Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

No more polls after tomorrow in the French election – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited April 17 in General
imageNo more polls after tomorrow in the French election – politicalbetting.com

One of the ways that French election law operates differently from other countries is that opinion polls are banned for the final two days of the campaign. So the polls that will be published tomorrow will be the final ones and be those which will determine how well each pollster has done.

Read the full story here

«13456711

Comments

  • TazTaz Posts: 5,353
    edited April 7
    First, like Marine.
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,152
    Taz said:

    First, like Marine.

    God, I hope not.
    But it is 'Marine' not Marie (that was her dad)
    (Marion Anne Perrine "Marine" Le Pen)
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 14,093
    East Coast, Southern, Northern, ScotRail and Northern Ireland Railways are also nationalised, to be pedantic/accurate.

    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.
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 1,701
    Latest Opinion Way have Macron and Le Pen down 1 . 26% v 22% . Mélenchon up to 17% .

  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 14,615

    East Coast, Southern, Northern, ScotRail and Northern Ireland Railways are also nationalised, to be pedantic/accurate.

    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.

    Privatise the profits, nationalise the losses. Shareholders pay politicos and politicos become highly paid directors.

    Nice little earner.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 14,615
    Out of curiousity how would this French law stop yougov (or anyone) publishing a French poll in the UK press?
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 41,174
    Lavrov is again complaining about Ukraine’s negotiating position getting tougher.

    https://twitter.com/ragipsoylu/status/1512024792270053377
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 14,615

    Out of curiousity how would this French law stop yougov (or anyone) publishing a French poll in the UK press?

    We all remember the Spanish sudden interest in red tomatoes, green peppers, etc prices around election time.
    Red tomato fans, please explain.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 14,093

    Out of curiousity how would this French law stop yougov (or anyone) publishing a French poll in the UK press?

    I presume it's illegal to do the fieldwork?
  • TazTaz Posts: 5,353

    Out of curiousity how would this French law stop yougov (or anyone) publishing a French poll in the UK press?

    We all remember the Spanish sudden interest in red tomatoes, green peppers, etc prices around election time.
    Ready Steady Cook fans ?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 28,015

    Lavrov is again complaining about Ukraine’s negotiating position getting tougher.

    https://twitter.com/ragipsoylu/status/1512024792270053377

    I think it is nearly traditional to mis-quote this....

    "the war situation has developed not necessarily to {Russia}'s advantage, while the general trends of the world have all turned against her interest."
  • TazTaz Posts: 5,353

    East Coast, Southern, Northern, ScotRail and Northern Ireland Railways are also nationalised, to be pedantic/accurate.

    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.

    Privatise the profits, nationalise the losses. Shareholders pay politicos and politicos become highly paid directors.

    Nice little earner.
    East Coast bailed out twice.

    Also don't forget the shambles that was Metronet.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 14,093
    edited April 7

    IshmaelZ said:

    MattW said:

    Farooq said:

    MattW said:

    boulay said:

    glw said:

    glw said:

    glw said:

    ping said:

    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 think the most hilarious were your safety claims for privatisation – when, at the point you chronicled, Network Rail was, erm, nationalised.

    It's a funny old world indeed.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 72,062
    'Sleeping Beauty' Nantes faces rude awakening as crime enters French presidential race

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/04/07/french-election-2022-dispatch-nantes-crime-wave-enters-le-pen/
  • MightyAlexMightyAlex Posts: 782
    'If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, denies it’s a duck, demands you prove it's a duck, accuses you of being a duck, says your dog is a duck, that your friend's cat is a duck & that all 3 'ducks' are Russophobic ducks paid to be crisis actors, it’s a Kremlin duck'

    https://twitter.com/DarthPutinKGB/status/1511754788307939329
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 14,093
    Taz said:

    East Coast, Southern, Northern, ScotRail and Northern Ireland Railways are also nationalised, to be pedantic/accurate.

    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.

    Privatise the profits, nationalise the losses. Shareholders pay politicos and politicos become highly paid directors.

    Nice little earner.
    East Coast bailed out twice.

    Also don't forget the shambles that was Metronet.
    At the last count, I make it FIVE regional operators under public ownership, plus London Underground of course, which carries more passengers than any other network.

    Yet still the PB Franchising Fans go out to bat for a shambolic system that even the Tory government has binned.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 30,749

    IshmaelZ said:

    MattW said:

    Farooq said:

    MattW said:

    boulay said:

    glw said:

    glw said:

    glw said:

    ping said:

    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 think the most hilarious were your safety claims for privatisation – when at the point you chronicled, Network Rail was, erm, nationalised.

    It's a funny old world indeed.
    You utterly miss my point. Infrastructure failures are just one potential cause of accidents and incidents. Do you understand that? Do you understand why that makes your point moot?

    (It is anyway, for a number of other reasons. But that's an important one.)
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 72,062
    edited April 7
    Residents 'running out of food' in Covid lockdown

    Residents are confined to their homes, banned from leaving for even essential reasons such as grocery shopping.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-61019975
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 52,574

    Illia Ponomarenko 🇺🇦
    @IAPonomarenko
    ·
    3h
    In key cities of Ukrainian-controlled Donbas, mass evacuation of civilians.
    Local authorities call an everyone to leave while it’s still possible.
    I’m afraid cities like Severodonetsk, Slovyansk, Kramatorsk will be largely ruined.
    A big battle is gathering.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 14,093

    IshmaelZ said:

    MattW said:

    Farooq said:

    MattW said:

    boulay said:

    glw said:

    glw said:

    glw said:

    ping said:

    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 think the most hilarious were your safety claims for privatisation – when at the point you chronicled, Network Rail was, erm, nationalised.

    It's a funny old world indeed.
    You utterly miss my point. Infrastructure failures are just one potential cause of accidents and incidents. Do you understand that? Do you understand why that makes your point moot?

    (It is anyway, for a number of other reasons. But that's an important one.)
    LOL. You made a critical error in your analysis and are now trying to fit the evidence around the hypothesis, rather than vice versa. Probably best to concede this one.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 19,157
    Ha!

    It’s been reported that the Chancellor’s wife, Akshata Murthy, is not tax domiciled in the UK. This has been confirmed by a statement issued on her behalf. But I think the statement of facts issued by her is wrong. And I also suggest HMRC could challenge this claim. A thread….

    https://twitter.com/RichardJMurphy/status/1511964400978214912

    Confirming what I was sort-of conjecturing on PT, non domicile status looks open to Q
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 30,749

    IshmaelZ said:

    MattW said:

    Farooq said:

    MattW said:

    boulay said:

    glw said:

    glw said:

    glw said:

    ping said:

    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 think the most hilarious were your safety claims for privatisation – when at the point you chronicled, Network Rail was, erm, nationalised.

    It's a funny old world indeed.
    You utterly miss my point. Infrastructure failures are just one potential cause of accidents and incidents. Do you understand that? Do you understand why that makes your point moot?

    (It is anyway, for a number of other reasons. But that's an important one.)
    LOL. You made a critical error in your analysis and are now trying to fit the evidence around the hypothesis, rather than vice versa. Probably best to concede this one.
    What 'critical error' ? Again, I suggest you read my post. And perhaps this time *think*.

    But here's a little pointer: think about what the causal factors for accidents and incidents are, and which are rooted in infrastructure or other causes.

    Besides, even setting that aside, your argument fails in other ways as well.
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 2,455
    https://gofund.me/bc5ca70a

    Just another post to recommend this Ukraine fundraiser. To my mind, having looked in to all the options, my conclusion is taking vanload after vanload full of dried food and sleeping bags, bought in bulk and heavily discounted, and hand delivered to the Ukrainian army in Lviv is about the most efficient, productive and legal way that we as individuals can contribute to the war effort. Not a charity, but run by a respected ex military consultant and backed by a number of Scottish businesses.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 30,749

    Taz said:

    East Coast, Southern, Northern, ScotRail and Northern Ireland Railways are also nationalised, to be pedantic/accurate.

    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.

    Privatise the profits, nationalise the losses. Shareholders pay politicos and politicos become highly paid directors.

    Nice little earner.
    East Coast bailed out twice.

    Also don't forget the shambles that was Metronet.
    At the last count, I make it FIVE regional operators under public ownership, plus London Underground of course, which carries more passengers than any other network.

    Yet still the PB Franchising Fans go out to bat for a shambolic system that even the Tory government has binned.
    Yet PB nationalisation obsessives are showing themselves to be idiotic numpties. Or is that just you? ;)

    BTW, you might want to know I've been banging on about a concessionary model for as long as I've been on PB...
  • ozymandiasozymandias Posts: 1,405
    Completely off-topic and not sure if it has already been discussed but has anyone seen the new Netflix documentary on Jimmy Savile?

    Horrifying, harrowing and at times completely jaw-dropping. At the end of episode two I was very nearly in tears.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 6,715

    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."

    SNIP

    Even better is to have a massive wind turbine in someone else's back garden.

    And so, the uplands of mid-Wales are sprouting wind-farms (with no benefit for the locals).

    Most are run by a company called Bute Empire, I mean Bute Energy, based in Edinburgh and London,

    And people still disputes that Wales is a colony run for the benefit of others ...
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 52,574
    Mark Hertling
    @MarkHertling
    ·
    20h
    When RU finds a weak spot, their doctrine in to use LOTS of artillery to make the weak spot bigger and then send lots of fast moving forces (that is, tanks) through.

    Holding the "shoulders" with other forces.

    Mark Hertling
    @MarkHertling
    ·
    20h
    BTW, before we leave breakthrough, Brusilov & his followers say RU must use massive artillery on enemy positions OR use *battlefield tactical nuclear weapons* to create a breakthrough when gaps are found by the RIF .

    Again, theoretical...but that scares the crap out of me. 13/

    https://twitter.com/MarkHertling/status/1511725338073698307
  • RobDRobD Posts: 57,430
    IshmaelZ said:

    Ha!

    It’s been reported that the Chancellor’s wife, Akshata Murthy, is not tax domiciled in the UK. This has been confirmed by a statement issued on her behalf. But I think the statement of facts issued by her is wrong. And I also suggest HMRC could challenge this claim. A thread….

    https://twitter.com/RichardJMurphy/status/1511964400978214912

    Confirming what I was sort-of conjecturing on PT, non domicile status looks open to Q

    Seems like a lot of speculation and not many hard facts. Or do we keep tracks on how often she visits India?
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 35,146

    Momentous news from France. Le Monde now has an English version for the first time:

    https://www.lemonde.fr/en/

    +5 pts for Marine Le Pen.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 23,620
    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.

    https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/rishi-sunak-blocked-plan-increase-energy-bill-rebate-leaked-document-shows-1561790
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 72,062
    edited April 7
    Scott_xP said:

    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.

    https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/rishi-sunak-blocked-plan-increase-energy-bill-rebate-leaked-document-shows-1561790

    Day 3 of the hit job on Sunak....somebody really wants to ensure his political ambitions are sunk.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 57,430

    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."

    SNIP

    Even better is to have a massive wind turbine in someone else's back garden.

    And so, the uplands of mid-Wales are sprouting wind-farms (with no benefit for the locals).

    Most are run by a company called Bute Empire, I mean Bute Energy, based in Edinburgh and London,

    And people still disputes that Wales is a colony run for the benefit of others ...
    Are there no local taxes on these things, like for other businesses?
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 3,371
    Taz said:

    First, like Marine.

    Fancy a bet on that?

    I reckon that IF she makes the final two, Macron will beat her 60:40, perhaps by more.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 28,015

    Mark Hertling
    @MarkHertling
    ·
    20h
    When RU finds a weak spot, their doctrine in to use LOTS of artillery to make the weak spot bigger and then send lots of fast moving forces (that is, tanks) through.

    Holding the "shoulders" with other forces.

    Mark Hertling
    @MarkHertling
    ·
    20h
    BTW, before we leave breakthrough, Brusilov & his followers say RU must use massive artillery on enemy positions OR use *battlefield tactical nuclear weapons* to create a breakthrough when gaps are found by the RIF .

    Again, theoretical...but that scares the crap out of me. 13/

    https://twitter.com/MarkHertling/status/1511725338073698307

    That's what artillery has been used for since before Napoleon, on battlefields. Making a hole in the enemy position to drive through. Well that and counter artillery, of course.

    That's why everyone was mad keen on Davy Crockett (and it's kin) - for about 10 minutes. Tactical nukes were conceived of as super concentrated artillery. Could do the work of X divisions worth of artillery with a single bang...
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 52,574
    Scott_xP said:

    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.

    https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/rishi-sunak-blocked-plan-increase-energy-bill-rebate-leaked-document-shows-1561790

    One of the options was delay the point when rebates are repaid, which is going to happen anyway, because it seems astonishingly unlikely prices will fall anytime soon.
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 3,371

    Scott_xP said:

    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.

    https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/rishi-sunak-blocked-plan-increase-energy-bill-rebate-leaked-document-shows-1561790

    Day 3 of the hit job on Sunak....somebody really wants to ensure his political ambitions are sunk.
    I suggested a little while back that it does look a little like a No 10 hatchet job on Sunak. Boris Johnson is utterly ruthless to anyone who threatens his ambition to be World Leader.

    In the case of Sunak there's so much ammo that it doesn't take a lot. He's wide open to getting taken down. The completely wrong person for the current climate.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 72,062
    edited April 7
    Heathener said:

    Scott_xP said:

    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.

    https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/rishi-sunak-blocked-plan-increase-energy-bill-rebate-leaked-document-shows-1561790

    Day 3 of the hit job on Sunak....somebody really wants to ensure his political ambitions are sunk.
    I suggested a little while back that it does look a little like a No 10 hatchet job on Sunak. Boris Johnson is utterly ruthless to anyone who threatens his ambition to be World Leader.

    In the case of Sunak there's so much ammo that it doesn't take a lot. He's wide open to getting taken down. The completely wrong person for the current climate.
    Sure its a total coincidence....

    David Canzini has made quite an impression since he joined No. 10 as the Prime Minister’s deputy chief of staff in February. He’s there not just to provide focus but to make the operation feel a bit more traditionally Tory.

    Shoring up Johnson was never going to be simple. Downing Street now has a plan for his survival – but even if all his advisers start carrying Conservative membership cards, it won’t be possible to take the whole party with them.

    https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-changing-face-of-no-10
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 15,522

    Scott_xP said:

    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.

    https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/rishi-sunak-blocked-plan-increase-energy-bill-rebate-leaked-document-shows-1561790

    Day 3 of the hit job on Sunak....somebody really wants to ensure his political ambitions are sunk.
    And it is not Angela Rayner coordinating these attacks on Rishi.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 35,146
    Macron continuing to push for talks with Putin. After what we've seen at Bucha. What a ridiculous man, his phonecalls have a whiff of the Edvward VIII letters to Hitler.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 23,394
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-60996062

    Asked what difference killing Sir David would make, he said: "For one, he can't vote again.
    "If he had previous for doing votes like that he won't do it in the future, and perhaps send a message to his colleagues."
    He added: "So hopefully, he won't be able to harm Muslims in that regard."


    So not because Angela Rayner said that Tories were scum.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 28,015
    IshmaelZ said:

    Ha!

    It’s been reported that the Chancellor’s wife, Akshata Murthy, is not tax domiciled in the UK. This has been confirmed by a statement issued on her behalf. But I think the statement of facts issued by her is wrong. And I also suggest HMRC could challenge this claim. A thread….

    https://twitter.com/RichardJMurphy/status/1511964400978214912

    Confirming what I was sort-of conjecturing on PT, non domicile status looks open to Q

    Richard Murphy is (slightly) famous for being wrong about nearly everything. And not accepting correction for his mistakes either.

    His statements have less value than those, say, published in the Daily Mail.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 19,157

    IshmaelZ said:

    Ha!

    It’s been reported that the Chancellor’s wife, Akshata Murthy, is not tax domiciled in the UK. This has been confirmed by a statement issued on her behalf. But I think the statement of facts issued by her is wrong. And I also suggest HMRC could challenge this claim. A thread….

    https://twitter.com/RichardJMurphy/status/1511964400978214912

    Confirming what I was sort-of conjecturing on PT, non domicile status looks open to Q

    Richard Murphy is (slightly) famous for being wrong about nearly everything. And not accepting correction for his mistakes either.

    His statements have less value than those, say, published in the Daily Mail.
    OK. What he says sounds like sense and like what I was the taught at law school that domicile meant tho.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 41,174

    Mark Hertling
    @MarkHertling
    ·
    20h
    When RU finds a weak spot, their doctrine in to use LOTS of artillery to make the weak spot bigger and then send lots of fast moving forces (that is, tanks) through.

    Holding the "shoulders" with other forces.

    Mark Hertling
    @MarkHertling
    ·
    20h
    BTW, before we leave breakthrough, Brusilov & his followers say RU must use massive artillery on enemy positions OR use *battlefield tactical nuclear weapons* to create a breakthrough when gaps are found by the RIF .

    Again, theoretical...but that scares the crap out of me. 13/

    https://twitter.com/MarkHertling/status/1511725338073698307

    That's what artillery has been used for since before Napoleon, on battlefields. Making a hole in the enemy position to drive through. Well that and counter artillery, of course.

    That's why everyone was mad keen on Davy Crockett (and it's kin) - for about 10 minutes. Tactical nukes were conceived of as super concentrated artillery. Could do the work of X divisions worth of artillery with a single bang...
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_(nuclear_device)

    One of the most fervent supporters of the Davy Crockett was West Germany's defense minister Franz Josef Strauss, in the late 1950s and early 1960s. Strauss promoted the idea of equipping German brigades with the nuclear weapon, to be supplied by the US, arguing that this would allow German troops to become a much more effective factor in NATO's defense of Germany against a potential Soviet invasion. He argued that a single Davy Crockett could replace 40–50 salvos of a whole divisional artillery park – allowing the funds and troops normally needed for this artillery to be invested into further troops, or not having to be spent at all. US NATO commanders strongly opposed Strauss's ideas, as they would have made the use of tactical nuclear weapons almost mandatory in case of war, further reducing the ability of NATO to defend itself without resorting to atomic weapons.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 23,828
    edited April 7
    FPT for @Anabobazina


    “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. “

    ++++

    Don’t be bloody stupid. Of course trans issues are an integral part of the whole cavalcade of wokeness, AKA identity politics and critical race theory and queer theory and the rest - and thus part of the culture war we need to wage against this growing madness

    Here, look, to finally answer “what is Woke”, someone has actually done a handy guide, so the question need never be asked again




    https://twitter.com/peterboghossian/status/1458781564964331520?s=21&t=RS_kLOIdWnFySfln3as4BA
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 72,062
    edited April 7
    So Team Lynton back on the payroll and...Murdoch man doing the digital stuff.

    https://www.prweek.com/article/1752093/downing-street-hires-ex-home-office-news-uk-content-chief-head-digital
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 28,015
    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Ha!

    It’s been reported that the Chancellor’s wife, Akshata Murthy, is not tax domiciled in the UK. This has been confirmed by a statement issued on her behalf. But I think the statement of facts issued by her is wrong. And I also suggest HMRC could challenge this claim. A thread….

    https://twitter.com/RichardJMurphy/status/1511964400978214912

    Confirming what I was sort-of conjecturing on PT, non domicile status looks open to Q

    Richard Murphy is (slightly) famous for being wrong about nearly everything. And not accepting correction for his mistakes either.

    His statements have less value than those, say, published in the Daily Mail.
    OK. What he says sounds like sense and like what I was the taught at law school that domicile meant tho.
    He gained a certain reputation for blocking people and describing them as trolls when they pointed out facts to him.

    His past pronouncements on the meaning of "proven reserves" of various materials comes to mind...
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 72,062

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Ha!

    It’s been reported that the Chancellor’s wife, Akshata Murthy, is not tax domiciled in the UK. This has been confirmed by a statement issued on her behalf. But I think the statement of facts issued by her is wrong. And I also suggest HMRC could challenge this claim. A thread….

    https://twitter.com/RichardJMurphy/status/1511964400978214912

    Confirming what I was sort-of conjecturing on PT, non domicile status looks open to Q

    Richard Murphy is (slightly) famous for being wrong about nearly everything. And not accepting correction for his mistakes either.

    His statements have less value than those, say, published in the Daily Mail.
    OK. What he says sounds like sense and like what I was the taught at law school that domicile meant tho.
    He gained a certain reputation for blocking people and describing them as trolls when they pointed out facts to him.

    His past pronouncements on the meaning of "proven reserves" of various materials comes to mind...
    He is in the same category as Dr Eoin Clarke.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 9,068

    IshmaelZ said:

    Ha!

    It’s been reported that the Chancellor’s wife, Akshata Murthy, is not tax domiciled in the UK. This has been confirmed by a statement issued on her behalf. But I think the statement of facts issued by her is wrong. And I also suggest HMRC could challenge this claim. A thread….

    https://twitter.com/RichardJMurphy/status/1511964400978214912

    Confirming what I was sort-of conjecturing on PT, non domicile status looks open to Q

    Richard Murphy is (slightly) famous for being wrong about nearly everything. And not accepting correction for his mistakes either.

    His statements have less value than those, say, published in the Daily Mail.
    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/residence-domicile-and-remittance-basis-rules-uk-tax-liability/guidance-note-for-residence-domicile-and-the-remittance-basis-rdr1

    According to flow chart one on this govt website, nobody with settled long term plans to stay in the UK should be a non-dom. If the Chancellor's wife has no settled long term plans to be in the UK then that is a rather odd state of affairs isn't it?
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 19,157
    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/what-is-non-dom-domiciled-status-akshata-murthy-rishi-sunak-wife-b993028.html

    Story by Simon Neville, also printed in every single local paper in the country.

    Simon Neville works for the Evening Standard.

    I wonder who owns the Evening Standard, and whether the owner owes any favours to anyone.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 72,062
    edited April 7
    Jeremy Hunt says he never considered selling Channel 4 while he was Culture Sec: “It would be a shame to lose" the competition it provides to the BBC, “we have a very high standard of broadcasting… and Channel 4 is part of that ecosystem”
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,246

    Out of curiousity how would this French law stop yougov (or anyone) publishing a French poll in the UK press?

    That is entirely possible but it would not be picked up by the French media
  • LeonLeon Posts: 23,828
    Sunak is the toastiest toast in Toastistan

    The question must be asked, however, is whether Boris, his team, Number 10, anyone at the top of the Tory party knew any of this beforehand?

    I imagine they did NOT know the Winchester stuff. That is very obscure (but damaging). The non-dom stuff is huge and obvious - a billionaire wife not paying tax? How can you possibly have a CHANCELLOR, who raises tax on all of us, and demands that we pay, enjoying an easy life, in that situation?

    Ridiculous. If the Tories knew this, they were grossly incompetent in appointing him. If they didn’t know, they were also grossly incompetent. Idiots
  • TimTTimT Posts: 6,305
    edited April 7
    Nathan Ruser @nrg8000 does some of the best maps of Russia's War. Here his illustration of where the personnel of one Russia brigade in Bucha was drawn from.

    https://twitter.com/Nrg8000/status/1511901918905638915/photo/1
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 28,015

    Mark Hertling
    @MarkHertling
    ·
    20h
    When RU finds a weak spot, their doctrine in to use LOTS of artillery to make the weak spot bigger and then send lots of fast moving forces (that is, tanks) through.

    Holding the "shoulders" with other forces.

    Mark Hertling
    @MarkHertling
    ·
    20h
    BTW, before we leave breakthrough, Brusilov & his followers say RU must use massive artillery on enemy positions OR use *battlefield tactical nuclear weapons* to create a breakthrough when gaps are found by the RIF .

    Again, theoretical...but that scares the crap out of me. 13/

    https://twitter.com/MarkHertling/status/1511725338073698307

    That's what artillery has been used for since before Napoleon, on battlefields. Making a hole in the enemy position to drive through. Well that and counter artillery, of course.

    That's why everyone was mad keen on Davy Crockett (and it's kin) - for about 10 minutes. Tactical nukes were conceived of as super concentrated artillery. Could do the work of X divisions worth of artillery with a single bang...
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_(nuclear_device)

    One of the most fervent supporters of the Davy Crockett was West Germany's defense minister Franz Josef Strauss, in the late 1950s and early 1960s. Strauss promoted the idea of equipping German brigades with the nuclear weapon, to be supplied by the US, arguing that this would allow German troops to become a much more effective factor in NATO's defense of Germany against a potential Soviet invasion. He argued that a single Davy Crockett could replace 40–50 salvos of a whole divisional artillery park – allowing the funds and troops normally needed for this artillery to be invested into further troops, or not having to be spent at all. US NATO commanders strongly opposed Strauss's ideas, as they would have made the use of tactical nuclear weapons almost mandatory in case of war, further reducing the ability of NATO to defend itself without resorting to atomic weapons.
    Oh yeah.

    It was an interesting variation in MAD - make *all war in Germany* a nuclear war.

    The background - the Soviet "conventional" plan was to drench the battle field (and all the supply depots) in nerve gas. Persistent nerve agents at that. They are the fun ones, where, weeks later, you touch the *underside* of a fence rail (not washed off by the rain). And drop down, writhing on the ground.

    This would kill, probably, something north of 10% of the German civilian population. Some say 25%.

    So a conversional war, for Germany, would consist of a mass slaughter of Germans. So how to make no-one want to start a war in Germany?
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 9,596

    IshmaelZ said:

    Ha!

    It’s been reported that the Chancellor’s wife, Akshata Murthy, is not tax domiciled in the UK. This has been confirmed by a statement issued on her behalf. But I think the statement of facts issued by her is wrong. And I also suggest HMRC could challenge this claim. A thread….

    https://twitter.com/RichardJMurphy/status/1511964400978214912

    Confirming what I was sort-of conjecturing on PT, non domicile status looks open to Q

    Richard Murphy is (slightly) famous for being wrong about nearly everything. And not accepting correction for his mistakes either.

    His statements have less value than those, say, published in the Daily Mail.
    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/residence-domicile-and-remittance-basis-rules-uk-tax-liability/guidance-note-for-residence-domicile-and-the-remittance-basis-rdr1

    According to flow chart one on this govt website, nobody with settled long term plans to stay in the UK should be a non-dom. If the Chancellor's wife has no settled long term plans to be in the UK then that is a rather odd state of affairs isn't it?
    No wonder she makes Sunak pack his Action Man sized swimming trucks and fuck off to California so regularly. I bet his cock is like a cashew.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 72,062
    edited April 7
    Leon said:

    Sunak is the toastiest toast in Toastistan

    The question must be asked, however, is whether Boris, his team, Number 10, anyone at the top of the Tory party knew any of this beforehand?

    I imagine they did NOT know the Winchester stuff. That is very obscure (but damaging). The non-dom stuff is huge and obvious - a billionaire wife not paying tax? How can you possibly have a CHANCELLOR, who raises tax on all of us, and demands that we pay, enjoying an easy life, in that situation?

    Ridiculous. If the Tories knew this, they were grossly incompetent in appointing him. If they didn’t know, they were also grossly incompetent. Idiots

    Yes they did know. Sunak reported it to the cabinet office when he was appointed in 2018. How do you think the press found out?

    Also the Winchester magazine.....definite tip off from somebody in the know. There is no way somebody from the press is digging through 2 year old magazines that have 1 sentence about him on page 46.

    And now day 3, a leak from within government to highlight Sunak rejected a bigger rebate.

    This is coordinated...and everything points to somebody in government.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 6,715
    RobD said:

    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."

    SNIP

    Even better is to have a massive wind turbine in someone else's back garden.

    And so, the uplands of mid-Wales are sprouting wind-farms (with no benefit for the locals).

    Most are run by a company called Bute Empire, I mean Bute Energy, based in Edinburgh and London,

    And people still disputes that Wales is a colony run for the benefit of others ...
    Are there no local taxes on these things, like for other businesses?
    Go to this site.

    https://data.barbour-abi.com/smart-map/repd/beis/?type=repd

    Select onshore wind-farms. Select operational.

    Now, look at the map and tell me which areas are devoid of wind-farms.

    Wales, Scotland & N. Ireland must easily have three or four times as many wind-farms as the whole of England.

    Look at the South East. Look at the South of England. Look at the English counties just next to Powys, Herefordshire, Shropshire. Look at the Pennines. Virtually no wind-farms.

    I have no objections to wind-farms in Wales if it is benefitting Wales. It is not.

    The profits are outsourced elsewhere. We are left with the turbines & no doubt the de-commissioning costs.

    England as usual is exploiting its neighbour.
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 4,595

    IshmaelZ said:

    Ha!

    It’s been reported that the Chancellor’s wife, Akshata Murthy, is not tax domiciled in the UK. This has been confirmed by a statement issued on her behalf. But I think the statement of facts issued by her is wrong. And I also suggest HMRC could challenge this claim. A thread….

    https://twitter.com/RichardJMurphy/status/1511964400978214912

    Confirming what I was sort-of conjecturing on PT, non domicile status looks open to Q

    Richard Murphy is (slightly) famous for being wrong about nearly everything. And not accepting correction for his mistakes either.

    His statements have less value than those, say, published in the Daily Mail.
    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/residence-domicile-and-remittance-basis-rules-uk-tax-liability/guidance-note-for-residence-domicile-and-the-remittance-basis-rdr1

    According to flow chart one on this govt website, nobody with settled long term plans to stay in the UK should be a non-dom. If the Chancellor's wife has no settled long term plans to be in the UK then that is a rather odd state of affairs isn't it?
    I absolutely love this line of attack on the Chancellor, because it basically boils down to "women are the property of their husband, who is therefore to be held responsible for all the silly things they do".

    Which is... let's say, somewhat at odds with the general views on gender equality usually held by many of those people making the argument.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 19,157

    IshmaelZ said:

    Ha!

    It’s been reported that the Chancellor’s wife, Akshata Murthy, is not tax domiciled in the UK. This has been confirmed by a statement issued on her behalf. But I think the statement of facts issued by her is wrong. And I also suggest HMRC could challenge this claim. A thread….

    https://twitter.com/RichardJMurphy/status/1511964400978214912

    Confirming what I was sort-of conjecturing on PT, non domicile status looks open to Q

    Richard Murphy is (slightly) famous for being wrong about nearly everything. And not accepting correction for his mistakes either.

    His statements have less value than those, say, published in the Daily Mail.
    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/residence-domicile-and-remittance-basis-rules-uk-tax-liability/guidance-note-for-residence-domicile-and-the-remittance-basis-rdr1

    According to flow chart one on this govt website, nobody with settled long term plans to stay in the UK should be a non-dom. If the Chancellor's wife has no settled long term plans to be in the UK then that is a rather odd state of affairs isn't it?
    Deliciously, Murphy suggests that the Winchester donation (in her name and his) is itself evidence of settled long term plans to stay in the UK.

    Rarely has a bed been so well and truly shat. I hope OGH laid off that 250/1 shot.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 23,828

    Leon said:

    Sunak is the toastiest toast in Toastistan

    The question must be asked, however, is whether Boris, his team, Number 10, anyone at the top of the Tory party knew any of this beforehand?

    I imagine they did NOT know the Winchester stuff. That is very obscure (but damaging). The non-dom stuff is huge and obvious - a billionaire wife not paying tax? How can you possibly have a CHANCELLOR, who raises tax on all of us, and demands that we pay, enjoying an easy life, in that situation?

    Ridiculous. If the Tories knew this, they were grossly incompetent in appointing him. If they didn’t know, they were also grossly incompetent. Idiots

    Yes they did know. Sunak reported it to the cabinet office when he was appointed in 2018. How do you think the press found out?

    Also the Winchester magazine.....definite tip off from somebody in the know. There is no way somebody from the press is digging through 2 year old magazines that have 1 sentence about him on page 46.
    Then they were damn fools. A squillionaire Chancellor with a trillionaire wife (legally) dodging lots of tax. It’s a political car-wreck waiting to happen

    Just stupid
  • RobDRobD Posts: 57,430

    RobD said:

    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."

    SNIP

    Even better is to have a massive wind turbine in someone else's back garden.

    And so, the uplands of mid-Wales are sprouting wind-farms (with no benefit for the locals).

    Most are run by a company called Bute Empire, I mean Bute Energy, based in Edinburgh and London,

    And people still disputes that Wales is a colony run for the benefit of others ...
    Are there no local taxes on these things, like for other businesses?
    Go to this site.

    https://data.barbour-abi.com/smart-map/repd/beis/?type=repd

    Select onshore wind-farms. Select operational.

    Now, look at the map and tell me which areas are devoid of wind-farms.

    Wales, Scotland & N. Ireland must easily have three or four times as many wind-farms as the whole of England.

    Look at the South East. Look at the South of England. Look at the English counties just next to Powys, Herefordshire, Shropshire. Look at the Pennines. Virtually no wind-farms.

    I have no objections to wind-farms in Wales if it is benefitting Wales. It is not.

    The profits are outsourced elsewhere. We are left with the turbines & no doubt the de-commissioning costs.

    England as usual is exploiting its neighbour.
    Is there a map showing the areas with the greatest potential for wind power?
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 72,062
    edited April 7
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Sunak is the toastiest toast in Toastistan

    The question must be asked, however, is whether Boris, his team, Number 10, anyone at the top of the Tory party knew any of this beforehand?

    I imagine they did NOT know the Winchester stuff. That is very obscure (but damaging). The non-dom stuff is huge and obvious - a billionaire wife not paying tax? How can you possibly have a CHANCELLOR, who raises tax on all of us, and demands that we pay, enjoying an easy life, in that situation?

    Ridiculous. If the Tories knew this, they were grossly incompetent in appointing him. If they didn’t know, they were also grossly incompetent. Idiots

    Yes they did know. Sunak reported it to the cabinet office when he was appointed in 2018. How do you think the press found out?

    Also the Winchester magazine.....definite tip off from somebody in the know. There is no way somebody from the press is digging through 2 year old magazines that have 1 sentence about him on page 46.
    Then they were damn fools. A squillionaire Chancellor with a trillionaire wife (legally) dodging lots of tax. It’s a political car-wreck waiting to happen

    Just stupid
    Remember the history, Sunak was Big Doms man. Initially what Big Dom wanted, he got. Now its all out war.
  • boulayboulay Posts: 1,455

    IshmaelZ said:

    Ha!

    It’s been reported that the Chancellor’s wife, Akshata Murthy, is not tax domiciled in the UK. This has been confirmed by a statement issued on her behalf. But I think the statement of facts issued by her is wrong. And I also suggest HMRC could challenge this claim. A thread….

    https://twitter.com/RichardJMurphy/status/1511964400978214912

    Confirming what I was sort-of conjecturing on PT, non domicile status looks open to Q

    Richard Murphy is (slightly) famous for being wrong about nearly everything. And not accepting correction for his mistakes either.

    His statements have less value than those, say, published in the Daily Mail.
    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/residence-domicile-and-remittance-basis-rules-uk-tax-liability/guidance-note-for-residence-domicile-and-the-remittance-basis-rdr1

    According to flow chart one on this govt website, nobody with settled long term plans to stay in the UK should be a non-dom. If the Chancellor's wife has no settled long term plans to be in the UK then that is a rather odd state of affairs isn't it?
    I was hit by the curse of the new thread before but I wrote this as it’s all a bit of a grey area.

    “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.”

    So it’s not altogether weird that the Chancellor’s wife doesn’t necessarily have long term settled plans to live in the UK. They might have a family plan to move to India, or do a Clegg and move to California.

    They are an immensely wealthy “global” family who will have the ability and opportunity and maybe even the desire to spend their twilight years elsewhere than sunny Yorkshire. So she does really have every right to leave her future options open.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 57,430
    edited April 7

    IshmaelZ said:

    Ha!

    It’s been reported that the Chancellor’s wife, Akshata Murthy, is not tax domiciled in the UK. This has been confirmed by a statement issued on her behalf. But I think the statement of facts issued by her is wrong. And I also suggest HMRC could challenge this claim. A thread….

    https://twitter.com/RichardJMurphy/status/1511964400978214912

    Confirming what I was sort-of conjecturing on PT, non domicile status looks open to Q

    Richard Murphy is (slightly) famous for being wrong about nearly everything. And not accepting correction for his mistakes either.

    His statements have less value than those, say, published in the Daily Mail.
    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/residence-domicile-and-remittance-basis-rules-uk-tax-liability/guidance-note-for-residence-domicile-and-the-remittance-basis-rdr1

    According to flow chart one on this govt website, nobody with settled long term plans to stay in the UK should be a non-dom. If the Chancellor's wife has no settled long term plans to be in the UK then that is a rather odd state of affairs isn't it?
    She might not. I know couples who live on different continents because of work and are still happily married after years.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 30,749

    RobD said:

    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."

    SNIP

    Even better is to have a massive wind turbine in someone else's back garden.

    And so, the uplands of mid-Wales are sprouting wind-farms (with no benefit for the locals).

    Most are run by a company called Bute Empire, I mean Bute Energy, based in Edinburgh and London,

    And people still disputes that Wales is a colony run for the benefit of others ...
    Are there no local taxes on these things, like for other businesses?
    Go to this site.

    https://data.barbour-abi.com/smart-map/repd/beis/?type=repd

    Select onshore wind-farms. Select operational.

    Now, look at the map and tell me which areas are devoid of wind-farms.

    Wales, Scotland & N. Ireland must easily have three or four times as many wind-farms as the whole of England.

    Look at the South East. Look at the South of England. Look at the English counties just next to Powys, Herefordshire, Shropshire. Look at the Pennines. Virtually no wind-farms.

    I have no objections to wind-farms in Wales if it is benefitting Wales. It is not.

    The profits are outsourced elsewhere. We are left with the turbines & no doubt the de-commissioning costs.

    England as usual is exploiting its neighbour.
    There's a place to the east of Kettering in Northamptonshire, Honey Hill, where you can see loads of wind farms. I know because I was walking the Jurassic Way and a homeowner stopped to ask me to sign a petition to stop yet another farm being built...
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 28,015

    RobD said:

    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."

    SNIP

    Even better is to have a massive wind turbine in someone else's back garden.

    And so, the uplands of mid-Wales are sprouting wind-farms (with no benefit for the locals).

    Most are run by a company called Bute Empire, I mean Bute Energy, based in Edinburgh and London,

    And people still disputes that Wales is a colony run for the benefit of others ...
    Are there no local taxes on these things, like for other businesses?
    Go to this site.

    https://data.barbour-abi.com/smart-map/repd/beis/?type=repd

    Select onshore wind-farms. Select operational.

    Now, look at the map and tell me which areas are devoid of wind-farms.

    Wales, Scotland & N. Ireland must easily have three or four times as many wind-farms as the whole of England.

    Look at the South East. Look at the South of England. Look at the English counties just next to Powys, Herefordshire, Shropshire. Look at the Pennines. Virtually no wind-farms.

    I have no objections to wind-farms in Wales if it is benefitting Wales. It is not.

    The profits are outsourced elsewhere. We are left with the turbines & no doubt the de-commissioning costs.

    England as usual is exploiting its neighbour.
    Hmmmm

    image
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 41,174
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Sunak is the toastiest toast in Toastistan

    The question must be asked, however, is whether Boris, his team, Number 10, anyone at the top of the Tory party knew any of this beforehand?

    I imagine they did NOT know the Winchester stuff. That is very obscure (but damaging). The non-dom stuff is huge and obvious - a billionaire wife not paying tax? How can you possibly have a CHANCELLOR, who raises tax on all of us, and demands that we pay, enjoying an easy life, in that situation?

    Ridiculous. If the Tories knew this, they were grossly incompetent in appointing him. If they didn’t know, they were also grossly incompetent. Idiots

    Yes they did know. Sunak reported it to the cabinet office when he was appointed in 2018. How do you think the press found out?

    Also the Winchester magazine.....definite tip off from somebody in the know. There is no way somebody from the press is digging through 2 year old magazines that have 1 sentence about him on page 46.
    Then they were damn fools. A squillionaire Chancellor with a trillionaire wife (legally) dodging lots of tax. It’s a political car-wreck waiting to happen

    Just stupid
    It's exposing a lot of hypocrisy from people who loudly proclaim they are 'citizens of the world' though.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 72,062
    edited April 7
    RobD said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Ha!

    It’s been reported that the Chancellor’s wife, Akshata Murthy, is not tax domiciled in the UK. This has been confirmed by a statement issued on her behalf. But I think the statement of facts issued by her is wrong. And I also suggest HMRC could challenge this claim. A thread….

    https://twitter.com/RichardJMurphy/status/1511964400978214912

    Confirming what I was sort-of conjecturing on PT, non domicile status looks open to Q

    Richard Murphy is (slightly) famous for being wrong about nearly everything. And not accepting correction for his mistakes either.

    His statements have less value than those, say, published in the Daily Mail.
    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/residence-domicile-and-remittance-basis-rules-uk-tax-liability/guidance-note-for-residence-domicile-and-the-remittance-basis-rdr1

    According to flow chart one on this govt website, nobody with settled long term plans to stay in the UK should be a non-dom. If the Chancellor's wife has no settled long term plans to be in the UK then that is a rather odd state of affairs isn't it?
    She might not. I know couples who live on different continents because of work and are still happily married.
    Pre-COVID, Mrs U and I regularly spent many months each year living and working on different continents and have done so most of the time we have been together.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 57,430

    RobD said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Ha!

    It’s been reported that the Chancellor’s wife, Akshata Murthy, is not tax domiciled in the UK. This has been confirmed by a statement issued on her behalf. But I think the statement of facts issued by her is wrong. And I also suggest HMRC could challenge this claim. A thread….

    https://twitter.com/RichardJMurphy/status/1511964400978214912

    Confirming what I was sort-of conjecturing on PT, non domicile status looks open to Q

    Richard Murphy is (slightly) famous for being wrong about nearly everything. And not accepting correction for his mistakes either.

    His statements have less value than those, say, published in the Daily Mail.
    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/residence-domicile-and-remittance-basis-rules-uk-tax-liability/guidance-note-for-residence-domicile-and-the-remittance-basis-rdr1

    According to flow chart one on this govt website, nobody with settled long term plans to stay in the UK should be a non-dom. If the Chancellor's wife has no settled long term plans to be in the UK then that is a rather odd state of affairs isn't it?
    She might not. I know couples who live on different continents because of work and are still happily married.
    Pre-COVID, Mrs U and I regularly spent many months each year living and working on different continents and have done most of the time we have been together.
    For many it is necessary for a happy marriage. ;)
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 46,234

    RobD said:

    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."

    SNIP

    Even better is to have a massive wind turbine in someone else's back garden.

    And so, the uplands of mid-Wales are sprouting wind-farms (with no benefit for the locals).

    Most are run by a company called Bute Empire, I mean Bute Energy, based in Edinburgh and London,

    And people still disputes that Wales is a colony run for the benefit of others ...
    Are there no local taxes on these things, like for other businesses?
    Go to this site.

    https://data.barbour-abi.com/smart-map/repd/beis/?type=repd

    Select onshore wind-farms. Select operational.

    Now, look at the map and tell me which areas are devoid of wind-farms.

    Wales, Scotland & N. Ireland must easily have three or four times as many wind-farms as the whole of England.

    Look at the South East. Look at the South of England. Look at the English counties just next to Powys, Herefordshire, Shropshire. Look at the Pennines. Virtually no wind-farms.

    I have no objections to wind-farms in Wales if it is benefitting Wales. It is not.

    The profits are outsourced elsewhere. We are left with the turbines & no doubt the de-commissioning costs.

    England as usual is exploiting its neighbour.
    So, just to get this right, if there's a factory in Wales, and it makes something used in (say) england, then that is the English exploiting the Welsh?

    That chip on your shoulder, you better check it's not made from English potatoes.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 19,157
    Endillion said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Ha!

    It’s been reported that the Chancellor’s wife, Akshata Murthy, is not tax domiciled in the UK. This has been confirmed by a statement issued on her behalf. But I think the statement of facts issued by her is wrong. And I also suggest HMRC could challenge this claim. A thread….

    https://twitter.com/RichardJMurphy/status/1511964400978214912

    Confirming what I was sort-of conjecturing on PT, non domicile status looks open to Q

    Richard Murphy is (slightly) famous for being wrong about nearly everything. And not accepting correction for his mistakes either.

    His statements have less value than those, say, published in the Daily Mail.
    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/residence-domicile-and-remittance-basis-rules-uk-tax-liability/guidance-note-for-residence-domicile-and-the-remittance-basis-rdr1

    According to flow chart one on this govt website, nobody with settled long term plans to stay in the UK should be a non-dom. If the Chancellor's wife has no settled long term plans to be in the UK then that is a rather odd state of affairs isn't it?
    I absolutely love this line of attack on the Chancellor, because it basically boils down to "women are the property of their husband, who is therefore to be held responsible for all the silly things they do".

    Which is... let's say, somewhat at odds with the general views on gender equality usually held by many of those people making the argument.
    It boils down to nothing of the kind. Those of us less inherently gammonious than you are quite capable of regarding a spouse as, gender neutrally, a spouse.
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 3,863
    Even so it's uncanny this season:

    "Guardiola is an outlier in the sense that he is the only manager to have won his next game after receiving the award."

    "The prize has been given out eight times and the various newly crowned managers have picked up only eight points from a possible 24 in their next fixtures, the sort of form associated with relegation stragglers."

    Typical. Wolves don't even get a mention. MOTM Jan. Lose next two games to Norwich and Arsenal both at home.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 23,828

    IshmaelZ said:

    Ha!

    It’s been reported that the Chancellor’s wife, Akshata Murthy, is not tax domiciled in the UK. This has been confirmed by a statement issued on her behalf. But I think the statement of facts issued by her is wrong. And I also suggest HMRC could challenge this claim. A thread….

    https://twitter.com/RichardJMurphy/status/1511964400978214912

    Confirming what I was sort-of conjecturing on PT, non domicile status looks open to Q

    Richard Murphy is (slightly) famous for being wrong about nearly everything. And not accepting correction for his mistakes either.

    His statements have less value than those, say, published in the Daily Mail.
    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/residence-domicile-and-remittance-basis-rules-uk-tax-liability/guidance-note-for-residence-domicile-and-the-remittance-basis-rdr1

    According to flow chart one on this govt website, nobody with settled long term plans to stay in the UK should be a non-dom. If the Chancellor's wife has no settled long term plans to be in the UK then that is a rather odd state of affairs isn't it?
    Zac Goldsmith had to give up his non-dom status for this reason

    The wife of the CHANCELLOR?

    Incidentally, in answer to the question why do mega-rich people try and avoid tax so strenuously, when they can easily afford it, a friend of mine - who is literally married to a billionairess (her extended family is even richer) explained this to me the other day

    What happens is that a clever person comes to you and says, Oh, by the way, did you realise that if you do THIS, THIS and THIS, you can avoid £20 million in tax this year?

    Even the ultra-rich find that psychologically hard to resist. Twenty million quid. In one year? What happens if something terrible happens and I suddenly need that twenty million after all? A coup? An asteroid? A plague?

    And so the rich person says Yes to the clever person, and off they go down the road of tax minimization, which then conjures a life of its own: more people get involved, more schemes are devised, it gets more complex, the taxman takes an interest, more schemes are needed, and so on and so forth. My friend says he’s seen members of this family spend fruitless weeks sorting their finances when they are stupidly, stupidly rich, and could thus enjoy one of the great benefits of wealth - NOT having to worry about money. Yet they do not enjoy this benefit

    I found his argument plausible - and consoling
  • TimTTimT Posts: 6,305
    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Ha!

    It’s been reported that the Chancellor’s wife, Akshata Murthy, is not tax domiciled in the UK. This has been confirmed by a statement issued on her behalf. But I think the statement of facts issued by her is wrong. And I also suggest HMRC could challenge this claim. A thread….

    https://twitter.com/RichardJMurphy/status/1511964400978214912

    Confirming what I was sort-of conjecturing on PT, non domicile status looks open to Q

    Richard Murphy is (slightly) famous for being wrong about nearly everything. And not accepting correction for his mistakes either.

    His statements have less value than those, say, published in the Daily Mail.
    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/residence-domicile-and-remittance-basis-rules-uk-tax-liability/guidance-note-for-residence-domicile-and-the-remittance-basis-rdr1

    According to flow chart one on this govt website, nobody with settled long term plans to stay in the UK should be a non-dom. If the Chancellor's wife has no settled long term plans to be in the UK then that is a rather odd state of affairs isn't it?
    She might not. I know couples who live on different continents because of work and are still happily married.
    Pre-COVID, Mrs U and I regularly spent many months each year living and working on different continents and have done most of the time we have been together.
    For many it is necessary for a happy marriage. ;)
    Hence my wife's relief at my upcoming Azerbaijan trip. :dizzy:
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 2,455
    RobD said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Ha!

    It’s been reported that the Chancellor’s wife, Akshata Murthy, is not tax domiciled in the UK. This has been confirmed by a statement issued on her behalf. But I think the statement of facts issued by her is wrong. And I also suggest HMRC could challenge this claim. A thread….

    https://twitter.com/RichardJMurphy/status/1511964400978214912

    Confirming what I was sort-of conjecturing on PT, non domicile status looks open to Q

    Seems like a lot of speculation and not many hard facts. Or do we keep tracks on how often she visits India?
    Leaving aside all the controversy....

    Why should she pay UK tax on income derived from India - that never goes in to the UK?
    What moral or practical claim does the UK government actually have on that money?
    By all means pry in to her affairs on the basis that she is a public figure, but her situation should be treated on its merits.

    Having looked in to this a bit myself just now.... in India it seems that a company paying out a dividend needs to pay a 'dividend distribution tax' of 15%.
    Then, a high earner, pays tax at 20%, on the actual dividend.
    So the actual exposure to tax on money distributed by dividend, is effectively 35%.
    It is not that different to the tax rate on dividends for higher rate tax payers in the Uk, at 39.35%.

    There are other variables as well... corporation tax (which has to be paid before any dividends are paid) is higher in India, than the UK.

    I don't think anyone could look in to this situation, and honestly conclude that - in the grand scheme of things - it is fair that she should be paying yet more tax to the UK government.
    Much of the criticism is based on spite and jealously, and just pure hatred of the wealthy.

  • glwglw Posts: 8,406
    edited April 7

    Hmmmm

    image

    Before people go too big on who is exploiting whom it might be worth looking at a map of average wind speeds and seeing how that compares with the placing of wind turbines.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 72,062
    edited April 7
    Leon said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Ha!

    It’s been reported that the Chancellor’s wife, Akshata Murthy, is not tax domiciled in the UK. This has been confirmed by a statement issued on her behalf. But I think the statement of facts issued by her is wrong. And I also suggest HMRC could challenge this claim. A thread….

    https://twitter.com/RichardJMurphy/status/1511964400978214912

    Confirming what I was sort-of conjecturing on PT, non domicile status looks open to Q

    Richard Murphy is (slightly) famous for being wrong about nearly everything. And not accepting correction for his mistakes either.

    His statements have less value than those, say, published in the Daily Mail.
    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/residence-domicile-and-remittance-basis-rules-uk-tax-liability/guidance-note-for-residence-domicile-and-the-remittance-basis-rdr1

    According to flow chart one on this govt website, nobody with settled long term plans to stay in the UK should be a non-dom. If the Chancellor's wife has no settled long term plans to be in the UK then that is a rather odd state of affairs isn't it?
    Zac Goldsmith had to give up his non-dom status for this reason

    The wife of the CHANCELLOR?

    Incidentally, in answer to the question why do mega-rich people try and avoid tax so strenuously, when they can easily afford it, a friend of mine - who is literally married to a billionairess (her extended family is even richer) explained this to me the other day

    What happens is that a clever person comes to you and says, Oh, by the way, did you realise that if you do THIS, THIS and THIS, you can avoid £20 million in tax this year?

    Even the ultra-rich find that psychologically hard to resist. Twenty million quid. In one year? What happens if something terrible happens and I suddenly need that twenty million after all? A coup? An asteroid? A plague?

    And so the rich person says Yes to the clever person, and off they go down the road of tax minimization, which then conjures a life of its own: more people get involved, more schemes are devised, it gets more complex, the taxman takes an interest, more schemes are needed, and so on and so forth. My friend says he’s seen members of this family spend fruitless weeks sorting their finances when they are stupidly, stupidly rich, and could thus enjoy one of the great benefits of wealth - NOT having to worry about money. Yet they do not enjoy this benefit

    I found his argument plausible - and consoling
    See large numbers in the entertainment and sports industry...if you earn big bucks and it doesn't have to be done via PAYE, all of a sudden there is a raft of options and lots of people happy to facilitate that (for a fee of course).

    e.g. Old jug ears is of course sticking his oar in over Sunak (as he does with every story these days), while is he in a multi-year dispute with the tax man over his own affairs.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 19,157

    RobD said:

    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."

    SNIP

    Even better is to have a massive wind turbine in someone else's back garden.

    And so, the uplands of mid-Wales are sprouting wind-farms (with no benefit for the locals).

    Most are run by a company called Bute Empire, I mean Bute Energy, based in Edinburgh and London,

    And people still disputes that Wales is a colony run for the benefit of others ...
    Are there no local taxes on these things, like for other businesses?
    Go to this site.

    https://data.barbour-abi.com/smart-map/repd/beis/?type=repd

    Select onshore wind-farms. Select operational.

    Now, look at the map and tell me which areas are devoid of wind-farms.

    Wales, Scotland & N. Ireland must easily have three or four times as many wind-farms as the whole of England.

    Look at the South East. Look at the South of England. Look at the English counties just next to Powys, Herefordshire, Shropshire. Look at the Pennines. Virtually no wind-farms.

    I have no objections to wind-farms in Wales if it is benefitting Wales. It is not.

    The profits are outsourced elsewhere. We are left with the turbines & no doubt the de-commissioning costs.

    England as usual is exploiting its neighbour.
    Much more likely it's the rich Welsh exploiting the poor Welsh (by stealing the howling gales which are the Welsh peasant's birthright).

    Also, try overlaying a contour map, or looking at windy.com every day for a month.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 6,715
    rcs1000 said:

    RobD said:

    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."

    SNIP

    Even better is to have a massive wind turbine in someone else's back garden.

    And so, the uplands of mid-Wales are sprouting wind-farms (with no benefit for the locals).

    Most are run by a company called Bute Empire, I mean Bute Energy, based in Edinburgh and London,

    And people still disputes that Wales is a colony run for the benefit of others ...
    Are there no local taxes on these things, like for other businesses?
    Go to this site.

    https://data.barbour-abi.com/smart-map/repd/beis/?type=repd

    Select onshore wind-farms. Select operational.

    Now, look at the map and tell me which areas are devoid of wind-farms.

    Wales, Scotland & N. Ireland must easily have three or four times as many wind-farms as the whole of England.

    Look at the South East. Look at the South of England. Look at the English counties just next to Powys, Herefordshire, Shropshire. Look at the Pennines. Virtually no wind-farms.

    I have no objections to wind-farms in Wales if it is benefitting Wales. It is not.

    The profits are outsourced elsewhere. We are left with the turbines & no doubt the de-commissioning costs.

    England as usual is exploiting its neighbour.
    So, just to get this right, if there's a factory in Wales, and it makes something used in (say) england, then that is the English exploiting the Welsh?

    That chip on your shoulder, you better check it's not made from English potatoes.
    If there is an industry owned by non-locals, in which the profits are exported from the country, in which all the well-paid jobs go to non-locals ... yes, that is the ABC of colonialism.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 16,889

    So Team Lynton back on the payroll and...Murdoch man doing the digital stuff.

    https://www.prweek.com/article/1752093/downing-street-hires-ex-home-office-news-uk-content-chief-head-digital

    Guto Harri has certainly been earning his money.

    Mind you he's usually good for a year or so and his ability to pick losers is legendary.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 9,596
    darkage said:

    RobD said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Ha!

    It’s been reported that the Chancellor’s wife, Akshata Murthy, is not tax domiciled in the UK. This has been confirmed by a statement issued on her behalf. But I think the statement of facts issued by her is wrong. And I also suggest HMRC could challenge this claim. A thread….

    https://twitter.com/RichardJMurphy/status/1511964400978214912

    Confirming what I was sort-of conjecturing on PT, non domicile status looks open to Q

    Seems like a lot of speculation and not many hard facts. Or do we keep tracks on how often she visits India?
    Leaving aside all the controversy....

    Why should she pay UK tax on income derived from India - that never goes in to the UK?
    What moral or practical claim does the UK government actually have on that money?
    By all means pry in to her affairs on the basis that she is a public figure, but her situation should be treated on its merits.

    Having looked in to this a bit myself just now.... in India it seems that a company paying out a dividend needs to pay a 'dividend distribution tax' of 15%.
    Then, a high earner, pays tax at 20%, on the actual dividend.
    So the actual exposure to tax on money distributed by dividend, is effectively 35%.
    It is not that different to the tax rate on dividends for higher rate tax payers in the Uk, at 39.35%.

    There are other variables as well... corporation tax (which has to be paid before any dividends are paid) is higher in India, than the UK.

    I don't think anyone could look in to this situation, and honestly conclude that - in the grand scheme of things - it is fair that she should be paying yet more tax to the UK government.
    Much of the criticism is based on spite and jealously, and just pure hatred of the wealthy.

    Thommo does this sort of shit so much better and with monomaniacal intensity.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 19,157

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Sunak is the toastiest toast in Toastistan

    The question must be asked, however, is whether Boris, his team, Number 10, anyone at the top of the Tory party knew any of this beforehand?

    I imagine they did NOT know the Winchester stuff. That is very obscure (but damaging). The non-dom stuff is huge and obvious - a billionaire wife not paying tax? How can you possibly have a CHANCELLOR, who raises tax on all of us, and demands that we pay, enjoying an easy life, in that situation?

    Ridiculous. If the Tories knew this, they were grossly incompetent in appointing him. If they didn’t know, they were also grossly incompetent. Idiots

    Yes they did know. Sunak reported it to the cabinet office when he was appointed in 2018. How do you think the press found out?

    Also the Winchester magazine.....definite tip off from somebody in the know. There is no way somebody from the press is digging through 2 year old magazines that have 1 sentence about him on page 46.
    Then they were damn fools. A squillionaire Chancellor with a trillionaire wife (legally) dodging lots of tax. It’s a political car-wreck waiting to happen

    Just stupid
    It's exposing a lot of hypocrisy from people who loudly proclaim they are 'citizens of the world' though.
    Um, I doubt they try that on tax or immigration authorities anywhere. Just as you can't sign up for something requiring a degree, as a graduate of the university of life.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 28,015
    glw said:

    Hmmmm

    image

    Before people go too big on who is exploiting whom it might be worth looking at a map of average wind speeds and seeing how that compares with the placing of wind turbines.
    Indeed.

    It's worth remembering that modern offshore wind is fairly new, and the price is still coming down. There is more than enough capacity in offshore for any amount of wind power the UK is ever likely to want - we will need storage/base load as well, of course.
  • eekeek Posts: 20,255

    rcs1000 said:

    RobD said:

    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."

    SNIP

    Even better is to have a massive wind turbine in someone else's back garden.

    And so, the uplands of mid-Wales are sprouting wind-farms (with no benefit for the locals).

    Most are run by a company called Bute Empire, I mean Bute Energy, based in Edinburgh and London,

    And people still disputes that Wales is a colony run for the benefit of others ...
    Are there no local taxes on these things, like for other businesses?
    Go to this site.

    https://data.barbour-abi.com/smart-map/repd/beis/?type=repd

    Select onshore wind-farms. Select operational.

    Now, look at the map and tell me which areas are devoid of wind-farms.

    Wales, Scotland & N. Ireland must easily have three or four times as many wind-farms as the whole of England.

    Look at the South East. Look at the South of England. Look at the English counties just next to Powys, Herefordshire, Shropshire. Look at the Pennines. Virtually no wind-farms.

    I have no objections to wind-farms in Wales if it is benefitting Wales. It is not.

    The profits are outsourced elsewhere. We are left with the turbines & no doubt the de-commissioning costs.

    England as usual is exploiting its neighbour.
    So, just to get this right, if there's a factory in Wales, and it makes something used in (say) england, then that is the English exploiting the Welsh?

    That chip on your shoulder, you better check it's not made from English potatoes.
    If there is an industry owned by non-locals, in which the profits are exported from the country, in which all the well-paid jobs go to non-locals ... yes, that is the ABC of colonialism.
    Surely you would prefer local workers to have somewhere to work or would you prefer there to be no local work and for everyone to be forced to leave the area to get work?
  • FishingFishing Posts: 3,563

    Leon said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Ha!

    It’s been reported that the Chancellor’s wife, Akshata Murthy, is not tax domiciled in the UK. This has been confirmed by a statement issued on her behalf. But I think the statement of facts issued by her is wrong. And I also suggest HMRC could challenge this claim. A thread….

    https://twitter.com/RichardJMurphy/status/1511964400978214912

    Confirming what I was sort-of conjecturing on PT, non domicile status looks open to Q

    Richard Murphy is (slightly) famous for being wrong about nearly everything. And not accepting correction for his mistakes either.

    His statements have less value than those, say, published in the Daily Mail.
    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/residence-domicile-and-remittance-basis-rules-uk-tax-liability/guidance-note-for-residence-domicile-and-the-remittance-basis-rdr1

    According to flow chart one on this govt website, nobody with settled long term plans to stay in the UK should be a non-dom. If the Chancellor's wife has no settled long term plans to be in the UK then that is a rather odd state of affairs isn't it?
    Zac Goldsmith had to give up his non-dom status for this reason

    The wife of the CHANCELLOR?

    Incidentally, in answer to the question why do mega-rich people try and avoid tax so strenuously, when they can easily afford it, a friend of mine - who is literally married to a billionairess (her extended family is even richer) explained this to me the other day

    What happens is that a clever person comes to you and says, Oh, by the way, did you realise that if you do THIS, THIS and THIS, you can avoid £20 million in tax this year?

    Even the ultra-rich find that psychologically hard to resist. Twenty million quid. In one year? What happens if something terrible happens and I suddenly need that twenty million after all? A coup? An asteroid? A plague?

    And so the rich person says Yes to the clever person, and off they go down the road of tax minimization, which then conjures a life of its own: more people get involved, more schemes are devised, it gets more complex, the taxman takes an interest, more schemes are needed, and so on and so forth. My friend says he’s seen members of this family spend fruitless weeks sorting their finances when they are stupidly, stupidly rich, and could thus enjoy one of the great benefits of wealth - NOT having to worry about money. Yet they do not enjoy this benefit

    I found his argument plausible - and consoling
    See large numbers in the entertainment and sports industry...if you earn big bucks and it doesn't have to be done via PAYE, all of a sudden there is a raft of options and lots of people happy to facilitate that (for a fee of course).
    Absolutely. PAYE is a huge scam on the middle classes - the ultimate stealth tax. It should be replaced by a system where people get paid, then have to give the money back to the government actively. Politicians love to trumpet the projects paid for by the huge tax burden, but love to hide where the money comes from as much as possible.
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 1,701
    We all know rich people use measures to avoid paying tax . However the optics of the Chancellors wife using a non-domicile status are dreadful .

    The faux outrage by some about bringing Sunaks wife into this is laughable given they would have been all over this if it had been someone from the opposition.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 6,715
    edited April 7
    IshmaelZ said:

    RobD said:

    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."

    SNIP

    Even better is to have a massive wind turbine in someone else's back garden.

    And so, the uplands of mid-Wales are sprouting wind-farms (with no benefit for the locals).

    Most are run by a company called Bute Empire, I mean Bute Energy, based in Edinburgh and London,

    And people still disputes that Wales is a colony run for the benefit of others ...
    Are there no local taxes on these things, like for other businesses?
    Go to this site.

    https://data.barbour-abi.com/smart-map/repd/beis/?type=repd

    Select onshore wind-farms. Select operational.

    Now, look at the map and tell me which areas are devoid of wind-farms.

    Wales, Scotland & N. Ireland must easily have three or four times as many wind-farms as the whole of England.

    Look at the South East. Look at the South of England. Look at the English counties just next to Powys, Herefordshire, Shropshire. Look at the Pennines. Virtually no wind-farms.

    I have no objections to wind-farms in Wales if it is benefitting Wales. It is not.

    The profits are outsourced elsewhere. We are left with the turbines & no doubt the de-commissioning costs.

    England as usual is exploiting its neighbour.
    Much more likely it's the rich Welsh exploiting the poor Welsh (by stealing the howling gales which are the Welsh peasant's birthright).

    Also, try overlaying a contour map, or looking at windy.com every day for a month.
    No winds on the English South coast? No winds on the Pennines?

    More to the point, try overloading a map of Tory constituencies.

    What fraction of the UK's wind-farms are in Tory constituencies in England?

    Incredibly, it looks like < 10 per cent!
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 19,157
    darkage said:

    RobD said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Ha!

    It’s been reported that the Chancellor’s wife, Akshata Murthy, is not tax domiciled in the UK. This has been confirmed by a statement issued on her behalf. But I think the statement of facts issued by her is wrong. And I also suggest HMRC could challenge this claim. A thread….

    https://twitter.com/RichardJMurphy/status/1511964400978214912

    Confirming what I was sort-of conjecturing on PT, non domicile status looks open to Q

    Seems like a lot of speculation and not many hard facts. Or do we keep tracks on how often she visits India?
    Leaving aside all the controversy....

    Why should she pay UK tax on income derived from India - that never goes in to the UK?
    What moral or practical claim does the UK government actually have on that money?
    By all means pry in to her affairs on the basis that she is a public figure, but her situation should be treated on its merits.

    Having looked in to this a bit myself just now.... in India it seems that a company paying out a dividend needs to pay a 'dividend distribution tax' of 15%.
    Then, a high earner, pays tax at 20%, on the actual dividend.
    So the actual exposure to tax on money distributed by dividend, is effectively 35%.
    It is not that different to the tax rate on dividends for higher rate tax payers in the Uk, at 39.35%.

    There are other variables as well... corporation tax (which has to be paid before any dividends are paid) is higher in India, than the UK.

    I don't think anyone could look in to this situation, and honestly conclude that - in the grand scheme of things - it is fair that she should be paying yet more tax to the UK government.
    Much of the criticism is based on spite and jealously, and just pure hatred of the wealthy.

    Yes I loathe the fuckers. All politics to me is the politics of envy.

    Your point is a bad one, though. It's not mainly about "fair in the grand scheme of things," it's about adhering to the rules, as in lockdown parties. Also, it makes it worse not better if she's prepared to stiff us for a measly 4.35% less the 60k non dom fee.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 23,394
    nico679 said:

    We all know rich people use measures to avoid paying tax . However the optics of the Chancellors wife using a non-domicile status are dreadful .

    The faux outrage by some about bringing Sunaks wife into this is laughable given they would have been all over this if it had been someone from the opposition.

    But that's because Labour doesn't like non doms. Someone should ask Starmer if he thinks non dom status should be banned.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 19,157

    IshmaelZ said:

    RobD said:

    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."

    SNIP

    Even better is to have a massive wind turbine in someone else's back garden.

    And so, the uplands of mid-Wales are sprouting wind-farms (with no benefit for the locals).

    Most are run by a company called Bute Empire, I mean Bute Energy, based in Edinburgh and London,

    And people still disputes that Wales is a colony run for the benefit of others ...
    Are there no local taxes on these things, like for other businesses?
    Go to this site.

    https://data.barbour-abi.com/smart-map/repd/beis/?type=repd

    Select onshore wind-farms. Select operational.

    Now, look at the map and tell me which areas are devoid of wind-farms.

    Wales, Scotland & N. Ireland must easily have three or four times as many wind-farms as the whole of England.

    Look at the South East. Look at the South of England. Look at the English counties just next to Powys, Herefordshire, Shropshire. Look at the Pennines. Virtually no wind-farms.

    I have no objections to wind-farms in Wales if it is benefitting Wales. It is not.

    The profits are outsourced elsewhere. We are left with the turbines & no doubt the de-commissioning costs.

    England as usual is exploiting its neighbour.
    Much more likely it's the rich Welsh exploiting the poor Welsh (by stealing the howling gales which are the Welsh peasant's birthright).

    Also, try overlaying a contour map, or looking at windy.com every day for a month.
    No winds on the English South coast? No winds on the Pennines?

    More to the point, try overloading a map of Tory constituencies.

    What fraction of the UK's wind-farms are in Tory constituencies in England?

    Incredibly, it looks like < 10 per cent!
    Well get out there and campaign for a Tory MP of your own, then. Bloody apathy.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 30,749

    IshmaelZ said:

    RobD said:

    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."

    SNIP

    Even better is to have a massive wind turbine in someone else's back garden.

    And so, the uplands of mid-Wales are sprouting wind-farms (with no benefit for the locals).

    Most are run by a company called Bute Empire, I mean Bute Energy, based in Edinburgh and London,

    And people still disputes that Wales is a colony run for the benefit of others ...
    Are there no local taxes on these things, like for other businesses?
    Go to this site.

    https://data.barbour-abi.com/smart-map/repd/beis/?type=repd

    Select onshore wind-farms. Select operational.

    Now, look at the map and tell me which areas are devoid of wind-farms.

    Wales, Scotland & N. Ireland must easily have three or four times as many wind-farms as the whole of England.

    Look at the South East. Look at the South of England. Look at the English counties just next to Powys, Herefordshire, Shropshire. Look at the Pennines. Virtually no wind-farms.

    I have no objections to wind-farms in Wales if it is benefitting Wales. It is not.

    The profits are outsourced elsewhere. We are left with the turbines & no doubt the de-commissioning costs.

    England as usual is exploiting its neighbour.
    Much more likely it's the rich Welsh exploiting the poor Welsh (by stealing the howling gales which are the Welsh peasant's birthright).

    Also, try overlaying a contour map, or looking at windy.com every day for a month.
    No winds on the English South coast? No winds on the Pennines?

    More to the point, try overloading a map of Tory constituencies.

    What fraction of the UK's wind-farms are in Tory constituencies in England?

    Incredibly, it looks like < 10 per cent!
    I'd be very surprised if that was true for onshore (offshore obviously not counting), given how Labour's very heavily weighted towards cities and towns.

    So, source?
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 2,455
    Leon said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Ha!

    It’s been reported that the Chancellor’s wife, Akshata Murthy, is not tax domiciled in the UK. This has been confirmed by a statement issued on her behalf. But I think the statement of facts issued by her is wrong. And I also suggest HMRC could challenge this claim. A thread….

    https://twitter.com/RichardJMurphy/status/1511964400978214912

    Confirming what I was sort-of conjecturing on PT, non domicile status looks open to Q

    Richard Murphy is (slightly) famous for being wrong about nearly everything. And not accepting correction for his mistakes either.

    His statements have less value than those, say, published in the Daily Mail.
    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/residence-domicile-and-remittance-basis-rules-uk-tax-liability/guidance-note-for-residence-domicile-and-the-remittance-basis-rdr1

    According to flow chart one on this govt website, nobody with settled long term plans to stay in the UK should be a non-dom. If the Chancellor's wife has no settled long term plans to be in the UK then that is a rather odd state of affairs isn't it?
    Zac Goldsmith had to give up his non-dom status for this reason

    The wife of the CHANCELLOR?

    Incidentally, in answer to the question why do mega-rich people try and avoid tax so strenuously, when they can easily afford it, a friend of mine - who is literally married to a billionairess (her extended family is even richer) explained this to me the other day

    What happens is that a clever person comes to you and says, Oh, by the way, did you realise that if you do THIS, THIS and THIS, you can avoid £20 million in tax this year?

    Even the ultra-rich find that psychologically hard to resist. Twenty million quid. In one year? What happens if something terrible happens and I suddenly need that twenty million after all? A coup? An asteroid? A plague?

    And so the rich person says Yes to the clever person, and off they go down the road of tax minimization, which then conjures a life of its own: more people get involved, more schemes are devised, it gets more complex, the taxman takes an interest, more schemes are needed, and so on and so forth. My friend says he’s seen members of this family spend fruitless weeks sorting their finances when they are stupidly, stupidly rich, and could thus enjoy one of the great benefits of wealth - NOT having to worry about money. Yet they do not enjoy this benefit

    I found his argument plausible - and consoling
    My own experience is... as soon as you start dealing with multiple types of income across different countries... you get inevitably drawn in to time consuming issues relating to tax planning. You just have no choice other than to engage with it. I am sure that other people posting on here will have the same experience.

    Life is simple for people who just live in one country, you can manage your tax affairs yourself easily. As soon as you start living in two countries or owning property overseas, it gets very complicated.

    These are not dilemmas unique to the ultra rich, by any means.
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 4,595
    Fishing said:

    Leon said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Ha!

    It’s been reported that the Chancellor’s wife, Akshata Murthy, is not tax domiciled in the UK. This has been confirmed by a statement issued on her behalf. But I think the statement of facts issued by her is wrong. And I also suggest HMRC could challenge this claim. A thread….

    https://twitter.com/RichardJMurphy/status/1511964400978214912

    Confirming what I was sort-of conjecturing on PT, non domicile status looks open to Q

    Richard Murphy is (slightly) famous for being wrong about nearly everything. And not accepting correction for his mistakes either.

    His statements have less value than those, say, published in the Daily Mail.
    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/residence-domicile-and-remittance-basis-rules-uk-tax-liability/guidance-note-for-residence-domicile-and-the-remittance-basis-rdr1

    According to flow chart one on this govt website, nobody with settled long term plans to stay in the UK should be a non-dom. If the Chancellor's wife has no settled long term plans to be in the UK then that is a rather odd state of affairs isn't it?
    Zac Goldsmith had to give up his non-dom status for this reason

    The wife of the CHANCELLOR?

    Incidentally, in answer to the question why do mega-rich people try and avoid tax so strenuously, when they can easily afford it, a friend of mine - who is literally married to a billionairess (her extended family is even richer) explained this to me the other day

    What happens is that a clever person comes to you and says, Oh, by the way, did you realise that if you do THIS, THIS and THIS, you can avoid £20 million in tax this year?

    Even the ultra-rich find that psychologically hard to resist. Twenty million quid. In one year? What happens if something terrible happens and I suddenly need that twenty million after all? A coup? An asteroid? A plague?

    And so the rich person says Yes to the clever person, and off they go down the road of tax minimization, which then conjures a life of its own: more people get involved, more schemes are devised, it gets more complex, the taxman takes an interest, more schemes are needed, and so on and so forth. My friend says he’s seen members of this family spend fruitless weeks sorting their finances when they are stupidly, stupidly rich, and could thus enjoy one of the great benefits of wealth - NOT having to worry about money. Yet they do not enjoy this benefit

    I found his argument plausible - and consoling
    See large numbers in the entertainment and sports industry...if you earn big bucks and it doesn't have to be done via PAYE, all of a sudden there is a raft of options and lots of people happy to facilitate that (for a fee of course).
    Absolutely. PAYE is a huge scam on the middle classes - the ultimate stealth tax. It should be replaced by a system where people get paid, then have to give the money back to the government actively. Politicians love to trumpet the projects paid for by the huge tax burden, but love to hide where the money comes from as much as possible.
    This is how it works in the US, and it's resulted in a complete mess of tax credits and filing requirements. Plus there's the problem of what to do with people who get to the end of the year and realise they've overspent and can't afford their tax bill. PAYE is much, much better than the alternatives.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 6,715
    eek said:

    rcs1000 said:

    RobD said:

    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."

    SNIP

    Even better is to have a massive wind turbine in someone else's back garden.

    And so, the uplands of mid-Wales are sprouting wind-farms (with no benefit for the locals).

    Most are run by a company called Bute Empire, I mean Bute Energy, based in Edinburgh and London,

    And people still disputes that Wales is a colony run for the benefit of others ...
    Are there no local taxes on these things, like for other businesses?
    Go to this site.

    https://data.barbour-abi.com/smart-map/repd/beis/?type=repd

    Select onshore wind-farms. Select operational.

    Now, look at the map and tell me which areas are devoid of wind-farms.

    Wales, Scotland & N. Ireland must easily have three or four times as many wind-farms as the whole of England.

    Look at the South East. Look at the South of England. Look at the English counties just next to Powys, Herefordshire, Shropshire. Look at the Pennines. Virtually no wind-farms.

    I have no objections to wind-farms in Wales if it is benefitting Wales. It is not.

    The profits are outsourced elsewhere. We are left with the turbines & no doubt the de-commissioning costs.

    England as usual is exploiting its neighbour.
    So, just to get this right, if there's a factory in Wales, and it makes something used in (say) england, then that is the English exploiting the Welsh?

    That chip on your shoulder, you better check it's not made from English potatoes.
    If there is an industry owned by non-locals, in which the profits are exported from the country, in which all the well-paid jobs go to non-locals ... yes, that is the ABC of colonialism.
    Surely you would prefer local workers to have somewhere to work or would you prefer there to be no local work and for everyone to be forced to leave the area to get work?
    After construction, tell me how many local workers are actually needed?

    Remember the land had a use before wind-farms -- usually farming. So there is the loss of agricultural land/jobs (& possibly also tourism jobs).

    The employment benefit for locals for wind-farms is marginal, maybe even negative.
  • MightyAlexMightyAlex Posts: 782
    edited April 7

    IshmaelZ said:

    RobD said:

    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."

    SNIP

    Even better is to have a massive wind turbine in someone else's back garden.

    And so, the uplands of mid-Wales are sprouting wind-farms (with no benefit for the locals).

    Most are run by a company called Bute Empire, I mean Bute Energy, based in Edinburgh and London,

    And people still disputes that Wales is a colony run for the benefit of others ...
    Are there no local taxes on these things, like for other businesses?
    Go to this site.

    https://data.barbour-abi.com/smart-map/repd/beis/?type=repd

    Select onshore wind-farms. Select operational.

    Now, look at the map and tell me which areas are devoid of wind-farms.

    Wales, Scotland & N. Ireland must easily have three or four times as many wind-farms as the whole of England.

    Look at the South East. Look at the South of England. Look at the English counties just next to Powys, Herefordshire, Shropshire. Look at the Pennines. Virtually no wind-farms.

    I have no objections to wind-farms in Wales if it is benefitting Wales. It is not.

    The profits are outsourced elsewhere. We are left with the turbines & no doubt the de-commissioning costs.

    England as usual is exploiting its neighbour.
    Much more likely it's the rich Welsh exploiting the poor Welsh (by stealing the howling gales which are the Welsh peasant's birthright).

    Also, try overlaying a contour map, or looking at windy.com every day for a month.
    No winds on the English South coast? No winds on the Pennines?

    More to the point, try overloading a map of Tory constituencies.

    What fraction of the UK's wind-farms are in Tory constituencies in England?

    Incredibly, it looks like < 10 per cent!
    OT

    But I found this interesting on the topic of Welsh devolution and New Labour. I'm sure you're au fait with it all but a good listen.

    https://www.lrb.co.uk/podcasts-and-videos/podcasts/the-lrb-podcast/what-the-welsh-got-right
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 72,062
    edited April 7
    Over in the Labour camp, meanwhile, unfortunately the Starmerbot started malfunctioning as the cameras rolled, leading to a brutal 2-minute clip in which Sir Keir repeated the same attack lines over and over again. For the avoidance of doubt, he definitely thinks this is “breathtaking hypocrisy“. Has anyone tried turning him off and on again?

    https://order-order.com/2022/04/07/boris-keep-the-wives-out-of-it/

    I don't think that is a bug, I think its an upgraded feature to the Starmerbot....its straight out of the New Labour playbook. If you watched most New Labour era politicians full interviews it was the same, slogan, slogan, slogan, same line to take, repeated 27 times, all repeated exactly regardless of the minister saying it.

    Other than oldies stuck infront of their tellies for 12hrs a day, nobody watches the actual interview, they just hear the 10s soundbite.
This discussion has been closed.