Howdy, Stranger!

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

My Sunak 2022 exit bet is looking better – politicalbetting.com

12357

Comments

  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,704

    tlg86 said:

    TOPPING said:

    1. She is a non-Dom which is a perfectly legitimate category but which arouses some suspicion of tax dodging/one rule for them.
    2. She is very, very wealthy.
    3. She is married to the CotE.
    4. Does she owe tax in the UK according to the law? It's complicated.
    5. Is she legitmately a "non-Dom"? See Pt.1.

    If you put all those factors into a bowl and stir you come to the conclusion that it was a hugely idiotic move politically by Sunak to do anything other than have himself and his family pay as much tax as possible as might ever be suggested by the tax authorities.

    Complicated dividend payments held offshore? Nope. Non-dom status for your spouse? Nope. Even ISAs could be used against you, so ISAs? Nope.

    It was a political blunder.

    Yes, exactly. His wife is blameless, provided her claim to non-dom status stands up, but Rishi is toast. It's over (in fact, it probably already was anyway).

    It's not even just the tax aspect, although as we're seeing that's not going down well. It's also the question about his long-term commitment to the UK.
    Apologies if you did answer this last night, but do you think it was wrong to have Mark Carney as governor of the Bank of England?
    No, it wasn't wrong. He was hired for a specific term (later extended), for his expertise, and around the world it's not actually that uncommon for foreign citizens to be appointed to such posts. There was never any suggestion that he was moving here permanently. That's not the same as a politician seeking to become PM, and voters won't see it as the same.
    Another example would be the Millennium Dome boss P.-Y. Gerbeau - the one the tabloids liked to call Monsieur Gerbil for his amiable and frenetic manner - who was parachuted in to rescue the project.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    I woke up this morning thinking this couldn't get any better. But

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/rishi-sunak-tax-wife-us-resident-green-card-b2053783.html

    Holders of the green card are required to file US tax returns on their worldwide income – and also to make a legal commitment to "make the US your permanent home".

    Fucking the IRS while faking orgasms with HMRC. Dearie, dearie me.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 30,379
    Nigelb said:

    DavidL said:

    I am clearly in a small minority in finding this attack on Sunak based upon his wife's tax affairs completely wrong and frankly a bit ridiculous. So be it. We clearly want a government of people who have done nothing but sip at the public purse, who are financially dependent upon their office and are cravenly obedient as a result.

    The tax affairs of very rich people are always going to be complicated and Mrs Sunak does not hold and has not sought any public office. It remains a completely absurd basis to undermine someone who has.

    As I made clear at the time I thought Rishi's latest financial statement was disastrous. He is open to a range of criticisms for what he did and what he failed to do, especially the latter, and all of that is fair enough. But this wife stuff? Not for me.

    I hamfistedly tried to raise this last night and was called 'malevolent idiot'. I probably didn't make the best arguments, for which I apologise, but you are not alone.
    I've some sympathy with both your thoughts on this.
    Given the existence of Non Dom tax status, which doesn't seem to be questioned by either of the major parties, his wife's tax affairs ought not t be a massive political issue.
    (There is the fair point that he ought to have been rather more open in his disclosures about it, as it does constitute a potential future conflict of interest on tax policy, and spouses' interests are a matter for disclosure.)

    Whoever has chosen to brief against him on this, though has done so very effectively, and any protests aren't going to change that. My money would be on either Boris or Truss.
    I’m sorry, but there is the basic question of greed

    This is never good in any politician, but in a fabulously wealthy chancellor who is imposing taxes on poor people at a time of real impoverishment, it’s just insupportable for him - a multi-multi-millionaire - to be benefiting from tax avoidance by his billionaire wife

    It’s incredibly, odiously greedy. That’s all there is to it. People who can’t see this are dolts. There is no argument that saves Sunak

    This shit brings out my inner Bolshevik
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 36,972

    Leon said:

    As a non-dom, can Mrs. Rishi vote for Mr. Rishi?

    Yes. Domicile and Residence are different things.
    There should be No Representation Without Taxation!
    Why am I hearing this, echoing in my head?


    "If you believe you are a citizen of the world, you are a citizen of nowhere. You don't understand what citizenship means."

    She was taking to task the rootless managers of British businesses who behaved "as though they have more in common with international elites than with the people down the road".
    She was making an important point but was howled down by people determined to take offence because they wanted a cheap nanny from Romania
    No, it was pointlessly and gratuitously insulting to a lot of people who like to this they are “internationalist” at a time when the country needed healing and concord over Brexit. She also alienated the EU even further

    What did she gain by sounding like Farage? I’m a soft Leaver and I like to occasionally feel like a citizen of the world. She pissed me off so god knows what she did to Remainers

    That whole speech was the beginning of the Brexit clusterfuckettyfuck
    It was poorly expressed.

    But there is a group of people who float around the world (sometimes literally) paying minimal tax and free riding off countries without making a contribution to the local community

    That behaviour is not meritorious
    I had lunch the other day with a group of retirees from my former employer. One of them spends his time travelling between several homes so he does not end up tax resident anywhere. He looked exhausted.
    I have a friend who does this (just UK & Switzerland, he is in work). He keeps a spreadsheet for his 183 days and plans them meticulously. Of course it means he is a whole lot richer than he would be without the spreadsheet and the late night/early morning flights but it is a strange way to live.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 46,853
    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    DavidL said:

    I am clearly in a small minority in finding this attack on Sunak based upon his wife's tax affairs completely wrong and frankly a bit ridiculous. So be it. We clearly want a government of people who have done nothing but sip at the public purse, who are financially dependent upon their office and are cravenly obedient as a result.

    The tax affairs of very rich people are always going to be complicated and Mrs Sunak does not hold and has not sought any public office. It remains a completely absurd basis to undermine someone who has.

    As I made clear at the time I thought Rishi's latest financial statement was disastrous. He is open to a range of criticisms for what he did and what he failed to do, especially the latter, and all of that is fair enough. But this wife stuff? Not for me.

    I hamfistedly tried to raise this last night and was called 'malevolent idiot'. I probably didn't make the best arguments, for which I apologise, but you are not alone.
    I've some sympathy with both your thoughts on this.
    Given the existence of Non Dom tax status, which doesn't seem to be questioned by either of the major parties, his wife's tax affairs ought not t be a massive political issue.
    (There is the fair point that he ought to have been rather more open in his disclosures about it, as it does constitute a potential future conflict of interest on tax policy, and spouses' interests are a matter for disclosure.)

    Whoever has chosen to brief against him on this, though has done so very effectively, and any protests aren't going to change that. My money would be on either Boris or Truss.
    I’m sorry, but there is the basic question of greed

    This is never good in any politician, but in a fabulously wealthy chancellor who is imposing taxes on poor people at a time of real impoverishment, it’s just insupportable for him - a multi-multi-millionaire - to be benefiting from tax avoidance by his billionaire wife

    It’s incredibly, odiously greedy. That’s all there is to it. People who can’t see this are dolts. There is no argument that saves Sunak

    This shit brings out my inner Bolshevik
    I don't disagree - I'm not a fan of the massively wealthy avoiding tax, either.

    I'm just saying that he could probably have sold it to Tory voters if he'd been fully open about it. Not that I would have voted for him.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 17,905

    No leadership election any time soon now I guess.

    Why not? Boris might have miscalculated by castrating the Chancellor, because it will encourage all those who want rid of Boris but who did not want Rishi either.

    A leadership election now might be the best opportunity for the various second-tier candidates like Hunt, Mordaunt, Wallace and anyone else who fancies a go. They gain nothing from waiting for a new heir apparent to rock up, because it almost certainly won't be them.

  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 36,673
    edited April 2022

    Carnyx said:

    Good morning everybody.
    I wasn't sure that there was much new to say about the Falklands, but there was an interesting programme on ITV last night about the Royal Marine garrison on the islands who, completely outnumbered and outgunned, were accused by the 'popular press' of not fighting hard enough.
    They were in an even worse position than the defenders of Hong Kong in 1941 but fortunately didn't face such a ruthless enemy.

    Quite.A few score booties (more than usual because of a changeover, but with some detached to S Georgia) plus some sailors and Falklands territorials versus a force of over 20 Amtracs and plenty of Agrentinians.
    As my ex-para mate put it, the crack Argentine invaders and Royal Marines shot at each other for two hours with no casualties on either side.
    Honour satisfied on both sides, the best outcome. I’d guess most battlefield massacres/shooting of prisoners (most of which never reach the public eye) happen after the captors have suffered high casualties beforehand.
    It does seem that the Georgian volunteers fighting for Ukraine shot some Russian Prisoners captured retreating from near Bucha.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/apr/07/video-appears-to-show-ukrainian-soldiers-shooting-russian-prisoners-of-war

    It is being investigated by the Ukranian military, unlike the transparent lies of the Russians. Understandable anger, but a war crime if true.

  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 42,393
    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:

    As a non-dom, can Mrs. Rishi vote for Mr. Rishi?

    Yes. Domicile and Residence are different things.
    There should be No Representation Without Taxation!
    Why am I hearing this, echoing in my head?


    "If you believe you are a citizen of the world, you are a citizen of nowhere. You don't understand what citizenship means."

    She was taking to task the rootless managers of British businesses who behaved "as though they have more in common with international elites than with the people down the road".
    She was making an important point but was howled down by people determined to take offence because they wanted a cheap nanny from Romania
    No, it was pointlessly and gratuitously insulting to a lot of people who like to this they are “internationalist” at a time when the country needed healing and concord over Brexit. She also alienated the EU even further

    What did she gain by sounding like Farage? I’m a soft Leaver and I like to occasionally feel like a citizen of the world. She pissed me off so god knows what she did to Remainers

    That whole speech was the beginning of the Brexit clusterfuckettyfuck
    It was poorly expressed.

    But there is a group of people who float around the world (sometimes literally) paying minimal tax and free riding off countries without making a contribution to the local community

    That behaviour is not meritorious
    I had lunch the other day with a group of retirees from my former employer. One of them spends his time travelling between several homes so he does not end up tax resident anywhere. He looked exhausted.
    I have a friend who does this (just UK & Switzerland, he is in work). He keeps a spreadsheet for his 183 days and plans them meticulously. Of course it means he is a whole lot richer than he would be without the spreadsheet and the late night/early morning flights but it is a strange way to live.
    An old boss of mine was the same with his spreadsheet. He was a UK national, had a business in Dubai, and homes in UK, US and the Caribbean. He kept meticulous records for a decade of where he spent every night, lest the UK or US tax authorities would come for him. He earned $5m or so per year, most of which was dividends from his business.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 31,817

    TOPPING said:

    1. She is a non-Dom which is a perfectly legitimate category but which arouses some suspicion of tax dodging/one rule for them.
    2. She is very, very wealthy.
    3. She is married to the CotE.
    4. Does she owe tax in the UK according to the law? It's complicated.
    5. Is she legitmately a "non-Dom"? See Pt.1.

    If you put all those factors into a bowl and stir you come to the conclusion that it was a hugely idiotic move politically by Sunak to do anything other than have himself and his family pay as much tax as possible as might ever be suggested by the tax authorities.

    Complicated dividend payments held offshore? Nope. Non-dom status for your spouse? Nope. Even ISAs could be used against you, so ISAs? Nope.

    It was a political blunder.

    The really, really stoopid thing is that Rishi could have turned it into a positive: I publicly renounce capitalism and all its works (for a defined period while keeping all that lovely capital) just so I can serve our wonderful country.

    Amateur hour.
    Particularly after the example set by Boris Johnson - he arranged to pay full PAYE tax on his earning from the Telegraph column. Before the expenses scandal broke.

    He didn't announce it, either. Just waited until Ken Livingstone walked into the elephant trap he had dug.

    Cost BJ something like high 6 figures in extra tax over the years, probably.
  • Nigelb said:

    TOPPING said:

    kjh said:

    @leon stop making posts I agree with. It is unsettling me.

    Yes. What the actual fuck was that one about May should have been more inclusive, thoughtful, considered, etc. Absolutely spot on. He is obviously losing it.
    That's a bit like saying Boris should have been more honest.
    Boris taking over in 2016 might have been the least bad way out of it. He has the nerve and verve to have pulled off BEANO and wouldn't have had to worry about Boris waiting in the wings to stab him in the back. And without Boris as a figurehead, the ERG would have struggled.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 15,128
    Carnyx said:

    MattW said:

    MattW said:

    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:

    ..

    The Tory talent cabinet is absolutely bare. There is nothing there. This government cannot offer ideas, vision or competence; or much hope. Johnson is the best it has. That’s how bad it is.

    I think that's slightly unfair, since politics is being events-driven at the moment. Covid, the war in Ukraine and the resultant economic woes leaves precious little room for new ideas or vision. The government has to concentrate on sailing these choppy seas.

    And you know what? It hasn't done too badly on Covid, and has been very good with the war in Ukraine.

    As for hope: that depends on the individual. I don't see Starmer singing "Things can only get better," either. He is an utterly uninspiring individual. I'll still probably vote for him over Johnson, though. (local candidates notwithstanding).
    Has Johnson done well in dealing with these shocks?

    On Covid he did well on vaccines, very badly on everything else; overall mediocre compared with West European peers. Mixed bag

    Ukraine: done well on early supply of weapons, and general enthusiasm for the Ukrainian cause. Poor on refugees. Pass.

    Brexit: he helped create the problem in the first place and has mishandled the implementation since. Fail.

    Cost of living. Complete failure to deal with this issue, exacerbated by Brexit and poor handling of the economic consequences of Covid. Missed chance to do something in the Spring Statement. Other countries struggle with this issue too but their failure isn't quite so total.

    Overall 1½ out of 4
    "On Covid he did well on vaccines, very badly on everything else; overall mediocre compared with West European peers. Mixed bag"

    That's rubbish. As an example we did superbly on genomics - and the fact you choose to ignore that is telling.

    One of the interesting things about the Covid crisis was seeing fools almost salivating over the daily death figures, proclaiming how bad we were. It's a weird form of exceptionalism: people who like to think that we're uniquely bad.
    Johnson wasn't doing the genomics. That's why I left it out of my assessment of his performance. I think we can assume the genomics would have been done equally well if any other prime minister was in charge. I don't salivate over daily death figures, nor do I think the UK is uniquely bad, as is clear from my comment.
    I think you have missed a few things out on both sides.

    eg on the one hand there is various things done putting vaccine infrastructure in place, and BJ largely being kept in his toybox, and much excellent work on green energy which has been continued.

    On the other for example, the national green strategy published the other day has some holes, and the national vaccine centre has just been sold off, which is unforgiveable imo.
    Catalent is a very good operator though.

    I’ve not seen the terms of the transaction but the UK government cares about capacity and pandemic preparedness not about operating a facility

    If the government has;

    - got its capital invested back
    - Has operating, employment and investment commitments from Catalent
    - Has first priority over capacity on the event of a future pandemic
    - Has done kind of golden share to prevent on sale

    Then arguably it’s a very good deal. It’s better for us to have an operating facility bringing money into the country and ensuring a pool of trained staff rather than just a mothballed facility gathering dust in case we ever need it in future
    They may be a good operator, but for me this needs to be about a national resource, and does not belong in the commercial sector as a subunit of a multinational.

    The organisation had the potential to further develop the non-profit strategy of AZ during the pandemic, and encourage the development of local vaccine industries worldwide - which is one of the great things done during the pandemic. Compare with the strategy of the large majority of advanced countries who have tried to land-grab for their local industries.

    It would be best positioned either in the commerce-related part of academe, as a Govt-owned laboratory funded as part of science and also overseas development, or perhaps owned by an organisation such as the Wellcome Trust.

    Those important possibilities have now been snuffed out for a bit of cash.
    Absolutely right. An appropriatde model might be the Royal Ordnance Factories of the 1930s onwards. Some were kept on postwar in state ownership for obvious reasons of ensuring a production basis for future wars.
    I'd add that imo this is a necessary part of rebuilding networks after Brexit, and an important part (borrowing Macron's line) of UK strategic autonomy. I'd make a similar point about offshore wind - we are streets ahead of anyone else on implementation amongst developed countries except Denmark and possibly Germany. That should be an industry we are driving internationally as both goods and services.

    But Government BOJO have not imo realised that we now need more than quite such pure free market beliefs.

    And it is not helped by BJ not being able to see more than 9cos(45) inches in front of his pelvis.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 30,379
    Also, where’s this law that prevents us criticising Mrs Sunak? Is there legislation about this?

    She may be a private citizen but that doesn’t mean she is somehow sacred and immune. Private citizens get criticised all the time.

    Sunak is a fool. His wife is exceptionally avaricious

  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 10,741
    Foxy said:



    It is being investigated by the Ukranian military, unlike the transparent lies of the Russians. Understandable anger, but a war crime if true.

    Yeah, I'm sure they're investigating super very hard.

    PoWs have to be transported, fed, housed and secured. Some of the time that isn't possible so the choice is let them go or waste them.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,844
    edited April 2022
    Foxy said:

    Carnyx said:

    Good morning everybody.
    I wasn't sure that there was much new to say about the Falklands, but there was an interesting programme on ITV last night about the Royal Marine garrison on the islands who, completely outnumbered and outgunned, were accused by the 'popular press' of not fighting hard enough.
    They were in an even worse position than the defenders of Hong Kong in 1941 but fortunately didn't face such a ruthless enemy.

    Quite.A few score booties (more than usual because of a changeover, but with some detached to S Georgia) plus some sailors and Falklands territorials versus a force of over 20 Amtracs and plenty of Agrentinians.
    As my ex-para mate put it, the crack Argentine invaders and Royal Marines shot at each other for two hours with no casualties on either side.
    Honour satisfied on both sides, the best outcome. I’d guess most battlefield massacres/shooting of prisoners (most of which never reach the public eye) happen after the captors have suffered high casualties beforehand.
    It does seem that the Georgian volunteers fighting for Ukraine shot some Russian Prisoners captured retreating from near Bucha.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/apr/07/video-appears-to-show-ukrainian-soldiers-shooting-russian-prisoners-of-war

    It is being investigated by the Ukranian military, unlike the transparent lies of the Russians. Understandable anger, but a war crime if true.

    Normally in a war different sides focus on the convienient for their cause and leave the inconvienient out - but BBC, Ukranian and Russian telegram all focussed on Kramatorsk this morning.

    My current guess is a malfunction of a (Ukranian) Tochka-U.

    Two definite facts.

    i. Civilians have been killed.
    ii. It's a Tochka-U

    Perhaps it's a Russian Tochka ? You'd expect an Iksander normally from the Russians.
    Russian launched Tochka to frame Ukraine maybe ?
  • boulayboulay Posts: 1,877

    No leadership election any time soon now I guess.

    Why not? Boris might have miscalculated by castrating the Chancellor, because it will encourage all those who want rid of Boris but who did not want Rishi either.

    A leadership election now might be the best opportunity for the various second-tier candidates like Hunt, Mordaunt, Wallace and anyone else who fancies a go. They gain nothing from waiting for a new heir apparent to rock up, because it almost certainly won't be them.

    It also potentially backfires on Tories who might be in the cabinet or fringes who could be stoking anti-Sunak attitudes for a while - say there was someone like this who believed that they could/should be chancellor or another office of great state.

    They think that the Sunak story clears him away however what has also happened is that it’s surely impossible now for any politician to reach senior rank if they or their partner are using a legal means of managing their tax affairs where it could be perceived that if they didn’t use, for example, an offshore structure to hold a major asset or benefit from offshoring of business, then the UK exchequer would be receiving more tax if it was instead domiciled in the UK.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 31,817
    Dura_Ace said:

    Foxy said:



    It is being investigated by the Ukranian military, unlike the transparent lies of the Russians. Understandable anger, but a war crime if true.

    Yeah, I'm sure they're investigating super very hard.

    PoWs have to be transported, fed, housed and secured. Some of the time that isn't possible so the choice is let them go or waste them.
    My guess is that these guys will get nailed - even if it is just for politics.

    Breaker Morant and all that.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 29,272
    Dura_Ace said:

    Foxy said:



    It is being investigated by the Ukranian military, unlike the transparent lies of the Russians. Understandable anger, but a war crime if true.

    Yeah, I'm sure they're investigating super very hard.

    PoWs have to be transported, fed, housed and secured. Some of the time that isn't possible so the choice is let them go or waste them.
    Apparently one of my uncles, soon after capture, was considered so near death as to be disposable and was thrown out of a German lorry.
    However he survived.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,704
    MattW said:

    Carnyx said:

    MattW said:

    MattW said:

    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:

    ..

    The Tory talent cabinet is absolutely bare. There is nothing there. This government cannot offer ideas, vision or competence; or much hope. Johnson is the best it has. That’s how bad it is.

    I think that's slightly unfair, since politics is being events-driven at the moment. Covid, the war in Ukraine and the resultant economic woes leaves precious little room for new ideas or vision. The government has to concentrate on sailing these choppy seas.

    And you know what? It hasn't done too badly on Covid, and has been very good with the war in Ukraine.

    As for hope: that depends on the individual. I don't see Starmer singing "Things can only get better," either. He is an utterly uninspiring individual. I'll still probably vote for him over Johnson, though. (local candidates notwithstanding).
    Has Johnson done well in dealing with these shocks?

    On Covid he did well on vaccines, very badly on everything else; overall mediocre compared with West European peers. Mixed bag

    Ukraine: done well on early supply of weapons, and general enthusiasm for the Ukrainian cause. Poor on refugees. Pass.

    Brexit: he helped create the problem in the first place and has mishandled the implementation since. Fail.

    Cost of living. Complete failure to deal with this issue, exacerbated by Brexit and poor handling of the economic consequences of Covid. Missed chance to do something in the Spring Statement. Other countries struggle with this issue too but their failure isn't quite so total.

    Overall 1½ out of 4
    "On Covid he did well on vaccines, very badly on everything else; overall mediocre compared with West European peers. Mixed bag"

    That's rubbish. As an example we did superbly on genomics - and the fact you choose to ignore that is telling.

    One of the interesting things about the Covid crisis was seeing fools almost salivating over the daily death figures, proclaiming how bad we were. It's a weird form of exceptionalism: people who like to think that we're uniquely bad.
    Johnson wasn't doing the genomics. That's why I left it out of my assessment of his performance. I think we can assume the genomics would have been done equally well if any other prime minister was in charge. I don't salivate over daily death figures, nor do I think the UK is uniquely bad, as is clear from my comment.
    I think you have missed a few things out on both sides.

    eg on the one hand there is various things done putting vaccine infrastructure in place, and BJ largely being kept in his toybox, and much excellent work on green energy which has been continued.

    On the other for example, the national green strategy published the other day has some holes, and the national vaccine centre has just been sold off, which is unforgiveable imo.
    Catalent is a very good operator though.

    I’ve not seen the terms of the transaction but the UK government cares about capacity and pandemic preparedness not about operating a facility

    If the government has;

    - got its capital invested back
    - Has operating, employment and investment commitments from Catalent
    - Has first priority over capacity on the event of a future pandemic
    - Has done kind of golden share to prevent on sale

    Then arguably it’s a very good deal. It’s better for us to have an operating facility bringing money into the country and ensuring a pool of trained staff rather than just a mothballed facility gathering dust in case we ever need it in future
    They may be a good operator, but for me this needs to be about a national resource, and does not belong in the commercial sector as a subunit of a multinational.

    The organisation had the potential to further develop the non-profit strategy of AZ during the pandemic, and encourage the development of local vaccine industries worldwide - which is one of the great things done during the pandemic. Compare with the strategy of the large majority of advanced countries who have tried to land-grab for their local industries.

    It would be best positioned either in the commerce-related part of academe, as a Govt-owned laboratory funded as part of science and also overseas development, or perhaps owned by an organisation such as the Wellcome Trust.

    Those important possibilities have now been snuffed out for a bit of cash.
    Absolutely right. An appropriatde model might be the Royal Ordnance Factories of the 1930s onwards. Some were kept on postwar in state ownership for obvious reasons of ensuring a production basis for future wars.
    I'd add that imo this is a necessary part of rebuilding networks after Brexit, and an important part (borrowing Macron's line) of UK strategic autonomy. I'd make a similar point about offshore wind - we are streets ahead of anyone else on implementation amongst developed countries except Denmark and possibly Germany. That should be an industry we are driving internationally as both goods and services.

    But Government BOJO have not imo realised that we now need more than quite such pure free market beliefs.

    And it is not helped by BJ not being able to see more than 9cos(45) inches in front of his pelvis.
    Now that is an interesting pair of points (the first para I mean: the second is not new). I actually wonder how much reception oru free market PBers would get here now if they asserted that UK farmers should go to the wall and we shoudl import all our food more cheaply [sic] frrom e.g. Australia?
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 17,905

    TOPPING said:

    1. She is a non-Dom which is a perfectly legitimate category but which arouses some suspicion of tax dodging/one rule for them.
    2. She is very, very wealthy.
    3. She is married to the CotE.
    4. Does she owe tax in the UK according to the law? It's complicated.
    5. Is she legitmately a "non-Dom"? See Pt.1.

    If you put all those factors into a bowl and stir you come to the conclusion that it was a hugely idiotic move politically by Sunak to do anything other than have himself and his family pay as much tax as possible as might ever be suggested by the tax authorities.

    Complicated dividend payments held offshore? Nope. Non-dom status for your spouse? Nope. Even ISAs could be used against you, so ISAs? Nope.

    It was a political blunder.

    The really, really stoopid thing is that Rishi could have turned it into a positive: I publicly renounce capitalism and all its works (for a defined period while keeping all that lovely capital) just so I can serve our wonderful country.

    Amateur hour.
    Particularly after the example set by Boris Johnson - he arranged to pay full PAYE tax on his earning from the Telegraph column. Before the expenses scandal broke.

    He didn't announce it, either. Just waited until Ken Livingstone walked into the elephant trap he had dug.

    Cost BJ something like high 6 figures in extra tax over the years, probably.
    Yes, though it is slightly more complicated than that. Boris also renounced his US citizenship in the face of American tax demands.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Twitter is *very* excited over green card. Sunak retained his for a year while a Treasury minister

    I think this could tip him into resigning rather than hanging on in office but not in power

  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,704

    TOPPING said:

    1. She is a non-Dom which is a perfectly legitimate category but which arouses some suspicion of tax dodging/one rule for them.
    2. She is very, very wealthy.
    3. She is married to the CotE.
    4. Does she owe tax in the UK according to the law? It's complicated.
    5. Is she legitmately a "non-Dom"? See Pt.1.

    If you put all those factors into a bowl and stir you come to the conclusion that it was a hugely idiotic move politically by Sunak to do anything other than have himself and his family pay as much tax as possible as might ever be suggested by the tax authorities.

    Complicated dividend payments held offshore? Nope. Non-dom status for your spouse? Nope. Even ISAs could be used against you, so ISAs? Nope.

    It was a political blunder.

    The really, really stoopid thing is that Rishi could have turned it into a positive: I publicly renounce capitalism and all its works (for a defined period while keeping all that lovely capital) just so I can serve our wonderful country.

    Amateur hour.
    Particularly after the example set by Boris Johnson - he arranged to pay full PAYE tax on his earning from the Telegraph column. Before the expenses scandal broke.

    He didn't announce it, either. Just waited until Ken Livingstone walked into the elephant trap he had dug.

    Cost BJ something like high 6 figures in extra tax over the years, probably.
    That implies he was organised enough in the first place. Butd he certainly took advantage of it.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    boulay said:

    No leadership election any time soon now I guess.

    Why not? Boris might have miscalculated by castrating the Chancellor, because it will encourage all those who want rid of Boris but who did not want Rishi either.

    A leadership election now might be the best opportunity for the various second-tier candidates like Hunt, Mordaunt, Wallace and anyone else who fancies a go. They gain nothing from waiting for a new heir apparent to rock up, because it almost certainly won't be them.

    It also potentially backfires on Tories who might be in the cabinet or fringes who could be stoking anti-Sunak attitudes for a while - say there was someone like this who believed that they could/should be chancellor or another office of great state.

    They think that the Sunak story clears him away however what has also happened is that it’s surely impossible now for any politician to reach senior rank if they or their partner are using a legal means of managing their tax affairs where it could be perceived that if they didn’t use, for example, an offshore structure to hold a major asset or benefit from offshoring of business, then the UK exchequer would be receiving more tax if it was instead domiciled in the UK.
    I can live with that
  • LeonLeon Posts: 30,379
    Dura_Ace said:

    Foxy said:



    It is being investigated by the Ukranian military, unlike the transparent lies of the Russians. Understandable anger, but a war crime if true.

    Yeah, I'm sure they're investigating super very hard.

    PoWs have to be transported, fed, housed and secured. Some of the time that isn't possible so the choice is let them go or waste them.
    Is this the one where they shoot the Russian guys with the slit throats?

    Gruesome and horrible, but the actual shooting looks like a mercy killing. The enemy soldier is painfully choking to death on his own blood. They discuss this. Then finish him off

    I guess it probably is a war crime but it’s pretty low on the scale. War is, after all, about killing enemy soldiers

    I imagine this shit happens every day on the front line
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,456

    kjh said:

    For those on the right fighting woke, one might like to look at your own side. Apparently it is offensive to @hyufd to recount a true, if slightly political incorrect story.

    The bigger snowflakes are most certainly on the right.
    It's why I think it's an acceptable label, since it is not restricted to one side.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 46,853

    No leadership election any time soon now I guess.

    Why not? Boris might have miscalculated by castrating the Chancellor, because it will encourage all those who want rid of Boris but who did not want Rishi either.

    A leadership election now might be the best opportunity for the various second-tier candidates like Hunt, Mordaunt, Wallace and anyone else who fancies a go. They gain nothing from waiting for a new heir apparent to rock up, because it almost certainly won't be them.

    Needs something to precipitate it first, though.
    Everyone was waiting for Rishi, who blew his chance, and there are for now far too few backbenchers with the spine to kick out the PM for lying to Parliament.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 29,272
    Carnyx said:

    TOPPING said:

    1. She is a non-Dom which is a perfectly legitimate category but which arouses some suspicion of tax dodging/one rule for them.
    2. She is very, very wealthy.
    3. She is married to the CotE.
    4. Does she owe tax in the UK according to the law? It's complicated.
    5. Is she legitmately a "non-Dom"? See Pt.1.

    If you put all those factors into a bowl and stir you come to the conclusion that it was a hugely idiotic move politically by Sunak to do anything other than have himself and his family pay as much tax as possible as might ever be suggested by the tax authorities.

    Complicated dividend payments held offshore? Nope. Non-dom status for your spouse? Nope. Even ISAs could be used against you, so ISAs? Nope.

    It was a political blunder.

    The really, really stoopid thing is that Rishi could have turned it into a positive: I publicly renounce capitalism and all its works (for a defined period while keeping all that lovely capital) just so I can serve our wonderful country.

    Amateur hour.
    Particularly after the example set by Boris Johnson - he arranged to pay full PAYE tax on his earning from the Telegraph column. Before the expenses scandal broke.

    He didn't announce it, either. Just waited until Ken Livingstone walked into the elephant trap he had dug.

    Cost BJ something like high 6 figures in extra tax over the years, probably.
    That implies he was organised enough in the first place. Butd he certainly took advantage of it.
    Did doing so affect the amount he had to pay however many ex-wives etc at that point?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 31,817
    edited April 2022
    Carnyx said:

    TOPPING said:

    1. She is a non-Dom which is a perfectly legitimate category but which arouses some suspicion of tax dodging/one rule for them.
    2. She is very, very wealthy.
    3. She is married to the CotE.
    4. Does she owe tax in the UK according to the law? It's complicated.
    5. Is she legitmately a "non-Dom"? See Pt.1.

    If you put all those factors into a bowl and stir you come to the conclusion that it was a hugely idiotic move politically by Sunak to do anything other than have himself and his family pay as much tax as possible as might ever be suggested by the tax authorities.

    Complicated dividend payments held offshore? Nope. Non-dom status for your spouse? Nope. Even ISAs could be used against you, so ISAs? Nope.

    It was a political blunder.

    The really, really stoopid thing is that Rishi could have turned it into a positive: I publicly renounce capitalism and all its works (for a defined period while keeping all that lovely capital) just so I can serve our wonderful country.

    Amateur hour.
    Particularly after the example set by Boris Johnson - he arranged to pay full PAYE tax on his earning from the Telegraph column. Before the expenses scandal broke.

    He didn't announce it, either. Just waited until Ken Livingstone walked into the elephant trap he had dug.

    Cost BJ something like high 6 figures in extra tax over the years, probably.
    That implies he was organised enough in the first place. Butd he certainly took advantage of it.
    When writing for papers like that, everyone else in politics used a personal company, dividends, pay yourself minimum wage etc etc. Ken Livingstone did.

    This is why Ken Livingstone went on the attack with it, without checking the facts.

    To pay the extra tax like that took a special arrangement and a deliberate instruction to whoever did the taxes for Boris Johnson. Unless you think that BJ did his taxes himself, rather than using an accountant.

    EDIT: IIRC from the Private Eye investigation into all this, BJ was using a personal company before he got the big column thing from the Telegraph. He *switched over* to full PAYE style tax about 6 months before the expenses scandal came out, and years before the Mayoral election.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 105,300
    edited April 2022
    Just wait until Sunak gets a FPN for party going.

    If that happens…
  • LeonLeon Posts: 30,379
    IshmaelZ said:

    Twitter is *very* excited over green card. Sunak retained his for a year while a Treasury minister

    I think this could tip him into resigning rather than hanging on in office but not in power

    Why is the green card thing so damaging, potentially?

    Genuine Q. I have no idea of what obligations or problems might come with it
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,456
    Leon said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Foxy said:



    It is being investigated by the Ukranian military, unlike the transparent lies of the Russians. Understandable anger, but a war crime if true.

    Yeah, I'm sure they're investigating super very hard.

    PoWs have to be transported, fed, housed and secured. Some of the time that isn't possible so the choice is let them go or waste them.
    Is this the one where they shoot the Russian guys with the slit throats?

    Gruesome and horrible, but the actual shooting looks like a mercy killing. The enemy soldier is painfully choking to death on his own blood. They discuss this. Then finish him off

    I guess it probably is a war crime but it’s pretty low on the scale. War is, after all, about killing enemy soldiers

    I imagine this shit happens every day on the front line
    Probably. And we tend to excuse it on our own sides so long as it's not too frequent. That's not morally 100%, but systemic offences will naturally raise more concern I imagine.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 15,128
    Carnyx said:

    MattW said:

    Carnyx said:

    MattW said:

    MattW said:

    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:

    ..

    The Tory talent cabinet is absolutely bare. There is nothing there. This government cannot offer ideas, vision or competence; or much hope. Johnson is the best it has. That’s how bad it is.

    I think that's slightly unfair, since politics is being events-driven at the moment. Covid, the war in Ukraine and the resultant economic woes leaves precious little room for new ideas or vision. The government has to concentrate on sailing these choppy seas.

    And you know what? It hasn't done too badly on Covid, and has been very good with the war in Ukraine.

    As for hope: that depends on the individual. I don't see Starmer singing "Things can only get better," either. He is an utterly uninspiring individual. I'll still probably vote for him over Johnson, though. (local candidates notwithstanding).
    Has Johnson done well in dealing with these shocks?

    On Covid he did well on vaccines, very badly on everything else; overall mediocre compared with West European peers. Mixed bag

    Ukraine: done well on early supply of weapons, and general enthusiasm for the Ukrainian cause. Poor on refugees. Pass.

    Brexit: he helped create the problem in the first place and has mishandled the implementation since. Fail.

    Cost of living. Complete failure to deal with this issue, exacerbated by Brexit and poor handling of the economic consequences of Covid. Missed chance to do something in the Spring Statement. Other countries struggle with this issue too but their failure isn't quite so total.

    Overall 1½ out of 4
    "On Covid he did well on vaccines, very badly on everything else; overall mediocre compared with West European peers. Mixed bag"

    That's rubbish. As an example we did superbly on genomics - and the fact you choose to ignore that is telling.

    One of the interesting things about the Covid crisis was seeing fools almost salivating over the daily death figures, proclaiming how bad we were. It's a weird form of exceptionalism: people who like to think that we're uniquely bad.
    Johnson wasn't doing the genomics. That's why I left it out of my assessment of his performance. I think we can assume the genomics would have been done equally well if any other prime minister was in charge. I don't salivate over daily death figures, nor do I think the UK is uniquely bad, as is clear from my comment.
    I think you have missed a few things out on both sides.

    eg on the one hand there is various things done putting vaccine infrastructure in place, and BJ largely being kept in his toybox, and much excellent work on green energy which has been continued.

    On the other for example, the national green strategy published the other day has some holes, and the national vaccine centre has just been sold off, which is unforgiveable imo.
    Catalent is a very good operator though.

    I’ve not seen the terms of the transaction but the UK government cares about capacity and pandemic preparedness not about operating a facility

    If the government has;

    - got its capital invested back
    - Has operating, employment and investment commitments from Catalent
    - Has first priority over capacity on the event of a future pandemic
    - Has done kind of golden share to prevent on sale

    Then arguably it’s a very good deal. It’s better for us to have an operating facility bringing money into the country and ensuring a pool of trained staff rather than just a mothballed facility gathering dust in case we ever need it in future
    They may be a good operator, but for me this needs to be about a national resource, and does not belong in the commercial sector as a subunit of a multinational.

    The organisation had the potential to further develop the non-profit strategy of AZ during the pandemic, and encourage the development of local vaccine industries worldwide - which is one of the great things done during the pandemic. Compare with the strategy of the large majority of advanced countries who have tried to land-grab for their local industries.

    It would be best positioned either in the commerce-related part of academe, as a Govt-owned laboratory funded as part of science and also overseas development, or perhaps owned by an organisation such as the Wellcome Trust.

    Those important possibilities have now been snuffed out for a bit of cash.
    Absolutely right. An appropriatde model might be the Royal Ordnance Factories of the 1930s onwards. Some were kept on postwar in state ownership for obvious reasons of ensuring a production basis for future wars.
    I'd add that imo this is a necessary part of rebuilding networks after Brexit, and an important part (borrowing Macron's line) of UK strategic autonomy. I'd make a similar point about offshore wind - we are streets ahead of anyone else on implementation amongst developed countries except Denmark and possibly Germany. That should be an industry we are driving internationally as both goods and services.

    But Government BOJO have not imo realised that we now need more than quite such pure free market beliefs.

    And it is not helped by BJ not being able to see more than 9cos(45) inches in front of his pelvis.
    Now that is an interesting pair of points (the first para I mean: the second is not new). I actually wonder how much reception oru free market PBers would get here now if they asserted that UK farmers should go to the wall and we shoudl import all our food more cheaply [sic] frrom e.g. Australia?
    I'd tend to take the other side on that one - I'm not really convinced by the argument from the farming / food lobby.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 46,853
    Leon said:

    Also, where’s this law that prevents us criticising Mrs Sunak? Is there legislation about this?

    She may be a private citizen but that doesn’t mean she is somehow sacred and immune. Private citizens get criticised all the time.

    Sunak is a fool. His wife is exceptionally avaricious

    Exceptionally ?
    It seem to be nearer the rule for wealthy UK resident overseas citizens.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,456
    IshmaelZ said:

    Twitter is *very* excited over green card. Sunak retained his for a year while a Treasury minister

    I think this could tip him into resigning rather than hanging on in office but not in power

    Javid back to CoE? All is forgiven now the beastly Dom is gone.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 25,188

    Just wait until Sunak gets a FPN for party going.

    If that happens…

    At least he'll know someone who can help him out if he's short.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 42,393
    edited April 2022

    Carnyx said:

    TOPPING said:

    1. She is a non-Dom which is a perfectly legitimate category but which arouses some suspicion of tax dodging/one rule for them.
    2. She is very, very wealthy.
    3. She is married to the CotE.
    4. Does she owe tax in the UK according to the law? It's complicated.
    5. Is she legitmately a "non-Dom"? See Pt.1.

    If you put all those factors into a bowl and stir you come to the conclusion that it was a hugely idiotic move politically by Sunak to do anything other than have himself and his family pay as much tax as possible as might ever be suggested by the tax authorities.

    Complicated dividend payments held offshore? Nope. Non-dom status for your spouse? Nope. Even ISAs could be used against you, so ISAs? Nope.

    It was a political blunder.

    The really, really stoopid thing is that Rishi could have turned it into a positive: I publicly renounce capitalism and all its works (for a defined period while keeping all that lovely capital) just so I can serve our wonderful country.

    Amateur hour.
    Particularly after the example set by Boris Johnson - he arranged to pay full PAYE tax on his earning from the Telegraph column. Before the expenses scandal broke.

    He didn't announce it, either. Just waited until Ken Livingstone walked into the elephant trap he had dug.

    Cost BJ something like high 6 figures in extra tax over the years, probably.
    That implies he was organised enough in the first place. Butd he certainly took advantage of it.
    When writing for papers like that, everyone else in politics used a personal company, dividends, pay yourself minimum wage etc etc. Ken Livingstone did.

    This is why Ken Livingstone went on the attack with it, without checking the facts.

    To pay the extra tax like that took a special arrangement and a deliberate instruction to whoever did the taxes for Boris Johnson. Unless you think that BJ did his taxes himself, rather than using an accountant.
    It’s the other way around IMHO.

    The Telegraph asked him who to make the cheque out to, and he said he didn’t have a company so just make it to Boris Johnson. Then, at the end of the year his accountant looked up the payments and paid the tax bill on it - one hour of the accountant’s time.

    Actually setting up and running a company, with quarterly returns, payroll, VAT etc is way more complicated, and required deliberate actions - although I’m sure the accountant would have suggested it!
  • RogerRoger Posts: 17,607

    MattW said:

    Can you catch covid from farts?

    Been there; done that.

    TL:DR - the other person wearing pants/panties helps you not catch it.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7716952/

    A recent study has also suggested post-flush toilet plume to be a potential route of transmission through ‘aerosolized feces’. Another aspect of probable transmission could be through flatulence by infected patients, although no such published data has been found. But, according to several existing investigations, farts do have the tendency to carry micro-particles which have the capacity to spread bacteria (55). However, additional research is still warranted to estimate the intensity of such infections; presence of undergarments/ clothing would however, lower the risk of transmission through this passage. The same was claimed by the Chinese Centres of Disease Control and Prevention that pants do act as a hindrance in the transmission of disease via flatulence that contains the SARS-CoV-2 virus (56).
    Flipping eck. I had £25 on no. I was about to post some people are thick and ask for my money, but it looks like I have lost.

    You can catch covid from farts 🤭 But bum masks help to some degree.

    They need to stick naked mice farting on each other and bum pant mice farting on each other in bowl for more info.
    I read your post about your father's thoughts on Rishi. A man grounded in the Nothern heartlands who thought Rishis budget would prove to be a masterstroke and the Tories were now the serious party on their way up....

    My reputation as the worst tipster on here was hard earned but I have to admit you're giving me a good run for my money
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,456
    Leon said:

    Also, where’s this law that prevents us criticising Mrs Sunak? Is there legislation about this?

    She may be a private citizen but that doesn’t mean she is somehow sacred and immune. Private citizens get criticised all the time.

    Sunak is a fool. His wife is exceptionally avaricious

    I dont know about the last line, but he has made things much worse by getting uppity and outraged over this being looked into, when it can be legitimate to look into spousal interests. He and the government know that and the rules reflect that, so he looks shifty trying to deflect with outrage.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 31,817
    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Foxy said:



    It is being investigated by the Ukranian military, unlike the transparent lies of the Russians. Understandable anger, but a war crime if true.

    Yeah, I'm sure they're investigating super very hard.

    PoWs have to be transported, fed, housed and secured. Some of the time that isn't possible so the choice is let them go or waste them.
    Is this the one where they shoot the Russian guys with the slit throats?

    Gruesome and horrible, but the actual shooting looks like a mercy killing. The enemy soldier is painfully choking to death on his own blood. They discuss this. Then finish him off

    I guess it probably is a war crime but it’s pretty low on the scale. War is, after all, about killing enemy soldiers

    I imagine this shit happens every day on the front line
    Probably. And we tend to excuse it on our own sides so long as it's not too frequent. That's not morally 100%, but systemic offences will naturally raise more concern I imagine.
    IIRC there was a controversy concerning the mercy killings of an Argentine POW in the Falklands. An explosion of stored materials (Argentine) they were clearing, including napalm.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,456
    Dura_Ace said:

    Foxy said:



    It is being investigated by the Ukranian military, unlike the transparent lies of the Russians. Understandable anger, but a war crime if true.

    Yeah, I'm sure they're investigating super very hard.

    PoWs have to be transported, fed, housed and secured. Some of the time that isn't possible so the choice is let them go or waste them.
    Agincourt all over again.

    (Though I assume no one ever cared about looking after the grunts)
  • LeonLeon Posts: 30,379
    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    Also, where’s this law that prevents us criticising Mrs Sunak? Is there legislation about this?

    She may be a private citizen but that doesn’t mean she is somehow sacred and immune. Private citizens get criticised all the time.

    Sunak is a fool. His wife is exceptionally avaricious

    Exceptionally ?
    It seem to be nearer the rule for wealthy UK resident overseas citizens.
    It is exceptionally avaricious by the standards of normal people. Just pay your bloody taxes, you stupid woman. You’re already worth £700mn FFS

    I accept the moral standards of the obscenely wealthy are much much lower. “Taxes are for little people”
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 36,673
    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    TOPPING said:

    1. She is a non-Dom which is a perfectly legitimate category but which arouses some suspicion of tax dodging/one rule for them.
    2. She is very, very wealthy.
    3. She is married to the CotE.
    4. Does she owe tax in the UK according to the law? It's complicated.
    5. Is she legitmately a "non-Dom"? See Pt.1.

    If you put all those factors into a bowl and stir you come to the conclusion that it was a hugely idiotic move politically by Sunak to do anything other than have himself and his family pay as much tax as possible as might ever be suggested by the tax authorities.

    Complicated dividend payments held offshore? Nope. Non-dom status for your spouse? Nope. Even ISAs could be used against you, so ISAs? Nope.

    It was a political blunder.

    Yes, exactly. His wife is blameless, provided her claim to non-dom status stands up, but Rishi is toast. It's over (in fact, it probably already was anyway).

    It's not even just the tax aspect, although as we're seeing that's not going down well. It's also the question about his long-term commitment to the UK.
    Apologies if you did answer this last night, but do you think it was wrong to have Mark Carney as governor of the Bank of England?
    No, it wasn't wrong. He was hired for a specific term (later extended), for his expertise, and around the world it's not actually that uncommon for foreign citizens to be appointed to such posts. There was never any suggestion that he was moving here permanently. That's not the same as a politician seeking to become PM, and voters won't see it as the same.
    I disagree. People can have allegiances to more than one country. It really wouldn't bother me if he followed his wife to India in 10 years time or whatever (or if, more importantly, he refused to rule out moving there in the future).
    I do think it shows the difference between the Brexiteer elite, like Sunak, who see it as a liberating freedom for their money to move around the world, taxed lightly if at all, and the culturally Conservative working class Brexiteers who want to protect a way of life. The discordant between these two can develop into quite a chasm, and the Tories need to choose a side.
  • The thing about Rishi’s green card is that he was a minister since 2018 and at the Treasury since July 2019, so people must have known about it since then at least.

    He walked into the Treasury wearing a political suicide bomb.

    He’s either really dumb and/or arrogant.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 9,007

    MattW said:

    Can you catch covid from farts?

    Been there; done that.

    TL:DR - the other person wearing pants/panties helps you not catch it.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7716952/

    A recent study has also suggested post-flush toilet plume to be a potential route of transmission through ‘aerosolized feces’. Another aspect of probable transmission could be through flatulence by infected patients, although no such published data has been found. But, according to several existing investigations, farts do have the tendency to carry micro-particles which have the capacity to spread bacteria (55). However, additional research is still warranted to estimate the intensity of such infections; presence of undergarments/ clothing would however, lower the risk of transmission through this passage. The same was claimed by the Chinese Centres of Disease Control and Prevention that pants do act as a hindrance in the transmission of disease via flatulence that contains the SARS-CoV-2 virus (56).
    That explains the high covid levels in Scotland. Kilts!
    Sturgeon so weak for not mandating bum masks!
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    edited April 2022
    Leon said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Twitter is *very* excited over green card. Sunak retained his for a year while a Treasury minister

    I think this could tip him into resigning rather than hanging on in office but not in power

    Why is the green card thing so damaging, potentially?

    Genuine Q. I have no idea of what obligations or problems might come with it
    You have to state you intend to reside permanently in USA which makes Sunak's allegiance to UK look dodgy and makes Mrs S look like she must have been lying to at least one of UK and US

    You pay all your tax (excluding PAYE I assume?) to USA whether you live there or not. No idea how this works in practice but I have a well off friend who is accidentally USA citizen (born there, doesn't go there any more than I do) who basically sets aside a full week per year getting her US tax return right.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,456
    edited April 2022
    Sandpit said:

    Carnyx said:

    TOPPING said:

    1. She is a non-Dom which is a perfectly legitimate category but which arouses some suspicion of tax dodging/one rule for them.
    2. She is very, very wealthy.
    3. She is married to the CotE.
    4. Does she owe tax in the UK according to the law? It's complicated.
    5. Is she legitmately a "non-Dom"? See Pt.1.

    If you put all those factors into a bowl and stir you come to the conclusion that it was a hugely idiotic move politically by Sunak to do anything other than have himself and his family pay as much tax as possible as might ever be suggested by the tax authorities.

    Complicated dividend payments held offshore? Nope. Non-dom status for your spouse? Nope. Even ISAs could be used against you, so ISAs? Nope.

    It was a political blunder.

    The really, really stoopid thing is that Rishi could have turned it into a positive: I publicly renounce capitalism and all its works (for a defined period while keeping all that lovely capital) just so I can serve our wonderful country.

    Amateur hour.
    Particularly after the example set by Boris Johnson - he arranged to pay full PAYE tax on his earning from the Telegraph column. Before the expenses scandal broke.

    He didn't announce it, either. Just waited until Ken Livingstone walked into the elephant trap he had dug.

    Cost BJ something like high 6 figures in extra tax over the years, probably.
    That implies he was organised enough in the first place. Butd he certainly took advantage of it.
    When writing for papers like that, everyone else in politics used a personal company, dividends, pay yourself minimum wage etc etc. Ken Livingstone did.

    This is why Ken Livingstone went on the attack with it, without checking the facts.

    To pay the extra tax like that took a special arrangement and a deliberate instruction to whoever did the taxes for Boris Johnson. Unless you think that BJ did his taxes himself, rather than using an accountant.
    It’s the other way around IMHO.

    The Telegraph asked him who to make the cheque out to, and he said he didn’t have a company so just make it to Boris Johnson. Then, at the end of the year his accountant looked up the payments and paid the tax bill on it - one hour of the accountant’s time.

    Actually setting up and running a company, with quarterly returns, payroll, VAT etc is way more complicated, and required deliberate actions.
    I do like that people dont seem sure if he made a brilliant move or was just too lazy to take the normal tax avoiding approach.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 31,817
    Sandpit said:

    Carnyx said:

    TOPPING said:

    1. She is a non-Dom which is a perfectly legitimate category but which arouses some suspicion of tax dodging/one rule for them.
    2. She is very, very wealthy.
    3. She is married to the CotE.
    4. Does she owe tax in the UK according to the law? It's complicated.
    5. Is she legitmately a "non-Dom"? See Pt.1.

    If you put all those factors into a bowl and stir you come to the conclusion that it was a hugely idiotic move politically by Sunak to do anything other than have himself and his family pay as much tax as possible as might ever be suggested by the tax authorities.

    Complicated dividend payments held offshore? Nope. Non-dom status for your spouse? Nope. Even ISAs could be used against you, so ISAs? Nope.

    It was a political blunder.

    The really, really stoopid thing is that Rishi could have turned it into a positive: I publicly renounce capitalism and all its works (for a defined period while keeping all that lovely capital) just so I can serve our wonderful country.

    Amateur hour.
    Particularly after the example set by Boris Johnson - he arranged to pay full PAYE tax on his earning from the Telegraph column. Before the expenses scandal broke.

    He didn't announce it, either. Just waited until Ken Livingstone walked into the elephant trap he had dug.

    Cost BJ something like high 6 figures in extra tax over the years, probably.
    That implies he was organised enough in the first place. Butd he certainly took advantage of it.
    When writing for papers like that, everyone else in politics used a personal company, dividends, pay yourself minimum wage etc etc. Ken Livingstone did.

    This is why Ken Livingstone went on the attack with it, without checking the facts.

    To pay the extra tax like that took a special arrangement and a deliberate instruction to whoever did the taxes for Boris Johnson. Unless you think that BJ did his taxes himself, rather than using an accountant.
    It’s the other way around IMHO.

    The Telegraph asked him who to make the cheque out to, and he said he didn’t have a company so just make it to Boris Johnson. Then, at the end of the year his accountant looked up the payments and paid the tax bill on it - one hour of the accountant’s time.

    Actually setting up and running a company, with quarterly returns, payroll, VAT etc is way more complicated, and required deliberate actions.
    IIRC Private Eye did an investigation - BJ had previously used a personal company, including for work with the Telegraph. But had switched before getting the big weekly column thing.
  • boulayboulay Posts: 1,877
    IshmaelZ said:

    boulay said:

    No leadership election any time soon now I guess.

    Why not? Boris might have miscalculated by castrating the Chancellor, because it will encourage all those who want rid of Boris but who did not want Rishi either.

    A leadership election now might be the best opportunity for the various second-tier candidates like Hunt, Mordaunt, Wallace and anyone else who fancies a go. They gain nothing from waiting for a new heir apparent to rock up, because it almost certainly won't be them.

    It also potentially backfires on Tories who might be in the cabinet or fringes who could be stoking anti-Sunak attitudes for a while - say there was someone like this who believed that they could/should be chancellor or another office of great state.

    They think that the Sunak story clears him away however what has also happened is that it’s surely impossible now for any politician to reach senior rank if they or their partner are using a legal means of managing their tax affairs where it could be perceived that if they didn’t use, for example, an offshore structure to hold a major asset or benefit from offshoring of business, then the UK exchequer would be receiving more tax if it was instead domiciled in the UK.
    I can live with that
    Absolutely - I’m a bit all or nothing on things like this, as in if there is a shitstorm over this situation then I don’t want to see someone else worming out with “it’s different” defence later.

    So if in future a Tory or Labour MP benefits in some way where they could potentially have greater tax liabilities if they had not used some sort of legal tax sheltering then I expect them to do the decent thing and end that arrangement or refuse any office.

    I am sure that all cabinet members, shadows etc are now ensuring that they are not in anyway depriving the UK treasury of any tax through use of legal planning
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 43,283
    @JamesShotter
    French president Macron has attacked Poland's PM Morawiecki for comparing his talks with Putin to negotiating with Hitler:

    "The Polish PM is a far-right anti-Semite, who bans LGBT people" he said, adding that Morawiecki wanted to help Le Pen pre-election


    https://twitter.com/JamesShotter/status/1512361292585226244
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 46,853
    edited April 2022
    Pulpstar said:

    Foxy said:

    Carnyx said:

    Good morning everybody.
    I wasn't sure that there was much new to say about the Falklands, but there was an interesting programme on ITV last night about the Royal Marine garrison on the islands who, completely outnumbered and outgunned, were accused by the 'popular press' of not fighting hard enough.
    They were in an even worse position than the defenders of Hong Kong in 1941 but fortunately didn't face such a ruthless enemy.

    Quite.A few score booties (more than usual because of a changeover, but with some detached to S Georgia) plus some sailors and Falklands territorials versus a force of over 20 Amtracs and plenty of Agrentinians.
    As my ex-para mate put it, the crack Argentine invaders and Royal Marines shot at each other for two hours with no casualties on either side.
    Honour satisfied on both sides, the best outcome. I’d guess most battlefield massacres/shooting of prisoners (most of which never reach the public eye) happen after the captors have suffered high casualties beforehand.
    It does seem that the Georgian volunteers fighting for Ukraine shot some Russian Prisoners captured retreating from near Bucha.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/apr/07/video-appears-to-show-ukrainian-soldiers-shooting-russian-prisoners-of-war

    It is being investigated by the Ukranian military, unlike the transparent lies of the Russians. Understandable anger, but a war crime if true.

    Normally in a war different sides focus on the convienient for their cause and leave the inconvienient out - but BBC, Ukranian and Russian telegram all focussed on Kramatorsk this morning.

    My current guess is a malfunction of a (Ukranian) Tochka-U.

    Two definite facts.

    i. Civilians have been killed.
    ii. It's a Tochka-U

    Perhaps it's a Russian Tochka ? You'd expect an Iksander normally from the Russians.
    Russian launched Tochka to frame Ukraine maybe ?
    No, I think it was just an attack, which they are now denying.

    https://twitter.com/maxseddon/status/1512376064747712514
    Just like with MH17, pro-Kremlin bloggers posted footage of what they said was a Russian attack on Kramatorsk – then deleted them once the civilian toll was clear

    The Russians have operational Tochkas.
    (Mar 5th)
    Russia is running out of missiles for the Iskander missile systems.
    Today at 15:20 (Minsk time) about 30 Tochka-U tactical missile systems departed from the military airfield in Machulishchy. ...

    https://twitter.com/MotolkoHelp/status/1500144102150651906

    Another thread detailing their use, here:
    https://twitter.com/Liveuamap/status/1512367590500405248
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 25,188
    I remember when the nimble PR skills of the Chancellor were glowingly contrasted with the blundering oaf in No.10.
    Just imagine if they had ditched him for PM Rishi in January.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,456

    @JamesShotter
    French president Macron has attacked Poland's PM Morawiecki for comparing his talks with Putin to negotiating with Hitler:

    "The Polish PM is a far-right anti-Semite, who bans LGBT people" he said, adding that Morawiecki wanted to help Le Pen pre-election


    https://twitter.com/JamesShotter/status/1512361292585226244

    Jeez, bit more of the European harmony, guys.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 30,379
    IshmaelZ said:

    Leon said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Twitter is *very* excited over green card. Sunak retained his for a year while a Treasury minister

    I think this could tip him into resigning rather than hanging on in office but not in power

    Why is the green card thing so damaging, potentially?

    Genuine Q. I have no idea of what obligations or problems might come with it
    You have to state you intend to reside permanently in USA which makes Sunak's allegiance to UK look dodgy and makes Mrs S look like she must have been lying to at least one of UK and US

    You pay all your tax (excluding PAYE I assume?) to USA whether you live there or not. No idea how this works in practice but I have a well off friend who is accidentally USA citizen (born there, doesn't go there any more than I do) who basically sets aside a full week per year getting her US tax return right.
    Thanks

    Quite complicated tho. To me it seems less damaging than the basic immorality of Mrs S’s legal tax avoidance, when her husband is taxing us all til our nipples squeak

    Everyone can see and understand greed

  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 23,965

    @JamesShotter
    French president Macron has attacked Poland's PM Morawiecki for comparing his talks with Putin to negotiating with Hitler:

    "The Polish PM is a far-right anti-Semite, who bans LGBT people" he said, adding that Morawiecki wanted to help Le Pen pre-election


    https://twitter.com/JamesShotter/status/1512361292585226244

    Blimey. Macron getting nervous?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 46,853
    Carnyx said:

    MattW said:

    Carnyx said:

    MattW said:

    MattW said:

    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:

    ..

    The Tory talent cabinet is absolutely bare. There is nothing there. This government cannot offer ideas, vision or competence; or much hope. Johnson is the best it has. That’s how bad it is.

    I think that's slightly unfair, since politics is being events-driven at the moment. Covid, the war in Ukraine and the resultant economic woes leaves precious little room for new ideas or vision. The government has to concentrate on sailing these choppy seas.

    And you know what? It hasn't done too badly on Covid, and has been very good with the war in Ukraine.

    As for hope: that depends on the individual. I don't see Starmer singing "Things can only get better," either. He is an utterly uninspiring individual. I'll still probably vote for him over Johnson, though. (local candidates notwithstanding).
    Has Johnson done well in dealing with these shocks?

    On Covid he did well on vaccines, very badly on everything else; overall mediocre compared with West European peers. Mixed bag

    Ukraine: done well on early supply of weapons, and general enthusiasm for the Ukrainian cause. Poor on refugees. Pass.

    Brexit: he helped create the problem in the first place and has mishandled the implementation since. Fail.

    Cost of living. Complete failure to deal with this issue, exacerbated by Brexit and poor handling of the economic consequences of Covid. Missed chance to do something in the Spring Statement. Other countries struggle with this issue too but their failure isn't quite so total.

    Overall 1½ out of 4
    "On Covid he did well on vaccines, very badly on everything else; overall mediocre compared with West European peers. Mixed bag"

    That's rubbish. As an example we did superbly on genomics - and the fact you choose to ignore that is telling.

    One of the interesting things about the Covid crisis was seeing fools almost salivating over the daily death figures, proclaiming how bad we were. It's a weird form of exceptionalism: people who like to think that we're uniquely bad.
    Johnson wasn't doing the genomics. That's why I left it out of my assessment of his performance. I think we can assume the genomics would have been done equally well if any other prime minister was in charge. I don't salivate over daily death figures, nor do I think the UK is uniquely bad, as is clear from my comment.
    I think you have missed a few things out on both sides.

    eg on the one hand there is various things done putting vaccine infrastructure in place, and BJ largely being kept in his toybox, and much excellent work on green energy which has been continued.

    On the other for example, the national green strategy published the other day has some holes, and the national vaccine centre has just been sold off, which is unforgiveable imo.
    Catalent is a very good operator though.

    I’ve not seen the terms of the transaction but the UK government cares about capacity and pandemic preparedness not about operating a facility

    If the government has;

    - got its capital invested back
    - Has operating, employment and investment commitments from Catalent
    - Has first priority over capacity on the event of a future pandemic
    - Has done kind of golden share to prevent on sale

    Then arguably it’s a very good deal. It’s better for us to have an operating facility bringing money into the country and ensuring a pool of trained staff rather than just a mothballed facility gathering dust in case we ever need it in future
    They may be a good operator, but for me this needs to be about a national resource, and does not belong in the commercial sector as a subunit of a multinational.

    The organisation had the potential to further develop the non-profit strategy of AZ during the pandemic, and encourage the development of local vaccine industries worldwide - which is one of the great things done during the pandemic. Compare with the strategy of the large majority of advanced countries who have tried to land-grab for their local industries.

    It would be best positioned either in the commerce-related part of academe, as a Govt-owned laboratory funded as part of science and also overseas development, or perhaps owned by an organisation such as the Wellcome Trust.

    Those important possibilities have now been snuffed out for a bit of cash.
    Absolutely right. An appropriatde model might be the Royal Ordnance Factories of the 1930s onwards. Some were kept on postwar in state ownership for obvious reasons of ensuring a production basis for future wars.
    I'd add that imo this is a necessary part of rebuilding networks after Brexit, and an important part (borrowing Macron's line) of UK strategic autonomy. I'd make a similar point about offshore wind - we are streets ahead of anyone else on implementation amongst developed countries except Denmark and possibly Germany. That should be an industry we are driving internationally as both goods and services.

    But Government BOJO have not imo realised that we now need more than quite such pure free market beliefs.

    And it is not helped by BJ not being able to see more than 9cos(45) inches in front of his pelvis.
    Now that is an interesting pair of points (the first para I mean: the second is not new). I actually wonder how much reception oru free market PBers would get here now if they asserted that UK farmers should go to the wall and we shoudl import all our food more cheaply [sic] frrom e.g. Australia?
    Some of them already have ?
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 29,272
    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    Also, where’s this law that prevents us criticising Mrs Sunak? Is there legislation about this?

    She may be a private citizen but that doesn’t mean she is somehow sacred and immune. Private citizens get criticised all the time.

    Sunak is a fool. His wife is exceptionally avaricious

    I dont know about the last line, but he has made things much worse by getting uppity and outraged over this being looked into, when it can be legitimate to look into spousal interests. He and the government know that and the rules reflect that, so he looks shifty trying to deflect with outrage.
    Well, you'd think after his neighbour got caught out over 'rules not applying to him'.....
  • LeonLeon Posts: 30,379
    dixiedean said:

    I remember when the nimble PR skills of the Chancellor were glowingly contrasted with the blundering oaf in No.10.
    Just imagine if they had ditched him for PM Rishi in January.

    That’s a very good point. The Tories would now be dumping their second prime minister in a year. And be polling around 25%
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,456
    tlg86 said:

    @JamesShotter
    French president Macron has attacked Poland's PM Morawiecki for comparing his talks with Putin to negotiating with Hitler:

    "The Polish PM is a far-right anti-Semite, who bans LGBT people" he said, adding that Morawiecki wanted to help Le Pen pre-election


    https://twitter.com/JamesShotter/status/1512361292585226244

    Blimey. Macron getting nervous?
    He'll be fine. But a few days before the first round no doubt he's a little stressed, and the PM was being a dick. I'd have hit back at least Macron is a real leader, unlike Polands where the party leader is not President or PM.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,456

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    Also, where’s this law that prevents us criticising Mrs Sunak? Is there legislation about this?

    She may be a private citizen but that doesn’t mean she is somehow sacred and immune. Private citizens get criticised all the time.

    Sunak is a fool. His wife is exceptionally avaricious

    I dont know about the last line, but he has made things much worse by getting uppity and outraged over this being looked into, when it can be legitimate to look into spousal interests. He and the government know that and the rules reflect that, so he looks shifty trying to deflect with outrage.
    Well, you'd think after his neighbour got caught out over 'rules not applying to him'.....
    No one ever thinks it'll happen to them. You'd think they'd all make sure they were whiter than white on these issues, but they miss great big bear traps all the time.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 42,393

    Sandpit said:

    Carnyx said:

    TOPPING said:

    1. She is a non-Dom which is a perfectly legitimate category but which arouses some suspicion of tax dodging/one rule for them.
    2. She is very, very wealthy.
    3. She is married to the CotE.
    4. Does she owe tax in the UK according to the law? It's complicated.
    5. Is she legitmately a "non-Dom"? See Pt.1.

    If you put all those factors into a bowl and stir you come to the conclusion that it was a hugely idiotic move politically by Sunak to do anything other than have himself and his family pay as much tax as possible as might ever be suggested by the tax authorities.

    Complicated dividend payments held offshore? Nope. Non-dom status for your spouse? Nope. Even ISAs could be used against you, so ISAs? Nope.

    It was a political blunder.

    The really, really stoopid thing is that Rishi could have turned it into a positive: I publicly renounce capitalism and all its works (for a defined period while keeping all that lovely capital) just so I can serve our wonderful country.

    Amateur hour.
    Particularly after the example set by Boris Johnson - he arranged to pay full PAYE tax on his earning from the Telegraph column. Before the expenses scandal broke.

    He didn't announce it, either. Just waited until Ken Livingstone walked into the elephant trap he had dug.

    Cost BJ something like high 6 figures in extra tax over the years, probably.
    That implies he was organised enough in the first place. Butd he certainly took advantage of it.
    When writing for papers like that, everyone else in politics used a personal company, dividends, pay yourself minimum wage etc etc. Ken Livingstone did.

    This is why Ken Livingstone went on the attack with it, without checking the facts.

    To pay the extra tax like that took a special arrangement and a deliberate instruction to whoever did the taxes for Boris Johnson. Unless you think that BJ did his taxes himself, rather than using an accountant.
    It’s the other way around IMHO.

    The Telegraph asked him who to make the cheque out to, and he said he didn’t have a company so just make it to Boris Johnson. Then, at the end of the year his accountant looked up the payments and paid the tax bill on it - one hour of the accountant’s time.

    Actually setting up and running a company, with quarterly returns, payroll, VAT etc is way more complicated, and required deliberate actions.
    IIRC Private Eye did an investigation - BJ had previously used a personal company, including for work with the Telegraph. But had switched before getting the big weekly column thing.
    Ooh interesting. I wonder what were the reasons behind the change of approach, maybe when he got the full-time gig at the Spectator? Trying to remember the timelines here, but he was elected mayor in 2008.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 36,673

    Dura_Ace said:

    Foxy said:



    It is being investigated by the Ukranian military, unlike the transparent lies of the Russians. Understandable anger, but a war crime if true.

    Yeah, I'm sure they're investigating super very hard.

    PoWs have to be transported, fed, housed and secured. Some of the time that isn't possible so the choice is let them go or waste them.
    My guess is that these guys will get nailed - even if it is just for politics.

    Breaker Morant and all that.
    Yes, and a great film that was. Its unusual to have as the centre confessed war criminals depicted favourably.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,456

    The thing about Rishi’s green card is that he was a minister since 2018 and at the Treasury since July 2019, so people must have known about it since then at least.

    He walked into the Treasury wearing a political suicide bomb.

    He’s either really dumb and/or arrogant.

    Arrogance is a useful characteristic for aspiring politicians, makes them confident, decisive and ambitious, so it is incredibly common. But at least sometimes they get their comeuppance.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,704

    Carnyx said:

    TOPPING said:

    1. She is a non-Dom which is a perfectly legitimate category but which arouses some suspicion of tax dodging/one rule for them.
    2. She is very, very wealthy.
    3. She is married to the CotE.
    4. Does she owe tax in the UK according to the law? It's complicated.
    5. Is she legitmately a "non-Dom"? See Pt.1.

    If you put all those factors into a bowl and stir you come to the conclusion that it was a hugely idiotic move politically by Sunak to do anything other than have himself and his family pay as much tax as possible as might ever be suggested by the tax authorities.

    Complicated dividend payments held offshore? Nope. Non-dom status for your spouse? Nope. Even ISAs could be used against you, so ISAs? Nope.

    It was a political blunder.

    The really, really stoopid thing is that Rishi could have turned it into a positive: I publicly renounce capitalism and all its works (for a defined period while keeping all that lovely capital) just so I can serve our wonderful country.

    Amateur hour.
    Particularly after the example set by Boris Johnson - he arranged to pay full PAYE tax on his earning from the Telegraph column. Before the expenses scandal broke.

    He didn't announce it, either. Just waited until Ken Livingstone walked into the elephant trap he had dug.

    Cost BJ something like high 6 figures in extra tax over the years, probably.
    That implies he was organised enough in the first place. Butd he certainly took advantage of it.
    Did doing so affect the amount he had to pay however many ex-wives etc at that point?
    It's all odd - he was properly organised before that if Malmesbury's memory is correct re the PE investigation. But after that he had less to pay out to the lady/ies. But who can understand Conservative logic on paying tax?
  • ApplicantApplicant Posts: 3,379
    Leon said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Leon said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Twitter is *very* excited over green card. Sunak retained his for a year while a Treasury minister

    I think this could tip him into resigning rather than hanging on in office but not in power

    Why is the green card thing so damaging, potentially?

    Genuine Q. I have no idea of what obligations or problems might come with it
    You have to state you intend to reside permanently in USA which makes Sunak's allegiance to UK look dodgy and makes Mrs S look like she must have been lying to at least one of UK and US

    You pay all your tax (excluding PAYE I assume?) to USA whether you live there or not. No idea how this works in practice but I have a well off friend who is accidentally USA citizen (born there, doesn't go there any more than I do) who basically sets aside a full week per year getting her US tax return right.
    Thanks

    Quite complicated tho. To me it seems less damaging than the basic immorality of Mrs S’s legal tax avoidance, when her husband is taxing us all til our nipples squeak

    Everyone can see and understand greed

    Yeah, but the green card is Sunak and Mrs Sunak is not Sunak...
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 46,853
    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    Also, where’s this law that prevents us criticising Mrs Sunak? Is there legislation about this?

    She may be a private citizen but that doesn’t mean she is somehow sacred and immune. Private citizens get criticised all the time.

    Sunak is a fool. His wife is exceptionally avaricious

    I dont know about the last line, but he has made things much worse by getting uppity and outraged over this being looked into, when it can be legitimate to look into spousal interests. He and the government know that and the rules reflect that, so he looks shifty trying to deflect with outrage.
    That was the point I made earlier about full prior disclosure.

    It's a declarable interest, so why didn't he publicly give it the full light of day treatment when first appointed to cabinet ? It's not as though it was a secret that his father in law is one of India's richest men.
    And his wife wishing to retain her Indian citizenship (which by definition means no UK citizenship) could have spun it back then.

    This is a man who has clearly spent a lot of money on his personal PR while Chancellor, so he's not a naive innocent.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 9,007
    edited April 2022

    No leadership election any time soon now I guess.

    Why not? Boris might have miscalculated by castrating the Chancellor, because it will encourage all those who want rid of Boris but who did not want Rishi either.

    A leadership election now might be the best opportunity for the various second-tier candidates like Hunt, Mordaunt, Wallace and anyone else who fancies a go. They gain nothing from waiting for a new heir apparent to rock up, because it almost certainly won't be them.

    One of the political betting posts of the year I think from John. The demise of heir apparent rather than help save Big Dog, now throws Boris into position of maximum jeopardy.

    John is absolutely right, if you were a Harper or Tugendhat why kick it off to see Rishi get it, now anyone get replace Boris. There couldn’t be a more perfect moment for ERG to stand best chance of getting their choice to replace Boris. And the moderate wing must think the same!

    This is plunging Boris into trouble.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,704
    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    Also, where’s this law that prevents us criticising Mrs Sunak? Is there legislation about this?

    She may be a private citizen but that doesn’t mean she is somehow sacred and immune. Private citizens get criticised all the time.

    Sunak is a fool. His wife is exceptionally avaricious

    I dont know about the last line, but he has made things much worse by getting uppity and outraged over this being looked into, when it can be legitimate to look into spousal interests. He and the government know that and the rules reflect that, so he looks shifty trying to deflect with outrage.
    Well, you'd think after his neighbour got caught out over 'rules not applying to him'.....
    No one ever thinks it'll happen to them. You'd think they'd all make sure they were whiter than white on these issues, but they miss great big bear traps all the time.
    I think it's more that the rules are so pathetic they leave great holes in the road.

    That wimpishness, in the case of the HoC expenses rules, was what was the case with the expenses scandal in Parliament, and that also caught out certain Unionist MPs moving to Holyrood to be MSPs, where the expenses rules were stricter from the start.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 29,272
    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    TOPPING said:

    1. She is a non-Dom which is a perfectly legitimate category but which arouses some suspicion of tax dodging/one rule for them.
    2. She is very, very wealthy.
    3. She is married to the CotE.
    4. Does she owe tax in the UK according to the law? It's complicated.
    5. Is she legitmately a "non-Dom"? See Pt.1.

    If you put all those factors into a bowl and stir you come to the conclusion that it was a hugely idiotic move politically by Sunak to do anything other than have himself and his family pay as much tax as possible as might ever be suggested by the tax authorities.

    Complicated dividend payments held offshore? Nope. Non-dom status for your spouse? Nope. Even ISAs could be used against you, so ISAs? Nope.

    It was a political blunder.

    The really, really stoopid thing is that Rishi could have turned it into a positive: I publicly renounce capitalism and all its works (for a defined period while keeping all that lovely capital) just so I can serve our wonderful country.

    Amateur hour.
    Particularly after the example set by Boris Johnson - he arranged to pay full PAYE tax on his earning from the Telegraph column. Before the expenses scandal broke.

    He didn't announce it, either. Just waited until Ken Livingstone walked into the elephant trap he had dug.

    Cost BJ something like high 6 figures in extra tax over the years, probably.
    That implies he was organised enough in the first place. Butd he certainly took advantage of it.
    Did doing so affect the amount he had to pay however many ex-wives etc at that point?
    It's all odd - he was properly organised before that if Malmesbury's memory is correct re the PE investigation. But after that he had less to pay out to the lady/ies. But who can understand Conservative logic on paying tax?
    If he was working for the Spectator, would he have had the advantage of their financial and legal departments?
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 43,283
    tlg86 said:

    @JamesShotter
    French president Macron has attacked Poland's PM Morawiecki for comparing his talks with Putin to negotiating with Hitler:

    "The Polish PM is a far-right anti-Semite, who bans LGBT people" he said, adding that Morawiecki wanted to help Le Pen pre-election


    https://twitter.com/JamesShotter/status/1512361292585226244

    Blimey. Macron getting nervous?
    It strikes me as politically stupid for him to associate Le Pen with the EU leader who's doing the most for Ukraine.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 55,103

    ido vock
    @idvck
    ·
    41m
    EXCLUSIVE: Macron on 51 per cent to Le Pen's 49 per cent in the second round of voting for the French president, new poll shows.


    https://twitter.com/idvck/status/1512372475056775170
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,704
    Nigelb said:

    Carnyx said:

    MattW said:

    Carnyx said:

    MattW said:

    MattW said:

    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:

    ..

    The Tory talent cabinet is absolutely bare. There is nothing there. This government cannot offer ideas, vision or competence; or much hope. Johnson is the best it has. That’s how bad it is.

    I think that's slightly unfair, since politics is being events-driven at the moment. Covid, the war in Ukraine and the resultant economic woes leaves precious little room for new ideas or vision. The government has to concentrate on sailing these choppy seas.

    And you know what? It hasn't done too badly on Covid, and has been very good with the war in Ukraine.

    As for hope: that depends on the individual. I don't see Starmer singing "Things can only get better," either. He is an utterly uninspiring individual. I'll still probably vote for him over Johnson, though. (local candidates notwithstanding).
    Has Johnson done well in dealing with these shocks?

    On Covid he did well on vaccines, very badly on everything else; overall mediocre compared with West European peers. Mixed bag

    Ukraine: done well on early supply of weapons, and general enthusiasm for the Ukrainian cause. Poor on refugees. Pass.

    Brexit: he helped create the problem in the first place and has mishandled the implementation since. Fail.

    Cost of living. Complete failure to deal with this issue, exacerbated by Brexit and poor handling of the economic consequences of Covid. Missed chance to do something in the Spring Statement. Other countries struggle with this issue too but their failure isn't quite so total.

    Overall 1½ out of 4
    "On Covid he did well on vaccines, very badly on everything else; overall mediocre compared with West European peers. Mixed bag"

    That's rubbish. As an example we did superbly on genomics - and the fact you choose to ignore that is telling.

    One of the interesting things about the Covid crisis was seeing fools almost salivating over the daily death figures, proclaiming how bad we were. It's a weird form of exceptionalism: people who like to think that we're uniquely bad.
    Johnson wasn't doing the genomics. That's why I left it out of my assessment of his performance. I think we can assume the genomics would have been done equally well if any other prime minister was in charge. I don't salivate over daily death figures, nor do I think the UK is uniquely bad, as is clear from my comment.
    I think you have missed a few things out on both sides.

    eg on the one hand there is various things done putting vaccine infrastructure in place, and BJ largely being kept in his toybox, and much excellent work on green energy which has been continued.

    On the other for example, the national green strategy published the other day has some holes, and the national vaccine centre has just been sold off, which is unforgiveable imo.
    Catalent is a very good operator though.

    I’ve not seen the terms of the transaction but the UK government cares about capacity and pandemic preparedness not about operating a facility

    If the government has;

    - got its capital invested back
    - Has operating, employment and investment commitments from Catalent
    - Has first priority over capacity on the event of a future pandemic
    - Has done kind of golden share to prevent on sale

    Then arguably it’s a very good deal. It’s better for us to have an operating facility bringing money into the country and ensuring a pool of trained staff rather than just a mothballed facility gathering dust in case we ever need it in future
    They may be a good operator, but for me this needs to be about a national resource, and does not belong in the commercial sector as a subunit of a multinational.

    The organisation had the potential to further develop the non-profit strategy of AZ during the pandemic, and encourage the development of local vaccine industries worldwide - which is one of the great things done during the pandemic. Compare with the strategy of the large majority of advanced countries who have tried to land-grab for their local industries.

    It would be best positioned either in the commerce-related part of academe, as a Govt-owned laboratory funded as part of science and also overseas development, or perhaps owned by an organisation such as the Wellcome Trust.

    Those important possibilities have now been snuffed out for a bit of cash.
    Absolutely right. An appropriatde model might be the Royal Ordnance Factories of the 1930s onwards. Some were kept on postwar in state ownership for obvious reasons of ensuring a production basis for future wars.
    I'd add that imo this is a necessary part of rebuilding networks after Brexit, and an important part (borrowing Macron's line) of UK strategic autonomy. I'd make a similar point about offshore wind - we are streets ahead of anyone else on implementation amongst developed countries except Denmark and possibly Germany. That should be an industry we are driving internationally as both goods and services.

    But Government BOJO have not imo realised that we now need more than quite such pure free market beliefs.

    And it is not helped by BJ not being able to see more than 9cos(45) inches in front of his pelvis.
    Now that is an interesting pair of points (the first para I mean: the second is not new). I actually wonder how much reception oru free market PBers would get here now if they asserted that UK farmers should go to the wall and we shoudl import all our food more cheaply [sic] frrom e.g. Australia?
    Some of them already have ?
    They have; quite right; I should have said 'again'.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 106,927
    edited April 2022


    ido vock
    @idvck
    ·
    41m
    EXCLUSIVE: Macron on 51 per cent to Le Pen's 49 per cent in the second round of voting for the French president, new poll shows.


    https://twitter.com/idvck/status/1512372475056775170

    Close. Melenchon voters now splitting almost equally between Macron and Le Pen of those who will vote in the runoff.

    Macron gets 58% against Melenchon, 65% against Zemmour and 67% against Pecresse however.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    IshmaelZ said:

    Leon said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Twitter is *very* excited over green card. Sunak retained his for a year while a Treasury minister

    I think this could tip him into resigning rather than hanging on in office but not in power

    Why is the green card thing so damaging, potentially?

    Genuine Q. I have no idea of what obligations or problems might come with it
    You have to state you intend to reside permanently in USA which makes Sunak's allegiance to UK look dodgy and makes Mrs S look like she must have been lying to at least one of UK and US

    You pay all your tax (excluding PAYE I assume?) to USA whether you live there or not. No idea how this works in practice but I have a well off friend who is accidentally USA citizen (born there, doesn't go there any more than I do) who basically sets aside a full week per year getting her US tax return right.
    On reflection this is probably bollocks. You def have to file a return with IRS if you are a US citizen and I think if you have a green card (which isn't citizenship) but I imagine if you live ouside US you pay taxes elsewhere and they sweep up what's left
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,704

    Carnyx said:

    TOPPING said:

    1. She is a non-Dom which is a perfectly legitimate category but which arouses some suspicion of tax dodging/one rule for them.
    2. She is very, very wealthy.
    3. She is married to the CotE.
    4. Does she owe tax in the UK according to the law? It's complicated.
    5. Is she legitmately a "non-Dom"? See Pt.1.

    If you put all those factors into a bowl and stir you come to the conclusion that it was a hugely idiotic move politically by Sunak to do anything other than have himself and his family pay as much tax as possible as might ever be suggested by the tax authorities.

    Complicated dividend payments held offshore? Nope. Non-dom status for your spouse? Nope. Even ISAs could be used against you, so ISAs? Nope.

    It was a political blunder.

    The really, really stoopid thing is that Rishi could have turned it into a positive: I publicly renounce capitalism and all its works (for a defined period while keeping all that lovely capital) just so I can serve our wonderful country.

    Amateur hour.
    Particularly after the example set by Boris Johnson - he arranged to pay full PAYE tax on his earning from the Telegraph column. Before the expenses scandal broke.

    He didn't announce it, either. Just waited until Ken Livingstone walked into the elephant trap he had dug.

    Cost BJ something like high 6 figures in extra tax over the years, probably.
    That implies he was organised enough in the first place. Butd he certainly took advantage of it.
    When writing for papers like that, everyone else in politics used a personal company, dividends, pay yourself minimum wage etc etc. Ken Livingstone did.

    This is why Ken Livingstone went on the attack with it, without checking the facts.

    To pay the extra tax like that took a special arrangement and a deliberate instruction to whoever did the taxes for Boris Johnson. Unless you think that BJ did his taxes himself, rather than using an accountant.

    EDIT: IIRC from the Private Eye investigation into all this, BJ was using a personal company before he got the big column thing from the Telegraph. He *switched over* to full PAYE style tax about 6 months before the expenses scandal came out, and years before the Mayoral election.
    Hmm. The expenses scandal was the DT, wasn't it?
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,566
    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Leon said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Twitter is *very* excited over green card. Sunak retained his for a year while a Treasury minister

    I think this could tip him into resigning rather than hanging on in office but not in power

    Why is the green card thing so damaging, potentially?

    Genuine Q. I have no idea of what obligations or problems might come with it
    You have to state you intend to reside permanently in USA which makes Sunak's allegiance to UK look dodgy and makes Mrs S look like she must have been lying to at least one of UK and US

    You pay all your tax (excluding PAYE I assume?) to USA whether you live there or not. No idea how this works in practice but I have a well off friend who is accidentally USA citizen (born there, doesn't go there any more than I do) who basically sets aside a full week per year getting her US tax return right.
    On reflection this is probably bollocks. You def have to file a return with IRS if you are a US citizen and I think if you have a green card (which isn't citizenship) but I imagine if you live ouside US you pay taxes elsewhere and they sweep up what's left
    It would be covered by the double-taxation treaty, so you can offset your UK tax against any US tax. Basically you pay the higher of the two in any given category.

    The problem of course is the administrative nightmare. US tax returns are horrendous!
  • Foxy said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    TOPPING said:

    1. She is a non-Dom which is a perfectly legitimate category but which arouses some suspicion of tax dodging/one rule for them.
    2. She is very, very wealthy.
    3. She is married to the CotE.
    4. Does she owe tax in the UK according to the law? It's complicated.
    5. Is she legitmately a "non-Dom"? See Pt.1.

    If you put all those factors into a bowl and stir you come to the conclusion that it was a hugely idiotic move politically by Sunak to do anything other than have himself and his family pay as much tax as possible as might ever be suggested by the tax authorities.

    Complicated dividend payments held offshore? Nope. Non-dom status for your spouse? Nope. Even ISAs could be used against you, so ISAs? Nope.

    It was a political blunder.

    Yes, exactly. His wife is blameless, provided her claim to non-dom status stands up, but Rishi is toast. It's over (in fact, it probably already was anyway).

    It's not even just the tax aspect, although as we're seeing that's not going down well. It's also the question about his long-term commitment to the UK.
    Apologies if you did answer this last night, but do you think it was wrong to have Mark Carney as governor of the Bank of England?
    No, it wasn't wrong. He was hired for a specific term (later extended), for his expertise, and around the world it's not actually that uncommon for foreign citizens to be appointed to such posts. There was never any suggestion that he was moving here permanently. That's not the same as a politician seeking to become PM, and voters won't see it as the same.
    I disagree. People can have allegiances to more than one country. It really wouldn't bother me if he followed his wife to India in 10 years time or whatever (or if, more importantly, he refused to rule out moving there in the future).
    I do think it shows the difference between the Brexiteer elite, like Sunak, who see it as a liberating freedom for their money to move around the world, taxed lightly if at all, and the culturally Conservative working class Brexiteers who want to protect a way of life. The discordant between these two can develop into quite a chasm, and the Tories need to choose a side.
    Ultimately, they will need to choose a side.

    But the recent success of the Conservative party has been underpinned by not choosing a side- you can call it cakeism, or the more respectable "and" theory of Conservatism (smugly contrasted with the way that humourless lefties expel anyone who departs from the orthodox path in any way).

    As the good book says, a man cannot serve two masters.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 16,522


    ido vock
    @idvck
    ·
    41m
    EXCLUSIVE: Macron on 51 per cent to Le Pen's 49 per cent in the second round of voting for the French president, new poll shows.


    https://twitter.com/idvck/status/1512372475056775170

    Ok cool so Ukraine are going to win the war but it's going to cause regime change everywhere except Hungary and Russia.

    File under Things I Would Not Have Predicted In February.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 16,232

    Foxy said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    TOPPING said:

    1. She is a non-Dom which is a perfectly legitimate category but which arouses some suspicion of tax dodging/one rule for them.
    2. She is very, very wealthy.
    3. She is married to the CotE.
    4. Does she owe tax in the UK according to the law? It's complicated.
    5. Is she legitmately a "non-Dom"? See Pt.1.

    If you put all those factors into a bowl and stir you come to the conclusion that it was a hugely idiotic move politically by Sunak to do anything other than have himself and his family pay as much tax as possible as might ever be suggested by the tax authorities.

    Complicated dividend payments held offshore? Nope. Non-dom status for your spouse? Nope. Even ISAs could be used against you, so ISAs? Nope.

    It was a political blunder.

    Yes, exactly. His wife is blameless, provided her claim to non-dom status stands up, but Rishi is toast. It's over (in fact, it probably already was anyway).

    It's not even just the tax aspect, although as we're seeing that's not going down well. It's also the question about his long-term commitment to the UK.
    Apologies if you did answer this last night, but do you think it was wrong to have Mark Carney as governor of the Bank of England?
    No, it wasn't wrong. He was hired for a specific term (later extended), for his expertise, and around the world it's not actually that uncommon for foreign citizens to be appointed to such posts. There was never any suggestion that he was moving here permanently. That's not the same as a politician seeking to become PM, and voters won't see it as the same.
    I disagree. People can have allegiances to more than one country. It really wouldn't bother me if he followed his wife to India in 10 years time or whatever (or if, more importantly, he refused to rule out moving there in the future).
    I do think it shows the difference between the Brexiteer elite, like Sunak, who see it as a liberating freedom for their money to move around the world, taxed lightly if at all, and the culturally Conservative working class Brexiteers who want to protect a way of life. The discordant between these two can develop into quite a chasm, and the Tories need to choose a side.
    Ultimately, they will need to choose a side.

    But the recent success of the Conservative party has been underpinned by not choosing a side- you can call it cakeism, or the more respectable "and" theory of Conservatism (smugly contrasted with the way that humourless lefties expel anyone who departs from the orthodox path in any way).

    As the good book says, a man cannot serve two masters.
    They have chosen, the donor elite get liberated freedom and the hoi polloi get flags and trans protection.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 31,817
    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    TOPPING said:

    1. She is a non-Dom which is a perfectly legitimate category but which arouses some suspicion of tax dodging/one rule for them.
    2. She is very, very wealthy.
    3. She is married to the CotE.
    4. Does she owe tax in the UK according to the law? It's complicated.
    5. Is she legitmately a "non-Dom"? See Pt.1.

    If you put all those factors into a bowl and stir you come to the conclusion that it was a hugely idiotic move politically by Sunak to do anything other than have himself and his family pay as much tax as possible as might ever be suggested by the tax authorities.

    Complicated dividend payments held offshore? Nope. Non-dom status for your spouse? Nope. Even ISAs could be used against you, so ISAs? Nope.

    It was a political blunder.

    The really, really stoopid thing is that Rishi could have turned it into a positive: I publicly renounce capitalism and all its works (for a defined period while keeping all that lovely capital) just so I can serve our wonderful country.

    Amateur hour.
    Particularly after the example set by Boris Johnson - he arranged to pay full PAYE tax on his earning from the Telegraph column. Before the expenses scandal broke.

    He didn't announce it, either. Just waited until Ken Livingstone walked into the elephant trap he had dug.

    Cost BJ something like high 6 figures in extra tax over the years, probably.
    That implies he was organised enough in the first place. Butd he certainly took advantage of it.
    When writing for papers like that, everyone else in politics used a personal company, dividends, pay yourself minimum wage etc etc. Ken Livingstone did.

    This is why Ken Livingstone went on the attack with it, without checking the facts.

    To pay the extra tax like that took a special arrangement and a deliberate instruction to whoever did the taxes for Boris Johnson. Unless you think that BJ did his taxes himself, rather than using an accountant.

    EDIT: IIRC from the Private Eye investigation into all this, BJ was using a personal company before he got the big column thing from the Telegraph. He *switched over* to full PAYE style tax about 6 months before the expenses scandal came out, and years before the Mayoral election.
    Hmm. The expenses scandal was the DT, wasn't it?
    Printed in the DT - the Guardian wanted the right to "edit out" politicians it wanted to protect. The guy leaking the info demanded full disclosure.

    The six months running up to the scandal, there had been various things about MPs expenses, and general financial behaviour. The expenses scandal was just about expenses, remember, not about earnings outside parliament.

    All the other politicians stayed on the personal company setup - which is why they don't criticise people for using it. Unless they are desperate and bit stupid, like Ken.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Applicant said:

    Leon said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Leon said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Twitter is *very* excited over green card. Sunak retained his for a year while a Treasury minister

    I think this could tip him into resigning rather than hanging on in office but not in power

    Why is the green card thing so damaging, potentially?

    Genuine Q. I have no idea of what obligations or problems might come with it
    You have to state you intend to reside permanently in USA which makes Sunak's allegiance to UK look dodgy and makes Mrs S look like she must have been lying to at least one of UK and US

    You pay all your tax (excluding PAYE I assume?) to USA whether you live there or not. No idea how this works in practice but I have a well off friend who is accidentally USA citizen (born there, doesn't go there any more than I do) who basically sets aside a full week per year getting her US tax return right.
    Thanks

    Quite complicated tho. To me it seems less damaging than the basic immorality of Mrs S’s legal tax avoidance, when her husband is taxing us all til our nipples squeak

    Everyone can see and understand greed

    Yeah, but the green card is Sunak and Mrs Sunak is not Sunak...
    Jesus

    It is both of them.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 55,103
    HYUFD said:


    ido vock
    @idvck
    ·
    41m
    EXCLUSIVE: Macron on 51 per cent to Le Pen's 49 per cent in the second round of voting for the French president, new poll shows.


    https://twitter.com/idvck/status/1512372475056775170

    Close. Melenchon voters now splitting almost equally between Macron and Le Pen of those who will vote in the runoff.

    Macron gets 58% against Melenchon, 65% against Zemmour and 67% against Pecresse however.
    So hard left voters would vote for an alt-right, anti-migrant nationalist when it comes down to it.

    I guess I shouldn't surprised.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 8,278
    Sandpit said:

    Carnyx said:

    TOPPING said:

    1. She is a non-Dom which is a perfectly legitimate category but which arouses some suspicion of tax dodging/one rule for them.
    2. She is very, very wealthy.
    3. She is married to the CotE.
    4. Does she owe tax in the UK according to the law? It's complicated.
    5. Is she legitmately a "non-Dom"? See Pt.1.

    If you put all those factors into a bowl and stir you come to the conclusion that it was a hugely idiotic move politically by Sunak to do anything other than have himself and his family pay as much tax as possible as might ever be suggested by the tax authorities.

    Complicated dividend payments held offshore? Nope. Non-dom status for your spouse? Nope. Even ISAs could be used against you, so ISAs? Nope.

    It was a political blunder.

    The really, really stoopid thing is that Rishi could have turned it into a positive: I publicly renounce capitalism and all its works (for a defined period while keeping all that lovely capital) just so I can serve our wonderful country.

    Amateur hour.
    Particularly after the example set by Boris Johnson - he arranged to pay full PAYE tax on his earning from the Telegraph column. Before the expenses scandal broke.

    He didn't announce it, either. Just waited until Ken Livingstone walked into the elephant trap he had dug.

    Cost BJ something like high 6 figures in extra tax over the years, probably.
    That implies he was organised enough in the first place. Butd he certainly took advantage of it.
    When writing for papers like that, everyone else in politics used a personal company, dividends, pay yourself minimum wage etc etc. Ken Livingstone did.

    This is why Ken Livingstone went on the attack with it, without checking the facts.

    To pay the extra tax like that took a special arrangement and a deliberate instruction to whoever did the taxes for Boris Johnson. Unless you think that BJ did his taxes himself, rather than using an accountant.
    It’s the other way around IMHO.

    The Telegraph asked him who to make the cheque out to, and he said he didn’t have a company so just make it to Boris Johnson. Then, at the end of the year his accountant looked up the payments and paid the tax bill on it - one hour of the accountant’s time.

    Actually setting up and running a company, with quarterly returns, payroll, VAT etc is way more complicated, and required deliberate actions - although I’m sure the accountant would have suggested it!
    I agree. I am surprised Boris didn't set up a company and credit to him for not doing so. Although the savings aren't as huge as people think re setting up a company, particularly if the earnings are high and he needed the funds so would have taken them rather than keeping them in the company. It is comparing Income tax on earnings and NI to corporation tax and tax on dividends. Obviously having a company does allow you to manipulate when the dividend tax is paid, but that wouldn't apply if he needed the money.

    I didn't know Boris had done this and I am surprised. Dying to know if he was being a good egg or just bumbled his way into PAYE.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 9,007
    edited April 2022
    Roger said:

    MattW said:

    Can you catch covid from farts?

    Been there; done that.

    TL:DR - the other person wearing pants/panties helps you not catch it.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7716952/

    A recent study has also suggested post-flush toilet plume to be a potential route of transmission through ‘aerosolized feces’. Another aspect of probable transmission could be through flatulence by infected patients, although no such published data has been found. But, according to several existing investigations, farts do have the tendency to carry micro-particles which have the capacity to spread bacteria (55). However, additional research is still warranted to estimate the intensity of such infections; presence of undergarments/ clothing would however, lower the risk of transmission through this passage. The same was claimed by the Chinese Centres of Disease Control and Prevention that pants do act as a hindrance in the transmission of disease via flatulence that contains the SARS-CoV-2 virus (56).
    Flipping eck. I had £25 on no. I was about to post some people are thick and ask for my money, but it looks like I have lost.

    You can catch covid from farts 🤭 But bum masks help to some degree.

    They need to stick naked mice farting on each other and bum pant mice farting on each other in bowl for more info.
    I read your post about your father's thoughts on Rishi. A man grounded in the Nothern heartlands who thought Rishis budget would prove to be a masterstroke and the Tories were now the serious party on their way up....

    My reputation as the worst tipster on here was hard earned but I have to admit you're giving me a good run for my money
    Cheeky. 🙂

    My first opinion was the budget was thst it was bad, and being a Libdem parroted it was awful. But having it explained by my Dad I changed my mind and stand by it.

    This is where you are wrong Roger. It wasn’t that populist. It was economically literate not to splash the cash at this stage, inflationary period, but sit on the money to use in expected low growth period.

    What would you as CoE Roger have done that was more fiscally literate at this moment in time? Non of the opposition parties suggested anything that would have been recieved much better rightnow, and blowing more money now to add to inflation and not keep it to use if growth stops would have been dummer. Do you concede this argument now and retract your rude post?
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 7,640

    tlg86 said:

    @JamesShotter
    French president Macron has attacked Poland's PM Morawiecki for comparing his talks with Putin to negotiating with Hitler:

    "The Polish PM is a far-right anti-Semite, who bans LGBT people" he said, adding that Morawiecki wanted to help Le Pen pre-election


    https://twitter.com/JamesShotter/status/1512361292585226244

    Blimey. Macron getting nervous?
    It strikes me as politically stupid for him to associate Le Pen with the EU leader who's doing the most for Ukraine.
    But he's right about the antisemitism. Poland's support for Ukraine doesn't make Morawiecki a nice person.
  • Foxy said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    TOPPING said:

    1. She is a non-Dom which is a perfectly legitimate category but which arouses some suspicion of tax dodging/one rule for them.
    2. She is very, very wealthy.
    3. She is married to the CotE.
    4. Does she owe tax in the UK according to the law? It's complicated.
    5. Is she legitmately a "non-Dom"? See Pt.1.

    If you put all those factors into a bowl and stir you come to the conclusion that it was a hugely idiotic move politically by Sunak to do anything other than have himself and his family pay as much tax as possible as might ever be suggested by the tax authorities.

    Complicated dividend payments held offshore? Nope. Non-dom status for your spouse? Nope. Even ISAs could be used against you, so ISAs? Nope.

    It was a political blunder.

    Yes, exactly. His wife is blameless, provided her claim to non-dom status stands up, but Rishi is toast. It's over (in fact, it probably already was anyway).

    It's not even just the tax aspect, although as we're seeing that's not going down well. It's also the question about his long-term commitment to the UK.
    Apologies if you did answer this last night, but do you think it was wrong to have Mark Carney as governor of the Bank of England?
    No, it wasn't wrong. He was hired for a specific term (later extended), for his expertise, and around the world it's not actually that uncommon for foreign citizens to be appointed to such posts. There was never any suggestion that he was moving here permanently. That's not the same as a politician seeking to become PM, and voters won't see it as the same.
    I disagree. People can have allegiances to more than one country. It really wouldn't bother me if he followed his wife to India in 10 years time or whatever (or if, more importantly, he refused to rule out moving there in the future).
    I do think it shows the difference between the Brexiteer elite, like Sunak, who see it as a liberating freedom for their money to move around the world, taxed lightly if at all, and the culturally Conservative working class Brexiteers who want to protect a way of life. The discordant between these two can develop into quite a chasm, and the Tories need to choose a side.
    Ultimately, they will need to choose a side.

    But the recent success of the Conservative party has been underpinned by not choosing a side- you can call it cakeism, or the more respectable "and" theory of Conservatism (smugly contrasted with the way that humourless lefties expel anyone who departs from the orthodox path in any way).

    As the good book says, a man cannot serve two masters.
    They have chosen, the donor elite get liberated freedom and the hoi polloi get flags and trans protection.
    I'm sure that was the plan. And it's a plan that works for the US Republicans. But it only works for them because of the way the country and electoral system are set up.

    You need bread and circuses, after all- not just circuses.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 36,578

    @JamesShotter
    French president Macron has attacked Poland's PM Morawiecki for comparing his talks with Putin to negotiating with Hitler:

    "The Polish PM is a far-right anti-Semite, who bans LGBT people" he said, adding that Morawiecki wanted to help Le Pen pre-election


    https://twitter.com/JamesShotter/status/1512361292585226244

    The truth hurts, sometimes.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 25,188
    edited April 2022
    Dura_Ace said:

    dixiedean said:

    Was musing on the Chancellor's PR bid for Number 10.
    Then the builder's radio began to play "Common People".
    And I need give it no more thought.
    'Cos he'll never get it right.

    She came from Stanford with a thirst for money.
    She dodged her taxes until it wasn't funny.
    That's where I
    Caught her eye
    She told me that her dad was loaded
    I said well in that case I'm addicted to Coca Cola
    And then in thirty seconds time
    She said, I wanna live in California
    I wanna do whatever Californians do
    Fill a car for a photo op.
    Cut your dole if you've got no job.
    Raise your tax be very cruel
    Write a cheque to a Public School.
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 2,615
    Not sure I agree with the New Statesman view of the French election .

    Le Pen in the second round will no longer have the comparison with Zemmour to make her look more moderate . Melenchons voters include a large proportion of minorities. In 2017 he took 34% of the Muslim vote ahead of Macron , it’s inconceivable that these won’t break heavily for Macron in the second round .

    Rather than Macron being at the ceiling of his crossover voters it’s Le Pen who has maxed this out .

    She has had the luxury of a crowded field of candidates in the 1st round with less attention paid to her previous voter alienating positions . In the 2nd round this won’t be the case .


  • kjhkjh Posts: 8,278
    edited April 2022

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Leon said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Twitter is *very* excited over green card. Sunak retained his for a year while a Treasury minister

    I think this could tip him into resigning rather than hanging on in office but not in power

    Why is the green card thing so damaging, potentially?

    Genuine Q. I have no idea of what obligations or problems might come with it
    You have to state you intend to reside permanently in USA which makes Sunak's allegiance to UK look dodgy and makes Mrs S look like she must have been lying to at least one of UK and US

    You pay all your tax (excluding PAYE I assume?) to USA whether you live there or not. No idea how this works in practice but I have a well off friend who is accidentally USA citizen (born there, doesn't go there any more than I do) who basically sets aside a full week per year getting her US tax return right.
    On reflection this is probably bollocks. You def have to file a return with IRS if you are a US citizen and I think if you have a green card (which isn't citizenship) but I imagine if you live ouside US you pay taxes elsewhere and they sweep up what's left
    It would be covered by the double-taxation treaty, so you can offset your UK tax against any US tax. Basically you pay the higher of the two in any given category.

    The problem of course is the administrative nightmare. US tax returns are horrendous!
    Both today and yesterday I have tried to explain the double taxation treaty situation following posts by people thinking that you will pay all your tax twice or deprive India (in the examples I have answered) of their tax. I have to do this every year with Spanish and Swiss income. I appear to be wasting my time because the same stuff keeps appearing.

    Edit - Sorry just to make clear that wasn't a criticism of @IshmaelZ. Sorry if it came across as such.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 31,817
    kjh said:

    Sandpit said:

    Carnyx said:

    TOPPING said:

    1. She is a non-Dom which is a perfectly legitimate category but which arouses some suspicion of tax dodging/one rule for them.
    2. She is very, very wealthy.
    3. She is married to the CotE.
    4. Does she owe tax in the UK according to the law? It's complicated.
    5. Is she legitmately a "non-Dom"? See Pt.1.

    If you put all those factors into a bowl and stir you come to the conclusion that it was a hugely idiotic move politically by Sunak to do anything other than have himself and his family pay as much tax as possible as might ever be suggested by the tax authorities.

    Complicated dividend payments held offshore? Nope. Non-dom status for your spouse? Nope. Even ISAs could be used against you, so ISAs? Nope.

    It was a political blunder.

    The really, really stoopid thing is that Rishi could have turned it into a positive: I publicly renounce capitalism and all its works (for a defined period while keeping all that lovely capital) just so I can serve our wonderful country.

    Amateur hour.
    Particularly after the example set by Boris Johnson - he arranged to pay full PAYE tax on his earning from the Telegraph column. Before the expenses scandal broke.

    He didn't announce it, either. Just waited until Ken Livingstone walked into the elephant trap he had dug.

    Cost BJ something like high 6 figures in extra tax over the years, probably.
    That implies he was organised enough in the first place. Butd he certainly took advantage of it.
    When writing for papers like that, everyone else in politics used a personal company, dividends, pay yourself minimum wage etc etc. Ken Livingstone did.

    This is why Ken Livingstone went on the attack with it, without checking the facts.

    To pay the extra tax like that took a special arrangement and a deliberate instruction to whoever did the taxes for Boris Johnson. Unless you think that BJ did his taxes himself, rather than using an accountant.
    It’s the other way around IMHO.

    The Telegraph asked him who to make the cheque out to, and he said he didn’t have a company so just make it to Boris Johnson. Then, at the end of the year his accountant looked up the payments and paid the tax bill on it - one hour of the accountant’s time.

    Actually setting up and running a company, with quarterly returns, payroll, VAT etc is way more complicated, and required deliberate actions - although I’m sure the accountant would have suggested it!
    I agree. I am surprised Boris didn't set up a company and credit to him for not doing so. Although the savings aren't as huge as people think re setting up a company, particularly if the earnings are high and he needed the funds so would have taken them rather than keeping them in the company. It is comparing Income tax on earnings and NI to corporation tax and tax on dividends. Obviously having a company does allow you to manipulate when the dividend tax is paid, but that wouldn't apply if he needed the money.

    I didn't know Boris had done this and I am surprised. Dying to know if he was being a good egg or just bumbled his way into PAYE.
    IIRC Private Eye said that he had previously used such a personal company, but stopped using it before he got the big column at the Telegraph.

    The savings *used* to be huge - before Osborne's war on personal companies.

    I knew people pulling in the kind of money that BJ was getting for the Telegraph column, working in consultancy. It was something like halving your tax bill - depending how aggressive you were in declaring stuff as expenses etc.

    There were (and are) plenty of accountants and companies offering to setup and run such personal companies for you, for quite small fees. Most of the contractors I knew went that route - a couple did it all themselves.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 73,424
    edited April 2022

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    TOPPING said:

    1. She is a non-Dom which is a perfectly legitimate category but which arouses some suspicion of tax dodging/one rule for them.
    2. She is very, very wealthy.
    3. She is married to the CotE.
    4. Does she owe tax in the UK according to the law? It's complicated.
    5. Is she legitmately a "non-Dom"? See Pt.1.

    If you put all those factors into a bowl and stir you come to the conclusion that it was a hugely idiotic move politically by Sunak to do anything other than have himself and his family pay as much tax as possible as might ever be suggested by the tax authorities.

    Complicated dividend payments held offshore? Nope. Non-dom status for your spouse? Nope. Even ISAs could be used against you, so ISAs? Nope.

    It was a political blunder.

    The really, really stoopid thing is that Rishi could have turned it into a positive: I publicly renounce capitalism and all its works (for a defined period while keeping all that lovely capital) just so I can serve our wonderful country.

    Amateur hour.
    Particularly after the example set by Boris Johnson - he arranged to pay full PAYE tax on his earning from the Telegraph column. Before the expenses scandal broke.

    He didn't announce it, either. Just waited until Ken Livingstone walked into the elephant trap he had dug.

    Cost BJ something like high 6 figures in extra tax over the years, probably.
    That implies he was organised enough in the first place. Butd he certainly took advantage of it.
    When writing for papers like that, everyone else in politics used a personal company, dividends, pay yourself minimum wage etc etc. Ken Livingstone did.

    This is why Ken Livingstone went on the attack with it, without checking the facts.

    To pay the extra tax like that took a special arrangement and a deliberate instruction to whoever did the taxes for Boris Johnson. Unless you think that BJ did his taxes himself, rather than using an accountant.

    EDIT: IIRC from the Private Eye investigation into all this, BJ was using a personal company before he got the big column thing from the Telegraph. He *switched over* to full PAYE style tax about 6 months before the expenses scandal came out, and years before the Mayoral election.
    Hmm. The expenses scandal was the DT, wasn't it?
    Printed in the DT - the Guardian wanted the right to "edit out" politicians it wanted to protect. The guy leaking the info demanded full disclosure.

    The six months running up to the scandal, there had been various things about MPs expenses, and general financial behaviour. The expenses scandal was just about expenses, remember, not about earnings outside parliament.

    All the other politicians stayed on the personal company setup - which is why they don't criticise people for using it. Unless they are desperate and bit stupid, like Ken.
    The first story was the Mail, old Jackie Smith and her husband using our money to watch tug tv. I presume the leaker was asking too much money in the Mail's opinion for all the data?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 31,817
    kjh said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Leon said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Twitter is *very* excited over green card. Sunak retained his for a year while a Treasury minister

    I think this could tip him into resigning rather than hanging on in office but not in power

    Why is the green card thing so damaging, potentially?

    Genuine Q. I have no idea of what obligations or problems might come with it
    You have to state you intend to reside permanently in USA which makes Sunak's allegiance to UK look dodgy and makes Mrs S look like she must have been lying to at least one of UK and US

    You pay all your tax (excluding PAYE I assume?) to USA whether you live there or not. No idea how this works in practice but I have a well off friend who is accidentally USA citizen (born there, doesn't go there any more than I do) who basically sets aside a full week per year getting her US tax return right.
    On reflection this is probably bollocks. You def have to file a return with IRS if you are a US citizen and I think if you have a green card (which isn't citizenship) but I imagine if you live ouside US you pay taxes elsewhere and they sweep up what's left
    It would be covered by the double-taxation treaty, so you can offset your UK tax against any US tax. Basically you pay the higher of the two in any given category.

    The problem of course is the administrative nightmare. US tax returns are horrendous!
    Both today and yesterday I have tried to explain the double taxation treaty situation following posts by people thinking that you will pay all your tax twice or deprive India (in the examples I have answered) of their tax. I have to do this every year with Spanish and Swiss income. I appear to be wasting my time because the same stuff keeps appearing.

    Edit - Sorry just to make clear that wasn't a criticism of @IshmaelZ. Sorry if it came across as such.
    Is there a taxation treaty with India? Genuine question.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 43,283
    Evidence emerges that undercover Lib Dem pie chart experts are working for Macron:

    image

    https://twitter.com/DatapraxisEU/status/1512370126401810432
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 29,272

    Foxy said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    TOPPING said:

    1. She is a non-Dom which is a perfectly legitimate category but which arouses some suspicion of tax dodging/one rule for them.
    2. She is very, very wealthy.
    3. She is married to the CotE.
    4. Does she owe tax in the UK according to the law? It's complicated.
    5. Is she legitmately a "non-Dom"? See Pt.1.

    If you put all those factors into a bowl and stir you come to the conclusion that it was a hugely idiotic move politically by Sunak to do anything other than have himself and his family pay as much tax as possible as might ever be suggested by the tax authorities.

    Complicated dividend payments held offshore? Nope. Non-dom status for your spouse? Nope. Even ISAs could be used against you, so ISAs? Nope.

    It was a political blunder.

    Yes, exactly. His wife is blameless, provided her claim to non-dom status stands up, but Rishi is toast. It's over (in fact, it probably already was anyway).

    It's not even just the tax aspect, although as we're seeing that's not going down well. It's also the question about his long-term commitment to the UK.
    Apologies if you did answer this last night, but do you think it was wrong to have Mark Carney as governor of the Bank of England?
    No, it wasn't wrong. He was hired for a specific term (later extended), for his expertise, and around the world it's not actually that uncommon for foreign citizens to be appointed to such posts. There was never any suggestion that he was moving here permanently. That's not the same as a politician seeking to become PM, and voters won't see it as the same.
    I disagree. People can have allegiances to more than one country. It really wouldn't bother me if he followed his wife to India in 10 years time or whatever (or if, more importantly, he refused to rule out moving there in the future).
    I do think it shows the difference between the Brexiteer elite, like Sunak, who see it as a liberating freedom for their money to move around the world, taxed lightly if at all, and the culturally Conservative working class Brexiteers who want to protect a way of life. The discordant between these two can develop into quite a chasm, and the Tories need to choose a side.
    Ultimately, they will need to choose a side.

    But the recent success of the Conservative party has been underpinned by not choosing a side- you can call it cakeism, or the more respectable "and" theory of Conservatism (smugly contrasted with the way that humourless lefties expel anyone who departs from the orthodox path in any way).

    As the good book says, a man cannot serve two masters.
    They have chosen, the donor elite get liberated freedom and the hoi polloi get flags and trans protection.
    I'm sure that was the plan. And it's a plan that works for the US Republicans. But it only works for them because of the way the country and electoral system are set up.

    You need bread and circuses, after all- not just circuses.
    And the energy package isn't even jam tomorrow; it's jam in ten years time.
  • pingping Posts: 3,281
    Who the fuck do the Sunaks think they are?

    They’re taking the piss out of the British people.

    Just fuck off to whichever tax haven will have you. You have shown contempt for our country.

    Piss off. Now.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 16,232

    Foxy said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    TOPPING said:

    1. She is a non-Dom which is a perfectly legitimate category but which arouses some suspicion of tax dodging/one rule for them.
    2. She is very, very wealthy.
    3. She is married to the CotE.
    4. Does she owe tax in the UK according to the law? It's complicated.
    5. Is she legitmately a "non-Dom"? See Pt.1.

    If you put all those factors into a bowl and stir you come to the conclusion that it was a hugely idiotic move politically by Sunak to do anything other than have himself and his family pay as much tax as possible as might ever be suggested by the tax authorities.

    Complicated dividend payments held offshore? Nope. Non-dom status for your spouse? Nope. Even ISAs could be used against you, so ISAs? Nope.

    It was a political blunder.

    Yes, exactly. His wife is blameless, provided her claim to non-dom status stands up, but Rishi is toast. It's over (in fact, it probably already was anyway).

    It's not even just the tax aspect, although as we're seeing that's not going down well. It's also the question about his long-term commitment to the UK.
    Apologies if you did answer this last night, but do you think it was wrong to have Mark Carney as governor of the Bank of England?
    No, it wasn't wrong. He was hired for a specific term (later extended), for his expertise, and around the world it's not actually that uncommon for foreign citizens to be appointed to such posts. There was never any suggestion that he was moving here permanently. That's not the same as a politician seeking to become PM, and voters won't see it as the same.
    I disagree. People can have allegiances to more than one country. It really wouldn't bother me if he followed his wife to India in 10 years time or whatever (or if, more importantly, he refused to rule out moving there in the future).
    I do think it shows the difference between the Brexiteer elite, like Sunak, who see it as a liberating freedom for their money to move around the world, taxed lightly if at all, and the culturally Conservative working class Brexiteers who want to protect a way of life. The discordant between these two can develop into quite a chasm, and the Tories need to choose a side.
    Ultimately, they will need to choose a side.

    But the recent success of the Conservative party has been underpinned by not choosing a side- you can call it cakeism, or the more respectable "and" theory of Conservatism (smugly contrasted with the way that humourless lefties expel anyone who departs from the orthodox path in any way).

    As the good book says, a man cannot serve two masters.
    They have chosen, the donor elite get liberated freedom and the hoi polloi get flags and trans protection.
    I'm sure that was the plan. And it's a plan that works for the US Republicans. But it only works for them because of the way the country and electoral system are set up.

    You need bread and circuses, after all- not just circuses.
    And the energy package isn't even jam tomorrow; it's jam in ten years time.
    Should we not be expecting energy prices to fall back fairly significantly in 2024?
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    kjh said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Leon said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Twitter is *very* excited over green card. Sunak retained his for a year while a Treasury minister

    I think this could tip him into resigning rather than hanging on in office but not in power

    Why is the green card thing so damaging, potentially?

    Genuine Q. I have no idea of what obligations or problems might come with it
    You have to state you intend to reside permanently in USA which makes Sunak's allegiance to UK look dodgy and makes Mrs S look like she must have been lying to at least one of UK and US

    You pay all your tax (excluding PAYE I assume?) to USA whether you live there or not. No idea how this works in practice but I have a well off friend who is accidentally USA citizen (born there, doesn't go there any more than I do) who basically sets aside a full week per year getting her US tax return right.
    On reflection this is probably bollocks. You def have to file a return with IRS if you are a US citizen and I think if you have a green card (which isn't citizenship) but I imagine if you live ouside US you pay taxes elsewhere and they sweep up what's left
    It would be covered by the double-taxation treaty, so you can offset your UK tax against any US tax. Basically you pay the higher of the two in any given category.

    The problem of course is the administrative nightmare. US tax returns are horrendous!
    Both today and yesterday I have tried to explain the double taxation treaty situation following posts by people thinking that you will pay all your tax twice or deprive India (in the examples I have answered) of their tax. I have to do this every year with Spanish and Swiss income. I appear to be wasting my time because the same stuff keeps appearing.

    Edit - Sorry just to make clear that wasn't a criticism of @IshmaelZ. Sorry if it came across as such.
    Nae bother, not taken that way!
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,456
    edited April 2022

    Evidence emerges that undercover Lib Dem pie chart experts are working for Macron:

    image

    https://twitter.com/DatapraxisEU/status/1512370126401810432

    It's not a real dodgy bar/pie chart unless it's so off it is showing the minority side as larger than the majority.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 31,817
    MaxPB said:

    @JamesShotter
    French president Macron has attacked Poland's PM Morawiecki for comparing his talks with Putin to negotiating with Hitler:

    "The Polish PM is a far-right anti-Semite, who bans LGBT people" he said, adding that Morawiecki wanted to help Le Pen pre-election


    https://twitter.com/JamesShotter/status/1512361292585226244

    The truth hurts, sometimes.
    Reading that, all of it is probably true.

    1) Talking with Putin is a bit like taking with Hitler
    2) Morawiecki is far-right
    3) Morawiecki associates with anti-Semites, and may well be one himself
    4) Morawiecki quite definitely bans LGBT people
    5) Morawiecki would probably be in favour of Le Pen winning.
This discussion has been closed.