this, unless they actually work for C4)
You’re wrong about culture wars, they really do win/lose elections, and it will only get more important. See Virginia. See France - where “wokeisme” is driving the surge of the Right
The trans issue alone fires up many people. Have a look at Mumsnet one day. Ask female sports players and fans. Ask @cyclefree on here
Sadly for once Leon is right. Tories probably get re-elected on anti-wokeism, mostly aimed at trans. And won't put much thought or effort at all into fixing the things that actually need radical change and investment to improve the country.
Nobody will care about "woke" issues when their electricity bills are up by £2000 a year and they can't afford to fill up their cars. Meanwhile we have a chancellor who's putting up taxes while his wife avoids paying them. People being flat broke while watching prices in supermarkets go up 20% or more.
And people are saying it's trans women in bathrooms wot's gonna win it for the Tories?
Speaking to a Tory agent he is convinced this is a disaster for the Tories.
If this leads to the end of Countdown then older Tory voters are going to switch to Labour.
I am sure Countdown would continue even under private ownership, they are hardly going to get rid of one of C4's programmes with the highest ratings and ad revenue.
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.
He could have made a virtue of it, publicly renouncing the extreme trappings of greedy excess without making any real change to his actual lifestyle, and it would have been temporary anyway; implies a lack of seriousness about getting the top job, or political smarts at least. Sticking his nozzle into someone else’s Kia suggests the latter.
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!
Neither Rishi or his wife appear to have broken any rules or laws. He appears to be coming under attack because his wife is rich. What is he meant to do? It's her money, not his, and her taxes affairs, not his. The "sort your wife out" tone of many of the complaints is unseemly.
As I said, I don't agree with the sort out your wife tone either. It is up to her where she pays tax. They should have had a conversation about what is best for their family, but ultimately her choice and she is within the rules.
What is in Rishi's control is what jobs he accepts. I have turned down good financial opportunities (relative to my income at least) where I perceive a conflict of interest exists, even if I would have got away with it and was not breaking any laws.
Is it really too much to expect our top leaders to think about are their personal circumstances that make them unsuitable for a given role?
I’m just looking forward to the Margaret Hodge article in the Scott Trust, sorry Guardian, about the evils of tax planning and how a politician should be ensuring his wife does what’s best for his career.
I'm surprised this has become a thing. As far as I can see Ms Sunak has done nothing wrong, and has followed the rules in place - which themselves seem fine.
I'm equally surprised that Angela Rayner has gone after it. Half a dozen tweets in the last day or so.
But I don't think the current Tories will give AR the contemptuous response she deserves: Feminist Deputy Leader of Labour attacks Chancellor by using his wife as ammunition
A more interesting angle is perhaps why do rich so-called supporters of poorer people want taxes due in India transferred to the UK?
😂 amazing
You think it's OK to weaponise politicians' partners?
It's a view, I suppose.
If you’re going to live in number 11 Downing Street, you should have to pay British tax.
The PB tories are way out of whack with public opinion on this.
You don't really understand what non-dom status is, do you. It doesn't absolve you of paying all British tax.
That's not how it works. The shitmunchers just hear that Sunak's Mrs is a wealthy tax avoider and that's the story. 99% of people aren't going to look into the mechanics of non-dom status and then derive an even handed and logical opinion based on the facts.
I hope Channel 4 is privatised. Its very poor schedule is reflected in its viewing figures which with few exceptions are abysmal. I suspect the day of mainstream scheduled TV is passing and the government has a declining asset on its hands. It would be sensible to get rid of it. That this may piss the left off is an added bonus.
Off topic, but I've just noticed that County Championship cricket has started today, with several games. Seems to get earlier every year.
I'm sure the grounds will be heaving with supporters dressed in their finest winter attire. Not.
COVID revolution of county cricket to stream on youtube was actually a positive. Now anybody, including kids, can watch cricket totally free. Innovative in the media. 2000 people currently watching Hampshire vs Somerset
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.
You’re right about C4, it’s a niche issue (which means it won’t matter either way, virtually no one will change their vote coz of this, unless they actually work for C4)
You’re wrong about culture wars, they really do win/lose elections, and it will only get more important. See Virginia. See France - where “wokeisme” is driving the surge of the Right
The trans issue alone fires up many people. Have a look at Mumsnet one day. Ask female sports players and fans. Ask @cyclefree on here
Sadly for once Leon is right. Tories probably get re-elected on anti-wokeism, mostly aimed at trans. And won't put much thought or effort at all into fixing the things that actually need radical change and investment to improve the country.
Nobody will care about "woke" issues when their electricity bills are up by £2000 a year and they can't afford to fill up their cars. Meanwhile we have a chancellor who's putting up taxes while his wife avoids paying them. People being flat broke while watching prices in supermarkets go up 20% or more.
And people are saying it's trans women in bathrooms wot's gonna win it for the Tories?
Yes, anecdotally I've had a number of friends and relatives exclaiming at bill rises in the last fortnight or so, as I've also seen on these threads, too.
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!
Neither Rishi or his wife appear to have broken any rules or laws. He appears to be coming under attack because his wife is rich. What is he meant to do? It's her money, not his, and her taxes affairs, not his. The "sort your wife out" tone of many of the complaints is unseemly.
As I said, I don't agree with the sort out your wife tone either. It is up to her where she pays tax. They should have had a conversation about what is best for their family, but ultimately her choice and she is within the rules.
What is in Rishi's control is what jobs he accepts. I have turned down good financial opportunities (relative to my income at least) where I perceive a conflict of interest exists, even if I would have got away with it and was not breaking any laws.
Is it really too much to expect our top leaders to think about are their personal circumstances that make them unsuitable for a given role?
I’m just looking forward to the Margaret Hodge article in the Scott Trust, sorry Guardian, about the evils of tax planning and how a politician should be ensuring his wife does what’s best for his career.
I'm surprised this has become a thing. As far as I can see Ms Sunak has done nothing wrong, and has followed the rules in place - which themselves seem fine.
I'm equally surprised that Angela Rayner has gone after it. Half a dozen tweets in the last day or so.
But I don't think the current Tories will give AR the contemptuous response she deserves: Feminist Deputy Leader of Labour attacks Chancellor by using his wife as ammunition
A more interesting angle is perhaps why do rich so-called supporters of poorer people want taxes due in India transferred to the UK?
😂 amazing
You think it's OK to weaponise politicians' partners?
It's a view, I suppose.
Yes, that is DEFINITELY what I said. There are who think that this is part of a long pattern of deeply troubling conflicts of interest at the heart of government and that the mealy-mouthed statement trying to defend this raised more questions than it answered. BUT NOT ME. I'm just in it to attack women and, if possible, cause the starvation of poor Indian children. You found me out, Sherlock.
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.
One feature of BR was being able to turn up and buy a ticket to wherever without having to make all sorts of complicated calculations. When my wife and I were students we used to buy tickets between home and college without much thought, apart from how we could afford them. Our grandchildren, on the other hand, have had to make all sorts of calculations about Sunday travel, advance booking and split ticketing.
And yet everything is also vastly easier, because smartphones
I am in Turkey. Yesterday afternoon I wanted to get from Kusadasi on the Aegean coast, to Izmir, about an hour north
rome2rio.com gave me all the options in 5 minutes: train, taxi, car rental, bus, plus prices and timetables
Bus looked best (quicker, most options). Using the app FlixBus I was able to buy - in seconds - a ticket and reserve a seat on the next luxury coach (Turkish buses are now amazing). £4
They sent my phone a QR code. No actual ticket. No queueing at a booth. Like an airline but much smoother. Paid with Apple Pay
It was a marvellous example of what technology can now do. Imagine working all that out and getting it done in Turkey 30 years ago (and it was all in English, natch)
Without Apple or Google pay there'd likely be a big run on wheelbarrows there given the state of the currency.
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!
Neither Rishi or his wife appear to have broken any rules or laws. He appears to be coming under attack because his wife is rich. What is he meant to do? It's her money, not his, and her taxes affairs, not his. The "sort your wife out" tone of many of the complaints is unseemly.
As I said, I don't agree with the sort out your wife tone either. It is up to her where she pays tax. They should have had a conversation about what is best for their family, but ultimately her choice and she is within the rules.
What is in Rishi's control is what jobs he accepts. I have turned down good financial opportunities (relative to my income at least) where I perceive a conflict of interest exists, even if I would have got away with it and was not breaking any laws.
Is it really too much to expect our top leaders to think about are their personal circumstances that make them unsuitable for a given role?
I’m just looking forward to the Margaret Hodge article in the Scott Trust, sorry Guardian, about the evils of tax planning and how a politician should be ensuring his wife does what’s best for his career.
I'm surprised this has become a thing. As far as I can see Ms Sunak has done nothing wrong, and has followed the rules in place - which themselves seem fine.
I'm equally surprised that Angela Rayner has gone after it. Half a dozen tweets in the last day or so.
But I don't think the current Tories will give AR the contemptuous response she deserves: Feminist Deputy Leader of Labour attacks Chancellor by using his wife as ammunition
A more interesting angle is perhaps why do rich so-called supporters of poorer people want taxes due in India transferred to the UK?
😂 amazing
You think it's OK to weaponise politicians' partners?
It's a view, I suppose.
If you’re going to live in number 11 Downing Street, you should have to pay British tax.
The PB tories are way out of whack with public opinion on this.
You don't really understand what non-dom status is, do you. It doesn't absolve you of paying all British tax.
Right, so the problem is that the general public need educating about non-dom tax rules and that will diffuse their anger.
Good luck with that.
In the eyes of the public, the Sunak family are taking the piss out of them.
I hope Channel 4 is privatised. Its very poor schedule is reflected in its viewing figures which with few exceptions are abysmal. I suspect the day of mainstream scheduled TV is passing and the government has a declining asset on its hands. It would be sensible to get rid of it. That this may piss the left off is an added bonus.
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!
Neither Rishi or his wife appear to have broken any rules or laws. He appears to be coming under attack because his wife is rich. What is he meant to do? It's her money, not his, and her taxes affairs, not his. The "sort your wife out" tone of many of the complaints is unseemly.
As I said, I don't agree with the sort out your wife tone either. It is up to her where she pays tax. They should have had a conversation about what is best for their family, but ultimately her choice and she is within the rules.
What is in Rishi's control is what jobs he accepts. I have turned down good financial opportunities (relative to my income at least) where I perceive a conflict of interest exists, even if I would have got away with it and was not breaking any laws.
Is it really too much to expect our top leaders to think about are their personal circumstances that make them unsuitable for a given role?
I’m just looking forward to the Margaret Hodge article in the Scott Trust, sorry Guardian, about the evils of tax planning and how a politician should be ensuring his wife does what’s best for his career.
I'm surprised this has become a thing. As far as I can see Ms Sunak has done nothing wrong, and has followed the rules in place - which themselves seem fine.
I'm equally surprised that Angela Rayner has gone after it. Half a dozen tweets in the last day or so.
But I don't think the current Tories will give AR the contemptuous response she deserves: Feminist Deputy Leader of Labour attacks Chancellor by using his wife as ammunition
A more interesting angle is perhaps why do rich so-called supporters of poorer people want taxes due in India transferred to the UK?
😂 amazing
You think it's OK to weaponise politicians' partners?
It's a view, I suppose.
If you’re going to live in number 11 Downing Street, you should have to pay British tax.
The PB tories are way out of whack with public opinion on this.
You don't really understand what non-dom status is, do you. It doesn't absolve you of paying all British tax.
Right, so the problem is that the general public need educating about non-dom tax rules and that will diffuse their anger.
Good luck with that.
In the eyes of the public, the Sunaks are taking the piss.
No, but we have higher standards of accuracy on PB.
Speaking to a Tory agent he is convinced this is a disaster for the Tories.
If this leads to the end of Countdown then older Tory voters are going to switch to Labour.
The only upside I can see to flogging Channel 4 is a billion quid. The politics for the Tories are all negative, probably a pillow talk request from mad Nad which has gotten out of hand tbh.
That billion is never going to materialise. The only way it does is if they sell to PE and then they asset strip to recover their money and ramp up trash TV for advertising.
The best thing the government could do for C4 is give it away but on with the provision that the new owner invests £500m per year in programming for the next 5 years with at least 50% spent in the UK. I think they could get that kind of deal, but I don't see someone paying £1bn then also investing another £2-3bn in programming.
I hope Channel 4 is privatised. Its very poor schedule is reflected in its viewing figures which with few exceptions are abysmal. I suspect the day of mainstream scheduled TV is passing and the government has a declining asset on its hands. It would be sensible to get rid of it. That this may piss the left off is an added bonus.
I suspect most of the 'left' was already pissed off when the left-right, public-private structure of Channel 4 first started to be unravelled and undermined in the 1990's. As discussed extensively yesterday and over the last few days, the only route back to a high quality schedule is probably back to its original, carefully-designed structure.
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.
Care to give examples? Things like High-output trains are all German and other kit. Little comes from the UK AIUI.
I'm thinking very much of the way BR was on an upward trajectory in the years before privatization. The IC225 and ECML electrificatioon (to budget!) happened only a ferw years before privatization. Basically the main London-Edinburgh services sicvne them have been repainted and renationalised. The Azumas are much later.
That happened under a Conservative government.
I'm unsure 'upward trajectory' before privatisation is correct. Yes, the ECML was electrified, but elsewhere there was retrenchment, e.g. rationalisation (single-tracking double-track lines). The Pacers are an example of the cost-cutting that was required.
BR was very efficient - but it was efficient at managing a declining railway. The privatised structure has had to manage a massively-expanding railway in terms of traffic. And that's very difficult.
(One of the odd things about UK's railways, so ignored by some, is that the vast majority of electrifications in England occurred under Conservative governments. ISTR New Labour only electrified 15-odd miles during their 13 years - Crewe to Stoke.)
Intderesting perspective, thanks! Though part of BR's decline was due to Conservative attitudes to nationalised industry. And I do remember very well how fragmented the network suddenly became on privatizatyion in ticketing and connections - at the time I often had to travel partly across the grain of the London-centred network and it became much more cumbersome. The other factor was the huge rise in London house prices (partly due to Conservative policies) and the rise of long distance commuting - very noticeable on the ECML. Most of those commuters should never have been there in the first place on any sane basis.So it can't be put down to privatization as such. BR would have had to handle it too.
The last point isn't much cop statistically - most of the postwar years were Conservative (and you arenn't being quite fair to the LDs in the coalition years).
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.
Newsflash – there are several ways to gain investment for the railways without the ludicrous fragmentation and embedded blame-gaming of franchising.
Hence why almost no country in the world uses it, and we have now binned it.
I think the High Peak one is probably the most interesting and could see a Conservative gain from Labour because the ward was split in 2019 and the Greens are standing this time. Labour could therefore lose their majority on High Peak council.
I hadn't seen that site before. Hats off to its creator. What a remarkably in-depth bit of geographical, political and historical analysis of nine little bits of England. I am most interested in the High Peak one because it is one I know well. Interesting that it is one of the five wards in England most dominated by employment in quarrying and mining. It must also be one of the wards in the country whose houses have the highest average altitude. The bit I know of it - Harpur Hill - is a curiously bleak little place; Buxton itself is gorgeous, and the Peak District of course is also gorgeous, but even the hills surrounding Harpur Hill seem to have somehow been made humdrum. Still, there are worse places to live.
The other big and very easy win for any new owner or C4 is to shut down All4 as it's a huge money sink. Not many people use it and C4 could sell what rights they do have to Netflix, Amazon, Apple or Britbox. The opportunity cost of C4 pursuing boxsets on their own streaming is massive, privately owned All4 becomes a simple 7 or 28 day catch up service and the boxsets rights are sold 3-5 years at a time to the highest bidder.
C4 could then reinvest that money into new programming for first showing rights on the TV channel, a 28 day catch up window and then sell full season boxsets to Netflix/Amazon/Disney etc...
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.
You’re right about C4, it’s a niche issue (which means it won’t matter either way, virtually no one will change their vote coz of this, unless they actually work for C4)
You’re wrong about culture wars, they really do win/lose elections, and it will only get more important. See Virginia. See France - where “wokeisme” is driving the surge of the Right
The trans issue alone fires up many people. Have a look at Mumsnet one day. Ask female sports players and fans. Ask @cyclefree on here
Sadly for once Leon is right. Tories probably get re-elected on anti-wokeism, mostly aimed at trans. And won't put much thought or effort at all into fixing the things that actually need radical change and investment to improve the country.
Nobody will care about "woke" issues when their electricity bills are up by £2000 a year and they can't afford to fill up their cars. Meanwhile we have a chancellor who's putting up taxes while his wife avoids paying them. People being flat broke while watching prices in supermarkets go up 20% or more.
And people are saying it's trans women in bathrooms wot's gonna win it for the Tories?
Yes, it will probably be a tight election won at the margins.
The problem with relying on the economy for Labour, is that there are many who view the Tories as better in an economic crisis. Blair actually won when the economy was relatively good, but government services and communication were poor. Also household bills will probably be coming down by 2024.
Yes trans stuff is a fringe issue, unimportant to most of us, but it probably gets the Tories something like 2-4% of the vote that would otherwise have voted for someone else. Enough to tip the next election imo, and clearly that of Tory politicos who can't be bothered to hide their shameless law breaking, conflicts of interest and incompetence.
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.
Have to LOL at the PB Franchising Fanatics – clearly both people in the UK who continue to defend it reside on PB.
Meanwhile, even the Tory government have binned it.
The other big and very easy win for any new owner or C4 is to shut down All4 as it's a huge money sink. Not many people use it and C4 could sell what rights they do have to Netflix, Amazon, Apple or Britbox. The opportunity cost of C4 pursuing boxsets on their own streaming is massive, privately owned All4 becomes a simple 7 or 28 day catch up service and the boxsets rights are sold 3-5 years at a time to the highest bidder.
C4 could then reinvest that money into new programming for first showing rights on the TV channel, a 28 day catch up window and then sell full season boxsets to Netflix/Amazon/Disney etc...
The trend to fragmentation of content rights to infinite different providers seems a terrible thinking. Spotify works because its basically a one stop shop and the record companies actually still do very well out of it (the issue is the unfair way the record companies then distribute that revenue).
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.
I don't think that we are there yet.
The UK "armoured vehicles" proposed are the types designed to protect crews from IEDs and mines, with eg V-profile bottoms to divert blast - the ones that were obtained in a panic when Land Rovers and similar proved inadequate in Afghanistan.
They are not going to be the spearhead of anything.
Gabriel Milland @gabrielmilland Actual quote from a focus group last night. "I'd rather have a massive wind turbine in my back garden than nothing in my bank account."
Gabriel Milland @gabrielmilland · 2h Another participant had seen her monthly gas bill go up by £140. She'd be lucky to take home £1500 or so a month after tax.
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.
One feature of BR was being able to turn up and buy a ticket to wherever without having to make all sorts of complicated calculations. When my wife and I were students we used to buy tickets between home and college without much thought, apart from how we could afford them. Our grandchildren, on the other hand, have had to make all sorts of calculations about Sunday travel, advance booking and split ticketing.
And yet everything is also vastly easier, because smartphones
I am in Turkey. Yesterday afternoon I wanted to get from Kusadasi on the Aegean coast, to Izmir, about an hour north
rome2rio.com gave me all the options in 5 minutes: train, taxi, car rental, bus, plus prices and timetables
Bus looked best (quicker, most options). Using the app FlixBus I was able to buy - in seconds - a ticket and reserve a seat on the next luxury coach (Turkish buses are now amazing). £4
They sent my phone a QR code. No actual ticket. No queueing at a booth. Like an airline but much smoother. Paid with Apple Pay
It was a marvellous example of what technology can now do. Imagine working all that out and getting it done in Turkey 30 years ago (and it was all in English, natch)
You can do that here too, we're going to Brighton by train on Sunday to support a friend who's running the marathon and we booked online, paid with GPay and tickets delivered to GPay wallet. Easy as you like.
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!
Neither Rishi or his wife appear to have broken any rules or laws. He appears to be coming under attack because his wife is rich. What is he meant to do? It's her money, not his, and her taxes affairs, not his. The "sort your wife out" tone of many of the complaints is unseemly.
As I said, I don't agree with the sort out your wife tone either. It is up to her where she pays tax. They should have had a conversation about what is best for their family, but ultimately her choice and she is within the rules.
What is in Rishi's control is what jobs he accepts. I have turned down good financial opportunities (relative to my income at least) where I perceive a conflict of interest exists, even if I would have got away with it and was not breaking any laws.
Is it really too much to expect our top leaders to think about are their personal circumstances that make them unsuitable for a given role?
I’m just looking forward to the Margaret Hodge article in the Scott Trust, sorry Guardian, about the evils of tax planning and how a politician should be ensuring his wife does what’s best for his career.
I'm surprised this has become a thing. As far as I can see Ms Sunak has done nothing wrong, and has followed the rules in place - which themselves seem fine.
I'm equally surprised that Angela Rayner has gone after it. Half a dozen tweets in the last day or so.
But I don't think the current Tories will give AR the contemptuous response she deserves: Feminist Deputy Leader of Labour attacks Chancellor by using his wife as ammunition
A more interesting angle is perhaps why do rich so-called supporters of poorer people want taxes due in India transferred to the UK?
😂 amazing
You think it's OK to weaponise politicians' partners?
It's a view, I suppose.
If you’re going to live in number 11 Downing Street, you should have to pay British tax.
The PB tories are way out of whack with public opinion on this.
You don't really understand what non-dom status is, do you. It doesn't absolve you of paying all British tax.
Right, so the problem is that the general public need educating about non-dom tax rules and that will diffuse their anger.
Good luck with that.
In the eyes of the public, the Sunaks are taking the piss.
No, but we have higher standards of accuracy on PB.
I'm starting to get really annoyed by how thin skinned and belligerent Sunak is during interviews. Even legitimate criticism of his spring statement resulted in petulance. Sure he wants to defend his wife but a moment's self reflection ought to be enough to realise that he would make hay out of a Labour Chancellor in the same position.
I've said from the beginning that the scale of Sunak's wealth would one day be a problem. The issue isn't the legality of what his wife has done but rather that he and his family have options to insulate themselves from tax that is unavailable to the majority of the population.
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!
Neither Rishi or his wife appear to have broken any rules or laws. He appears to be coming under attack because his wife is rich. What is he meant to do? It's her money, not his, and her taxes affairs, not his. The "sort your wife out" tone of many of the complaints is unseemly.
As I said, I don't agree with the sort out your wife tone either. It is up to her where she pays tax. They should have had a conversation about what is best for their family, but ultimately her choice and she is within the rules.
What is in Rishi's control is what jobs he accepts. I have turned down good financial opportunities (relative to my income at least) where I perceive a conflict of interest exists, even if I would have got away with it and was not breaking any laws.
Is it really too much to expect our top leaders to think about are their personal circumstances that make them unsuitable for a given role?
I’m just looking forward to the Margaret Hodge article in the Scott Trust, sorry Guardian, about the evils of tax planning and how a politician should be ensuring his wife does what’s best for his career.
I'm surprised this has become a thing. As far as I can see Ms Sunak has done nothing wrong, and has followed the rules in place - which themselves seem fine.
I'm equally surprised that Angela Rayner has gone after it. Half a dozen tweets in the last day or so.
But I don't think the current Tories will give AR the contemptuous response she deserves: Feminist Deputy Leader of Labour attacks Chancellor by using his wife as ammunition
A more interesting angle is perhaps why do rich so-called supporters of poorer people want taxes due in India transferred to the UK?
😂 amazing
You think it's OK to weaponise politicians' partners?
It's a view, I suppose.
"It's a view" is on the same list as "doing some heavy lifting." As is "weaponise."
Unless they are an entirely dysfunctional couple or on the verge of divorce, they are a couple and will organise their finances as a couple. If they are dysfunctional that is relevant in itself
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.
One feature of BR was being able to turn up and buy a ticket to wherever without having to make all sorts of complicated calculations. When my wife and I were students we used to buy tickets between home and college without much thought, apart from how we could afford them. Our grandchildren, on the other hand, have had to make all sorts of calculations about Sunday travel, advance booking and split ticketing.
Indeed. Which Shapps has also (quite rightly) pledged to bin under Great British Railways. It's one of the government's few policies that I wholeheartedly support. Who would have thought that Michael Green would be the boldest minister in the cabinet?
The other big and very easy win for any new owner or C4 is to shut down All4 as it's a huge money sink. Not many people use it and C4 could sell what rights they do have to Netflix, Amazon, Apple or Britbox. The opportunity cost of C4 pursuing boxsets on their own streaming is massive, privately owned All4 becomes a simple 7 or 28 day catch up service and the boxsets rights are sold 3-5 years at a time to the highest bidder.
C4 could then reinvest that money into new programming for first showing rights on the TV channel, a 28 day catch up window and then sell full season boxsets to Netflix/Amazon/Disney etc...
The trend to fragmentation of content rights to infinite different providers seems a terrible thinking. Spotify works because its basically a one stop shop and the record companies actually still do very well out of it (the issue is the unfair way the record companies then distribute that revenue).
There will be a survival of the fittest moment in streaming coming in the next few years leaving just 3 or 4 big players, I expect it to be Netflix, Disney, Warner/HBO and one other. I don't think Apple, Paramount or Peacock will make the cut.
I think the High Peak one is probably the most interesting and could see a Conservative gain from Labour because the ward was split in 2019 and the Greens are standing this time. Labour could therefore lose their majority on High Peak council.
I hadn't seen that site before. Hats off to its creator. What a remarkably in-depth bit of geographical, political and historical analysis of nine little bits of England. I am most interested in the High Peak one because it is one I know well. Interesting that it is one of the five wards in England most dominated by employment in quarrying and mining. It must also be one of the wards in the country whose houses have the highest average altitude. The bit I know of it - Harpur Hill - is a curiously bleak little place; Buxton itself is gorgeous, and the Peak District of course is also gorgeous, but even the hills surrounding Harpur Hill seem to have somehow been made humdrum. Still, there are worse places to live.
Buxton hasn't been the same since the Micrarium closed. I loved that place.
Comments
On TV this morning he said he'd been in Devon, in a house he'd been given, or at lest had been made available to him, for 35years.
As you say, inconsistent, but presumably anyone who could sue is now dead.
@derspiegel
https://twitter.com/mathieuvonrohr/status/1511968324007170051
https://www.railengineer.co.uk/high-output-track-renewal-german-style/
And the "most expensive fairs" claim is mainly media cherry-picking.
He is the Man in Seat 61 debunking it:
https://www.seat61.com/uk-europe-train-fares-comparison.html
"So the next time someone says (or you read) "Britain has the highest rail fares in Europe", you'll know this is only 15% of the story. The other 85% is that we have similar or even cheaper fares, too. The big picture is that Britain has the most commercially aggressive fares in Europe, with the highest fares designed to get maximum revenue from business travel, and some of the lowest fares designed to get more revenue by filling more seats. This is exactly what airlines have known, and been doing, for decades. But don't take my word for it, see for yourself, check some UK train fares at www.nationalrail.co.uk..."
The genius is knowing when and how to do which. There's no law for that. Trump didn't win an election by closely modelling Hilary.
I’m sure that the Sunaks were aware of this risk and discussed it and decided to do what was best for them as a family unit.
I’m objecting to the people saying his wife “should” have done X and Y to protect his career. She’s an independent woman who can do what she likes.
Truly best of the best.
Betting PostF1: had a free bet so slung it on Bottas, 4.5, winner without the big 6. Higher downforce should help the Alfa Romeo, I think.
The material is also said to show that members of Russian mercenary troops such as "Wagner Group" were significantly involved in the atrocities. The latter had already attracted attention for their particular cruelty during their deployment in Syria.
What is in Rishi's control is what jobs he accepts. I have turned down good financial opportunities (relative to my income at least) where I perceive a conflict of interest exists, even if I would have got away with it and was not breaking any laws.
Is it really too much to expect our top leaders to think about are their personal circumstances that make them unsuitable for a given role?
But that's because the trains are already full with the very cheapest seats sold out months ago.
It is clear this is going to be absolutely horrific.
Also my limitations (then and now) have become so obvious because of my son. My son, whom I am incredibly proud of, has put this in perspective. He is brilliant and completely out of my league and I have no clue what he is talking about most of the time. I was lucky to have the maths background because I was able to teach him some A level maths stuff when he was at primary school.
The Senate revived Lend-Lease, a World War II-era measure that allowed the U.S. to quickly resupply Allies in the fight against Nazi Germany.
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/04/06/senate-unanimously-approves-lend-lease-00023668
Still needs to pass the House, of course.
Paul Sonne
@PaulSonne
·
13h
Lavrov's daughter, who was sanctioned by Treasury today, was born in the U.S., went to school at the private Dwight School in New York and graduated from Barnard. This will have a substantive impact on her life.
https://twitter.com/PaulSonne/status/1511789893965520898
and you are doing the hindsight thing. We weren't thinking about Ukraine, we didn't know the invasion would actually happen tii it did, we were thinking about
https://www.thepaperboy.com/uk/2022/02/01/front-pages-archive.cfm
Events move so crazily fast at the moment, I sometimes feel that only a fool tries to predict the medium-term future ...
I wonder how many Batch 1 Typhoons were already essentially abandoned beforehand?
What would you have proposed, given unchanged funds? (Serious question)
An interesting little account about how, the army having spent years closing recruitment offices, the online service has been unavailable since mid-March. Run by Capita aiui.
https://www.theregister.com/2022/03/24/ministry_of_defence/
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/army-recruitment-system-nonfunctional-for-weeks/
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10695205/Row-non-dom-status-Rishi-Sunaks-billionaire-heiress-wife.html?ico=amp-comments-viewall#comments-10695205
The problem is that you can be too purist about conflicts and saying it means you can’t do anything. Disclosure and transparency is the solution as that allows for appropriate mechanisms to be put in place.
For example it’s probably more of an issue that his FIL is chairman of infosys (I’m assuming they have contracts with HMG). But that can be managed by making sure that Rishi has no role in those contracts.
I do so like to think of Boris & Carrie playing the poor couple in a "considerably richer than you" Enfield sketch.
b) I suspect that HMG had a very good idea in December that it was a real risk. Sunak would have been briefed on that intelligence assessment.
But it will be interesting to see who doesn't vote for it in the House.
I'm equally surprised that Angela Rayner has gone after it. Half a dozen tweets in the last day or so. About a non-story from a newspaper owned by an oligarch and a Saudi, with AR previously making claims about the relationship between BJ and the oligarch.
But I don't think the current Tories (except perhaps Gove or Mordaunt) will give AR the contemptuous response she deserves:
Feminist Deputy Leader of Labour attacks Chancellor by using his wife as ammunition
A more interesting angle is perhaps why do rich so-called supporters of poorer people want taxes due in India tramsferred to the UK?
That might sound like a lot of beer for a fifteen mile walk, but they didn’t have any smaller multipacks and eight 5.4% San Miguel Especials for four quid was as cheap as five individual cans of any beer. So, in order to reduce my payload, I’ve been drinking a bit more than normal and already on my third!
I still haven’t seen much wildlife, but did see a beautiful big cock in a cage earlier. Unfortunately by the time I’d got close enough to take a picture without the cage showing, he was trying to hide from me and had put away his plumage.. I’ve stopped to write this on the bank of La Muga river, just before where it joins El Manol.
I'm unsure 'upward trajectory' before privatisation is correct. Yes, the ECML was electrified, but elsewhere there was retrenchment, e.g. rationalisation (single-tracking double-track lines). The Pacers are an example of the cost-cutting that was required.
BR was very efficient - but it was efficient at managing a declining railway. The privatised structure has had to manage a massively-expanding railway in terms of traffic. And that's very difficult.
(One of the odd things about UK's railways, so ignored by some, is that the vast majority of electrifications in England occurred under Conservative governments. ISTR New Labour only electrified 15-odd miles during their 13 years - Crewe to Stoke.)
You’re wrong about culture wars, they really do win/lose elections, and it will only get more important. See Virginia. See France - where “wokeisme” is driving the surge of the Right
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/06/world/europe/france-presidential-election-far-right.html?smid=url-share
The trans issue alone fires up many people. Have a look at Mumsnet one day. Ask female sports players and fans. Ask @cyclefree on here
Why the Akshata Murty affair proves lefties are racist -- my article for Unherd, but I did not anticipate you're stealing the chapatis from the mouths of starving Indians
Fair play
@KyivIndependent
·
1h
⚡️ Ukraine, Russia agree on 10 humanitarian corridors for April 7 to evacuate people from:
Mariupol in Donetsk Oblast;
Berdiansk, Tokmak, Energodar and Melitopol in Zaporizhzhia Oblast;
Sievierodonetsk, Lysychansk, Popasna, Rubizhne and Hirske in Luhansk Oblast.
https://twitter.com/KyivIndependent
Stop buying F-35B. We're never going to able to deploy 2 x CSG anyway so we only need one air wing.
Close down the Typhoon OCU and do a joint conversion unit with Spain in Spain where the weather's good. (Typhoon mates would love this. Good for recruitment and more importantly retention.)
Half the Chinook fleet and transfer to the AAC where they don't have to be flown by commissioned officers.
Ditto Puma replacement.
Close down Akrotiri.
Bin RAFAT. Close Scampton.
Bin BoBMF or turn it into a charity where people can pay for it if they want.
With the money saved...
Increase E-7 buy back to the pre-cut level of 5 though not by buying 10 year old Chinese donor aircraft as the MoD have done with two of the three E-7s.
Buy Typhoon ECR and operate them jointly with Germany restoring SEAD capability.
Buy more MQ-9B
Buy more A400M and operate jointly with Belgium and Luxembourg. (This already happens to some extent.)
Buy AN/APS-154 for the P-8 to restore the AGS capability lost by letting Sentinel decay into obsolescence.
Result: smaller, better balanced, more efficient fixed wing only RAF with a much more complete spread of capabilities that better meets the strategic threats.
If this leads to the end of Countdown then older Tory voters are going to switch to Labour.
It's a view, I suppose.
The irony of their supposedly being in Ukraine to fight Nazis is off the scale.
The PB tories are way out of whack with public opinion on this.
Plenty of by elections tonight.
I think the High Peak one is probably the most interesting and could see a Conservative gain from Labour because the ward was split in 2019 and the Greens are standing this time. Labour could therefore lose their majority on High Peak council.
I am in Turkey. Yesterday afternoon I wanted to get from Kusadasi on the Aegean coast, to Izmir, about an hour north
rome2rio.com gave me all the options in 5 minutes: train, taxi, car rental, bus, plus prices and timetables
Bus looked best (quicker, most options). Using the app FlixBus I was able to buy - in seconds - a ticket and reserve a seat on the next luxury coach (Turkish buses are now amazing). £4
They sent my phone a QR code. No actual ticket. No queueing at a booth. Like an airline but much smoother. Paid with Apple Pay
It was a marvellous example of what technology can now do. Imagine working all that out and getting it done in Turkey 30 years ago (and it was all in English, natch)
People being flat broke while watching prices in supermarkets go up 20% or more.
And people are saying it's trans women in bathrooms wot's gonna win it for the Tories?
I'm sure the grounds will be heaving with supporters dressed in their finest winter attire. Not.
Good luck with that.
In the eyes of the public, the Sunak family are taking the piss out of them.
The best thing the government could do for C4 is give it away but on with the provision that the new owner invests £500m per year in programming for the next 5 years with at least 50% spent in the UK. I think they could get that kind of deal, but I don't see someone paying £1bn then also investing another £2-3bn in programming.
The last point isn't much cop statistically - most of the postwar years were Conservative (and you arenn't being quite fair to the LDs in the coalition years).
Hence why almost no country in the world uses it, and we have now binned it.
Do you propose we maintain it?
I am most interested in the High Peak one because it is one I know well. Interesting that it is one of the five wards in England most dominated by employment in quarrying and mining. It must also be one of the wards in the country whose houses have the highest average altitude. The bit I know of it - Harpur Hill - is a curiously bleak little place; Buxton itself is gorgeous, and the Peak District of course is also gorgeous, but even the hills surrounding Harpur Hill seem to have somehow been made humdrum. Still, there are worse places to live.
C4 could then reinvest that money into new programming for first showing rights on the TV channel, a 28 day catch up window and then sell full season boxsets to Netflix/Amazon/Disney etc...
The problem with relying on the economy for Labour, is that there are many who view the Tories as better in an economic crisis. Blair actually won when the economy was relatively good, but government services and communication were poor. Also household bills will probably be coming down by 2024.
Yes trans stuff is a fringe issue, unimportant to most of us, but it probably gets the Tories something like 2-4% of the vote that would otherwise have voted for someone else. Enough to tip the next election imo, and clearly that of Tory politicos who can't be bothered to hide their shameless law breaking, conflicts of interest and incompetence.
Meanwhile, even the Tory government have binned it.
The UK "armoured vehicles" proposed are the types designed to protect crews from IEDs and mines, with eg V-profile bottoms to divert blast - the ones that were obtained in a panic when Land Rovers and similar proved inadequate in Afghanistan.
They are not going to be the spearhead of anything.
That seems quite reasonable.
@gabrielmilland
Actual quote from a focus group last night. "I'd rather have a massive wind turbine in my back garden than nothing in my bank account."
Gabriel Milland
@gabrielmilland
·
2h
Another participant had seen her monthly gas bill go up by £140. She'd be lucky to take home £1500 or so a month after tax.
https://twitter.com/gabrielmilland/status/1511982698759340044
====
Will voters take it out on Tory councillors next month?
I've said from the beginning that the scale of Sunak's wealth would one day be a problem. The issue isn't the legality of what his wife has done but rather that he and his family have options to insulate themselves from tax that is unavailable to the majority of the population.
Unless they are an entirely dysfunctional couple or on the verge of divorce, they are a couple and will organise their finances as a couple. If they are dysfunctional that is relevant in itself