Howdy, Stranger!

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

It’s nearly a decade since LAB last made a by-election gain – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited June 20 in General
imageIt’s nearly a decade since LAB last made a by-election gain – politicalbetting.com

In looking over the prospects for next week’s Wakefield by-elections I was quite surprised to discover that the last time that LAB made a by-election game was in 2012. This was at Corby in November of that year to fill a vacancy created by the CON MP, Louise Bagshaw resigning her seat for family reasons. Labour turned a 1,951 deficit at GE2010 into a majority of 7,791 – a CON-LAB swing of 12.7%.

Read the full story here

«134567

Comments

  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,216
    Test
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 13,830
    Speaking of Louise Bagshawe, has a PBer ever won a by-election?
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 13,830
    Labour's absence from Tiverton and Honiton fuels 'back room' deal rumours
    Not a single member of Labour's frontbench has visited the Devon constituency but most have travelled to Wakefield ahead of key by-elections

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/06/12/labours-absence-tiverton-honiton-fuels-back-room-deal-rumours/ (£££)
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 8,769
    edited June 13
    The only Labour by-election gain for the Scottish Parliament was the Dunfermline by-election in 2013. One of only two Holyrood seats to ever change hands in by-elections. The SNP easily won Dunfermline back at the subsequent general election in 2016.

    There have only ever been four Senedd by-elections, and Labour have never made a gain.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 13,830
    Grant Shapps plans to hit rail strikers ‘in their pay packets’ and ban them claiming overtime
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/06/12/grant-shapps-plans-hit-rail-strikers-pay-packets-ban-claiming/ (£££)

    Basically, the day after a rail strike, all the trains are in the wrong place so staff work overtime in order to run a normal service.

    Shapps's masterplan is to run a reduced service instead. Cynics might note this will increase the travelling public's inconvenience.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 13,830
    Public picks up bill in fight to keep Matt Hancock emails secret
    ...
    The government is taking its own transparency regulator to court at the taxpayers’ expense to try to block the release of messages between Matt Hancock and his adviser and lover Gina Coladangelo.

    The information commissioner ruled in April that the Department of Health and Social Care had been wrong to withhold some emails between the pair, and ordered their release after a request from The Times.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/public-picks-up-bill-in-fight-to-keep-matt-hancock-emails-secret-x65jbw623 (£££)
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 8,769

    Grant Shapps plans to hit rail strikers ‘in their pay packets’ and ban them claiming overtime
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/06/12/grant-shapps-plans-hit-rail-strikers-pay-packets-ban-claiming/ (£££)

    Basically, the day after a rail strike, all the trains are in the wrong place so staff work overtime in order to run a normal service.

    Shapps's masterplan is to run a reduced service instead. Cynics might note this will increase the travelling public's inconvenience.

    What the Brexit Revolutionary Party fails to comprehend is that rail workers are highly skilled. You cannot ask agency staff to just hop in and work as signallers or drivers. There are very long courses with complex documentation and safety rules. There are stringent health criteria and security checks. It is a highly responsible job with extremely serious potential consequences if the employee makes a mistake or if you recruit someone with ill-intentions or at risk of losing consciousness while working.

    It is becoming increasingly clear that the Tories want to create a huge industrial conflict. They know that the Winter of Discontent, the Falklands and the miners’ strike made the enduring Maggie myth, and hope that Brexit, vaccines and crushing the rail workers will make for an enduring Boris myth. Their chances of repeating the trick look to be low.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 8,769
    fitalass said:

    'The big worry for LAB and the LDs is Johnson going'

    Bang on the money, I would also add the SNP in Scotland into that mix. I am just really disappointed that only 148 Conservative MPs have so far worked this out. Far better for the longer term electorally prospects of the Conservative party that Boris goes sooner rather than later, a summer leadership contest this year would have been ideal. The longer Boris remains insitu in No10, the more chance he has of causing wider damage to the party's chances at the next GE. Fully expect the Conservatives to take an even bigger hit in the up coming by-elections now because MPs voted to keep him in place.

    Nah. I don’t think the SNP election strategists think about the Tories too much. Not as a serious electoral force anyway. Tactical unwind SCon to SLD is what is going to do for the few Scottish Tory MPs. Hard to see how any new leader in London is going to stop that. (Although a decent new leader in Edinburgh might.)

    And when it comes to serious electoral threats to the SNP, there is only one game in town, and it ain’t the Tories. Sarwar’s team is only on 22%, but if they can get to 30% then seats start to tumble.

    Nope, the Johnson/Mordaunt/Truss/Hunt/Wallace question is only really relevant to Scottish psephology in regard to the constitutional question. Here of course Johnson is an immense SNP asset, not least because we don’t know which side Johnson will plump for. Just like Brexit, it is perfectly conceivable that he does a last-minute shocker.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 13,830
    Boris Johnson shelves free school meals for up to a million kids in 'thin gruel' food plan
    The Prime Minister faces fury over his Food Strategy White Paper tomorrow, after he ditched pleas from his food tsar Henry Dimbleby - including to let all kids on DWP Universal Credit claim free school meals

    https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/boris-johnson-shelves-free-school-27210879
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 39,633

    Grant Shapps plans to hit rail strikers ‘in their pay packets’ and ban them claiming overtime
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/06/12/grant-shapps-plans-hit-rail-strikers-pay-packets-ban-claiming/ (£££)

    Basically, the day after a rail strike, all the trains are in the wrong place so staff work overtime in order to run a normal service.

    Shapps's masterplan is to run a reduced service instead. Cynics might note this will increase the travelling public's inconvenience.

    What the Brexit Revolutionary Party fails to comprehend is that rail workers are highly skilled. You cannot ask agency staff to just hop in and work as signallers or drivers. There are very long courses with complex documentation and safety rules. There are stringent health criteria and security checks. It is a highly responsible job with extremely serious potential consequences if the employee makes a mistake or if you recruit someone with ill-intentions or at risk of losing consciousness while working.

    It is becoming increasingly clear that the Tories want to create a huge industrial conflict. They know that the Winter of Discontent, the Falklands and the miners’ strike made the enduring Maggie myth, and hope that Brexit, vaccines and crushing the rail workers will make for an enduring Boris myth. Their chances of repeating the trick look to be low.
    That would be a deluded strategy - especially as the Winter if Discontent is what brought Callaghan down, and that it took two terms for Thatcher's union legislation to attain any real degree of popularity.
    But it's also deluded to think that this government has any organised plan for any such thing. That would be to give them far too much credit.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 32,326
    Nigelb said:

    Grant Shapps plans to hit rail strikers ‘in their pay packets’ and ban them claiming overtime
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/06/12/grant-shapps-plans-hit-rail-strikers-pay-packets-ban-claiming/ (£££)

    Basically, the day after a rail strike, all the trains are in the wrong place so staff work overtime in order to run a normal service.

    Shapps's masterplan is to run a reduced service instead. Cynics might note this will increase the travelling public's inconvenience.

    What the Brexit Revolutionary Party fails to comprehend is that rail workers are highly skilled. You cannot ask agency staff to just hop in and work as signallers or drivers. There are very long courses with complex documentation and safety rules. There are stringent health criteria and security checks. It is a highly responsible job with extremely serious potential consequences if the employee makes a mistake or if you recruit someone with ill-intentions or at risk of losing consciousness while working.

    It is becoming increasingly clear that the Tories want to create a huge industrial conflict. They know that the Winter of Discontent, the Falklands and the miners’ strike made the enduring Maggie myth, and hope that Brexit, vaccines and crushing the rail workers will make for an enduring Boris myth. Their chances of repeating the trick look to be low.
    That would be a deluded strategy - especially as the Winter if Discontent is what brought Callaghan down, and that it took two terms for Thatcher's union legislation to attain any real degree of popularity.
    But it's also deluded to think that this government has any organised plan for any such thing. That would be to give them far too much credit.
    Worth noting that it was Union unrest that brought down the Tory government in 1974 too.

    Industrial disputes are not good for governments. Even the 1984-5 Miners strike was followed by a swing against the government in the next election, albeit a small one.
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 2,236
    edited June 13
    I can do similar work 'inside IR35' or 'outside IR35'.
    If I do the former, then I have to pay about 20% more tax. National Insurance.
    I have a strong moral objection to National Insurance because it is an inherently unfair tax, as it only applies to those who work.
    My income is good, but also vulnerable to shocks, the contracts I work provide no provision for sick pay, jury service etc; I would be sacked immediately.
    If I have no work, the social security system would be little use to me. As far as I can work out, I wouldn't be eligible for any kind of welfare if I don't have work because of my existing assets - which aren't great, but just enough to disqualify me.
    Looking at things in the round and objectively, I worked out that to provide security for myself, I need to build up cash reserves in my company to pay myself an income in the event of hard times, because the state would not provide in these circumstances.
    I don't think the supposed purposes of national insurance are much use to me, aside from the possibiity of a state pension. But I have paid in quite a bit of money towards that over the years already, and would continue to pay a modest amount of NI.

    On a moral level, what is the problem with saying to myself, OK I will just organise my affairs so I pay about the same amount of tax as those who live off income from investments; and make my own provision for social security because the state is not much help in my situation?

    Isn't this the most rational response to the situation described above?

  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 17,042

    Boris Johnson shelves free school meals for up to a million kids in 'thin gruel' food plan
    The Prime Minister faces fury over his Food Strategy White Paper tomorrow, after he ditched pleas from his food tsar Henry Dimbleby - including to let all kids on DWP Universal Credit claim free school meals

    https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/boris-johnson-shelves-free-school-27210879

    Fire up that penalty taker
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 13,830
    IshmaelZ said:

    Boris Johnson shelves free school meals for up to a million kids in 'thin gruel' food plan
    The Prime Minister faces fury over his Food Strategy White Paper tomorrow, after he ditched pleas from his food tsar Henry Dimbleby - including to let all kids on DWP Universal Credit claim free school meals

    https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/boris-johnson-shelves-free-school-27210879

    Fire up that penalty taker
    Last time, or possibly the time before last, it was Dominic Cummings who had to talk Boris into eventually doing the obviously right thing.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 13,830

    IshmaelZ said:

    Boris Johnson shelves free school meals for up to a million kids in 'thin gruel' food plan
    The Prime Minister faces fury over his Food Strategy White Paper tomorrow, after he ditched pleas from his food tsar Henry Dimbleby - including to let all kids on DWP Universal Credit claim free school meals

    https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/boris-johnson-shelves-free-school-27210879

    Fire up that penalty taker
    Last time, or possibly the time before last, it was Dominic Cummings who had to talk Boris into eventually doing the obviously right thing.
    Boris got free meals from Lady Bamford of JCB fame iirc.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 40,051
    edited June 13
    Foxy said:

    Nigelb said:

    Grant Shapps plans to hit rail strikers ‘in their pay packets’ and ban them claiming overtime
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/06/12/grant-shapps-plans-hit-rail-strikers-pay-packets-ban-claiming/ (£££)

    Basically, the day after a rail strike, all the trains are in the wrong place so staff work overtime in order to run a normal service.

    Shapps's masterplan is to run a reduced service instead. Cynics might note this will increase the travelling public's inconvenience.

    What the Brexit Revolutionary Party fails to comprehend is that rail workers are highly skilled. You cannot ask agency staff to just hop in and work as signallers or drivers. There are very long courses with complex documentation and safety rules. There are stringent health criteria and security checks. It is a highly responsible job with extremely serious potential consequences if the employee makes a mistake or if you recruit someone with ill-intentions or at risk of losing consciousness while working.

    It is becoming increasingly clear that the Tories want to create a huge industrial conflict. They know that the Winter of Discontent, the Falklands and the miners’ strike made the enduring Maggie myth, and hope that Brexit, vaccines and crushing the rail workers will make for an enduring Boris myth. Their chances of repeating the trick look to be low.
    That would be a deluded strategy - especially as the Winter if Discontent is what brought Callaghan down, and that it took two terms for Thatcher's union legislation to attain any real degree of popularity.
    But it's also deluded to think that this government has any organised plan for any such thing. That would be to give them far too much credit.
    Worth noting that it was Union unrest that brought down the Tory government in 1974 too.

    Industrial disputes are not good for governments.
    Funnily enough I was watching that episode of The Crown last night. Noting that this is of course simplified history for Americans, it was remarkable how the government imposed the three-day week and widespread power cuts - which I remember well as a child - on the whole country for weeks, as part of its plan to fight the strike.
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 5,917
    darkage said:

    I can do similar work 'inside IR35' or 'outside IR35'.
    If I do the former, then I have to pay about 20% more tax. National Insurance.
    I have a strong moral objection to National Insurance because it is an inherently unfair tax, as it only applies to those who work.
    My income is good, but also vulnerable to shocks, the contracts I work provide no provision for sick pay, jury service etc; I would be sacked immediately.
    If I have no work, the social security system would be little use to me. As far as I can work out, I wouldn't be eligible for any kind of welfare if I don't have work because of my existing assets - which aren't great, but just enough to disqualify me.
    Looking at things in the round and objectively, I worked out that to provide security for myself, I need to build up cash reserves in my company to pay myself an income in the event of hard times, because the state would not provide in these circumstances.
    I don't think the supposed purposes of national insurance are much use to me, aside from the possibiity of a state pension. But I have paid in quite a bit of money towards that over the years already, and would continue to pay a modest amount of NI.

    On a moral level, what is the problem with saying to myself, OK I will just organise my affairs so I pay about the same amount of tax as those who live off income from investments; and make my own provision for social security because the state is not much help in my situation?

    Isn't this the most rational response to the situation described above?

    I found myself in a similar situation and then the staff I was employing left because of Brexit so I closed the business, paid off ALL debts and mortgages and started getting sufficient work just to pay the bills whilst developing income streams from work outside the UK.

    I hope to receive my state pension in the future, but I am unsure if even that will be taken away from me.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 17,042

    fitalass said:

    'The big worry for LAB and the LDs is Johnson going'

    Bang on the money, I would also add the SNP in Scotland into that mix. I am just really disappointed that only 148 Conservative MPs have so far worked this out. Far better for the longer term electorally prospects of the Conservative party that Boris goes sooner rather than later, a summer leadership contest this year would have been ideal. The longer Boris remains insitu in No10, the more chance he has of causing wider damage to the party's chances at the next GE. Fully expect the Conservatives to take an even bigger hit in the up coming by-elections now because MPs voted to keep him in place.

    Nah. I don’t think the SNP election strategists think about the Tories too much. Not as a serious electoral force anyway. Tactical unwind SCon to SLD is what is going to do for the few Scottish Tory MPs. Hard to see how any new leader in London is going to stop that. (Although a decent new leader in Edinburgh might.)

    And when it comes to serious electoral threats to the SNP, there is only one game in town, and it ain’t the Tories. Sarwar’s team is only on 22%, but if they can get to 30% then seats start to tumble.

    Nope, the Johnson/Mordaunt/Truss/Hunt/Wallace question is only really relevant to Scottish psephology in regard to the constitutional question. Here of course Johnson is an immense SNP asset, not least because we don’t know which side Johnson will plump for. Just like Brexit, it is perfectly conceivable that he does a last-minute shocker.
    In some ways indy ref looks win win for him, either he Saves The Union or he gets the SNP out of the commons

    The look on HYUFD s face if he goes for it...
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 48,728

    IshmaelZ said:

    Boris Johnson shelves free school meals for up to a million kids in 'thin gruel' food plan
    The Prime Minister faces fury over his Food Strategy White Paper tomorrow, after he ditched pleas from his food tsar Henry Dimbleby - including to let all kids on DWP Universal Credit claim free school meals

    https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/boris-johnson-shelves-free-school-27210879

    Fire up that penalty taker
    Last time, or possibly the time before last, it was Dominic Cummings who had to talk Boris into eventually doing the obviously right thing.
    Well - according to Cummings it was.

    I would note however that Cummings' track record when it comes to telling the truth about his past actions is - less than stellar.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 34,731

    IshmaelZ said:

    Boris Johnson shelves free school meals for up to a million kids in 'thin gruel' food plan
    The Prime Minister faces fury over his Food Strategy White Paper tomorrow, after he ditched pleas from his food tsar Henry Dimbleby - including to let all kids on DWP Universal Credit claim free school meals

    https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/boris-johnson-shelves-free-school-27210879

    Fire up that penalty taker
    Last time, or possibly the time before last, it was Dominic Cummings who had to talk Boris into eventually doing the obviously right thing.
    Boris got free meals from Lady Bamford of JCB fame iirc.
    It said £27,000 worth. Which means if it had come from Tesco's instead of Daylesford it would have cost around £8.50.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 32,326
    HM now in the number 2 slot...

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-61774853
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 2,376
    Off Topic

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-61780450

    Barty, please explain?
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 17,895
    Don't understand the government's policy on wages. Last year they wanted wages to rise. They said it was a Brexit benefit and took credit that they were rising. They can hardly attack people for wanting their wage to rise.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 1,913

    Labour's absence from Tiverton and Honiton fuels 'back room' deal rumours
    Not a single member of Labour's frontbench has visited the Devon constituency but most have travelled to Wakefield ahead of key by-elections

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/06/12/labours-absence-tiverton-honiton-fuels-back-room-deal-rumours/ (£££)

    This does strike me as tactically smart and strategically foolish.

    There will always be a party of the centre right (not necessarily the Tories) so Labour needs to dominate the centre left. Enabling the LibDems creates a long term threat - I am sure that Labour is assuming they will always be subservient but I’m not sure that is the case
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 39,633
    IshmaelZ said:

    fitalass said:

    'The big worry for LAB and the LDs is Johnson going'

    Bang on the money, I would also add the SNP in Scotland into that mix. I am just really disappointed that only 148 Conservative MPs have so far worked this out. Far better for the longer term electorally prospects of the Conservative party that Boris goes sooner rather than later, a summer leadership contest this year would have been ideal. The longer Boris remains insitu in No10, the more chance he has of causing wider damage to the party's chances at the next GE. Fully expect the Conservatives to take an even bigger hit in the up coming by-elections now because MPs voted to keep him in place.

    Nah. I don’t think the SNP election strategists think about the Tories too much. Not as a serious electoral force anyway. Tactical unwind SCon to SLD is what is going to do for the few Scottish Tory MPs. Hard to see how any new leader in London is going to stop that. (Although a decent new leader in Edinburgh might.)

    And when it comes to serious electoral threats to the SNP, there is only one game in town, and it ain’t the Tories. Sarwar’s team is only on 22%, but if they can get to 30% then seats start to tumble.

    Nope, the Johnson/Mordaunt/Truss/Hunt/Wallace question is only really relevant to Scottish psephology in regard to the constitutional question. Here of course Johnson is an immense SNP asset, not least because we don’t know which side Johnson will plump for. Just like Brexit, it is perfectly conceivable that he does a last-minute shocker.
    In some ways indy ref looks win win for him, either he Saves The Union or he gets the SNP out of the commons

    The look on HYUFD s face if he goes for it...
    He'd quite likely be among the first justifying the move.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 42,827
    On topic, is this not a question of different priorities? Basically, between elections the main focus of the Lib Dems is to remind us that they exist, something that has become even more difficult since they lost P3 in the HoC to the SNP. Bye elections give them a chance to do that so they work very hard on them. Labour is usually the opposition with a much, much higher profile. Their objective is to win back government and spending disproportionate time and effort on a bye election would be a distraction from that.

    Even Wakefield is rather falling into Labour's lap than being actively hunted. As a redwall seat it has more than the usual relevance but bye elections against a party with a substantial majority remain side shows of little importance.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 17,895

    Labour's absence from Tiverton and Honiton fuels 'back room' deal rumours
    Not a single member of Labour's frontbench has visited the Devon constituency but most have travelled to Wakefield ahead of key by-elections

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/06/12/labours-absence-tiverton-honiton-fuels-back-room-deal-rumours/ (£££)

    This does strike me as tactically smart and strategically foolish.

    There will always be a party of the centre right (not necessarily the Tories) so Labour needs to dominate the centre left. Enabling the LibDems creates a long term threat - I am sure that Labour is assuming they will always be subservient but I’m not sure that is the case
    Worked brilliantly for Labour in the 90s and 00s.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 1,913

    Grant Shapps plans to hit rail strikers ‘in their pay packets’ and ban them claiming overtime
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/06/12/grant-shapps-plans-hit-rail-strikers-pay-packets-ban-claiming/ (£££)

    Basically, the day after a rail strike, all the trains are in the wrong place so staff work overtime in order to run a normal service.

    Shapps's masterplan is to run a reduced service instead. Cynics might note this will increase the travelling public's inconvenience.

    It does seem off though that you get paid overtime rates to undo damage caused by your own actions
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 7,974
    Jonathan said:

    Don't understand the government's policy on wages. Last year they wanted wages to rise. They said it was a Brexit benefit and took credit that they were rising. They can hardly attack people for wanting their wage to rise.

    Private sector wage rises = good
    Public sector = bad as government has to pay...
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 1,913
    darkage said:

    I can do similar work 'inside IR35' or 'outside IR35'.
    If I do the former, then I have to pay about 20% more tax. National Insurance.
    I have a strong moral objection to National Insurance because it is an inherently unfair tax, as it only applies to those who work.
    My income is good, but also vulnerable to shocks, the contracts I work provide no provision for sick pay, jury service etc; I would be sacked immediately.
    If I have no work, the social security system would be little use to me. As far as I can work out, I wouldn't be eligible for any kind of welfare if I don't have work because of my existing assets - which aren't great, but just enough to disqualify me.
    Looking at things in the round and objectively, I worked out that to provide security for myself, I need to build up cash reserves in my company to pay myself an income in the event of hard times, because the state would not provide in these circumstances.
    I don't think the supposed purposes of national insurance are much use to me, aside from the possibiity of a state pension. But I have paid in quite a bit of money towards that over the years already, and would continue to pay a modest amount of NI.

    On a moral level, what is the problem with saying to myself, OK I will just organise my affairs so I pay about the same amount of tax as those who live off income from investments; and make my own provision for social security because the state is not much help in my situation?

    Isn't this the most rational response to the situation described above?

    I am not suggestion you would break the law.

    But nowhere in your calculation do you include the reputation or financial consequences of avoiding taxes which are rights due. If you are legally qualified to work outside IR35 then, of course, no one has an obligation to pay more tax than is asked for
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 48,728
    Jonathan said:

    Don't understand the government's policy on wages. Last year they wanted wages to rise. They said it was a Brexit benefit and took credit that they were rising. They can hardly attack people for wanting their wage to rise.

    The government has a policy?

    I assumed they just did whatever would get a good headline in the Sun this week.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 1,913
    Jonathan said:

    Don't understand the government's policy on wages. Last year they wanted wages to rise. They said it was a Brexit benefit and took credit that they were rising. They can hardly attack people for wanting their wage to rise.

    Because of the impact on inflationary expectations
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 42,827

    Off Topic

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-61780450

    Barty, please explain?

    From the article:
    "The Office for National Statistics (ONS) said the main driver of April's contraction was the fall in the services sector due to the winding down of the NHS's Covid test and trace operation."

    So the shape of our economy is still being distorted by the exceptional spending on the pandemic. As that is wound down the economy shrinks a little. There is no doubt that we are heading to a recession though. Not only our economy but the world economy is in a very bad way and this is being aggravated by the zero Covid policy in China.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 39,633
    edited June 13

    Grant Shapps plans to hit rail strikers ‘in their pay packets’ and ban them claiming overtime
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/06/12/grant-shapps-plans-hit-rail-strikers-pay-packets-ban-claiming/ (£££)

    Basically, the day after a rail strike, all the trains are in the wrong place so staff work overtime in order to run a normal service.

    Shapps's masterplan is to run a reduced service instead. Cynics might note this will increase the travelling public's inconvenience.

    It does seem off though that you get paid overtime rates to undo damage caused by your own actions
    Equally off for an employer to be contributing to the disruption a strike produces.
    Guess which of the two things the travelling public will care about most.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 6,012
    Jonathan said:

    Don't understand the government's policy on wages. Last year they wanted wages to rise. They said it was a Brexit benefit and took credit that they were rising. They can hardly attack people for wanting their wage to rise.

    Easy.

    If other employers are paying higher wages, that's right and proper.

    If the government are footing the bill, that's evil.

    To be fair, that's human nature.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 42,827
    Cicero said:

    A late and cool summer has finally arrived in Tallinn and still the shock waves of the Russian attack against Ukraine continue to reverberate. An attempt by Kesk, the junior coalition party, to unseat Estonia´s "iron Lady", Prime Minister Kala Kallas, seems to have come to naught after the Isamaa, Conservative party declined to join a coalition with Kesk and the Trump-style populist party EKRE. In fact that three party deal had been more or less agreed when the PM made an unexpected move. Instead of resigning herself, she asked President Karis to recall the Kesk ministers, while she continued to govern as a minority. This bought time to put considerable pressure on Isamaa so that they were pursuaded that the message of going in with the more Russian aligned Kesk and chaotic EKRE would be very bad for Estonia and for the wider anti Russian alliance.

    Only the Kesk leader, Juri Ratas, can say for sure whether his moves were instigated at the behest of freinds of Moscow, but it is a salutary reminder that Moscow intends to wage war against the West by any means that it has available. The theft of the Ukrainian grain harvest is simply a further crime to lay at the hands of the Russian dictatorship.

    In fact, it now begins to feel that, despite the horrific bloodbath in Eastern Ukraine, this is merely the hors d´oeuvre for what may yet be to come. The weakness of Western Europe and even the United States deeply concerns Tallinn and indeed the whole Nordic and Baltic region. Giving Ukraine sufficent weapons to resist Putinism but not enough to defeat it- apart from being a moral crisis- its a disaster in that it keeps Russia in the game at a time when it is making threats against the entire world, even threatening to take over Stonehenge. A defeat of Russia is not optional, since any failure to destroy the forces of the tyrant makes it more likely that he will reopen the attack on any front by any means. The cost of living crisis as a global phenomenon is clearly part of Moscow´s strategy to force the West to weaken its response. The fact that Britain is extra vulnerable is the result of poor decision taking in Westminster and Whitehall, but that, sadly, is just par for the course in London these days.

    So the threats from the kremlin grow wilder, more Russians are leaving, their economy is running on empty, but they are expanding their activities towards a total hybrid war. The Battle of Estonia has been won in the short term, but the Battle of Ukraine and indeed the Battle of Europe are just getting going.

    Interesting perspective once again. Many thanks.

  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 42,827
    ydoethur said:

    Jonathan said:

    Don't understand the government's policy on wages. Last year they wanted wages to rise. They said it was a Brexit benefit and took credit that they were rising. They can hardly attack people for wanting their wage to rise.

    The government has a policy?

    I assumed they just did whatever would get a good headline in the Sun this week.
    This week would involve some long term planning. Tomorrow morning is the focus.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 18,498

    Grant Shapps plans to hit rail strikers ‘in their pay packets’ and ban them claiming overtime
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/06/12/grant-shapps-plans-hit-rail-strikers-pay-packets-ban-claiming/ (£££)

    Basically, the day after a rail strike, all the trains are in the wrong place so staff work overtime in order to run a normal service.

    Shapps's masterplan is to run a reduced service instead. Cynics might note this will increase the travelling public's inconvenience.

    This is epic. "Ban overtime". As if this is something that the rail companies are benevolently offering and the drivers etc are taking as a freebie. Due to the busification practices brought in by ignorant bus tycoons after privatisation, the whole industry relies on OT working. No OT, a big drop in service. This is something that could have been fixed in the decades since but would have impacted franchisee profits so didn't happen. Or the DfT flat out refuses to let them.

    Either way, Sebastian Fox is going to show that below the grin and rolodex of aliases there is no brain.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 39,633
    Interesting thread on the Jan 6 hearings.
    Not only have they been significantly more effective than predicted, they've also produced a lot of loose ends like this one, which journalists will have fun chasing up.

    I think the Trump's chances of another nomination have markedly reduced (though those of a similarly disruptive figure being chosen instead haven't).

    https://mobile.twitter.com/wampumpeag/status/1536138423395790848
    Like many other folks, I was reminded by Gen. Milley's testimony presented by the Jan6 Committee that Pence allegedly ordered the deployment of the DC National Guard during the attack on the Capitol. However, the VP wasn't the commander-in-chief—so how could he direct any orders?
  • I thought the NI Protocol fix was due to be published 'tomorrow' so shouldn't it be in tomorrow's papers already?

    Has anything been announced yet, or is it postponed again? Or in a real break with tradition, getting announced to Parliament first? 😲

    https://twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/1536085004362604546

    NEW: leaked section of Northern Ireland #Brexit bill that I've seen hand ministers massive powers to 'switch off' the Protocol...only 3 articles of the NI Protocol are specifically protected.
    The government says it has no intention of doing this.

    It says that Section 15 is a technical “insurance” clause to be used as a tidying-up exercise;

    Which is exactly the language they used when Internal Market Bill 2020 came out. Same word "tidying up"./8


    I wonder where that bit of language may have come from? 🤔

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/may/28/eu.politics7?CMP=gu_com

    Boris is Tony Blair and I claim €5
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 7,874
    DavidL said:

    Off Topic

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-61780450

    Barty, please explain?

    From the article:
    "The Office for National Statistics (ONS) said the main driver of April's contraction was the fall in the services sector due to the winding down of the NHS's Covid test and trace operation."

    So the shape of our economy is still being distorted by the exceptional spending on the pandemic. As that is wound down the economy shrinks a little. There is no doubt that we are heading to a recession though. Not only our economy but the world economy is in a very bad way and this is being aggravated by the zero Covid policy in China.
    The zero Covid policy in China is not having as severe an impact as I expected. I thought that there would be more widespread lockdowns by now that would cause major international trade issues, but they've been more successful in containing the spread of the virus, and limiting the economic impact, than I expected.

    I just ordered a new phone, which was shipped immediately, for example.

    What we need to do is fire up the armaments factories to equip Ukraine's army with armoured vehicles, artillery, etc. Everything is still focused on supplying Ukraine from existing stocks. We could do with cranking things up a few notches.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 42,827
    Nigelb said:

    I agree with every word of this.

    https://mobile.twitter.com/hilzoy/status/1536193703458529282
    This is the way I see Liz Cheney: my working hypothesis is that I agree with her on precisely zero policy questions, but I agree with her about the importance of the Constitution and the rule of law.

    It matters that this is possible. It matters a lot.

    She threw away her position in leadership and, in all likelihood, her political career because she was unwilling to accept an attempted coup. I don't have to agree with her on anything else to admire her for this.

    Her speech at the opening of the hearings was one of the most remarkable I can recall from a member of Congress. I linked to the Dialy Kos report which had quite a number of exerpts. In a functioning democracy Trumpism would be as dead as McCarthyism.
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 2,376
    DavidL said:

    Off Topic

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-61780450

    Barty, please explain?

    From the article:
    "The Office for National Statistics (ONS) said the main driver of April's contraction was the fall in the services sector due to the winding down of the NHS's Covid test and trace operation."

    So the shape of our economy is still being distorted by the exceptional spending on the pandemic. As that is wound down the economy shrinks a little. There is no doubt that we are heading to a recession though. Not only our economy but the world economy is in a very bad way and this is being aggravated by the zero Covid policy in China.
    Thank you.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 18,498

    Boris Johnson shelves free school meals for up to a million kids in 'thin gruel' food plan
    The Prime Minister faces fury over his Food Strategy White Paper tomorrow, after he ditched pleas from his food tsar Henry Dimbleby - including to let all kids on DWP Universal Credit claim free school meals

    https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/boris-johnson-shelves-free-school-27210879

    Yep. Kids will go hungry still - which means they fail to learn. But there is Good News in this plan for venison poachers. So thats ok then.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 28,175
    Morning, all. Bad news everywhere, except the weather forecast and the cricket.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 42,827

    Morning, all. Bad news everywhere, except the weather forecast and the cricket.

    So nothing important then?
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 3,403
    On topic:

    A fun, if low serious punter opportunity, market for the two BEs would be to predict which challenger does better (in terms of winning or losing margin with Tories) between Wakefield and Tiverton.

    I reckon it'd fall about 4/6 Lab Wakefield, 5/4 LDs. I'm still thinking Wakefield as about a12--15% Labour win with a bit of variability, and a 6-10% LD victory but with a lot more variability (and not much doorstep intel coming back from T&H as yet).
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 28,175
    edited June 13
    DavidL said:

    Morning, all. Bad news everywhere, except the weather forecast and the cricket.

    So nothing important then?
    When you get, Mr L, to my age and state of health you look for every positive you can find!
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 18,498
    Nigelb said:

    I agree with every word of this.

    https://mobile.twitter.com/hilzoy/status/1536193703458529282
    This is the way I see Liz Cheney: my working hypothesis is that I agree with her on precisely zero policy questions, but I agree with her about the importance of the Constitution and the rule of law.

    It matters that this is possible. It matters a lot.

    She threw away her position in leadership and, in all likelihood, her political career because she was unwilling to accept an attempted coup. I don't have to agree with her on anything else to admire her for this.

    And this is the moral framework that used to drive British politics. We could disagree with Prime Ministers and LOTOs on policy but respect the fact that they did what they considered to be best for the country as a whole and would uphold and protect our institutions our laws our constitutional framework etc.

    But not this government. Not this Prime Minister.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 42,827

    DavidL said:

    Off Topic

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-61780450

    Barty, please explain?

    From the article:
    "The Office for National Statistics (ONS) said the main driver of April's contraction was the fall in the services sector due to the winding down of the NHS's Covid test and trace operation."

    So the shape of our economy is still being distorted by the exceptional spending on the pandemic. As that is wound down the economy shrinks a little. There is no doubt that we are heading to a recession though. Not only our economy but the world economy is in a very bad way and this is being aggravated by the zero Covid policy in China.
    The zero Covid policy in China is not having as severe an impact as I expected. I thought that there would be more widespread lockdowns by now that would cause major international trade issues, but they've been more successful in containing the spread of the virus, and limiting the economic impact, than I expected.

    I just ordered a new phone, which was shipped immediately, for example.

    What we need to do is fire up the armaments factories to equip Ukraine's army with armoured vehicles, artillery, etc. Everything is still focused on supplying Ukraine from existing stocks. We could do with cranking things up a few notches.
    Interesting. I waited 2 months for a new Iphone earlier this year. We saw yet another consequence in the flash report on the economy that I have quoted. Sales of new registrations in March were exceptionally low whilst April's were better than normal. That must surely be supply related which, AIUI, is chip related. If these things are starting to ease that will help but higher interest rates to reduce inflation, a reduction in the value of real wages and a tightening of government spending will still drive us into a recession.

    I agree about defence spending too but I am wondering what our capacity might be.
  • Nigelb said:

    I agree with every word of this.

    https://mobile.twitter.com/hilzoy/status/1536193703458529282
    This is the way I see Liz Cheney: my working hypothesis is that I agree with her on precisely zero policy questions, but I agree with her about the importance of the Constitution and the rule of law.

    It matters that this is possible. It matters a lot.

    She threw away her position in leadership and, in all likelihood, her political career because she was unwilling to accept an attempted coup. I don't have to agree with her on anything else to admire her for this.

    And this is the moral framework that used to drive British politics. We could disagree with Prime Ministers and LOTOs on policy but respect the fact that they did what they considered to be best for the country as a whole and would uphold and protect our institutions our laws our constitutional framework etc.

    But not this government. Not this Prime Minister.
    David Cameron used to suggest he was the heir to Blair, but in all the worst ways its really Boris that is.
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 2,236
    edited June 13

    darkage said:

    I can do similar work 'inside IR35' or 'outside IR35'.
    If I do the former, then I have to pay about 20% more tax. National Insurance.
    I have a strong moral objection to National Insurance because it is an inherently unfair tax, as it only applies to those who work.
    My income is good, but also vulnerable to shocks, the contracts I work provide no provision for sick pay, jury service etc; I would be sacked immediately.
    If I have no work, the social security system would be little use to me. As far as I can work out, I wouldn't be eligible for any kind of welfare if I don't have work because of my existing assets - which aren't great, but just enough to disqualify me.
    Looking at things in the round and objectively, I worked out that to provide security for myself, I need to build up cash reserves in my company to pay myself an income in the event of hard times, because the state would not provide in these circumstances.
    I don't think the supposed purposes of national insurance are much use to me, aside from the possibiity of a state pension. But I have paid in quite a bit of money towards that over the years already, and would continue to pay a modest amount of NI.

    On a moral level, what is the problem with saying to myself, OK I will just organise my affairs so I pay about the same amount of tax as those who live off income from investments; and make my own provision for social security because the state is not much help in my situation?

    Isn't this the most rational response to the situation described above?

    I am not suggestion you would break the law.

    But nowhere in your calculation do you include the reputation or financial consequences of avoiding taxes which are rights due. If you are legally qualified to work outside IR35 then, of course, no one has an obligation to pay more tax than is asked for
    If the contract is deemed by the party offering the contract to be outside of IR35, then I am complying with the law in accepting it. They are taking the reputational risk. But it can be the subject of future tax investigations which can evaluate whether or not the working arrangements complied with the complex rules on outside IR35 working - which is a risk, and which can result in a requirement to pay back the NI liability and legal fees, which could be expensive (although it isn't completely clear how much I would be liable to pay); but I could insure myself against it (up to a point). So yes, there is that risk.

    To me the question is really - do you just carry on paying NI, but write to your MP saying the system is completely broken and morally bankrupt; or just accept the system is what it is and adapt to it? To me, the latter is the more rational option.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 22,077
    ...
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 1,913
    Jonathan said:

    Labour's absence from Tiverton and Honiton fuels 'back room' deal rumours
    Not a single member of Labour's frontbench has visited the Devon constituency but most have travelled to Wakefield ahead of key by-elections

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/06/12/labours-absence-tiverton-honiton-fuels-back-room-deal-rumours/ (£££)

    This does strike me as tactically smart and strategically foolish.

    There will always be a party of the centre right (not necessarily the Tories) so Labour needs to dominate the centre left. Enabling the LibDems creates a long term threat - I am sure that Labour is assuming they will always be subservient but I’m not sure that is the case
    Worked brilliantly for Labour in the 90s and 00s.
    Only because the LibDems immolated themselves. You end up creating areas of the country where you are not the primary challenger
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 3,156
    edited June 13
    Crikey. That's a heck of a contraction. We're heading into a recession with spiralling inflation and a plunge in standards of living.

    https://news.sky.com/story/shock-contraction-of-0-3-for-economy-in-april-as-cbi-demands-vital-actions-to-prevent-recession-12632893

  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 22,077
    A government source tells Daily Mail it will fly a chartered jet to Rwanda tomorrow even if only one migrant can be lawfully flown there. This policy is conspicuously not about securing value for money for taxpayers, at least not in short term https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1536233345998372864/photo/1
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 17,895

    Jonathan said:

    Labour's absence from Tiverton and Honiton fuels 'back room' deal rumours
    Not a single member of Labour's frontbench has visited the Devon constituency but most have travelled to Wakefield ahead of key by-elections

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/06/12/labours-absence-tiverton-honiton-fuels-back-room-deal-rumours/ (£££)

    This does strike me as tactically smart and strategically foolish.

    There will always be a party of the centre right (not necessarily the Tories) so Labour needs to dominate the centre left. Enabling the LibDems creates a long term threat - I am sure that Labour is assuming they will always be subservient but I’m not sure that is the case
    Worked brilliantly for Labour in the 90s and 00s.
    Only because the LibDems immolated themselves. You end up creating areas of the country where you are not the primary challenger
    The three figure majority was some comfort.
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 3,156

    Morning, all. Bad news everywhere, except the weather forecast and the cricket.

    Although I'm afraid even the weather forecast has an alarm bell attached OKC. 46C in Spain in June isn't good news.

    https://www.severe-weather.eu/global-weather/heat-dome-heatwave-europe-june-2022-forecast-mk/
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 1,913
    Cicero said:

    A late and cool summer has finally arrived in Tallinn and still the shock waves of the Russian attack against Ukraine continue to reverberate. An attempt by Kesk, the junior coalition party, to unseat Estonia´s "Iron Lady", Prime Minister Kala Kallas, seems to have come to naught after the Isamaa, Conservative, party declined to join a coalition with Kesk and the Trump-style populist party EKRE. In fact that three party deal had been more or less agreed when the PM made an unexpected move. Instead of resigning herself, she asked President Karis to recall the Kesk ministers, while she continued to govern as a minority. This bought time to put considerable pressure on Isamaa so that they were pursuaded that the message of going in with the more Russian aligned Kesk and chaotic EKRE would be very bad for Estonia and for the wider anti Russian alliance. So now it seems that Kaja gets a new mandate as the head of a Reform (her own party), Isamaa, Social Democrat coalition until new elections in March.

    Only the Kesk leader, Juri Ratas, can say for sure whether his moves were instigated at the behest of friends of Moscow, but it is a salutary reminder that the Kremlin intends to wage war against the West by any means that it has available. The theft of the Ukrainian grain harvest is simply a further crime to lay at the hands of the Russian dictatorship.

    In fact, it now begins to feel that, despite the horrific bloodbath in Eastern Ukraine, this is merely the hors d´oeuvre for what may yet be to come. The weakness of Western Europe and even the United States deeply concerns Tallinn and indeed the whole Nordic and Baltic region. Giving Ukraine sufficent weapons to resist Putinism but not enough to defeat it- apart from being a moral crisis- is a disaster, in that it keeps Russia in the game at a time when it is making threats against the entire world, even threatening to take over Stonehenge. A defeat of Russia is not optional, since any failure to destroy the forces of the tyrant makes it more likely that he will reopen the attack on any front by any means. The cost of living crisis as a global phenomenon is clearly part of Moscow´s strategy to force the West to weaken its response. The fact that Britain is extra vulnerable is the result of poor decision taking in Westminster and Whitehall, but that, sadly, is just par for the course in London these days.

    So the threats from the Kremlin grow wilder, more Russians are leaving, their economy is running on empty, but they are expanding their activities towards a total hybrid war. The Battle of Estonia has been won in the short term, but the Battle of Ukraine and indeed the Battle of Europe are just getting going.

    There was an article the other day that said there is plenty of grain near Lviv but the EU won’t allow it across the border because there aren’t enough licensed drivers. Do you know if that is correct?
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 18,498
    Scott_xP said:

    A government source tells Daily Mail it will fly a chartered jet to Rwanda tomorrow even if only one migrant can be lawfully flown there. This policy is conspicuously not about securing value for money for taxpayers, at least not in short term https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1536233345998372864/photo/1

    In the repllies: I hadn't spotted that the MOU between us and Rwanda is that the UK is obliged to "resettle a portion of Rwanda's most vulnerable refugees"

    This could be fun...
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 50,652
    Heathener said:

    Crikey. That's a heck of a contraction. We're heading into a recession with spiralling inflation and a plunge in standards of living.

    https://news.sky.com/story/shock-contraction-of-0-3-for-economy-in-april-as-cbi-demands-vital-actions-to-prevent-recession-12632893

    God knows why any one is "shocked" by this.

    Some of us have been warning there is a god awful economic storm coming for a while.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 1,913
    Nigelb said:

    Grant Shapps plans to hit rail strikers ‘in their pay packets’ and ban them claiming overtime
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/06/12/grant-shapps-plans-hit-rail-strikers-pay-packets-ban-claiming/ (£££)

    Basically, the day after a rail strike, all the trains are in the wrong place so staff work overtime in order to run a normal service.

    Shapps's masterplan is to run a reduced service instead. Cynics might note this will increase the travelling public's inconvenience.

    It does seem off though that you get paid overtime rates to undo damage caused by your own actions
    Equally off for an employer to be contributing to the disruption a strike produces.
    Guess which of the two things the travelling public will care about most.
    I’m minded to think about mandatory arbitration and no strikes permitted for critical services
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 13,830
    DavidL said:

    Morning, all. Bad news everywhere, except the weather forecast and the cricket.

    So nothing important then?
    It is going to be too damn hot at Royal Ascot. Gentlemen will receive permission to remove their jackets. I'm not a great fan of punting in hot weather as you can never be sure which horses will take to it.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 34,731
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Off Topic

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-61780450

    Barty, please explain?

    From the article:
    "The Office for National Statistics (ONS) said the main driver of April's contraction was the fall in the services sector due to the winding down of the NHS's Covid test and trace operation."

    So the shape of our economy is still being distorted by the exceptional spending on the pandemic. As that is wound down the economy shrinks a little. There is no doubt that we are heading to a recession though. Not only our economy but the world economy is in a very bad way and this is being aggravated by the zero Covid policy in China.
    The zero Covid policy in China is not having as severe an impact as I expected. I thought that there would be more widespread lockdowns by now that would cause major international trade issues, but they've been more successful in containing the spread of the virus, and limiting the economic impact, than I expected.

    I just ordered a new phone, which was shipped immediately, for example.

    What we need to do is fire up the armaments factories to equip Ukraine's army with armoured vehicles, artillery, etc. Everything is still focused on supplying Ukraine from existing stocks. We could do with cranking things up a few notches.
    Interesting. I waited 2 months for a new Iphone earlier this year. We saw yet another consequence in the flash report on the economy that I have quoted. Sales of new registrations in March were exceptionally low whilst April's were better than normal. That must surely be supply related which, AIUI, is chip related. If these things are starting to ease that will help but higher interest rates to reduce inflation, a reduction in the value of real wages and a tightening of government spending will still drive us into a recession.

    I agree about defence spending too but I am wondering what our capacity might be.
    David you bought a new iPhone what at somewhere North of a thousand pounds.

    Recession what recession.

    The extraordinary costs of such branded products will be a topic for future historians to dwell upon in times to come.
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 5,917

    Morning, all. Bad news everywhere, except the weather forecast and the cricket.

    That is not weather - that is the Sunnily Lit Uplands we have all been promised!!!!!!! The economy is going backwards, 1957 is on its way, Lord JRM will be PM and The Dream will finally come true! The purest of Brexits

    :D
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 22,077

    Morning, all. Bad news everywhere, except the weather forecast and the cricket.

    That is not weather - that is the Sunnily Lit Uplands we have all been promised!!!!!!! The economy is going backwards, 1957 is on its way, Lord JRM will be PM and The Dream will finally come true! The purest of Brexits

    :D
    I like the new concept of the malevolent Oracular Remainers: The failures of Brexit are down to those who opposed Brexit predicting that it would have these failures. Had they predicted it would be a great success then it would have been a great success.
    https://twitter.com/DAaronovitch/status/1536231599028699137
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 1,913

    Nigelb said:

    I agree with every word of this.

    https://mobile.twitter.com/hilzoy/status/1536193703458529282
    This is the way I see Liz Cheney: my working hypothesis is that I agree with her on precisely zero policy questions, but I agree with her about the importance of the Constitution and the rule of law.

    It matters that this is possible. It matters a lot.

    She threw away her position in leadership and, in all likelihood, her political career because she was unwilling to accept an attempted coup. I don't have to agree with her on anything else to admire her for this.

    And this is the moral framework that used to drive British politics. We could disagree with Prime Ministers and LOTOs on policy but respect the fact that they did what they considered to be best for the country as a whole and would uphold and protect our institutions our laws our constitutional framework etc.

    But not this government. Not this Prime Minister.
    Or Blair on those terms
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 50,652

    Scott_xP said:

    A government source tells Daily Mail it will fly a chartered jet to Rwanda tomorrow even if only one migrant can be lawfully flown there. This policy is conspicuously not about securing value for money for taxpayers, at least not in short term https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1536233345998372864/photo/1

    In the repllies: I hadn't spotted that the MOU between us and Rwanda is that the UK is obliged to "resettle a portion of Rwanda's most vulnerable refugees"

    This could be fun...
    What on earth does that mean?
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 18,498
    On fuel prices, we're in this odd place where we're paying unfathomable amounts for fuel. With FX and crude prices going the wrong way to push prices ever higher. And yet we're still exporting tankers of the stuff across to America because its cheap.

    The duty and VAT regime is literally killing our economy. As the government are telling everyone to get electric vehicles the tax haul from fuel sales will drop soon - so why not intervene now? Cut duty by a meaningful amount and remove VAT. So that people can afford to live and work and stop the economy contracting further with all the consequences - and cost to government - of that happening.
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 5,917
    Scott_xP said:

    Morning, all. Bad news everywhere, except the weather forecast and the cricket.

    That is not weather - that is the Sunnily Lit Uplands we have all been promised!!!!!!! The economy is going backwards, 1957 is on its way, Lord JRM will be PM and The Dream will finally come true! The purest of Brexits

    :D
    I like the new concept of the malevolent Oracular Remainers: The failures of Brexit are down to those who opposed Brexit predicting that it would have these failures. Had they predicted it would be a great success then it would have been a great success.
    https://twitter.com/DAaronovitch/status/1536231599028699137
    :D:D:D

    The failures of Brexit are, of course, because it does not have any successes built in to it. The Leavers really are the worst whiners winners in history!
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 1,913
    darkage said:

    darkage said:

    I can do similar work 'inside IR35' or 'outside IR35'.
    If I do the former, then I have to pay about 20% more tax. National Insurance.
    I have a strong moral objection to National Insurance because it is an inherently unfair tax, as it only applies to those who work.
    My income is good, but also vulnerable to shocks, the contracts I work provide no provision for sick pay, jury service etc; I would be sacked immediately.
    If I have no work, the social security system would be little use to me. As far as I can work out, I wouldn't be eligible for any kind of welfare if I don't have work because of my existing assets - which aren't great, but just enough to disqualify me.
    Looking at things in the round and objectively, I worked out that to provide security for myself, I need to build up cash reserves in my company to pay myself an income in the event of hard times, because the state would not provide in these circumstances.
    I don't think the supposed purposes of national insurance are much use to me, aside from the possibiity of a state pension. But I have paid in quite a bit of money towards that over the years already, and would continue to pay a modest amount of NI.

    On a moral level, what is the problem with saying to myself, OK I will just organise my affairs so I pay about the same amount of tax as those who live off income from investments; and make my own provision for social security because the state is not much help in my situation?

    Isn't this the most rational response to the situation described above?

    I am not suggestion you would break the law.

    But nowhere in your calculation do you include the reputation or financial consequences of avoiding taxes which are rights due. If you are legally qualified to work outside IR35 then, of course, no one has an obligation to pay more tax than is asked for
    If the contract is deemed by the party offering the contract to be outside of IR35, then I am complying with the law in accepting it. They are taking the reputational risk. But it can be the subject of future tax investigations which can evaluate whether or not the working arrangements complied with the complex rules on outside IR35 working - which is a risk, and which can result in a requirement to pay back the NI liability and legal fees, which could be expensive (although it isn't completely clear how much I would be liable to pay); but I could insure myself against it (up to a point). So yes, there is that risk.

    To me the question is really - do you just carry on paying NI, but write to your MP saying the system is completely broken and morally bankrupt; or just accept the system is what it is and adapt to it? To me, the latter is the more rational option.
    That’s the point of my last comment. You have no obligation to organise your affairs to pay more tax (there’s a famous quote from a court case). But you might write to your MP as well.
  • Scott_xP said:

    A government source tells Daily Mail it will fly a chartered jet to Rwanda tomorrow even if only one migrant can be lawfully flown there. This policy is conspicuously not about securing value for money for taxpayers, at least not in short term https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1536233345998372864/photo/1

    In the repllies: I hadn't spotted that the MOU between us and Rwanda is that the UK is obliged to "resettle a portion of Rwanda's most vulnerable refugees"

    This could be fun...
    If that means flying genuine refugees safely from Rwanda to the UK, in exchange for us flying refugees to Rwanda, then that's entirely appropriate. We should be ensuring that refugees getting to the UK do so from flights and not dinghies. 👍

    The only objection to that would be if you object to immigration or asylum seekers even if they're genuine, which is nasty xenophobia.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 42,827
    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Off Topic

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-61780450

    Barty, please explain?

    From the article:
    "The Office for National Statistics (ONS) said the main driver of April's contraction was the fall in the services sector due to the winding down of the NHS's Covid test and trace operation."

    So the shape of our economy is still being distorted by the exceptional spending on the pandemic. As that is wound down the economy shrinks a little. There is no doubt that we are heading to a recession though. Not only our economy but the world economy is in a very bad way and this is being aggravated by the zero Covid policy in China.
    The zero Covid policy in China is not having as severe an impact as I expected. I thought that there would be more widespread lockdowns by now that would cause major international trade issues, but they've been more successful in containing the spread of the virus, and limiting the economic impact, than I expected.

    I just ordered a new phone, which was shipped immediately, for example.

    What we need to do is fire up the armaments factories to equip Ukraine's army with armoured vehicles, artillery, etc. Everything is still focused on supplying Ukraine from existing stocks. We could do with cranking things up a few notches.
    Interesting. I waited 2 months for a new Iphone earlier this year. We saw yet another consequence in the flash report on the economy that I have quoted. Sales of new registrations in March were exceptionally low whilst April's were better than normal. That must surely be supply related which, AIUI, is chip related. If these things are starting to ease that will help but higher interest rates to reduce inflation, a reduction in the value of real wages and a tightening of government spending will still drive us into a recession.

    I agree about defence spending too but I am wondering what our capacity might be.
    David you bought a new iPhone what at somewhere North of a thousand pounds.

    Recession what recession.

    The extraordinary costs of such branded products will be a topic for future historians to dwell upon in times to come.
    I got a 12, it was about half that and I only bought it because the "credit" for a new phone that I had paid throughout the contract was in danger of being lost as the contract came to an end. But yes, I would agree that those on good wages continue to do fine. Those on benefits or low wages, however, are being squeezed until the pips squeak, as a former Chancellor once put it.
  • eekeek Posts: 19,266

    darkage said:

    I can do similar work 'inside IR35' or 'outside IR35'.
    If I do the former, then I have to pay about 20% more tax. National Insurance.
    I have a strong moral objection to National Insurance because it is an inherently unfair tax, as it only applies to those who work.
    My income is good, but also vulnerable to shocks, the contracts I work provide no provision for sick pay, jury service etc; I would be sacked immediately.
    If I have no work, the social security system would be little use to me. As far as I can work out, I wouldn't be eligible for any kind of welfare if I don't have work because of my existing assets - which aren't great, but just enough to disqualify me.
    Looking at things in the round and objectively, I worked out that to provide security for myself, I need to build up cash reserves in my company to pay myself an income in the event of hard times, because the state would not provide in these circumstances.
    I don't think the supposed purposes of national insurance are much use to me, aside from the possibiity of a state pension. But I have paid in quite a bit of money towards that over the years already, and would continue to pay a modest amount of NI.

    On a moral level, what is the problem with saying to myself, OK I will just organise my affairs so I pay about the same amount of tax as those who live off income from investments; and make my own provision for social security because the state is not much help in my situation?

    Isn't this the most rational response to the situation described above?

    The "Off Payroll Legislation" simply creates a new class of workers: those who pay all the taxes and have all the responsibilities and negatives of employed people, but without any of the protections or benefits. Instead leaving them as vulnerable as the self-employed, but without any of the tax benefits that exist in order to cover off those vulnerabilities and issues.

    It's basically a tax scam on behalf of HMRC. But one that nets far less in the way of income than they anticipated, anyway. If they were serious, they'd have made the legislation such that as soon as one is "deemed employed," they must actually be employed, with all of the benefits and protections that entails. But that would shred the areas of work involved (as few would fully employ people when they only need them for a few weeks or months to cover something transient) and cause significant economic impact, so they came up with this scam.
    Sorry it doesn't create a new class of worker - agency workers have existed for a very long time.

    And the actual issue always comes down to Employer NI - which is worth £60-70bn to the Government but is only collected from those who are employed - hence HMRC being petrified that that self employment may increase..

  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 18,498

    Scott_xP said:

    A government source tells Daily Mail it will fly a chartered jet to Rwanda tomorrow even if only one migrant can be lawfully flown there. This policy is conspicuously not about securing value for money for taxpayers, at least not in short term https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1536233345998372864/photo/1

    In the repllies: I hadn't spotted that the MOU between us and Rwanda is that the UK is obliged to "resettle a portion of Rwanda's most vulnerable refugees"

    This could be fun...
    What on earth does that mean?
    A good question! Thing is that we know Rwanda is a dangerous country for some groups. This country has granted 100% or recent asylum claims from people fleeing Rwanda. Whilst this clause (16.1 in the MOU) refers to claims of non-Rwandans claiming asylum in Rwanda, I wonder if it could end up with Rwanda just shipping its non-desirables out on our returning planes.

    Kind of like that South Park episode where they swap Cartman for Starvin Marvin.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 28,175
    edited June 13
    Heathener said:

    Morning, all. Bad news everywhere, except the weather forecast and the cricket.

    Although I'm afraid even the weather forecast has an alarm bell attached OKC. 46C in Spain in June isn't good news.

    https://www.severe-weather.eu/global-weather/heat-dome-heatwave-europe-june-2022-forecast-mk/
    46degC anywhere is threatening to. humans.Particularly to humans with little pre-conditionig!
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 1,913
    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Labour's absence from Tiverton and Honiton fuels 'back room' deal rumours
    Not a single member of Labour's frontbench has visited the Devon constituency but most have travelled to Wakefield ahead of key by-elections

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/06/12/labours-absence-tiverton-honiton-fuels-back-room-deal-rumours/ (£££)

    This does strike me as tactically smart and strategically foolish.

    There will always be a party of the centre right (not necessarily the Tories) so Labour needs to dominate the centre left. Enabling the LibDems creates a long term threat - I am sure that Labour is assuming they will always be subservient but I’m not sure that is the case
    Worked brilliantly for Labour in the 90s and 00s.
    Only because the LibDems immolated themselves. You end up creating areas of the country where you are not the primary challenger
    The three figure majority was some comfort.
    Tactical not strategic. Exactly the point I am making.

    Take Scotland - not a perfect analogy by any means. But I think we can all agree that Labour is significantly weakened nationally because it is not the primary left wing party on Scotland.

    If you give up that status in the South and Southwest then you massively reduce the potential to win a majority alone on future
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 27,307

    darkage said:

    I can do similar work 'inside IR35' or 'outside IR35'.
    If I do the former, then I have to pay about 20% more tax. National Insurance.
    I have a strong moral objection to National Insurance because it is an inherently unfair tax, as it only applies to those who work.
    My income is good, but also vulnerable to shocks, the contracts I work provide no provision for sick pay, jury service etc; I would be sacked immediately.
    If I have no work, the social security system would be little use to me. As far as I can work out, I wouldn't be eligible for any kind of welfare if I don't have work because of my existing assets - which aren't great, but just enough to disqualify me.
    Looking at things in the round and objectively, I worked out that to provide security for myself, I need to build up cash reserves in my company to pay myself an income in the event of hard times, because the state would not provide in these circumstances.
    I don't think the supposed purposes of national insurance are much use to me, aside from the possibiity of a state pension. But I have paid in quite a bit of money towards that over the years already, and would continue to pay a modest amount of NI.

    On a moral level, what is the problem with saying to myself, OK I will just organise my affairs so I pay about the same amount of tax as those who live off income from investments; and make my own provision for social security because the state is not much help in my situation?

    Isn't this the most rational response to the situation described above?

    The "Off Payroll Legislation" simply creates a new class of workers: those who pay all the taxes and have all the responsibilities and negatives of employed people, but without any of the protections or benefits. Instead leaving them as vulnerable as the self-employed, but without any of the tax benefits that exist in order to cover off those vulnerabilities and issues.

    It's basically a tax scam on behalf of HMRC. But one that nets far less in the way of income than they anticipated, anyway. If they were serious, they'd have made the legislation such that as soon as one is "deemed employed," they must actually be employed, with all of the benefits and protections that entails. But that would shred the areas of work involved (as few would fully employ people when they only need them for a few weeks or months to cover something transient) and cause significant economic impact, so they came up with this scam.
    If you are only working for someone for a few weeks - how are you caught in IR35?

    The point of that legislation (and subsequent efforts) was to get rid of the situation where people were using contracting as a replacement for regular employment. I knew IT guys who worked for the same bank for a decade as "contractors".
  • Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 4,122

    darkage said:

    I can do similar work 'inside IR35' or 'outside IR35'.
    If I do the former, then I have to pay about 20% more tax. National Insurance.
    I have a strong moral objection to National Insurance because it is an inherently unfair tax, as it only applies to those who work.
    My income is good, but also vulnerable to shocks, the contracts I work provide no provision for sick pay, jury service etc; I would be sacked immediately.
    If I have no work, the social security system would be little use to me. As far as I can work out, I wouldn't be eligible for any kind of welfare if I don't have work because of my existing assets - which aren't great, but just enough to disqualify me.
    Looking at things in the round and objectively, I worked out that to provide security for myself, I need to build up cash reserves in my company to pay myself an income in the event of hard times, because the state would not provide in these circumstances.
    I don't think the supposed purposes of national insurance are much use to me, aside from the possibiity of a state pension. But I have paid in quite a bit of money towards that over the years already, and would continue to pay a modest amount of NI.

    On a moral level, what is the problem with saying to myself, OK I will just organise my affairs so I pay about the same amount of tax as those who live off income from investments; and make my own provision for social security because the state is not much help in my situation?

    Isn't this the most rational response to the situation described above?

    The "Off Payroll Legislation" simply creates a new class of workers: those who pay all the taxes and have all the responsibilities and negatives of employed people, but without any of the protections or benefits. Instead leaving them as vulnerable as the self-employed, but without any of the tax benefits that exist in order to cover off those vulnerabilities and issues.

    It's basically a tax scam on behalf of HMRC. But one that nets far less in the way of income than they anticipated, anyway. If they were serious, they'd have made the legislation such that as soon as one is "deemed employed," they must actually be employed, with all of the benefits and protections that entails. But that would shred the areas of work involved (as few would fully employ people when they only need them for a few weeks or months to cover something transient) and cause significant economic impact, so they came up with this scam.
    P.S. - One unusual feature of Off Payroll "deemed workers" is that they are the only workers to be prohibited from ever claiming tax-free travel and subsistence costs back.

    Which, given that they are the most likely to be involved in temporary contracts that could be a considerable distance from home, and their tax burden is the highest of the three classes of workers (employed, self-employed, deemed employed) is very harsh.

    An employee or self-employed worker can claim T&S for up to 2 years. A deemed employed worker on a 2 week contract is judged to have that 2-week location as their "permanent place of work" and prohibited from such claims. That's one element that very much vexes those deemed inside IR35 in my experience, and I can understand why.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 9,475
    edited June 13
    DavidL said:



    I agree about defence spending too but I am wondering what our capacity might be.

    The tories cancelled the Warrior CSP so Lockheed sacked everybody involved with heavy armour at Ampthill.

    You've got the repurposed forklift factory at Merthyr Tydfil that's fucking up Ajax. Probably no capacity there.

    Rheinmetall-BAE at Bristol are busy painting giant Union Jacks on everything as part of the Challenger 3 project.

    The UK has very little capability or capacity to make armour or artillery. The government needs to worry more about equipping its own armed forces competently before fretting about fucking Ukraine.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 28,175
    edited June 13

    Morning, all. Bad news everywhere, except the weather forecast and the cricket.

    That is not weather - that is the Sunnily Lit Uplands we have all been promised!!!!!!! The economy is going backwards, 1957 is on its way, Lord JRM will be PM and The Dream will finally come true! The purest of Brexits

    :D
    In a re-run 1957, can I have better A level results, please! And/or make better choices about them!
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 27,307
    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Off Topic

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-61780450

    Barty, please explain?

    From the article:
    "The Office for National Statistics (ONS) said the main driver of April's contraction was the fall in the services sector due to the winding down of the NHS's Covid test and trace operation."

    So the shape of our economy is still being distorted by the exceptional spending on the pandemic. As that is wound down the economy shrinks a little. There is no doubt that we are heading to a recession though. Not only our economy but the world economy is in a very bad way and this is being aggravated by the zero Covid policy in China.
    The zero Covid policy in China is not having as severe an impact as I expected. I thought that there would be more widespread lockdowns by now that would cause major international trade issues, but they've been more successful in containing the spread of the virus, and limiting the economic impact, than I expected.

    I just ordered a new phone, which was shipped immediately, for example.

    What we need to do is fire up the armaments factories to equip Ukraine's army with armoured vehicles, artillery, etc. Everything is still focused on supplying Ukraine from existing stocks. We could do with cranking things up a few notches.
    Interesting. I waited 2 months for a new Iphone earlier this year. We saw yet another consequence in the flash report on the economy that I have quoted. Sales of new registrations in March were exceptionally low whilst April's were better than normal. That must surely be supply related which, AIUI, is chip related. If these things are starting to ease that will help but higher interest rates to reduce inflation, a reduction in the value of real wages and a tightening of government spending will still drive us into a recession.

    I agree about defence spending too but I am wondering what our capacity might be.
    David you bought a new iPhone what at somewhere North of a thousand pounds.

    Recession what recession.

    The extraordinary costs of such branded products will be a topic for future historians to dwell upon in times to come.
    See the prices that people pay for mechanical watches of various brands.

    Phones are simply in the personal jewellery category, for many people.
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 5,917

    darkage said:

    I can do similar work 'inside IR35' or 'outside IR35'.
    If I do the former, then I have to pay about 20% more tax. National Insurance.
    I have a strong moral objection to National Insurance because it is an inherently unfair tax, as it only applies to those who work.
    My income is good, but also vulnerable to shocks, the contracts I work provide no provision for sick pay, jury service etc; I would be sacked immediately.
    If I have no work, the social security system would be little use to me. As far as I can work out, I wouldn't be eligible for any kind of welfare if I don't have work because of my existing assets - which aren't great, but just enough to disqualify me.
    Looking at things in the round and objectively, I worked out that to provide security for myself, I need to build up cash reserves in my company to pay myself an income in the event of hard times, because the state would not provide in these circumstances.
    I don't think the supposed purposes of national insurance are much use to me, aside from the possibiity of a state pension. But I have paid in quite a bit of money towards that over the years already, and would continue to pay a modest amount of NI.

    On a moral level, what is the problem with saying to myself, OK I will just organise my affairs so I pay about the same amount of tax as those who live off income from investments; and make my own provision for social security because the state is not much help in my situation?

    Isn't this the most rational response to the situation described above?

    The "Off Payroll Legislation" simply creates a new class of workers: those who pay all the taxes and have all the responsibilities and negatives of employed people, but without any of the protections or benefits. Instead leaving them as vulnerable as the self-employed, but without any of the tax benefits that exist in order to cover off those vulnerabilities and issues.

    It's basically a tax scam on behalf of HMRC. But one that nets far less in the way of income than they anticipated, anyway. If they were serious, they'd have made the legislation such that as soon as one is "deemed employed," they must actually be employed, with all of the benefits and protections that entails. But that would shred the areas of work involved (as few would fully employ people when they only need them for a few weeks or months to cover something transient) and cause significant economic impact, so they came up with this scam.
    I changed the way I worked when IR35 came in and cut back on the consultancy side of the business and went for a wider customer base in application development and support instead. All that happened was Indian and American consultancy firms moved into the gap left by small consultants like myself, offshored the profits whereas I continued outside IR35 exploiting every tax loophole my accountant could come up with.

    I used to like paying ACT, it was a great tax that you could pay every quarter so that by the year end you only had a small adjustment and your taxes were always up to date. Then they abolished it and went for an annual tax 9 months after year end and promptly killed their tax revenue for a year.

    The Inland Revenue (as it was then) was never noted for its brilliance
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 17,030
    edited June 13
    Any chance of Root getting the highest test score today? 400 not out is the current record held by Brian Lara. Root is on 163.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 1,913

    Scott_xP said:

    A government source tells Daily Mail it will fly a chartered jet to Rwanda tomorrow even if only one migrant can be lawfully flown there. This policy is conspicuously not about securing value for money for taxpayers, at least not in short term https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1536233345998372864/photo/1

    In the repllies: I hadn't spotted that the MOU between us and Rwanda is that the UK is obliged to "resettle a portion of Rwanda's most vulnerable refugees"

    This could be fun...
    What on earth does that mean?
    We take political undesirables?
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 2,236

    darkage said:

    I can do similar work 'inside IR35' or 'outside IR35'.
    If I do the former, then I have to pay about 20% more tax. National Insurance.
    I have a strong moral objection to National Insurance because it is an inherently unfair tax, as it only applies to those who work.
    My income is good, but also vulnerable to shocks, the contracts I work provide no provision for sick pay, jury service etc; I would be sacked immediately.
    If I have no work, the social security system would be little use to me. As far as I can work out, I wouldn't be eligible for any kind of welfare if I don't have work because of my existing assets - which aren't great, but just enough to disqualify me.
    Looking at things in the round and objectively, I worked out that to provide security for myself, I need to build up cash reserves in my company to pay myself an income in the event of hard times, because the state would not provide in these circumstances.
    I don't think the supposed purposes of national insurance are much use to me, aside from the possibiity of a state pension. But I have paid in quite a bit of money towards that over the years already, and would continue to pay a modest amount of NI.

    On a moral level, what is the problem with saying to myself, OK I will just organise my affairs so I pay about the same amount of tax as those who live off income from investments; and make my own provision for social security because the state is not much help in my situation?

    Isn't this the most rational response to the situation described above?

    The "Off Payroll Legislation" simply creates a new class of workers: those who pay all the taxes and have all the responsibilities and negatives of employed people, but without any of the protections or benefits. Instead leaving them as vulnerable as the self-employed, but without any of the tax benefits that exist in order to cover off those vulnerabilities and issues.

    It's basically a tax scam on behalf of HMRC. But one that nets far less in the way of income than they anticipated, anyway. If they were serious, they'd have made the legislation such that as soon as one is "deemed employed," they must actually be employed, with all of the benefits and protections that entails. But that would shred the areas of work involved (as few would fully employ people when they only need them for a few weeks or months to cover something transient) and cause significant economic impact, so they came up with this scam.
    I think this is almost correct. You get eligibility for JSA. This is about £77 per week which you get for 6 months (so £2k in total) for which you have to be subjected to regime of supervision by the job centre where you are forced to apply for crap minimum wage jobs.

    As far as I can see, that is the single prospective "benefit" of paying tens of thousands of pounds every year in national insurance in the event that I was out of work. You are correct, that the employer gets out of all contractural obligations including sick pay, redundancy, training, professional fees, grievance procedures, notice of termination of contract etc.
  • eekeek Posts: 19,266
    edited June 13

    darkage said:

    I can do similar work 'inside IR35' or 'outside IR35'.
    If I do the former, then I have to pay about 20% more tax. National Insurance.
    I have a strong moral objection to National Insurance because it is an inherently unfair tax, as it only applies to those who work.
    My income is good, but also vulnerable to shocks, the contracts I work provide no provision for sick pay, jury service etc; I would be sacked immediately.
    If I have no work, the social security system would be little use to me. As far as I can work out, I wouldn't be eligible for any kind of welfare if I don't have work because of my existing assets - which aren't great, but just enough to disqualify me.
    Looking at things in the round and objectively, I worked out that to provide security for myself, I need to build up cash reserves in my company to pay myself an income in the event of hard times, because the state would not provide in these circumstances.
    I don't think the supposed purposes of national insurance are much use to me, aside from the possibiity of a state pension. But I have paid in quite a bit of money towards that over the years already, and would continue to pay a modest amount of NI.

    On a moral level, what is the problem with saying to myself, OK I will just organise my affairs so I pay about the same amount of tax as those who live off income from investments; and make my own provision for social security because the state is not much help in my situation?

    Isn't this the most rational response to the situation described above?

    The "Off Payroll Legislation" simply creates a new class of workers: those who pay all the taxes and have all the responsibilities and negatives of employed people, but without any of the protections or benefits. Instead leaving them as vulnerable as the self-employed, but without any of the tax benefits that exist in order to cover off those vulnerabilities and issues.

    It's basically a tax scam on behalf of HMRC. But one that nets far less in the way of income than they anticipated, anyway. If they were serious, they'd have made the legislation such that as soon as one is "deemed employed," they must actually be employed, with all of the benefits and protections that entails. But that would shred the areas of work involved (as few would fully employ people when they only need them for a few weeks or months to cover something transient) and cause significant economic impact, so they came up with this scam.
    P.S. - One unusual feature of Off Payroll "deemed workers" is that they are the only workers to be prohibited from ever claiming tax-free travel and subsistence costs back.

    Which, given that they are the most likely to be involved in temporary contracts that could be a considerable distance from home, and their tax burden is the highest of the three classes of workers (employed, self-employed, deemed employed) is very harsh.

    An employee or self-employed worker can claim T&S for up to 2 years. A deemed employed worker on a 2 week contract is judged to have that 2-week location as their "permanent place of work" and prohibited from such claims. That's one element that very much vexes those deemed inside IR35 in my experience, and I can understand why.
    Hey - be glad that my work back in 2016 actually achieved something - the original plan for travel and subsistence would have screwed up directors of limited companies as well as those working via an umbrella.

    Also technically the 2 year rule you are talking about only occurs if your employer moves you from you initial office to a new one. If you decide to take a job in London you can't claim t&s expenses for your daily commute to London. If, however you employer closed the Peterborough office you worked in and moved it to Cambridge you could claim expenses for the first 2 years of that move.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 9,475

    Scott_xP said:

    A government source tells Daily Mail it will fly a chartered jet to Rwanda tomorrow even if only one migrant can be lawfully flown there. This policy is conspicuously not about securing value for money for taxpayers, at least not in short term https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1536233345998372864/photo/1

    In the repllies: I hadn't spotted that the MOU between us and Rwanda is that the UK is obliged to "resettle a portion of Rwanda's most vulnerable refugees"

    This could be fun...
    The government is obviously trying to import francophone refugees in the hope they'll start crossing the channel in the other direction.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 39,028
    ydoethur said:

    Jonathan said:

    Don't understand the government's policy on wages. Last year they wanted wages to rise. They said it was a Brexit benefit and took credit that they were rising. They can hardly attack people for wanting their wage to rise.

    The government has a policy?

    I assumed they just did whatever would get a good headline in the Sun this week.
    If that were the case, they’d be suspending fuel duty until Putin is put back in his box.
  • Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 4,122

    darkage said:

    I can do similar work 'inside IR35' or 'outside IR35'.
    If I do the former, then I have to pay about 20% more tax. National Insurance.
    I have a strong moral objection to National Insurance because it is an inherently unfair tax, as it only applies to those who work.
    My income is good, but also vulnerable to shocks, the contracts I work provide no provision for sick pay, jury service etc; I would be sacked immediately.
    If I have no work, the social security system would be little use to me. As far as I can work out, I wouldn't be eligible for any kind of welfare if I don't have work because of my existing assets - which aren't great, but just enough to disqualify me.
    Looking at things in the round and objectively, I worked out that to provide security for myself, I need to build up cash reserves in my company to pay myself an income in the event of hard times, because the state would not provide in these circumstances.
    I don't think the supposed purposes of national insurance are much use to me, aside from the possibiity of a state pension. But I have paid in quite a bit of money towards that over the years already, and would continue to pay a modest amount of NI.

    On a moral level, what is the problem with saying to myself, OK I will just organise my affairs so I pay about the same amount of tax as those who live off income from investments; and make my own provision for social security because the state is not much help in my situation?

    Isn't this the most rational response to the situation described above?

    The "Off Payroll Legislation" simply creates a new class of workers: those who pay all the taxes and have all the responsibilities and negatives of employed people, but without any of the protections or benefits. Instead leaving them as vulnerable as the self-employed, but without any of the tax benefits that exist in order to cover off those vulnerabilities and issues.

    It's basically a tax scam on behalf of HMRC. But one that nets far less in the way of income than they anticipated, anyway. If they were serious, they'd have made the legislation such that as soon as one is "deemed employed," they must actually be employed, with all of the benefits and protections that entails. But that would shred the areas of work involved (as few would fully employ people when they only need them for a few weeks or months to cover something transient) and cause significant economic impact, so they came up with this scam.
    If you are only working for someone for a few weeks - how are you caught in IR35?

    The point of that legislation (and subsequent efforts) was to get rid of the situation where people were using contracting as a replacement for regular employment. I knew IT guys who worked for the same bank for a decade as "contractors".
    That may be the intent, but it's not the actuality.
    The duration of the work isn't important. It's control and substitution (and mutuality of obligation, but HMRC tries to argue that the latter is always present, whilst the law tends to disagree with them).

    If you cannot be easily substituted in or out, and need to be supervised, it doesn't matter if you're there for 2 weeks, you're deemed employed and inside IR35. If you self-supervise, could arrange a substitute meaningfully, and don't have mutuality of obligation, it doesn't matter if you're there for twenty years, you're outside IR35.

    Many people do seem to have the impression that it's all about how long you're there; it can influence it, but it's not at all decisive.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 70,236
    edited June 13
    Andy_JS said:

    Any chance of Root getting the highest test score today? 400 not out is the current record held by Brian Lara. Root is on 163.

    If everything goes perfectly for England, England might want ~ 10 overs at the Kiwis this evening and to be ~ 220 ahead. That's be a total of 773 - which is 300 in ~ 80 overs. As Root is on 163 it dovetails with declaring shortly after he reaches a triple century. So I'd go with "no" on reaching 400 for Root.

    If England are more defensive (Don't bother to declare) (And everything still goes perfectly) then I still don't think he reaches 400 today.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 27,307
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Off Topic

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-61780450

    Barty, please explain?

    From the article:
    "The Office for National Statistics (ONS) said the main driver of April's contraction was the fall in the services sector due to the winding down of the NHS's Covid test and trace operation."

    So the shape of our economy is still being distorted by the exceptional spending on the pandemic. As that is wound down the economy shrinks a little. There is no doubt that we are heading to a recession though. Not only our economy but the world economy is in a very bad way and this is being aggravated by the zero Covid policy in China.
    The zero Covid policy in China is not having as severe an impact as I expected. I thought that there would be more widespread lockdowns by now that would cause major international trade issues, but they've been more successful in containing the spread of the virus, and limiting the economic impact, than I expected.

    I just ordered a new phone, which was shipped immediately, for example.

    What we need to do is fire up the armaments factories to equip Ukraine's army with armoured vehicles, artillery, etc. Everything is still focused on supplying Ukraine from existing stocks. We could do with cranking things up a few notches.
    Interesting. I waited 2 months for a new Iphone earlier this year. We saw yet another consequence in the flash report on the economy that I have quoted. Sales of new registrations in March were exceptionally low whilst April's were better than normal. That must surely be supply related which, AIUI, is chip related. If these things are starting to ease that will help but higher interest rates to reduce inflation, a reduction in the value of real wages and a tightening of government spending will still drive us into a recession.

    I agree about defence spending too but I am wondering what our capacity might be.
    Thales in Belfast is apparently giving out *all* the over time.

    As to China, I get the impression that those in the get-the-economy-working faction are taking priority over the zero-covidians.

    The Chinese government is well aware that it's survival depends on economic success, in the long term.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 22,077
    What an absolute thrill to start the week, finding out from an actual government
    minister that a government with an 80 seat majority can’t do what it said it would because of the pundits. https://twitter.com/SimonClarkeMP/status/1536111830371815424

    “I’m afraid it’s bad news again prime minister. We had the Northern Ireland border problem completely sorted but Peston’s gone and done another tweet thread and we’re back to square one I’m afraid.”

    “Oh well. Can’t be helped. Where are we on the trade deal with America?”

    “Completely banjaxed boss. Was all ready to go then Marina Hyde just ripped the arse out of it.”

    “Buggeration. Well I did promise to scrap VAT on energy bills if we left the EU didn’t I. Surely we can do that?”

    “We tried, we really tried, but without Hugo Rifkind on board it’s a complete non-starter.”

    “Okay. Well what about the £350m a week for the NHS? We wrote it on a bus. Can we not just do it?”

    “Well we *could* prime minister but, but..”

    “But what?”

    “It’s Alastair Campbell prime minister, and Rory Stewart. They’ve, they’ve started a podcast.”

    “The fish?? Surely the fish is fine?”

    “Well, not exactly fine, no. We *have* taken back control of it but sadly it’s now all rotting in lorries in a disused an airfield in Kent.”

    “Why? Wwwhhyyy??”

    “I’ll tell you why. Andrew fucking Rawnsley. That’s why.”

    “If all this really is their fault can we at least start blaming them?”

    “Not as easy as it looks boss. I tested the water with a reply to Kevin Schofield but that wanker Peck at the indy just leapt on it.”

    “I don’t even know who that is.”

    “No, absolutely no one does. And yet somehow he and his sarcastic mates are all secretly running the deep state via 1,100 word articles on various news websites and there doesn’t appear to be a thing we can do about it.”

    “Well that sounds fun. How do you get in to that?”


    https://twitter.com/tompeck/status/1536250632239206400
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 52,205
    Good morning

    Seems we have government by confrontation with Rwanda, RMT and public sector unions, and now the NI protocol controversy featuring

    I understand the NI legislation has been created by the ERG and David Davis, no less, has apparently suggested he could take over from Boris, if it helps !!!!

    How depressing, and we need to see how the polls react but if Labour aren't out of sight then they need to question why
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 1,913

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Off Topic

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-61780450

    Barty, please explain?

    From the article:
    "The Office for National Statistics (ONS) said the main driver of April's contraction was the fall in the services sector due to the winding down of the NHS's Covid test and trace operation."

    So the shape of our economy is still being distorted by the exceptional spending on the pandemic. As that is wound down the economy shrinks a little. There is no doubt that we are heading to a recession though. Not only our economy but the world economy is in a very bad way and this is being aggravated by the zero Covid policy in China.
    The zero Covid policy in China is not having as severe an impact as I expected. I thought that there would be more widespread lockdowns by now that would cause major international trade issues, but they've been more successful in containing the spread of the virus, and limiting the economic impact, than I expected.

    I just ordered a new phone, which was shipped immediately, for example.

    What we need to do is fire up the armaments factories to equip Ukraine's army with armoured vehicles, artillery, etc. Everything is still focused on supplying Ukraine from existing stocks. We could do with cranking things up a few notches.
    Interesting. I waited 2 months for a new Iphone earlier this year. We saw yet another consequence in the flash report on the economy that I have quoted. Sales of new registrations in March were exceptionally low whilst April's were better than normal. That must surely be supply related which, AIUI, is chip related. If these things are starting to ease that will help but higher interest rates to reduce inflation, a reduction in the value of real wages and a tightening of government spending will still drive us into a recession.

    I agree about defence spending too but I am wondering what our capacity might be.
    Thales in Belfast is apparently giving out *all* the over time.

    As to China, I get the impression that those in the get-the-economy-working faction are taking priority over the zero-covidians.

    The Chinese government is well aware that it's survival depends on economic success, in the long term.
    I recall reading that in export oriented industries they are locking people down into their place of work. Not slavery at all. Oh, no sirree
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 70,236
    edited June 13
    Just looked at my meagre crypto balance, oh my days :D
This discussion has been closed.