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.
Will voters take it out on Tory councillors next month?
I think the attitude to onshore wind has likely shifted substantially given the energy crisis. People couldn't give a toss what they look like any more. 6 months ago the Tory energy start would have been fine. Now... not so much.
You don't really understand what non-dom status is, do you. It doesn't absolve you of paying all British tax.
I've just been listening to a tax lawyer on Radio 5 who debunked essentially everything the press has been saying about this. Explaining the difference between residence and domicile, about remittances, tax avoidance, and so on. Pretty much everything she said was along the lines of "that's not how it works" or "no she won't avoid any tax on that".
Obviously it's not going to shut up the critics, who will run with "tax evasion", "pays no tax", "has to leave the country every six months" and other false statements.
The most remarkable thing about Brexit is how incompetent the Brexiteers still are at implementing it. 6 years on and it is still a total shitshow.
Except that's not remarkable at all. "Project Fear" predicted much of this chaos.
And lo, it came to pass...
I'm becoming increasingly confident that the further the UK decends down the toilet with Johnson and his UKIP Party the greater the chance that we'll rejoin or do something similar in the next few years. Every stamp on our passports when we enter an EU country is an infringment on our freedom.
Do you regard the stamp into NZ. Australia, US or indeed ANYWHERE as an infringement on your freedom? Not being able to go at all would the thing you describe. Can you show me anyone from the UK who has been denied entry into an EU country (not including criminals etc)
Yes. 27 countries where we could work and live indefinitely all relatively on our doorstep. All with similar standards of human rights and hygene.
The freedoms we have relinquished are enormous and all because of a vote by people who are happy to sit in fronrt of the TV all day eating chips and dreaming of bringing back hanging and keeping out foreigners.
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.
Amazon and Apple, i am not really sure what their strategy is. Especially Amazon, it seems very incoherent.
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.
Despite living within an hour of Buxton for all but nine months of my life, I had never come across this. I've just Googled it - it sounds absolutely brilliant. And now I've missed it.
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.
Also the sheer conflict of interest. Mr Sunak is obviously a tax cutter (unless it is called NI). If I were CotE, and made some tax change downwards, it would probably personally be worth at most a few hundred to me outwith one-off events such as inheritance from a parent. In Mr Sunak's case, which must inclide his immediate family's case, the sums involved will be several orders of magnitude higher - sums which look awful, like the donation to Westminster School. alongside the budgets of ordinary families.
This is no reflection on him and his family personally, but an absolutely unavoidable consequence of the mathematics - unless, as you say, they go in for the usual tax insulation of the wealthy, which would look even worse (the non dom thing being an excellent example). He can't possibly recuse himself from the dilemma - conflict of interest, or insulation?
IIRC there was a case where a (AIUI) far less wealthy politician had to diverst himself of his significant share of the family business and put it in a blind trust for his children. But that was in the context of a Scottish Labour leadership election.
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.
Amazon and Apple, i am not really sure what their strategy is. Especially Amazon, it seems very incoherent.
For Amazon it's easy, it's a value add to keep people subscribed to Prime which then ensures they buy all their shit from Amazon, but if they had a Prime sub which junked the TV bit and made it delivery only I'd probably just subscribe to that bit, have no need for the TV.
You don't really understand what non-dom status is, do you. It doesn't absolve you of paying all British tax.
I've just been listening to a tax lawyer on Radio 5 who debunked essentially everything the press has been saying about this. Explaining the difference between residence and domicile, about remittances, tax avoidance, and so on. Pretty much everything she said was along the lines of "that's not how it works" or "no she won't avoid any tax on that".
Obviously it's not going to shut up the critics, who will run with "tax evasion", "pays no tax", "has to leave the country every six months" and other false statements.
I listened to an academic debunk the BBC / Guardian "pandora papers" expose. Basically they got most things wrong / if it was about tax avoidance you don't do it that way.
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.
Austin Allegro designed and produced by BLMC, a private corporation, the Rover SD1, European car of the year, produced by the effectively nationalised BL.
Tbf I find suggestions that the Rover was the child of the Ferrari Daytona fairly hilarious, but those were simpler times.
The privatisation of C4 fails on the same lines as Christian Wolmar’s classic question: What is rail franchising for? (The point being nobody can give a good answer).
What is C4 privatisation for?
"Why should the Government own a TV station?" is an equally good question.
Rail franchising has been part of the process of getting investment, improved reliability, improved capacity, and improved quality into our rail system.
All of which have been achieved.
We subsidise the railways more under privatisation than at any period when they were publicly owned.
Oh lordy, not this again. Whether such a soundbite is accurate depends on many factors, such as whether you factor in the increase in passengers, mileages travelled, include infrastructure enhancements (e.g. Crossrail/HS2), etc, etc.
Blindly talking about the subsidy without factoring these in is untruthful IMO, because you are comparing apples and oranges.
If you could talk to a single benefit of privatisation let's hear it.
There are many, but let's take an important one: safety. The 2020 Carmont crash was the first fatal rail crash on the UK heavy-rail network since Grayrigg 13 years earlier. That is an unprecedented period, and one massively better than BR achieved.
The privatisation of C4 fails on the same lines as Christian Wolmar’s classic question: What is rail franchising for? (The point being nobody can give a good answer).
What is C4 privatisation for?
"Why should the Government own a TV station?" is an equally good question.
Rail franchising has been part of the process of getting investment, improved reliability, improved capacity, and improved quality into our rail system.
All of which have been achieved.
We subsidise the railways more under privatisation than at any period when they were publicly owned.
Oh lordy, not this again. Whether such a soundbite is accurate depends on many factors, such as whether you factor in the increase in passengers, mileages travelled, include infrastructure enhancements (e.g. Crossrail/HS2), etc, etc.
Blindly talking about the subsidy without factoring these in is untruthful IMO, because you are comparing apples and oranges.
If you could talk to a single benefit of privatisation let's hear it.
There are many, but let's take an important one: safety. The 2020 Carmont crash was the first fatal rail crash on the UK heavy-rail network since Grayrigg 13 years earlier. That is an unprecedented period, and one massively better than BR achieved.
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.
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.
And buy a large stock of the longer range air to air missiles. If we're ever directly involved in a European confrontation, they would be needed.
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.
Amazon and Apple, i am not really sure what their strategy is. Especially Amazon, it seems very incoherent.
For Amazon it's easy, it's a value add to keep people subscribed to Prime which then ensures they buy all their shit from Amazon, but if they had a Prime sub which junked the TV bit and made it delivery only I'd probably just subscribe to that bit, have no need for the TV.
I get that, its just seems a bit odd like big hit like Bosch, move the spin off on IMDB tv. Buy various sports rights and then make it impossible to find / know they even have it (and the coverage absolutely appalling).
You don't really understand what non-dom status is, do you. It doesn't absolve you of paying all British tax.
I've just been listening to a tax lawyer on Radio 5 who debunked essentially everything the press has been saying about this. Explaining the difference between residence and domicile, about remittances, tax avoidance, and so on. Pretty much everything she said was along the lines of "that's not how it works" or "no she won't avoid any tax on that".
Obviously it's not going to shut up the critics, who will run with "tax evasion", "pays no tax", "has to leave the country every six months" and other false statements.
I listened to an academic debunk the BBC / Guardian "pandora papers" expose. Basically they got most things wrong / if it was about tax avoidance you don't do it that way.
The Pandora/Panama/Paradise papers are actually used in banks as an input for risk scoring customers. Commercially it's seen as a bit of a red flag.
The privatisation of C4 fails on the same lines as Christian Wolmar’s classic question: What is rail franchising for? (The point being nobody can give a good answer).
What is C4 privatisation for?
"Why should the Government own a TV station?" is an equally good question.
Rail franchising has been part of the process of getting investment, improved reliability, improved capacity, and improved quality into our rail system.
All of which have been achieved.
We subsidise the railways more under privatisation than at any period when they were publicly owned.
Oh lordy, not this again. Whether such a soundbite is accurate depends on many factors, such as whether you factor in the increase in passengers, mileages travelled, include infrastructure enhancements (e.g. Crossrail/HS2), etc, etc.
Blindly talking about the subsidy without factoring these in is untruthful IMO, because you are comparing apples and oranges.
If you could talk to a single benefit of privatisation let's hear it.
There are many, but let's take an important one: safety. The 2020 Carmont crash was the first fatal rail crash on the UK heavy-rail network since Grayrigg 13 years earlier. That is an unprecedented period, and one massively better than BR achieved.
You don't really understand what non-dom status is, do you. It doesn't absolve you of paying all British tax.
I've just been listening to a tax lawyer on Radio 5 who debunked essentially everything the press has been saying about this. Explaining the difference between residence and domicile, about remittances, tax avoidance, and so on. Pretty much everything she said was along the lines of "that's not how it works" or "no she won't avoid any tax on that".
Obviously it's not going to shut up the critics, who will run with "tax evasion", "pays no tax", "has to leave the country every six months" and other false statements.
I listened to an academic debunk the BBC / Guardian "pandora papers" expose. Basically they got most things wrong / if it was about tax avoidance you don't do it that way.
It's spun as "she's pretending to live abroad to evade tax", when it's more like "she lives here, she pays tax in India and the UK on her respective incomes, if she brings in wealth to the UK she pays tax on that too".
This from Ailbhe Rea of the Staggers's mornign email:
'But, as the latest controversy around the Chancellor and his family’s finances broke last night, Conservatives were asking themselves: who are the “two people familiar with her financial arrangements” who were in a position to know, and leak, the information to the Independent in the first place – and is it possible they are within the Conservative party?'
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.
Of course. But you kind of expect that in the UK
This was all in Turkey. And yet as easy as doing it in the UK, if not slightly easier. Certainly a damn sight cheaper!
Turkey in insanely cheap due to the collapse of the lira, and this despite its 61% inflation
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.
I think if Sunak had been smarter he’d have sat down at the start of his career in public life and had a chat with his wife about her non-Dom status. They had a choice to make - together - and either Rishi didn’t spot the political risk, or they thought they could get away with it.
Her Indian nationality and citizenship are a red herring. Presumably she’s got (todays version of) “Indefinite Leave to Remain” which involves a declaration that you intend to live in the U.K. permanently. She’s told HMRC that that is not the case, and that she intends to return to India.
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.
Amazon and Apple, i am not really sure what their strategy is. Especially Amazon, it seems very incoherent.
I'm not convinced about Netflix. They are haemorrhaging third party programming as other companies claw back the rights for their own streaming platforms. They have quite a bit of first party stuff but is it enough to keep the current number of subscribers that they have. I don't understand why we want to throw the BBC and Channel 4 into a market which is teetering on the edge of collapse.
You don't really understand what non-dom status is, do you. It doesn't absolve you of paying all British tax.
I've just been listening to a tax lawyer on Radio 5 who debunked essentially everything the press has been saying about this. Explaining the difference between residence and domicile, about remittances, tax avoidance, and so on. Pretty much everything she said was along the lines of "that's not how it works" or "no she won't avoid any tax on that".
Obviously it's not going to shut up the critics, who will run with "tax evasion", "pays no tax", "has to leave the country every six months" and other false statements.
I listened to an academic debunk the BBC / Guardian "pandora papers" expose. Basically they got most things wrong / if it was about tax avoidance you don't do it that way.
The Pandora/Panama/Paradise papers are actually used in banks as an input for risk scoring customers. Commercially it's seen as a bit of a red flag.
It was stuff like Blair avoiding tax on purchase of office, when he bought it of a company who were registered abroad i.e. he wants to buy a place, you don't decide where the seller is. Then he immediately onshored it and exposed himself to much more tax when it is sold. But it was reported as Blair does dodgy deal for an office.
"A non-dom is a UK resident whose permanent home, or domicile, is outside of the UK."
I am amazed a married person can claim a different domicile from their spouse. Thyese two on the face of it are married with children and not separated/divorced/whatev. It's a fucking ludicrous claim that you live with your spouse but your domicile is on another continent.
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.
I don't recall that. Which issues are you thinking of?
I recall her getting some stick for her earning level. Samantha Cameron had the same iirc.
And some nasty commentary about her appearance.
And some commentary about her being appointed a Judge (County Court Recorder iirc).
And some later stuff about the block of flats in Manchester, and her alleged resentment that they had not benefitted sufficiently from property price rises in London.
I do not recall any Deputy Leaders of the Tory Party making a song and dance about it. Did they?
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.
Will voters take it out on Tory councillors next month?
I think the attitude to onshore wind has likely shifted substantially given the energy crisis. People couldn't give a toss what they look like any more. 6 months ago the Tory energy start would have been fine. Now... not so much.
The most recent polling I can find with a quick search. https://www.newstatesman.com/environment/climate/2022/03/exclusive-polling-brits-want-more-climate-action-as-energy-prices-bite ...Most Britons are in favour of more energy efficiency measures and more renewable energy to meet climate goals. The vast majority said in response to rising energy bills that they would support the government temporarily removing VAT on energy bills and investing more in home insulation. Over 70 per cent would support more wind farms in the UK -- and back them being built in their local areas -- while more solar energy production has the backing of nearly 80 per cent of voters...
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?
The Tory position on trans is indistinguishable from the Labour one. Rachel Reeves said very similar stuff last week.
Oh, and @Leon very valid questions about women;'s rights are NOT the stuff of 'culture wars' as you put it. For such a bright and interesting guy, you can be an effing idiot at times.
You don't really understand what non-dom status is, do you. It doesn't absolve you of paying all British tax.
I've just been listening to a tax lawyer on Radio 5 who debunked essentially everything the press has been saying about this. Explaining the difference between residence and domicile, about remittances, tax avoidance, and so on. Pretty much everything she said was along the lines of "that's not how it works" or "no she won't avoid any tax on that".
Obviously it's not going to shut up the critics, who will run with "tax evasion", "pays no tax", "has to leave the country every six months" and other false statements.
Too greedy and short sighted to say Never mind the accountants and the tax code and the law, how is this going to look when it comes out? Doesn't matter whether this is legally and ethically OK, it is politically utterly inept, and I like politicians to be good at politics
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
See also "feature not a bug" and "IANAE" (both of which I have used in the last month to my eternal shame)
I have to admit I haven't really watched Channel 4 for a very long time. The news was pretty good, as I recall - sure, it sometimes seemed a little biased in one direction or the other (well, usually more one direction than the other) but it wasn't like that was a secret to anybody, any more than the Daily Mail or Guardian's political stances aren't known. They were best on foreign stories, and also good at targeting their limited resources to do long detailed reports on particular topics that I never know about before - I still remember a fascinating report by Paraic O'Brien about a whole community living underground in Bucharest. Lindsay Hilsum's reports were also brilliant. The likes of Paul Mason, who was already a bit barmy by the time he started at Channel 4 News, were somewhat less informative, and were the main reason I switched over to the BBC back then.
Other than the news and the odd Dispatches I can't honestly remember much else I watched on the channel (at least that was original to it). There was a time, before C4 sold it, when Big Brother seemed to be on 24/7, again of no interest to me even as a teen. Big Brother encapsulated to me the apparent C4 broadcasting ethos: present something as a great social experiment, for the betterment of humanity, when really they know people are just tuning in to be prurient. Following that same ethos, I remember the ads in the middle of the news for programmes with names like 'The Woman with a Tree on her Back' and 'The Boy with a Face like a Penis', presented with great solemnity, again, I am sure, knowing that viewers were likely to see these programmes as a sort of freak show entertainment, but at least keeping up the pretense of compassion. Likewise the seemingly endless programmes about getting naked. But, at least, this seemed to be a business model that worked for them.
I don't know exactly what changes about Channel 4 if its ownership is different; I have no idea what the new rules will be, or if anyone is interested in buying it. The Cameron government's ill-fated experiment with private ownership for forests was portrayed at the time as selling the entire green belt to the lumbermill from Ferngully. Similarly, we are likely to see this privatisation portrayed as selling Channel 4 to the big bad bogeyman Murdoch or, if not him, a consortium formed by Scrooge McDuck, Mr Burns and the man on the Monopoly box. I agree that it is unlikely to go ahead.
"Just over two months ago, the prospect of Finland joining NATO was virtually unthinkable to most in the northern European country. It had grown closer to the military alliance over the last three decades but resisted the idea of becoming a full-fledged member."
"That all changed when tens of thousands of Russian troops rolled across Ukraine’s border in late February."
"If Finland were to join the alliance, the total land border between NATO territory and Russia would more than double, from around 754 miles currently to nearly 1,600 miles."
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.
I don't recall that. Which issues are you thinking of?
I recall her getting some stick for her earning level. Samantha Cameron had the same iirc.
And some nasty commentary about her appearance.
And some commentary about her being appointed a Judge (County Court Recorder iirc).
And some later stuff about the block of flats in Manchester, and her alleged resentment that they had not benefitted sufficiently from property price rises in London.
I do not recall any Deputy Leaders of the Tory Party making a song and dance about it. Did they?
The scandal I remember most involving Cherie Blair was her relationship with the fraudster, Peter Foster.
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.
Of course. But you kind of expect that in the UK
This was all in Turkey. And yet as easy as doing it in the UK, if not slightly easier. Certainly a damn sight cheaper!
Turkey in insanely cheap due to the collapse of the lira, and this despite its 61% inflation
Yeah I think you're in Turkey in a golden moment where everything is very cheap because no one's putting up prices yet but the Lira has crashed against Sterling.
"A non-dom is a UK resident whose permanent home, or domicile, is outside of the UK."
I am amazed a married person can claim a different domicile from their spouse. Thyese two on the face of it are married with children and not separated/divorced/whatev. It's a fucking ludicrous claim that you live with your spouse but your domicile is on another continent.
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 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.
Amazon and Apple, i am not really sure what their strategy is. Especially Amazon, it seems very incoherent.
Apple - TV shows will sell a few extra phones / gadgets. Amazon - TV shows are a cheap add on to Prime thinks to which we make a lot of money (because Prime members spend a lot at Amazon).
Both treat TV as an extra designed to attract / reward their loyal customer base.
"A non-dom is a UK resident whose permanent home, or domicile, is outside of the UK."
I am amazed a married person can claim a different domicile from their spouse. Thyese two on the face of it are married with children and not separated/divorced/whatev. It's a fucking ludicrous claim that you live with your spouse but your domicile is on another continent.
Sunak = toast
On YOUR analysis this looks more like a case of possible tax EVASION rather than playing fast and loose with AVOIDANCE opportunities. Surely the Chancellor and his spouse would have thought this through so they are within the confines of taxation law? So on that basis alone you cannot be right...er...can you?
Russian troops have deported patients & doctors of Mariupol's hospital #4 to Russia; armed men "in the form of an ultimatum" ordered them to get in the bus; their fate unknown
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.
Amazon and Apple, i am not really sure what their strategy is. Especially Amazon, it seems very incoherent.
Apple - TV shows will sell a few extra phones / gadgets. Amazon - TV shows are a cheap add on to Prime thinks to which we make a lot of money (because Prime members spend a lot at Amazon).
Both treat TV as an extra designed to attract / reward their loyal customer base.
But Amazon have moved one of their biggest hits off the platform and got into buying sports rights (which are never cheap), but make them unfindable / unwatchable.
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
See also "feature not a bug" and "IANAE" (both of which I have used in the last month to my eternal shame)
IANAE, but the language nazis attempting to weaponise common phrases are concentrating on terms that are features, not bugs.
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
See also "feature not a bug" and "IANAE" (both of which I have used in the last month to my eternal shame)
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 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.
Amazon and Apple, i am not really sure what their strategy is. Especially Amazon, it seems very incoherent.
Apple - TV shows will sell a few extra phones / gadgets. Amazon - TV shows are a cheap add on to Prime thinks to which we make a lot of money (because Prime members spend a lot at Amazon).
Both treat TV as an extra designed to attract / reward their loyal customer base.
The adaptation of Pachinko on Apple is very good indeed (having watched a couple of episodes). But their overall offering is pretty thin at the moment.
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
See also "feature not a bug" and "IANAE" (both of which I have used in the last month to my eternal shame)
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
See also "feature not a bug" and "IANAE" (both of which I have used in the last month to my eternal shame)
IANAE, but the language nazis attempting to weaponise common phrases are concentrating on terms that are features, not bugs.
The gross awfulness of that sentence pretty much makes our point.
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.
Amazon and Apple, i am not really sure what their strategy is. Especially Amazon, it seems very incoherent.
Apple - TV shows will sell a few extra phones / gadgets. Amazon - TV shows are a cheap add on to Prime thinks to which we make a lot of money (because Prime members spend a lot at Amazon).
Both treat TV as an extra designed to attract / reward their loyal customer base.
The adaptation of Pachinko on Apple is very good indeed (having watched a couple of episodes). But their overall offering is pretty thin at the moment.
Because it's a freebie/pack in with Apple devices. It's never going to compete with Netflix, HBO or Disney for quantity of content. It feels like a vanity project by Tim Cook but at the same time Apple have got tens of billions of cash in the bank so the business case doesn't need to be very strong.
The privatisation of C4 fails on the same lines as Christian Wolmar’s classic question: What is rail franchising for? (The point being nobody can give a good answer).
What is C4 privatisation for?
"Why should the Government own a TV station?" is an equally good question.
Rail franchising has been part of the process of getting investment, improved reliability, improved capacity, and improved quality into our rail system.
All of which have been achieved.
We subsidise the railways more under privatisation than at any period when they were publicly owned.
Oh lordy, not this again. Whether such a soundbite is accurate depends on many factors, such as whether you factor in the increase in passengers, mileages travelled, include infrastructure enhancements (e.g. Crossrail/HS2), etc, etc.
Blindly talking about the subsidy without factoring these in is untruthful IMO, because you are comparing apples and oranges.
If you could talk to a single benefit of privatisation let's hear it.
There are many, but let's take an important one: safety. The 2020 Carmont crash was the first fatal rail crash on the UK heavy-rail network since Grayrigg 13 years earlier. That is an unprecedented period, and one massively better than BR achieved.
I have to admit I haven't really watched Channel 4 for a very long time. The news was pretty good, as I recall - sure, it sometimes seemed a little biased in one direction or the other (well, usually more one direction than the other) but it wasn't like that was a secret to anybody, any more than the Daily Mail or Guardian's political stances aren't known. They were best on foreign stories, and also good at targeting their limited resources to do long detailed reports on particular topics that I never know about before - I still remember a fascinating report by Paraic O'Brien about a whole community living underground in Bucharest. Lindsay Hilsum's reports were also brilliant. The likes of Paul Mason, who was already a bit barmy by the time he started at Channel 4 News, were somewhat less informative, and were the main reason I switched over to the BBC back then.
Other than the news and the odd Dispatches I can't honestly remember much else I watched on the channel (at least that was original to it). There was a time, before C4 sold it, when Big Brother seemed to be on 24/7, again of no interest to me even as a teen. Big Brother encapsulated to me the apparent C4 broadcasting ethos: present something as a great social experiment, for the betterment of humanity, when really they know people are just tuning in to be prurient. Following that same ethos, I remember the ads in the middle of the news for programmes with names like 'The Woman with a Tree on her Back' and 'The Boy with a Face like a Penis', presented with great solemnity, again, I am sure, knowing that viewers were likely to see these programmes as a sort of freak show entertainment, but at least keeping up the pretense of compassion. Likewise the seemingly endless programmes about getting naked. But, at least, this seemed to be a business model that worked for them.
I don't know exactly what changes about Channel 4 if its ownership is different; I have no idea what the new rules will be, or if anyone is interested in buying it. The Cameron government's ill-fated experiment with private ownership for forests was portrayed at the time as selling the entire green belt to the lumbermill from Ferngully. Similarly, we are likely to see this privatisation portrayed as selling Channel 4 to the big bad bogeyman Murdoch or, if not him, a consortium formed by Scrooge McDuck, Mr Burns and the man on the Monopoly box. I agree that it is unlikely to go ahead.
They persisted with in-depth on the spot reporting from Syria long past the point everyone else had lost interest ISTR.
The privatisation of C4 fails on the same lines as Christian Wolmar’s classic question: What is rail franchising for? (The point being nobody can give a good answer).
What is C4 privatisation for?
"Why should the Government own a TV station?" is an equally good question.
Rail franchising has been part of the process of getting investment, improved reliability, improved capacity, and improved quality into our rail system.
All of which have been achieved.
We subsidise the railways more under privatisation than at any period when they were publicly owned.
Oh lordy, not this again. Whether such a soundbite is accurate depends on many factors, such as whether you factor in the increase in passengers, mileages travelled, include infrastructure enhancements (e.g. Crossrail/HS2), etc, etc.
Blindly talking about the subsidy without factoring these in is untruthful IMO, because you are comparing apples and oranges.
If you could talk to a single benefit of privatisation let's hear it.
There are many, but let's take an important one: safety. The 2020 Carmont crash was the first fatal rail crash on the UK heavy-rail network since Grayrigg 13 years earlier. That is an unprecedented period, and one massively better than BR achieved.
"A non-dom is a UK resident whose permanent home, or domicile, is outside of the UK."
I am amazed a married person can claim a different domicile from their spouse. Thyese two on the face of it are married with children and not separated/divorced/whatev. It's a fucking ludicrous claim that you live with your spouse but your domicile is on another continent.
Sunak = toast
Domicile is a weird one. For example if you are claiming non-Dom and the tax bods find that you’ve bought yourself a nice burial plot in say, Richmond Yorkshire, then they can say “hang on - you really do see this as your home”.
It’s not just about where you live and educate kids etc. it’s possible that Mr and Mrs Sunak could say that Mrs S is keeping her Indian situation as is because they made a deal that he gets to have his political career and when it’s over (maybe this year…..) they will be moving the family to India so that their children benefit from absorbing that side of the family culture - very hard to prove otherwise until after it doesn’t happen.
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?
The Tory position on trans is indistinguishable from the Labour one. Rachel Reeves said very similar stuff last week.
Oh, and @Leon very valid questions about women;'s rights are NOT the stuff of 'culture wars' as you put it. For such a bright and interesting guy, you can be an effing idiot at times.
Maybe I have a huge blind spot about trans rights, in that I just see it as a fringe issue at best, rearranging the deckchairs as the economy sinks at worst.
The 2024 election will be fought on the economy. Mainly because there is absolutely no chance of it getting any better from here. The war in Ukraine and further lockdowns in China have only just started showing their effects in the wider economy, which was already on the brink of collapse.
True inflation is double digit already, a huge range of people are going to face the dilemma of "heating or eating" come next winter and the only medicine we have to cure inflation is raising interest rates to a level that would collapse the economy - a complete catch 22.
Viewed in the likely context of millions being pushed into dire poverty, I just can't get het up about trans stuff.
Your point about Rachel Reeves is interesting and I agree that Labour hasn't distinguished itself on the economy yet. However I do think anger at the polls with the cost of living crisis is going to be so high by 2024 that people will be looking to kick the government regardless of what Labour are saying, so long as they do not feel they would be any worse off. At the moment I do not feel I would be any worse off under Labour but I do want someone to get a kicking re: my 3k electricity bill.
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
See also "feature not a bug" and "IANAE" (both of which I have used in the last month to my eternal shame)
IANAE, but the language nazis attempting to weaponise common phrases are concentrating on terms that are features, not bugs.
The gross awfulness of that sentence pretty much makes our point.
Next!
It was a joke. Like your hilarious comments on railways...
I have to admit I haven't really watched Channel 4 for a very long time. The news was pretty good, as I recall - sure, it sometimes seemed a little biased in one direction or the other (well, usually more one direction than the other) but it wasn't like that was a secret to anybody, any more than the Daily Mail or Guardian's political stances aren't known. They were best on foreign stories, and also good at targeting their limited resources to do long detailed reports on particular topics that I never know about before - I still remember a fascinating report by Paraic O'Brien about a whole community living underground in Bucharest. Lindsay Hilsum's reports were also brilliant. The likes of Paul Mason, who was already a bit barmy by the time he started at Channel 4 News, were somewhat less informative, and were the main reason I switched over to the BBC back then.
Other than the news and the odd Dispatches I can't honestly remember much else I watched on the channel (at least that was original to it). There was a time, before C4 sold it, when Big Brother seemed to be on 24/7, again of no interest to me even as a teen. Big Brother encapsulated to me the apparent C4 broadcasting ethos: present something as a great social experiment, for the betterment of humanity, when really they know people are just tuning in to be prurient. Following that same ethos, I remember the ads in the middle of the news for programmes with names like 'The Woman with a Tree on her Back' and 'The Boy with a Face like a Penis', presented with great solemnity, again, I am sure, knowing that viewers were likely to see these programmes as a sort of freak show entertainment, but at least keeping up the pretense of compassion. Likewise the seemingly endless programmes about getting naked. But, at least, this seemed to be a business model that worked for them.
I don't know exactly what changes about Channel 4 if its ownership is different; I have no idea what the new rules will be, or if anyone is interested in buying it. The Cameron government's ill-fated experiment with private ownership for forests was portrayed at the time as selling the entire green belt to the lumbermill from Ferngully. Similarly, we are likely to see this privatisation portrayed as selling Channel 4 to the big bad bogeyman Murdoch or, if not him, a consortium formed by Scrooge McDuck, Mr Burns and the man on the Monopoly box. I agree that it is unlikely to go ahead.
Inventing projects to keep embarrassing Ministers busy has been going since Guto took charge. Nad is just the latest. Recent successes include Rees Mogg and Gove so expect it to be be rolled out further and faster
You don't really understand what non-dom status is, do you. It doesn't absolve you of paying all British tax.
I've just been listening to a tax lawyer on Radio 5 who debunked essentially everything the press has been saying about this. Explaining the difference between residence and domicile, about remittances, tax avoidance, and so on. Pretty much everything she said was along the lines of "that's not how it works" or "no she won't avoid any tax on that".
Obviously it's not going to shut up the critics, who will run with "tax evasion", "pays no tax", "has to leave the country every six months" and other false statements.
I listened to an academic debunk the BBC / Guardian "pandora papers" expose. Basically they got most things wrong / if it was about tax avoidance you don't do it that way.
It's spun as "she's pretending to live abroad to evade tax", when it's more like "she lives here, she pays tax in India and the UK on her respective incomes, if she brings in wealth to the UK she pays tax on that too".
People see it for what it is , a bunch of unprincipled , rich , grasping ignoramuses who shaft poor people on a regular basis and don't even give them the option of eating cake, no morals , no principles and devoid of the milk of human kindness.
"A non-dom is a UK resident whose permanent home, or domicile, is outside of the UK."
I am amazed a married person can claim a different domicile from their spouse. Thyese two on the face of it are married with children and not separated/divorced/whatev. It's a fucking ludicrous claim that you live with your spouse but your domicile is on another continent.
Sunak = toast
Domicile is a weird one. For example if you are claiming non-Dom and the tax bods find that you’ve bought yourself a nice burial plot in say, Richmond Yorkshire, then they can say “hang on - you really do see this as your home”.
It’s not just about where you live and educate kids etc. it’s possible that Mr and Mrs Sunak could say that Mrs S is keeping her Indian situation as is because they made a deal that he gets to have his political career and when it’s over (maybe this year…..) they will be moving the family to India so that their children benefit from absorbing that side of the family culture - very hard to prove otherwise until after it doesn’t happen.
EXCLUSIVE. We have a leaked document showing that one of @BorisJohnson's own cabinet ministers asked him to more than double the energy bill rebate from £200 to £500 this spring - and nothing happened.
You don't really understand what non-dom status is, do you. It doesn't absolve you of paying all British tax.
I've just been listening to a tax lawyer on Radio 5 who debunked essentially everything the press has been saying about this. Explaining the difference between residence and domicile, about remittances, tax avoidance, and so on. Pretty much everything she said was along the lines of "that's not how it works" or "no she won't avoid any tax on that".
Obviously it's not going to shut up the critics, who will run with "tax evasion", "pays no tax", "has to leave the country every six months" and other false statements.
Goose. Gander. Politicians dish out all sorts of misleading and dog whistling sentiments constantly both against each other and to bamboozle the public. politicians and their families have to take it as long as they dish it out.
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.
A more interesting bet would be who Ukraine will give their points to.
Uk top I think, Germany nul point. Poland and Estonia will do well, Hungary not…
You don't really understand what non-dom status is, do you. It doesn't absolve you of paying all British tax.
I've just been listening to a tax lawyer on Radio 5 who debunked essentially everything the press has been saying about this. Explaining the difference between residence and domicile, about remittances, tax avoidance, and so on. Pretty much everything she said was along the lines of "that's not how it works" or "no she won't avoid any tax on that".
Obviously it's not going to shut up the critics, who will run with "tax evasion", "pays no tax", "has to leave the country every six months" and other false statements.
I listened to an academic debunk the BBC / Guardian "pandora papers" expose. Basically they got most things wrong / if it was about tax avoidance you don't do it that way.
It's spun as "she's pretending to live abroad to evade tax", when it's more like "she lives here, she pays tax in India and the UK on her respective incomes, if she brings in wealth to the UK she pays tax on that too".
People see it for what it is , a bunch of unprincipled , rich , grasping ignoramuses who shaft poor people on a regular basis and don't even give them the option of eating cake, no morals , no principles and devoid of the milk of human kindness.
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.
That's an unusual take - the Hitachi stuff hasn't generally been very well received as it rides poorly and has particularly uncomfortable seats.
Theres also been the cracking fiasco - if you read the ORR report out today about them falling to bits rather unexpectedly, reading between the lines it basically says "why did you morons make these out of a totally unsuitable grade of aluminium that's known to have really exciting corrosion cracking properties"
There were many many things BR got wrong, but the running gear under MK3 coaches is quite possibly the best riding of any railway system ever. Seat quality has been declining since the MK1 but the jump from MK3 to Hitachi is particularly noticeable.
All that said, whilst the Hitachi trains are poor, they aren't the worst that privatisation has offered us - for the gold star performance, step forward one Richard Branson and the Virgin Vomiters (sorry, Voyagers).
Comments
Obviously it's not going to shut up the critics, who will run with "tax evasion", "pays no tax", "has to leave the country every six months" and other false statements.
The freedoms we have relinquished are enormous and all because of a vote by people who are happy to sit in fronrt of the TV all day eating chips and dreaming of bringing back hanging and keeping out foreigners.
And now I've missed it.
This is no reflection on him and his family personally, but an absolutely unavoidable consequence of the mathematics - unless, as you say, they go in for the usual tax insulation of the wealthy, which would look even worse (the non dom thing being an excellent example). He can't possibly recuse himself from the dilemma - conflict of interest, or insulation?
IIRC there was a case where a (AIUI) far less wealthy politician had to diverst himself of his significant share of the family business and put it in a blind trust for his children. But that was in the context of a Scottish Labour leadership election.
Tbf I find suggestions that the Rover was the child of the Ferrari Daytona fairly hilarious, but those were simpler times.
A minor flaw in Jessop's argument
If we're ever directly involved in a European confrontation, they would be needed.
'But, as the latest controversy around the Chancellor and his family’s finances broke last night, Conservatives were asking themselves: who are the “two people familiar with her financial arrangements” who were in a position to know, and leak, the information to the Independent in the first place – and is it possible they are within the Conservative party?'
This was all in Turkey. And yet as easy as doing it in the UK, if not slightly easier. Certainly a damn sight cheaper!
Turkey in insanely cheap due to the collapse of the lira, and this despite its 61% inflation
Her Indian nationality and citizenship are a red herring. Presumably she’s got (todays version of) “Indefinite Leave to Remain” which involves a declaration that you intend to live in the U.K. permanently. She’s told HMRC that that is not the case, and that she intends to return to India.
"A non-dom is a UK resident whose permanent home, or domicile, is outside of the UK."
I am amazed a married person can claim a different domicile from their spouse. Thyese two on the face of it are married with children and not separated/divorced/whatev. It's a fucking ludicrous claim that you live with your spouse but your domicile is on another continent.
Sunak = toast
I recall her getting some stick for her earning level. Samantha Cameron had the same iirc.
And some nasty commentary about her appearance.
And some commentary about her being appointed a Judge (County Court Recorder iirc).
And some later stuff about the block of flats in Manchester, and her alleged resentment that they had not benefitted sufficiently from property price rises in London.
I do not recall any Deputy Leaders of the Tory Party making a song and dance about it. Did they?
https://www.newstatesman.com/environment/climate/2022/03/exclusive-polling-brits-want-more-climate-action-as-energy-prices-bite
...Most Britons are in favour of more energy efficiency measures and more renewable energy to meet climate goals. The vast majority said in response to rising energy bills that they would support the government temporarily removing VAT on energy bills and investing more in home insulation. Over 70 per cent would support more wind farms in the UK -- and back them being built in their local areas -- while more solar energy production has the backing of nearly 80 per cent of voters...
So pandering to NIMBYs it is.
Oh, and @Leon very valid questions about women;'s rights are NOT the stuff of 'culture wars' as you put it. For such a bright and interesting guy, you can be an effing idiot at times.
Other than the news and the odd Dispatches I can't honestly remember much else I watched on the channel (at least that was original to it). There was a time, before C4 sold it, when Big Brother seemed to be on 24/7, again of no interest to me even as a teen. Big Brother encapsulated to me the apparent C4 broadcasting ethos: present something as a great social experiment, for the betterment of humanity, when really they know people are just tuning in to be prurient. Following that same ethos, I remember the ads in the middle of the news for programmes with names like 'The Woman with a Tree on her Back' and 'The Boy with a Face like a Penis', presented with great solemnity, again, I am sure, knowing that viewers were likely to see these programmes as a sort of freak show entertainment, but at least keeping up the pretense of compassion. Likewise the seemingly endless programmes about getting naked. But, at least, this seemed to be a business model that worked for them.
I don't know exactly what changes about Channel 4 if its ownership is different; I have no idea what the new rules will be, or if anyone is interested in buying it. The Cameron government's ill-fated experiment with private ownership for forests was portrayed at the time as selling the entire green belt to the lumbermill from Ferngully. Similarly, we are likely to see this privatisation portrayed as selling Channel 4 to the big bad bogeyman Murdoch or, if not him, a consortium formed by Scrooge McDuck, Mr Burns and the man on the Monopoly box. I agree that it is unlikely to go ahead.
"That all changed when tens of thousands of Russian troops rolled across Ukraine’s border in late February."
"If Finland were to join the alliance, the total land border between NATO territory and Russia would more than double, from around 754 miles currently to nearly 1,600 miles."
https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/04/06/finland-sweden-nato-membership-russia-ukraine/
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2007/dec/07/cherieblair.uk
It's interesting to see how much trouble Foster's been in over the two decades since:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Foster
Not putting up people's taxes would be a sensible start.
Amazon - TV shows are a cheap add on to Prime thinks to which we make a lot of money (because Prime members spend a lot at Amazon).
Both treat TV as an extra designed to attract / reward their loyal customer base.
In all, 40,000 Mariupolites have been deported - city administration
https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1512008607948328962
Wordle 292 3/6*
⬜🟨⬜⬜🟩
⬜🟩🟨🟨🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
Next!
NEW THREAD
There are a few 'privatised' operators still.
But many of them have had to be bailed out by the public and renationalised.
Funny old world.
It’s not just about where you live and educate kids etc. it’s possible that Mr and Mrs Sunak could say that Mrs S is keeping her Indian situation as is because they made a deal that he gets to have his political career and when it’s over (maybe this year…..) they will be moving the family to India so that their children benefit from absorbing that side of the family culture - very hard to prove otherwise until after it doesn’t happen.
The 2024 election will be fought on the economy. Mainly because there is absolutely no chance of it getting any better from here. The war in Ukraine and further lockdowns in China have only just started showing their effects in the wider economy, which was already on the brink of collapse.
True inflation is double digit already, a huge range of people are going to face the dilemma of "heating or eating" come next winter and the only medicine we have to cure inflation is raising interest rates to a level that would collapse the economy - a complete catch 22.
Viewed in the likely context of millions being pushed into dire poverty, I just can't get het up about trans stuff.
Your point about Rachel Reeves is interesting and I agree that Labour hasn't distinguished itself on the economy yet. However I do think anger at the polls with the cost of living crisis is going to be so high by 2024 that people will be looking to kick the government regardless of what Labour are saying, so long as they do not feel they would be any worse off. At the moment I do not feel I would be any worse off under Labour but I do want someone to get a kicking re: my 3k electricity bill.
https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/rishi-sunak-blocked-plan-increase-energy-bill-rebate-leaked-document-shows-1561790
Uk top I think, Germany nul point. Poland and Estonia will do well, Hungary not…
Theres also been the cracking fiasco - if you read the ORR report out today about them falling to bits rather unexpectedly, reading between the lines it basically says "why did you morons make these out of a totally unsuitable grade of aluminium that's known to have really exciting corrosion cracking properties"
There were many many things BR got wrong, but the running gear under MK3 coaches is quite possibly the best riding of any railway system ever.
Seat quality has been declining since the MK1 but the jump from MK3 to Hitachi is particularly noticeable.
All that said, whilst the Hitachi trains are poor, they aren't the worst that privatisation has offered us - for the gold star performance, step forward one Richard Branson and the Virgin Vomiters (sorry, Voyagers).