Australia I think is evenly balanced. I don't think it's certain.
Canada won't.
New Zealand won't either, too much history with Waitangi and not much appetite for it either.
Edit: as I said last night I think the most likely is Jamaica.
My son's Canadian girlfriend is staying with us at the moment. Her view, and it is a sample of one, is that Canada is very likely to become a Republic in the next couple of years. There is a huge aftermath of irritation with the conduct of Julie Payette as Governor General, asking why do we need to put up with this? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/21/canadas-governor-general-resigns-report-harassment
Well she is completely wrong, both PM Trudeau and new leader of the Conservative opposition Poilievre are monarchists. Only the NDP and Maxime Bernier's party in Canada back a republic.
Indeed there is a new governor general who replaced the one you linked to and proclaimed King Charles IIIrd as Canada's new King yesterday
I would suggest a Canadian is more reliable than yourself and while it may not be imminent it is quite possible all of Aus, NZ and Canada will become republics and others will and quicker
No they aren't, you could be on Mars and still note that both the main party leaders in Canada are monarchists, so there is zero chance of any change there.
I said Australia might be possible but even there polling is evenly divided.
God save King Charles IIIrd!!!!
You do not speak for the peoples of these countries who will eventually become republics
But Boris is hoping to be re-selected and re-elected. David Cameron might be interested in backing Boris to be Prime Minister at the next election (18 yes; 1.05 no).
If I were a CEO considering investing in any UK energy scheme, I'd want a very clear definition of "excess profits" so I could be prepared for any future windfall taxes on them
Perhaps best not to be a CEO then, as if you are investing on projects with returns spread out over decades in a volatile industry dealing with such uncertainty is part of the job.
One of the things that businesses like is stability. It’s not so much the tax levels (though they have an effect) as a set of rules they can rely on.
Norway is better than the U.K. on such stability in the tax rules for the North Sea - and I think they take more in tax, ultimately. They are better because they have a rule book which they stick to and which makes more sense.
Yep this has been my argument for years. All the more so when the tax rates are not that much different between the two countries but the UK side tinkers with them continuously. As I think I pointed out the other day, in 2014 Osborne changed the North Sea tax regime 3 times in one year. They do the same with regulation. In the last decade regulation of the North Sea has been the responsibility of 3 different Government bodies - DECC, OGA and now NSTA. And even though these are to a large extent the same organisations just rebranded, they always seem to feel the need for a 'clean broom' and start changing all the regulatory systems to justify their existence.
I remember Vasella, the CEO of Novartis, telling me that predictable tax levels and regulation were key for deciding investment, to a far greater degree than their actual level. Obviously high tax rates and strict regulation were a drawback for a multinational, but if you knew they were broadly constant, you could make rational, evidence-based planning decisions. By contrast, a country with fluctuating rates and erratic regulation was too uncertain to bother with, even if they were temporarily helpful.
The other key criterion for him, which I'd not expected, was an education system generating an ample supply of highly-educated local staff. He felt that was a big plus point for Britain (this was 30 years ago --not sure it's still true).
Australia I think is evenly balanced. I don't think it's certain.
Canada won't.
New Zealand won't either, too much history with Waitangi and not much appetite for it either.
Edit: as I said last night I think the most likely is Jamaica.
My son's Canadian girlfriend is staying with us at the moment. Her view, and it is a sample of one, is that Canada is very likely to become a Republic in the next couple of years. There is a huge aftermath of irritation with the conduct of Julie Payette as Governor General, asking why do we need to put up with this? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/21/canadas-governor-general-resigns-report-harassment
The Monarchy (I originally wrote Queen!) differentiates them from the USA. It's right there on the money. Anything which does that is good. The role of Governor General is a different matter. As Australia would also attest.
I don't know how the appointment of a Governor General currently works, but I would guess that it's nominally by the sovereign on the advice of her Ministers, those Ministers in this case being those in the country for which the Governor General is to be appointed.
So it would seem relatively easy to have an election for Governor General, the PM of Canada (or wherever) then advises the monarch to appoint the winner of the election to be Governor General, and you can have all the democratic advantages of a Republic, while retaining the historical and traditional links with the Monarchy.
If I were a CEO considering investing in any UK energy scheme, I'd want a very clear definition of "excess profits" so I could be prepared for any future windfall taxes on them
Perhaps best not to be a CEO then, as if you are investing on projects with returns spread out over decades in a volatile industry dealing with such uncertainty is part of the job.
One of the things that businesses like is stability. It’s not so much the tax levels (though they have an effect) as a set of rules they can rely on.
Norway is better than the U.K. on such stability in the tax rules for the North Sea - and I think they take more in tax, ultimately. They are better because they have a rule book which they stick to and which makes more sense.
Yep this has been my argument for years. All the more so when the tax rates are not that much different between the two countries but the UK side tinkers with them continuously. As I think I pointed out the other day, in 2014 Osborne changed the North Sea tax regime 3 times in one year. They do the same with regulation. In the last decade regulation of the North Sea has been the responsibility of 3 different Government bodies - DECC, OGA and now NSTA. And even though these are to a large extent the same organisations just rebranded, they always seem to feel the need for a 'clean broom' and start changing all the regulatory systems to justify their existence.
I remember Vasella, the CEO of Novartis, telling me that predictable tax levels and regulation were key for deciding investment, to a far greater degree than their actual level. Obviously high tax rates and strict regulation were a drawback for a multinational, but if you knew they were broadly constant, you could make rational, evidence-based planning decisions. By contrast, a country with fluctuating rates and erratic regulation was too uncertain to bother with, even if they were temporarily helpful.
The other key criterion for him, which I'd not expected, was an education system generating an ample supply of highly-educated local staff. He felt that was a big plus point for Britain (this was 30 years ago --not sure it's still true).
Case in point is our R&D credit regime. Very generous on paper, and very valuable to many companies. But you make a claim after the event then defend it on audit with HMRC. So almost nobody factors the credits into investment appraisals because there’s no way to get certainty in advance. It then becomes s nice windfall later.
Other countries have similar regimes that you apply for in advance and get a ruling. So you can then confidently factor the benefit into an investment business case.
Australia I think is evenly balanced. I don't think it's certain.
Canada won't.
New Zealand won't either, too much history with Waitangi and not much appetite for it either.
Edit: as I said last night I think the most likely is Jamaica.
My son's Canadian girlfriend is staying with us at the moment. Her view, and it is a sample of one, is that Canada is very likely to become a Republic in the next couple of years. There is a huge aftermath of irritation with the conduct of Julie Payette as Governor General, asking why do we need to put up with this? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/21/canadas-governor-general-resigns-report-harassment
Well she is completely wrong, both PM Trudeau and new leader of the Conservative opposition Poilievre are monarchists. Only the NDP and Maxime Bernier's party in Canada back a republic.
Indeed there is a new governor general who replaced the one you linked to and proclaimed King Charles IIIrd as Canada's new King yesterday
I would suggest a Canadian is more reliable than yourself and while it may not be imminent it is quite possible all of Aus, NZ and Canada will become republics and others will and quicker
No they aren't, you could be on Mars and still note that both the main party leaders in Canada are monarchists, so there is zero chance of any change there.
I said Australia might be possible as the Labor PM is a republican and wants another referendum on it but even there polling is evenly divided.
God save King Charles IIIrd!!!!
If I were running the republican campaign anywhere I would just show the inkpot footage on a loop.
Denmark signed a deal with Rwanda to move the Nordic country closer to setting up an asylum center outside of the European Union to reduce the number of people seeking refuge.
The two countries declared a “joint ambition” to collaborate on asylum and that they will set up a mechanism that could transfer seekers to Rwanda from Denmark, according to a statement published by the government in Copenhagen on Friday.
Australia I think is evenly balanced. I don't think it's certain.
Canada won't.
New Zealand won't either, too much history with Waitangi and not much appetite for it either.
Edit: as I said last night I think the most likely is Jamaica.
My son's Canadian girlfriend is staying with us at the moment. Her view, and it is a sample of one, is that Canada is very likely to become a Republic in the next couple of years. There is a huge aftermath of irritation with the conduct of Julie Payette as Governor General, asking why do we need to put up with this? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/21/canadas-governor-general-resigns-report-harassment
Well she is completely wrong, both PM Trudeau and new leader of the Conservative opposition Poilievre are monarchists. Only the NDP and Maxime Bernier's party in Canada back a republic.
Indeed there is a new governor general who replaced the one you linked to and proclaimed King Charles IIIrd as Canada's new King yesterday
I would suggest a Canadian is more reliable than yourself and while it may not be imminent it is quite possible all of Aus, NZ and Canada will become republics and others will and quicker
No they aren't, you could be on Mars and still note that both the main party leaders in Canada are monarchists, so there is zero chance of any change there.
I said Australia might be possible as the Labor PM is a republican and wants another referendum on it but even there polling is evenly divided.
God save King Charles IIIrd!!!!
If I were running the republican campaign anywhere I would just show the inkpot footage on a loop.
I would just show President Johnson or President Blair on a loop.
There was nothing wrong with Charles asking for his desk to be cleared as it needed documents on
Australia I think is evenly balanced. I don't think it's certain.
Canada won't.
New Zealand won't either, too much history with Waitangi and not much appetite for it either.
Edit: as I said last night I think the most likely is Jamaica.
My son's Canadian girlfriend is staying with us at the moment. Her view, and it is a sample of one, is that Canada is very likely to become a Republic in the next couple of years. There is a huge aftermath of irritation with the conduct of Julie Payette as Governor General, asking why do we need to put up with this? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/21/canadas-governor-general-resigns-report-harassment
Well she is completely wrong, both PM Trudeau and new leader of the Conservative opposition Poilievre are monarchists. Only the NDP and Maxime Bernier's party in Canada back a republic.
Indeed there is a new governor general who replaced the one you linked to and proclaimed King Charles IIIrd as Canada's new King yesterday
I would suggest a Canadian is more reliable than yourself and while it may not be imminent it is quite possible all of Aus, NZ and Canada will become republics and others will and quicker
No they aren't, you could be on Mars and still note that both the main party leaders in Canada are monarchists, so there is zero chance of any change there.
I said Australia might be possible as the Labor PM is a republican and wants another referendum on it but even there polling is evenly divided.
God save King Charles IIIrd!!!!
If I were running the republican campaign anywhere I would just show the inkpot footage on a loop.
I would just show President Johnson or President Blair on a loop.
There was nothing wrong with Charles asking for his desk to be cleared as it needed documents on
Princess Anne looks absolutely heartbroken. I know that those lining the streets want to pay their respects and that it is right that Anne accompanies her mother but, still, it is a reminder of how hard it is to be in the public eye at such a time.
Australia I think is evenly balanced. I don't think it's certain.
Canada won't.
New Zealand won't either, too much history with Waitangi and not much appetite for it either.
Edit: as I said last night I think the most likely is Jamaica.
My son's Canadian girlfriend is staying with us at the moment. Her view, and it is a sample of one, is that Canada is very likely to become a Republic in the next couple of years. There is a huge aftermath of irritation with the conduct of Julie Payette as Governor General, asking why do we need to put up with this? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/21/canadas-governor-general-resigns-report-harassment
Well she is completely wrong, both PM Trudeau and new leader of the Conservative opposition Poilievre are monarchists. Only the NDP and Maxime Bernier's party in Canada back a republic.
Indeed there is a new governor general who replaced the one you linked to and proclaimed King Charles IIIrd as Canada's new King yesterday
I would suggest a Canadian is more reliable than yourself and while it may not be imminent it is quite possible all of Aus, NZ and Canada will become republics and others will and quicker
No they aren't, you could be on Mars and still note that both the main party leaders in Canada are monarchists, so there is zero chance of any change there.
I said Australia might be possible as the Labor PM is a republican and wants another referendum on it but even there polling is evenly divided.
God save King Charles IIIrd!!!!
If I were running the republican campaign anywhere I would just show the inkpot footage on a loop.
I would just show President Johnson or President Blair on a loop.
There was nothing wrong with Charles asking for his desk to be cleared as it needed documents on
There was everything wrong with his demeanour and utter disrespect to another human being
It showed his true nature which has long since been known and which Camilla struggles to contain
Australia I think is evenly balanced. I don't think it's certain.
Canada won't.
New Zealand won't either, too much history with Waitangi and not much appetite for it either.
Edit: as I said last night I think the most likely is Jamaica.
My son's Canadian girlfriend is staying with us at the moment. Her view, and it is a sample of one, is that Canada is very likely to become a Republic in the next couple of years. There is a huge aftermath of irritation with the conduct of Julie Payette as Governor General, asking why do we need to put up with this? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/21/canadas-governor-general-resigns-report-harassment
Well she is completely wrong, both PM Trudeau and new leader of the Conservative opposition Poilievre are monarchists. Only the NDP and Maxime Bernier's party in Canada back a republic.
Indeed there is a new governor general who replaced the one you linked to and proclaimed King Charles IIIrd as Canada's new King yesterday
I would suggest a Canadian is more reliable than yourself and while it may not be imminent it is quite possible all of Aus, NZ and Canada will become republics and others will and quicker
No they aren't, you could be on Mars and still note that both the main party leaders in Canada are monarchists, so there is zero chance of any change there.
I said Australia might be possible as the Labor PM is a republican and wants another referendum on it but even there polling is evenly divided.
God save King Charles IIIrd!!!!
If I were running the republican campaign anywhere I would just show the inkpot footage on a loop.
I watched that ceremony on telly live as did many people I know. No one noticed it, no one mentioned it. I then watched the video again after everyone here kept banging on about it. And I still didn’t see what the fuss was about. And I am someone who would broadly describe myself as agnostic on the issue of monarchy as an institution and broadly antagonistic towards many of the individuals.
This story is one of republicans howling at the moon. They thought the only thing keeping the UK a constitutional monarchy was the remarkable lady Elizabeth Windsor. And they’ve realised this week that they were probably wrong.
Denmark signed a deal with Rwanda to move the Nordic country closer to setting up an asylum center outside of the European Union to reduce the number of people seeking refuge.
The two countries declared a “joint ambition” to collaborate on asylum and that they will set up a mechanism that could transfer seekers to Rwanda from Denmark, according to a statement published by the government in Copenhagen on Friday.
Denmark is an interesting country. A friend is going through the process to become a Danish citizen. Which he refers to as taking a part time Masters in being a Dane.
While in some respects they are extremely liberal, as in the Netherlands, this doesn’t translate to a let-em-all-come attitude on immigration.
Australia I think is evenly balanced. I don't think it's certain.
Canada won't.
New Zealand won't either, too much history with Waitangi and not much appetite for it either.
Edit: as I said last night I think the most likely is Jamaica.
My son's Canadian girlfriend is staying with us at the moment. Her view, and it is a sample of one, is that Canada is very likely to become a Republic in the next couple of years. There is a huge aftermath of irritation with the conduct of Julie Payette as Governor General, asking why do we need to put up with this? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/21/canadas-governor-general-resigns-report-harassment
Well she is completely wrong, both PM Trudeau and new leader of the Conservative opposition Poilievre are monarchists. Only the NDP and Maxime Bernier's party in Canada back a republic.
Indeed there is a new governor general who replaced the one you linked to and proclaimed King Charles IIIrd as Canada's new King yesterday
I would suggest a Canadian is more reliable than yourself and while it may not be imminent it is quite possible all of Aus, NZ and Canada will become republics and others will and quicker
No they aren't, you could be on Mars and still note that both the main party leaders in Canada are monarchists, so there is zero chance of any change there.
I said Australia might be possible as the Labor PM is a republican and wants another referendum on it but even there polling is evenly divided.
God save King Charles IIIrd!!!!
If I were running the republican campaign anywhere I would just show the inkpot footage on a loop.
I would just show President Johnson or President Blair on a loop.
There was nothing wrong with Charles asking for his desk to be cleared as it needed documents on
That was the only negative otherwise all very impressive. You are right there was nothing wrong with Charles asking. Shame he didn't.
If I were a CEO considering investing in any UK energy scheme, I'd want a very clear definition of "excess profits" so I could be prepared for any future windfall taxes on them
Perhaps best not to be a CEO then, as if you are investing on projects with returns spread out over decades in a volatile industry dealing with such uncertainty is part of the job.
One of the things that businesses like is stability. It’s not so much the tax levels (though they have an effect) as a set of rules they can rely on.
Norway is better than the U.K. on such stability in the tax rules for the North Sea - and I think they take more in tax, ultimately. They are better because they have a rule book which they stick to and which makes more sense.
Yep this has been my argument for years. All the more so when the tax rates are not that much different between the two countries but the UK side tinkers with them continuously. As I think I pointed out the other day, in 2014 Osborne changed the North Sea tax regime 3 times in one year. They do the same with regulation. In the last decade regulation of the North Sea has been the responsibility of 3 different Government bodies - DECC, OGA and now NSTA. And even though these are to a large extent the same organisations just rebranded, they always seem to feel the need for a 'clean broom' and start changing all the regulatory systems to justify their existence.
I remember Vasella, the CEO of Novartis, telling me that predictable tax levels and regulation were key for deciding investment, to a far greater degree than their actual level. Obviously high tax rates and strict regulation were a drawback for a multinational, but if you knew they were broadly constant, you could make rational, evidence-based planning decisions. By contrast, a country with fluctuating rates and erratic regulation was too uncertain to bother with, even if they were temporarily helpful.
The other key criterion for him, which I'd not expected, was an education system generating an ample supply of highly-educated local staff. He felt that was a big plus point for Britain (this was 30 years ago --not sure it's still true).
Case in point is our R&D credit regime. Very generous on paper, and very valuable to many companies. But you make a claim after the event then defend it on audit with HMRC. So almost nobody factors the credits into investment appraisals because there’s no way to get certainty in advance. It then becomes s nice windfall later.
Other countries have similar regimes that you apply for in advance and get a ruling. So you can then confidently factor the benefit into an investment business case.
I’ve dealt with that one - it made a small investment in research by a small company into a mess of paperwork that wasted everyone’s time.
Australia I think is evenly balanced. I don't think it's certain.
Canada won't.
New Zealand won't either, too much history with Waitangi and not much appetite for it either.
Edit: as I said last night I think the most likely is Jamaica.
My son's Canadian girlfriend is staying with us at the moment. Her view, and it is a sample of one, is that Canada is very likely to become a Republic in the next couple of years. There is a huge aftermath of irritation with the conduct of Julie Payette as Governor General, asking why do we need to put up with this? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/21/canadas-governor-general-resigns-report-harassment
Well she is completely wrong, both PM Trudeau and new leader of the Conservative opposition Poilievre are monarchists. Only the NDP and Maxime Bernier's party in Canada back a republic.
Indeed there is a new governor general who replaced the one you linked to and proclaimed King Charles IIIrd as Canada's new King yesterday
I would suggest a Canadian is more reliable than yourself and while it may not be imminent it is quite possible all of Aus, NZ and Canada will become republics and others will and quicker
No they aren't, you could be on Mars and still note that both the main party leaders in Canada are monarchists, so there is zero chance of any change there.
I said Australia might be possible as the Labor PM is a republican and wants another referendum on it but even there polling is evenly divided.
God save King Charles IIIrd!!!!
If I were running the republican campaign anywhere I would just show the inkpot footage on a loop.
I would just show President Johnson or President Blair on a loop.
There was nothing wrong with Charles asking for his desk to be cleared as it needed documents on
There was everything wrong with his demeanour and utter disrespect to another human being
It showed his true nature which has long since been known and which Camilla struggles to contain
You need to take your blinkers off
Go away you and stop being so disrespectful, Charles IIIrd is your King, tough
If I were a CEO considering investing in any UK energy scheme, I'd want a very clear definition of "excess profits" so I could be prepared for any future windfall taxes on them
Perhaps best not to be a CEO then, as if you are investing on projects with returns spread out over decades in a volatile industry dealing with such uncertainty is part of the job.
One of the things that businesses like is stability. It’s not so much the tax levels (though they have an effect) as a set of rules they can rely on.
Norway is better than the U.K. on such stability in the tax rules for the North Sea - and I think they take more in tax, ultimately. They are better because they have a rule book which they stick to and which makes more sense.
Yep this has been my argument for years. All the more so when the tax rates are not that much different between the two countries but the UK side tinkers with them continuously. As I think I pointed out the other day, in 2014 Osborne changed the North Sea tax regime 3 times in one year. They do the same with regulation. In the last decade regulation of the North Sea has been the responsibility of 3 different Government bodies - DECC, OGA and now NSTA. And even though these are to a large extent the same organisations just rebranded, they always seem to feel the need for a 'clean broom' and start changing all the regulatory systems to justify their existence.
I remember Vasella, the CEO of Novartis, telling me that predictable tax levels and regulation were key for deciding investment, to a far greater degree than their actual level. Obviously high tax rates and strict regulation were a drawback for a multinational, but if you knew they were broadly constant, you could make rational, evidence-based planning decisions. By contrast, a country with fluctuating rates and erratic regulation was too uncertain to bother with, even if they were temporarily helpful.
The other key criterion for him, which I'd not expected, was an education system generating an ample supply of highly-educated local staff. He felt that was a big plus point for Britain (this was 30 years ago --not sure it's still true).
and what rational decision would companies make about investment if they knew with certainty the tax rates were high ? errrm not invest ? Nice try Nick but if all you believe is that businesses just want certainty of a tax rate whatever it is , it is on a par with believing that unions just want certainty of a pay deal in the next five years even if is is zero
Australia I think is evenly balanced. I don't think it's certain.
Canada won't.
New Zealand won't either, too much history with Waitangi and not much appetite for it either.
Edit: as I said last night I think the most likely is Jamaica.
My son's Canadian girlfriend is staying with us at the moment. Her view, and it is a sample of one, is that Canada is very likely to become a Republic in the next couple of years. There is a huge aftermath of irritation with the conduct of Julie Payette as Governor General, asking why do we need to put up with this? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/21/canadas-governor-general-resigns-report-harassment
Well she is completely wrong, both PM Trudeau and new leader of the Conservative opposition Poilievre are monarchists. Only the NDP and Maxime Bernier's party in Canada back a republic.
Indeed there is a new governor general who replaced the one you linked to and proclaimed King Charles IIIrd as Canada's new King yesterday
I would suggest a Canadian is more reliable than yourself and while it may not be imminent it is quite possible all of Aus, NZ and Canada will become republics and others will and quicker
No they aren't, you could be on Mars and still note that both the main party leaders in Canada are monarchists, so there is zero chance of any change there.
I said Australia might be possible as the Labor PM is a republican and wants another referendum on it but even there polling is evenly divided.
God save King Charles IIIrd!!!!
If I were running the republican campaign anywhere I would just show the inkpot footage on a loop.
I watched that ceremony on telly live as did many people I know. No one noticed it, no one mentioned it. I then watched the video again after everyone here kept banging on about it. And I still didn’t see what the fuss was about. And I am someone who would broadly describe myself as agnostic on the issue of monarchy as an institution and broadly antagonistic towards many of the individuals.
This story is one of republicans howling at the moon. They thought the only thing keeping the UK a constitutional monarchy was the remarkable lady Elizabeth Windsor. And they’ve realised this week that they were probably wrong.
Not in my case
I wish Charles and the monarchy well but the flash of distane and disrespect to an employee was not a pretty sight but also he is known for his entitled behaviour
Princess Anne looks absolutely heartbroken. I know that those lining the streets want to pay their respects and that it is right that Anne accompanies her mother but, still, it is a reminder of how hard it is to be in the public eye at such a time.
Is Princess Anne in the cortège? There was some debate on the BBC over who was in the Royal Limo behind the hearse.
Australia I think is evenly balanced. I don't think it's certain.
Canada won't.
New Zealand won't either, too much history with Waitangi and not much appetite for it either.
Edit: as I said last night I think the most likely is Jamaica.
My son's Canadian girlfriend is staying with us at the moment. Her view, and it is a sample of one, is that Canada is very likely to become a Republic in the next couple of years. There is a huge aftermath of irritation with the conduct of Julie Payette as Governor General, asking why do we need to put up with this? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/21/canadas-governor-general-resigns-report-harassment
Well she is completely wrong, both PM Trudeau and new leader of the Conservative opposition Poilievre are monarchists. Only the NDP and Maxime Bernier's party in Canada back a republic.
Indeed there is a new governor general who replaced the one you linked to and proclaimed King Charles IIIrd as Canada's new King yesterday
I would suggest a Canadian is more reliable than yourself and while it may not be imminent it is quite possible all of Aus, NZ and Canada will become republics and others will and quicker
No they aren't, you could be on Mars and still note that both the main party leaders in Canada are monarchists, so there is zero chance of any change there.
I said Australia might be possible as the Labor PM is a republican and wants another referendum on it but even there polling is evenly divided.
God save King Charles IIIrd!!!!
If I were running the republican campaign anywhere I would just show the inkpot footage on a loop.
I would just show President Johnson or President Blair on a loop.
There was nothing wrong with Charles asking for his desk to be cleared as it needed documents on
There was everything wrong with his demeanour and utter disrespect to another human being
It showed his true nature which has long since been known and which Camilla struggles to contain
You need to take your blinkers off
Go away you and stop being so disrespectful, Charles IIIrd is your King, tough
Australia I think is evenly balanced. I don't think it's certain.
Canada won't.
New Zealand won't either, too much history with Waitangi and not much appetite for it either.
Edit: as I said last night I think the most likely is Jamaica.
My son's Canadian girlfriend is staying with us at the moment. Her view, and it is a sample of one, is that Canada is very likely to become a Republic in the next couple of years. There is a huge aftermath of irritation with the conduct of Julie Payette as Governor General, asking why do we need to put up with this? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/21/canadas-governor-general-resigns-report-harassment
Well she is completely wrong, both PM Trudeau and new leader of the Conservative opposition Poilievre are monarchists. Only the NDP and Maxime Bernier's party in Canada back a republic.
Indeed there is a new governor general who replaced the one you linked to and proclaimed King Charles IIIrd as Canada's new King yesterday
I would suggest a Canadian is more reliable than yourself and while it may not be imminent it is quite possible all of Aus, NZ and Canada will become republics and others will and quicker
No they aren't, you could be on Mars and still note that both the main party leaders in Canada are monarchists, so there is zero chance of any change there.
I said Australia might be possible as the Labor PM is a republican and wants another referendum on it but even there polling is evenly divided.
God save King Charles IIIrd!!!!
If I were running the republican campaign anywhere I would just show the inkpot footage on a loop.
I would just show President Johnson or President Blair on a loop.
There was nothing wrong with Charles asking for his desk to be cleared as it needed documents on
There was everything wrong with his demeanour and utter disrespect to another human being
It showed his true nature which has long since been known and which Camilla struggles to contain
You need to take your blinkers off
Go away you and stop being so disrespectful, Charles IIIrd is your King, tough
You call others disrespectful, and yet you refuse to get his title correct.
Australia I think is evenly balanced. I don't think it's certain.
Canada won't.
New Zealand won't either, too much history with Waitangi and not much appetite for it either.
Edit: as I said last night I think the most likely is Jamaica.
My son's Canadian girlfriend is staying with us at the moment. Her view, and it is a sample of one, is that Canada is very likely to become a Republic in the next couple of years. There is a huge aftermath of irritation with the conduct of Julie Payette as Governor General, asking why do we need to put up with this? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/21/canadas-governor-general-resigns-report-harassment
Well she is completely wrong, both PM Trudeau and new leader of the Conservative opposition Poilievre are monarchists. Only the NDP and Maxime Bernier's party in Canada back a republic.
Indeed there is a new governor general who replaced the one you linked to and proclaimed King Charles IIIrd as Canada's new King yesterday
I would suggest a Canadian is more reliable than yourself and while it may not be imminent it is quite possible all of Aus, NZ and Canada will become republics and others will and quicker
No they aren't, you could be on Mars and still note that both the main party leaders in Canada are monarchists, so there is zero chance of any change there.
I said Australia might be possible as the Labor PM is a republican and wants another referendum on it but even there polling is evenly divided.
God save King Charles IIIrd!!!!
If I were running the republican campaign anywhere I would just show the inkpot footage on a loop.
I would just show President Johnson or President Blair on a loop.
There was nothing wrong with Charles asking for his desk to be cleared as it needed documents on
There was everything wrong with his demeanour and utter disrespect to another human being
It showed his true nature which has long since been known and which Camilla struggles to contain
You need to take your blinkers off
Go away you and stop being so disrespectful, Charles IIIrd is your King, tough
I can and will criticise Charles and comments like that will only be grist to the republican cause
Jeez, not this one again. Terrible poling question, based on political talking points with no context.
The companies making money are Saudi Aramco and Qatargas - how does the UK government tax them?
Taxes on UK domestic extraction are currently 69%, by how much should these rise?
A question to which Starmer had no answer and just blustered in Parliament.
Good morning
Starmer was caught out by Mark Harper in the HOC and his reaction showed he did not understand the difference between global profits (170 billion) and UK profits of 40 billion currently taxed at 65%
I expect the COE in his emergency budget will call out Starmer and others on this misconception
There is a serious, really serious political problem for the Tories. Why you don't get this is puzzling. It may well be the case that the domestic energy companies aren't going to make intergalactic profits. Just vast ones. The public will not understand the nuanced differences, but they WILL understand the sneering arrogance of this government defending the profits of these companies over the taxpayer.
Why can't you see this? Truss is wrong here on a galactic scale, and having backed the oil companies over individuals the political tax will be crippling.
For me I am fully aware a windfall tax won't raise a significant proportion of the energy handouts the government is giving. The principle of everyone, including businesses, doing their bit in a crisis is an important one however, so even if it raises another £5bn out of £200bn I think it very much worthwhile.
Exactly which companies would be paying this “Windfall Tax”?
1. Obviously not Saudi Aramco or Qatargas, where the vast majority of the profits are being made.
2. The UK fossil fuel extractors, who have made massive losses during the pandemic?
3. The UK renewables companies, who can charge high marginal rates because the gas price is high?
4. The company who bills domestic users, many of whom are making no profits?
5. “Energy” or “O&G” companies listed in London?
(By the way, the government has already dealt with (3) above, by negotiating much lower prices with them)
Shell and BP would be the obvious big targets.
Shell makes 92% of its profits outside of the UK. Much of it in conjunction with local national oil companies like ADNOC in Abu Dhabi. Good luck with the economic and political fallout from that one.
Lets turn the question around. How much should HMRC keep paying Shell and BP each year so that they retain a London listing?
2018-2020
UK corporation tax and production levy paid on north sea oil = £0 Tax reliefs = £400m Shareholder dividends = £44,000,000,000
They can clearly afford to pay more tax and HMRC can find a better way to structure this.
Shell and BP are international companies provided world wide profits hence the dividend
Again you ad not seem to be able to distinguish between worldwide profits and UK profits
Do you believe they made zero profit from the UK or do you think their accountants arranged the structures in a complex way to enable them to pay £0?
I understand they made 40 billion which is taxed at 65% and a windfall tax has been applied to this years profits by Sunak
If I am wrong I know those in the know will correct me but that is the problem with overplaying a windfall tax
In recent years, such methods have meant that BP and Shell, for example, have paid almost no tax in the UK.
You know who else makes a lot of profit but pays no uk tax? Saudi Aramco. If only you were in charge, we could get rid of our budget deficit in one swoop by just taxing all these foreign domiciled companies that make profits.
If I was in charge I would ask HMRC for plans to get mega corps paying a fair share of the UK tax base given their UK activities. Afaik Saudi Aramco do little to nothing here so would be asked to pay little to nothing.
BP and Shell have significant operations here, presumably they are capable of at least occasionally running them at a profit, so I would expect some corporation tax receipts from them, yes.
could try cutting public sector pensions a bit (more generous by far than private ones anyway) as it amounts to the same things to peoples private pensions by increasing tax rates on big UK corporations that form a big part of private pension funds including ones for low paid private sector workers like NEST
Yes I would also be a fair bit stricter on public sector pensions, especially at the top end. Not really related though.
It is related as by urging assets of peoples private pension funds (BP and Shell etc) to be taxed more , this is cutting private sector pensions so why not public sector ones as well
You are missing the point that taxes on Shell or BP would be on their UK assets/earnings. Pension fund shares are of course on their worldwide assets.
So it is very far from "the same thing".
err no - i think you have misunderstood my argument tbh- what do pension funds invest in ? BP ,shell ?
Australia I think is evenly balanced. I don't think it's certain.
Canada won't.
New Zealand won't either, too much history with Waitangi and not much appetite for it either.
Edit: as I said last night I think the most likely is Jamaica.
My son's Canadian girlfriend is staying with us at the moment. Her view, and it is a sample of one, is that Canada is very likely to become a Republic in the next couple of years. There is a huge aftermath of irritation with the conduct of Julie Payette as Governor General, asking why do we need to put up with this? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/21/canadas-governor-general-resigns-report-harassment
Well she is completely wrong, both PM Trudeau and new leader of the Conservative opposition Poilievre are monarchists. Only the NDP and Maxime Bernier's party in Canada back a republic.
Indeed there is a new governor general who replaced the one you linked to and proclaimed King Charles IIIrd as Canada's new King yesterday
I would suggest a Canadian is more reliable than yourself and while it may not be imminent it is quite possible all of Aus, NZ and Canada will become republics and others will and quicker
No they aren't, you could be on Mars and still note that both the main party leaders in Canada are monarchists, so there is zero chance of any change there.
I said Australia might be possible as the Labor PM is a republican and wants another referendum on it but even there polling is evenly divided.
God save King Charles IIIrd!!!!
If I were running the republican campaign anywhere I would just show the inkpot footage on a loop.
I would just show President Johnson or President Blair on a loop.
Those two aren't going to be the only choices. We could have Joanna Lumley as President. She'd be terrific at it.
Does it matter? Unless you are a stamp collector or the King's travel agent, what difference does it make who is Australia's head of state? They'll still beat us at cricket, rugby and swimming.
They’re a spent force in rugby at the moment. Union, that is. We beat them. 🤘
Australia I think is evenly balanced. I don't think it's certain.
Canada won't.
New Zealand won't either, too much history with Waitangi and not much appetite for it either.
Edit: as I said last night I think the most likely is Jamaica.
My son's Canadian girlfriend is staying with us at the moment. Her view, and it is a sample of one, is that Canada is very likely to become a Republic in the next couple of years. There is a huge aftermath of irritation with the conduct of Julie Payette as Governor General, asking why do we need to put up with this? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/21/canadas-governor-general-resigns-report-harassment
Well she is completely wrong, both PM Trudeau and new leader of the Conservative opposition Poilievre are monarchists. Only the NDP and Maxime Bernier's party in Canada back a republic.
Indeed there is a new governor general who replaced the one you linked to and proclaimed King Charles IIIrd as Canada's new King yesterday
I would suggest a Canadian is more reliable than yourself and while it may not be imminent it is quite possible all of Aus, NZ and Canada will become republics and others will and quicker
No they aren't, you could be on Mars and still note that both the main party leaders in Canada are monarchists, so there is zero chance of any change there.
I said Australia might be possible as the Labor PM is a republican and wants another referendum on it but even there polling is evenly divided.
God save King Charles IIIrd!!!!
If I were running the republican campaign anywhere I would just show the inkpot footage on a loop.
I would just show President Johnson or President Blair on a loop.
There was nothing wrong with Charles asking for his desk to be cleared as it needed documents on
There was everything wrong with his demeanour and utter disrespect to another human being
It showed his true nature which has long since been known and which Camilla struggles to contain
You need to take your blinkers off
This is making a mountain out of a molehill Big_G. A man who has just lost his mother and gone through tremendous change in the space of 48 hours acts a bit exasperated over an inkpot and this suddenly shows up his true malign nature?
Australia I think is evenly balanced. I don't think it's certain.
Canada won't.
New Zealand won't either, too much history with Waitangi and not much appetite for it either.
Edit: as I said last night I think the most likely is Jamaica.
My son's Canadian girlfriend is staying with us at the moment. Her view, and it is a sample of one, is that Canada is very likely to become a Republic in the next couple of years. There is a huge aftermath of irritation with the conduct of Julie Payette as Governor General, asking why do we need to put up with this? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/21/canadas-governor-general-resigns-report-harassment
Well she is completely wrong, both PM Trudeau and new leader of the Conservative opposition Poilievre are monarchists. Only the NDP and Maxime Bernier's party in Canada back a republic.
Indeed there is a new governor general who replaced the one you linked to and proclaimed King Charles IIIrd as Canada's new King yesterday
I would suggest a Canadian is more reliable than yourself and while it may not be imminent it is quite possible all of Aus, NZ and Canada will become republics and others will and quicker
No they aren't, you could be on Mars and still note that both the main party leaders in Canada are monarchists, so there is zero chance of any change there.
I said Australia might be possible as the Labor PM is a republican and wants another referendum on it but even there polling is evenly divided.
God save King Charles IIIrd!!!!
If I were running the republican campaign anywhere I would just show the inkpot footage on a loop.
I would just show President Johnson or President Blair on a loop.
There was nothing wrong with Charles asking for his desk to be cleared as it needed documents on
There was everything wrong with his demeanour and utter disrespect to another human being
It showed his true nature which has long since been known and which Camilla struggles to contain
You need to take your blinkers off
Go away you and stop being so disrespectful, Charles IIIrd is your King, tough
Charles III
I would hate to be your spouse, child or waiter in a restaurant if you can look at that without cringeing.
Australia I think is evenly balanced. I don't think it's certain.
Canada won't.
New Zealand won't either, too much history with Waitangi and not much appetite for it either.
Edit: as I said last night I think the most likely is Jamaica.
My son's Canadian girlfriend is staying with us at the moment. Her view, and it is a sample of one, is that Canada is very likely to become a Republic in the next couple of years. There is a huge aftermath of irritation with the conduct of Julie Payette as Governor General, asking why do we need to put up with this? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/21/canadas-governor-general-resigns-report-harassment
Well she is completely wrong, both PM Trudeau and new leader of the Conservative opposition Poilievre are monarchists. Only the NDP and Maxime Bernier's party in Canada back a republic.
Indeed there is a new governor general who replaced the one you linked to and proclaimed King Charles IIIrd as Canada's new King yesterday
I would suggest a Canadian is more reliable than yourself and while it may not be imminent it is quite possible all of Aus, NZ and Canada will become republics and others will and quicker
No they aren't, you could be on Mars and still note that both the main party leaders in Canada are monarchists, so there is zero chance of any change there.
I said Australia might be possible as the Labor PM is a republican and wants another referendum on it but even there polling is evenly divided.
God save King Charles IIIrd!!!!
If I were running the republican campaign anywhere I would just show the inkpot footage on a loop.
I would just show President Johnson or President Blair on a loop.
Those two aren't going to be the only choices. We could have Joanna Lumley as President. She'd be terrific at it.
We are a G7 and UN Security Council permanent member, we would have an all powerful elected President like France and the US if we were a republic.
Much as I like Joanna she also does not have the global recognition of our royal family anyway
If I were a CEO considering investing in any UK energy scheme, I'd want a very clear definition of "excess profits" so I could be prepared for any future windfall taxes on them
Perhaps best not to be a CEO then, as if you are investing on projects with returns spread out over decades in a volatile industry dealing with such uncertainty is part of the job.
One of the things that businesses like is stability. It’s not so much the tax levels (though they have an effect) as a set of rules they can rely on.
Norway is better than the U.K. on such stability in the tax rules for the North Sea - and I think they take more in tax, ultimately. They are better because they have a rule book which they stick to and which makes more sense.
Yep this has been my argument for years. All the more so when the tax rates are not that much different between the two countries but the UK side tinkers with them continuously. As I think I pointed out the other day, in 2014 Osborne changed the North Sea tax regime 3 times in one year. They do the same with regulation. In the last decade regulation of the North Sea has been the responsibility of 3 different Government bodies - DECC, OGA and now NSTA. And even though these are to a large extent the same organisations just rebranded, they always seem to feel the need for a 'clean broom' and start changing all the regulatory systems to justify their existence.
I remember Vasella, the CEO of Novartis, telling me that predictable tax levels and regulation were key for deciding investment, to a far greater degree than their actual level. Obviously high tax rates and strict regulation were a drawback for a multinational, but if you knew they were broadly constant, you could make rational, evidence-based planning decisions. By contrast, a country with fluctuating rates and erratic regulation was too uncertain to bother with, even if they were temporarily helpful.
The other key criterion for him, which I'd not expected, was an education system generating an ample supply of highly-educated local staff. He felt that was a big plus point for Britain (this was 30 years ago --not sure it's still true).
and what rational decision would companies make about investment if they knew with certainty the tax rates were high ? errrm not invest ? Nice try Nick but if all you believe is that businesses just want certainty of a tax rate whatever it is , it is on a par with believing that unions just want certainty of a pay deal in the next five years even if is is zero
The other feature of having a stable system is that you can actually look at the levels of investment and see if it is working or not.
If I were a Tory, I would be beginning to have serious doubts about Truss's political instincts. It's not only the windfall tax and tax cuts for wealthy individuals and businesses, but also the decision to accompany Charles and Camilla on their pre-funeral tour around the UK. At best, she's going to be seen as a bit part player - but, more likely, she'll be seen as inserting herself into something that has nothing to do with her, solely for perceived political gain.
Disgraceful move on Truss's part. This is a bonding exercise between the new Head of State and the People. We do not need to have it turned into a party political stunt. If they all came anywhere near me, I think I would boo.
If I were a CEO considering investing in any UK energy scheme, I'd want a very clear definition of "excess profits" so I could be prepared for any future windfall taxes on them
Perhaps best not to be a CEO then, as if you are investing on projects with returns spread out over decades in a volatile industry dealing with such uncertainty is part of the job.
One of the things that businesses like is stability. It’s not so much the tax levels (though they have an effect) as a set of rules they can rely on.
Norway is better than the U.K. on such stability in the tax rules for the North Sea - and I think they take more in tax, ultimately. They are better because they have a rule book which they stick to and which makes more sense.
Yep this has been my argument for years. All the more so when the tax rates are not that much different between the two countries but the UK side tinkers with them continuously. As I think I pointed out the other day, in 2014 Osborne changed the North Sea tax regime 3 times in one year. They do the same with regulation. In the last decade regulation of the North Sea has been the responsibility of 3 different Government bodies - DECC, OGA and now NSTA. And even though these are to a large extent the same organisations just rebranded, they always seem to feel the need for a 'clean broom' and start changing all the regulatory systems to justify their existence.
I remember Vasella, the CEO of Novartis, telling me that predictable tax levels and regulation were key for deciding investment, to a far greater degree than their actual level. Obviously high tax rates and strict regulation were a drawback for a multinational, but if you knew they were broadly constant, you could make rational, evidence-based planning decisions. By contrast, a country with fluctuating rates and erratic regulation was too uncertain to bother with, even if they were temporarily helpful.
The other key criterion for him, which I'd not expected, was an education system generating an ample supply of highly-educated local staff. He felt that was a big plus point for Britain (this was 30 years ago --not sure it's still true).
and what rational decision would companies make about investment if they knew with certainty the tax rates were high ? errrm not invest ? Nice try Nick but if all you believe is that businesses just want certainty of a tax rate whatever it is , it is on a par with believing that unions just want certainty of a pay deal in the next five years even if is is zero
Sorry but you are not correct. A lot of companies in my sector make investment decisions based on stability rather than just a few extra % of tax here and there. They do so because they need to plan for many years in the future when they are making multi billion pound investment decisions. Even if the tax is a little higher then you just factor that in. Far more difficult to factor in wild swings in tax regime which is what we have had in the UK for the last few decades.
This is why Norway is far more successful than the UK attracting oil and gas investment. In spite of both taxes and operating costs being higher they can make long term decisions based on stability and certainty.
Australia I think is evenly balanced. I don't think it's certain.
Canada won't.
New Zealand won't either, too much history with Waitangi and not much appetite for it either.
Edit: as I said last night I think the most likely is Jamaica.
My son's Canadian girlfriend is staying with us at the moment. Her view, and it is a sample of one, is that Canada is very likely to become a Republic in the next couple of years. There is a huge aftermath of irritation with the conduct of Julie Payette as Governor General, asking why do we need to put up with this? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/21/canadas-governor-general-resigns-report-harassment
Well she is completely wrong, both PM Trudeau and new leader of the Conservative opposition Poilievre are monarchists. Only the NDP and Maxime Bernier's party in Canada back a republic.
Indeed there is a new governor general who replaced the one you linked to and proclaimed King Charles IIIrd as Canada's new King yesterday
I would suggest a Canadian is more reliable than yourself and while it may not be imminent it is quite possible all of Aus, NZ and Canada will become republics and others will and quicker
No they aren't, you could be on Mars and still note that both the main party leaders in Canada are monarchists, so there is zero chance of any change there.
I said Australia might be possible as the Labor PM is a republican and wants another referendum on it but even there polling is evenly divided.
God save King Charles IIIrd!!!!
If I were running the republican campaign anywhere I would just show the inkpot footage on a loop.
I would just show President Johnson or President Blair on a loop.
There was nothing wrong with Charles asking for his desk to be cleared as it needed documents on
There was everything wrong with his demeanour and utter disrespect to another human being
It showed his true nature which has long since been known and which Camilla struggles to contain
You need to take your blinkers off
Go away you and stop being so disrespectful, Charles IIIrd is your King, tough
Charles III
I would hate to be your spouse, child or waiter in a restaurant if you can look at that without cringeing.
Australia I think is evenly balanced. I don't think it's certain.
Canada won't.
New Zealand won't either, too much history with Waitangi and not much appetite for it either.
Edit: as I said last night I think the most likely is Jamaica.
My son's Canadian girlfriend is staying with us at the moment. Her view, and it is a sample of one, is that Canada is very likely to become a Republic in the next couple of years. There is a huge aftermath of irritation with the conduct of Julie Payette as Governor General, asking why do we need to put up with this? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/21/canadas-governor-general-resigns-report-harassment
Well she is completely wrong, both PM Trudeau and new leader of the Conservative opposition Poilievre are monarchists. Only the NDP and Maxime Bernier's party in Canada back a republic.
Indeed there is a new governor general who replaced the one you linked to and proclaimed King Charles IIIrd as Canada's new King yesterday
I would suggest a Canadian is more reliable than yourself and while it may not be imminent it is quite possible all of Aus, NZ and Canada will become republics and others will and quicker
No they aren't, you could be on Mars and still note that both the main party leaders in Canada are monarchists, so there is zero chance of any change there.
I said Australia might be possible as the Labor PM is a republican and wants another referendum on it but even there polling is evenly divided.
God save King Charles IIIrd!!!!
If I were running the republican campaign anywhere I would just show the inkpot footage on a loop.
I would just show President Johnson or President Blair on a loop.
There was nothing wrong with Charles asking for his desk to be cleared as it needed documents on
There was everything wrong with his demeanour and utter disrespect to another human being
It showed his true nature which has long since been known and which Camilla struggles to contain
You need to take your blinkers off
Go away you and stop being so disrespectful, Charles IIIrd is your King, tough
I can and will criticise Charles and comments like that will only be grist to the republican cause
You made clear you wanted a republic when the Queen died long ago as a non Tory former Labour voter.
Charles made an excellent broadcast last week, long live the King!
Australia I think is evenly balanced. I don't think it's certain.
Canada won't.
New Zealand won't either, too much history with Waitangi and not much appetite for it either.
Edit: as I said last night I think the most likely is Jamaica.
My son's Canadian girlfriend is staying with us at the moment. Her view, and it is a sample of one, is that Canada is very likely to become a Republic in the next couple of years. There is a huge aftermath of irritation with the conduct of Julie Payette as Governor General, asking why do we need to put up with this? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/21/canadas-governor-general-resigns-report-harassment
Well she is completely wrong, both PM Trudeau and new leader of the Conservative opposition Poilievre are monarchists. Only the NDP and Maxime Bernier's party in Canada back a republic.
Indeed there is a new governor general who replaced the one you linked to and proclaimed King Charles IIIrd as Canada's new King yesterday
I would suggest a Canadian is more reliable than yourself and while it may not be imminent it is quite possible all of Aus, NZ and Canada will become republics and others will and quicker
No they aren't, you could be on Mars and still note that both the main party leaders in Canada are monarchists, so there is zero chance of any change there.
I said Australia might be possible as the Labor PM is a republican and wants another referendum on it but even there polling is evenly divided.
God save King Charles IIIrd!!!!
If I were running the republican campaign anywhere I would just show the inkpot footage on a loop.
I would just show President Johnson or President Blair on a loop.
There was nothing wrong with Charles asking for his desk to be cleared as it needed documents on
There was everything wrong with his demeanour and utter disrespect to another human being
It showed his true nature which has long since been known and which Camilla struggles to contain
You need to take your blinkers off
This is making a mountain out of a molehill Big_G. A man who has just lost his mother and gone through tremendous change in the space of 48 hours acts a bit exasperated over an inkpot and this suddenly shows up his true malign nature?
Bit much isn’t it?
Not really as it feeds the narrative that he is like that but for clarification I support the continuation of the monarchy but will criticise it when necessary notwithstanding @HYUFD idiotic comment
Jeez, not this one again. Terrible poling question, based on political talking points with no context.
The companies making money are Saudi Aramco and Qatargas - how does the UK government tax them?
Taxes on UK domestic extraction are currently 69%, by how much should these rise?
A question to which Starmer had no answer and just blustered in Parliament.
Good morning
Starmer was caught out by Mark Harper in the HOC and his reaction showed he did not understand the difference between global profits (170 billion) and UK profits of 40 billion currently taxed at 65%
I expect the COE in his emergency budget will call out Starmer and others on this misconception
There is a serious, really serious political problem for the Tories. Why you don't get this is puzzling. It may well be the case that the domestic energy companies aren't going to make intergalactic profits. Just vast ones. The public will not understand the nuanced differences, but they WILL understand the sneering arrogance of this government defending the profits of these companies over the taxpayer.
Why can't you see this? Truss is wrong here on a galactic scale, and having backed the oil companies over individuals the political tax will be crippling.
For me I am fully aware a windfall tax won't raise a significant proportion of the energy handouts the government is giving. The principle of everyone, including businesses, doing their bit in a crisis is an important one however, so even if it raises another £5bn out of £200bn I think it very much worthwhile.
So without necessarily disagreeing with you, how much above 65% do you think the tax rate should be on energy companies?
I don't work for HMRC so would leave it up to them to come up with some suggestions that could raise more. Off feel I would start by reducing the 91% investment rebate or perhaps change it to only apply to green investment with a much lower rate for fossil fuel investment.
A number of companies (including the one I am currently drilling wells for) have already decided to abandon a whole series of UK development campaigns on the back of the Windfall tax in spite of the investment rebate. If you want to drive the rest out then all you do is accelerate the end of the North Sea and make yourself more reliant on imported O&G. Not exactly the best way to deal with an energy crisis.
Excellent news. Anything that helps to keep it in the ground gets my vote. The underlying cause of the energy crisis has been insufficient urgency in the development of renewables, and anything that helps push progress on that front is a good thing. Hydrocarbons should be exploited only when necessary, not squandered as they have been on providing unsustainably cheap energy thus hindering the development of clean alternatives.
Again., stupidly short sighted. Part of the reason for the current energy crisis is that we decided to cut back on oil and gas production long before we could ever have sufficient renewables to fill the gap and so have to rely on imports.
Stanislaw Lem, the great Polish Sci-F writer once wrote a story about a king who wanted all his subjects to become amphibians and so, to make them develop gills he started to raise the water level in his country by an inch a year. He couldn't understand it when all his subjects drowned.
Your policy is much the same. Wishing it would be any other way doesn't change reality.
If you don't understand why renewables would have been developed more quickly if the price of fossil fuels had reflected their finite nature and the environmental damage they cause, then you don't know the first principles of economics.
And if you don't understand how much the continued use of fossil fuels has subsidised the development of renewables and provided breathing space for their development then you don't understand the energy sector.
You are like a priest telling an old lady out in the snow that suffering is good for the soul and no matter if they freeze to death at least they have more chance of getting into heaven.
It's a question of degree. At it's most simple, we have two potential sources of energy: one ready available, but finite and damaging, the other requiring development, but clean and sustainable. In any sane world it makes sense to use the former as sparingly as possible (without anyone freezing) while doing our utmost to develop the latter. Instead, we have squandered the former on luxuries like big cars and cheap aviation while only half-heartedly developing the latter. Now payback time is here, and it's those who have kept us addicted to fossil fuels who will be to blame for those freezing during this and subsequent winters.
If I were a CEO considering investing in any UK energy scheme, I'd want a very clear definition of "excess profits" so I could be prepared for any future windfall taxes on them
Perhaps best not to be a CEO then, as if you are investing on projects with returns spread out over decades in a volatile industry dealing with such uncertainty is part of the job.
One of the things that businesses like is stability. It’s not so much the tax levels (though they have an effect) as a set of rules they can rely on.
Norway is better than the U.K. on such stability in the tax rules for the North Sea - and I think they take more in tax, ultimately. They are better because they have a rule book which they stick to and which makes more sense.
Yep this has been my argument for years. All the more so when the tax rates are not that much different between the two countries but the UK side tinkers with them continuously. As I think I pointed out the other day, in 2014 Osborne changed the North Sea tax regime 3 times in one year. They do the same with regulation. In the last decade regulation of the North Sea has been the responsibility of 3 different Government bodies - DECC, OGA and now NSTA. And even though these are to a large extent the same organisations just rebranded, they always seem to feel the need for a 'clean broom' and start changing all the regulatory systems to justify their existence.
I remember Vasella, the CEO of Novartis, telling me that predictable tax levels and regulation were key for deciding investment, to a far greater degree than their actual level. Obviously high tax rates and strict regulation were a drawback for a multinational, but if you knew they were broadly constant, you could make rational, evidence-based planning decisions. By contrast, a country with fluctuating rates and erratic regulation was too uncertain to bother with, even if they were temporarily helpful.
The other key criterion for him, which I'd not expected, was an education system generating an ample supply of highly-educated local staff. He felt that was a big plus point for Britain (this was 30 years ago --not sure it's still true).
and what rational decision would companies make about investment if they knew with certainty the tax rates were high ? errrm not invest ? Nice try Nick but if all you believe is that businesses just want certainty of a tax rate whatever it is , it is on a par with believing that unions just want certainty of a pay deal in the next five years even if is is zero
Sorry but you are not correct. A lot of companies in my sector make investment decisions based on stability rather than just a few extra % of tax here and there. They do so because they need to plan for many years in the future when they are making multi billion pound investment decisions. Even if the tax is a little higher then you just factor that in. Far more difficult to factor in wild swings in tax regime which is what we have had in the UK for the last few decades.
This is why Norway is far more successful than the UK attracting oil and gas investment. In spite of both taxes and operating costs being higher they can make long term decisions based on stability and certainty.
well sorry but you are not correct - high taxes mean less projects get invested in as the risk of investment is not worth the rewards -
Australia I think is evenly balanced. I don't think it's certain.
Canada won't.
New Zealand won't either, too much history with Waitangi and not much appetite for it either.
Edit: as I said last night I think the most likely is Jamaica.
My son's Canadian girlfriend is staying with us at the moment. Her view, and it is a sample of one, is that Canada is very likely to become a Republic in the next couple of years. There is a huge aftermath of irritation with the conduct of Julie Payette as Governor General, asking why do we need to put up with this? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/21/canadas-governor-general-resigns-report-harassment
Well she is completely wrong, both PM Trudeau and new leader of the Conservative opposition Poilievre are monarchists. Only the NDP and Maxime Bernier's party in Canada back a republic.
Indeed there is a new governor general who replaced the one you linked to and proclaimed King Charles IIIrd as Canada's new King yesterday
I would suggest a Canadian is more reliable than yourself and while it may not be imminent it is quite possible all of Aus, NZ and Canada will become republics and others will and quicker
No they aren't, you could be on Mars and still note that both the main party leaders in Canada are monarchists, so there is zero chance of any change there.
I said Australia might be possible as the Labor PM is a republican and wants another referendum on it but even there polling is evenly divided.
God save King Charles IIIrd!!!!
If I were running the republican campaign anywhere I would just show the inkpot footage on a loop.
I watched that ceremony on telly live as did many people I know. No one noticed it, no one mentioned it. I then watched the video again after everyone here kept banging on about it. And I still didn’t see what the fuss was about. And I am someone who would broadly describe myself as agnostic on the issue of monarchy as an institution and broadly antagonistic towards many of the individuals.
This story is one of republicans howling at the moon. They thought the only thing keeping the UK a constitutional monarchy was the remarkable lady Elizabeth Windsor. And they’ve realised this week that they were probably wrong.
In that case as I have said to someone else I am extremely glad I am not married to you.
I would probably vote to retain the monarchy in a referendum so don't impute motive, but in any case as with the French revolution it is a lot too soon to assess the consequences of HMQ dying. Let's give it a year.
The Windfall tax is a distraction. There is a massive hole in public finances that it will never fill, so it gets added to the deficit.
Then another slice of deficit to pay for the cut in NI.
Another slice of deficit to pay for the Corporation tax cut.
Interest rates will go up (they need to do so), adding further deficit.
This isn't Thatcherism, it is a Barber Boom, only without much boom.
Yes, this policy will enormously increase the deficit again. Increasing it further with tax cuts at this point seems crazy, frankly. But we do need some growth. There are tough calls ahead.
Cut spending, the state has become too bloated and does too much. Make oldies pay more tax as well.
We definitely need to cut spending but again, where does the growth come from?
The problem is not exactly the total amount of spending, but the very poor return we get from this spending. The well known example is that the projected cost of HS2 is over thirty times per km the cost of the equivalent French TGV Nord. The cause of this problem is that the government does not have sufficient expertise, either in house or at reasonable consultancy fee prices. This is a problem across the civil service: another example is that the cost of tax collection, while sharply reduced from 3% of revenue a few years ago, is still substantially more than our competitors. The longest tax code in the world is a miserable record to hold.
The public sector does not offer its services at efficient prices, and the private sector is equally expensive. In order to reduce costs, the public sector needs to develop and renew expertise it has mostly lost or never had, and in the short term that means investment, not cuts. More cuts, especially the across the board, budget cuts the Tories propose, simply weaken the capacity of the state still further. The UK needs to build up its administrative capacity, for example by strengthening the civil service college, so that the public sector can be a better, more informed, consumer of services offered by the private sector and at the same time to develop its arbitration functions, especially in natural monopolies. It is also time to recognise that QUANGOs are not always the answer to administrative failure.
Radical solutions are now needed, and an ideological preference for either public or private sector does not actually solve the problem. Without major reform of administration, including the constitution, the UK will continue its national decline. No tier of local government: Local, national or UK level is functioning well, and that is the root of much our economic malaise and political frivolity. We have more PMs alive at present, because even the central office of state can not deal with the national crisis without major reform.
To a large extent we gold plate everything, whether it’s planning, failure to delegate, over centralisation or over engineering. The people making the decisions don’t have the technical or administrative ability to make them, often due to the old school tie being more important than ability and aptitude when making senior appointments. They are also over reluctant to delegate authority and responsibility. We also value arts over science and engineering, so that a PPE degree from Oxford is seen as more important than an Engineering degree from Strathclyde. Also, we don’t prioritise long term planning, as the next election or the next dividend payout are prioritised instead. It will take a long time for all this to change, if it ever does.
If I were a Tory, I would be beginning to have serious doubts about Truss's political instincts. It's not only the windfall tax and tax cuts for wealthy individuals and businesses, but also the decision to accompany Charles and Camilla on their pre-funeral tour around the UK. At best, she's going to be seen as a bit part player - but, more likely, she'll be seen as inserting herself into something that has nothing to do with her, solely for perceived political gain.
Disgraceful move on Truss's part. This is a bonding exercise between the new Head of State and the People. We do not need to have it turned into a party political stunt. If they all came anywhere near me, I think I would boo.
You're a Tory hater. If she wasn't on the tour, you'd call that disgraceful too.
Australia I think is evenly balanced. I don't think it's certain.
Canada won't.
New Zealand won't either, too much history with Waitangi and not much appetite for it either.
Edit: as I said last night I think the most likely is Jamaica.
My son's Canadian girlfriend is staying with us at the moment. Her view, and it is a sample of one, is that Canada is very likely to become a Republic in the next couple of years. There is a huge aftermath of irritation with the conduct of Julie Payette as Governor General, asking why do we need to put up with this? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/21/canadas-governor-general-resigns-report-harassment
Well she is completely wrong, both PM Trudeau and new leader of the Conservative opposition Poilievre are monarchists. Only the NDP and Maxime Bernier's party in Canada back a republic.
Indeed there is a new governor general who replaced the one you linked to and proclaimed King Charles IIIrd as Canada's new King yesterday
I would suggest a Canadian is more reliable than yourself and while it may not be imminent it is quite possible all of Aus, NZ and Canada will become republics and others will and quicker
No they aren't, you could be on Mars and still note that both the main party leaders in Canada are monarchists, so there is zero chance of any change there.
I said Australia might be possible as the Labor PM is a republican and wants another referendum on it but even there polling is evenly divided.
God save King Charles IIIrd!!!!
If I were running the republican campaign anywhere I would just show the inkpot footage on a loop.
I would just show President Johnson or President Blair on a loop.
There was nothing wrong with Charles asking for his desk to be cleared as it needed documents on
There was everything wrong with his demeanour and utter disrespect to another human being
It showed his true nature which has long since been known and which Camilla struggles to contain
You need to take your blinkers off
This is making a mountain out of a molehill Big_G. A man who has just lost his mother and gone through tremendous change in the space of 48 hours acts a bit exasperated over an inkpot and this suddenly shows up his true malign nature?
Bit much isn’t it?
Not really as it feeds the narrative that he is like that but for clarification I support the continuation of the monarchy but will criticise it when necessary notwithstanding @HYUFD idiotic comment
Fair enough. Oh yes he is not above criticism - I have often been critical of him in the past. I would prefer to make allowances for small moments like those when in the greater scheme of things he has actually created a very positive first impression.
If I were a CEO considering investing in any UK energy scheme, I'd want a very clear definition of "excess profits" so I could be prepared for any future windfall taxes on them
Perhaps best not to be a CEO then, as if you are investing on projects with returns spread out over decades in a volatile industry dealing with such uncertainty is part of the job.
One of the things that businesses like is stability. It’s not so much the tax levels (though they have an effect) as a set of rules they can rely on.
Norway is better than the U.K. on such stability in the tax rules for the North Sea - and I think they take more in tax, ultimately. They are better because they have a rule book which they stick to and which makes more sense.
Yep this has been my argument for years. All the more so when the tax rates are not that much different between the two countries but the UK side tinkers with them continuously. As I think I pointed out the other day, in 2014 Osborne changed the North Sea tax regime 3 times in one year. They do the same with regulation. In the last decade regulation of the North Sea has been the responsibility of 3 different Government bodies - DECC, OGA and now NSTA. And even though these are to a large extent the same organisations just rebranded, they always seem to feel the need for a 'clean broom' and start changing all the regulatory systems to justify their existence.
I remember Vasella, the CEO of Novartis, telling me that predictable tax levels and regulation were key for deciding investment, to a far greater degree than their actual level. Obviously high tax rates and strict regulation were a drawback for a multinational, but if you knew they were broadly constant, you could make rational, evidence-based planning decisions. By contrast, a country with fluctuating rates and erratic regulation was too uncertain to bother with, even if they were temporarily helpful.
The other key criterion for him, which I'd not expected, was an education system generating an ample supply of highly-educated local staff. He felt that was a big plus point for Britain (this was 30 years ago --not sure it's still true).
and what rational decision would companies make about investment if they knew with certainty the tax rates were high ? errrm not invest ? Nice try Nick but if all you believe is that businesses just want certainty of a tax rate whatever it is , it is on a par with believing that unions just want certainty of a pay deal in the next five years even if is is zero
Sorry but you are not correct. A lot of companies in my sector make investment decisions based on stability rather than just a few extra % of tax here and there. They do so because they need to plan for many years in the future when they are making multi billion pound investment decisions. Even if the tax is a little higher then you just factor that in. Far more difficult to factor in wild swings in tax regime which is what we have had in the UK for the last few decades.
This is why Norway is far more successful than the UK attracting oil and gas investment. In spite of both taxes and operating costs being higher they can make long term decisions based on stability and certainty.
well sorry but you are not correct - high taxes mean less projects get invested in as the risk of investment is not worth the rewards -
Australia I think is evenly balanced. I don't think it's certain.
Canada won't.
New Zealand won't either, too much history with Waitangi and not much appetite for it either.
Edit: as I said last night I think the most likely is Jamaica.
My son's Canadian girlfriend is staying with us at the moment. Her view, and it is a sample of one, is that Canada is very likely to become a Republic in the next couple of years. There is a huge aftermath of irritation with the conduct of Julie Payette as Governor General, asking why do we need to put up with this? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/21/canadas-governor-general-resigns-report-harassment
Well she is completely wrong, both PM Trudeau and new leader of the Conservative opposition Poilievre are monarchists. Only the NDP and Maxime Bernier's party in Canada back a republic.
Indeed there is a new governor general who replaced the one you linked to and proclaimed King Charles IIIrd as Canada's new King yesterday
I would suggest a Canadian is more reliable than yourself and while it may not be imminent it is quite possible all of Aus, NZ and Canada will become republics and others will and quicker
No they aren't, you could be on Mars and still note that both the main party leaders in Canada are monarchists, so there is zero chance of any change there.
I said Australia might be possible as the Labor PM is a republican and wants another referendum on it but even there polling is evenly divided.
God save King Charles IIIrd!!!!
If I were running the republican campaign anywhere I would just show the inkpot footage on a loop.
I would just show President Johnson or President Blair on a loop.
There was nothing wrong with Charles asking for his desk to be cleared as it needed documents on
There was everything wrong with his demeanour and utter disrespect to another human being
It showed his true nature which has long since been known and which Camilla struggles to contain
You need to take your blinkers off
Go away you and stop being so disrespectful, Charles IIIrd is your King, tough
I can and will criticise Charles and comments like that will only be grist to the republican cause
You made clear you wanted a republic when the Queen died long ago as a non Tory former Labour voter.
Charles made an excellent broadcast last week, long live the King!
I have equally made it clear I am content with Charles and the monarchy continuing but he is not divinity that should not be criticised
Your continued reference to my voting for Blair, notwithstanding throughout my life I have voted conservative and actively campaigned for them over 5 decades, is as absurd as you voting for Plaid as you did
Jeez, not this one again. Terrible poling question, based on political talking points with no context.
The companies making money are Saudi Aramco and Qatargas - how does the UK government tax them?
Taxes on UK domestic extraction are currently 69%, by how much should these rise?
A question to which Starmer had no answer and just blustered in Parliament.
Good morning
Starmer was caught out by Mark Harper in the HOC and his reaction showed he did not understand the difference between global profits (170 billion) and UK profits of 40 billion currently taxed at 65%
I expect the COE in his emergency budget will call out Starmer and others on this misconception
There is a serious, really serious political problem for the Tories. Why you don't get this is puzzling. It may well be the case that the domestic energy companies aren't going to make intergalactic profits. Just vast ones. The public will not understand the nuanced differences, but they WILL understand the sneering arrogance of this government defending the profits of these companies over the taxpayer.
Why can't you see this? Truss is wrong here on a galactic scale, and having backed the oil companies over individuals the political tax will be crippling.
For me I am fully aware a windfall tax won't raise a significant proportion of the energy handouts the government is giving. The principle of everyone, including businesses, doing their bit in a crisis is an important one however, so even if it raises another £5bn out of £200bn I think it very much worthwhile.
So without necessarily disagreeing with you, how much above 65% do you think the tax rate should be on energy companies?
I don't work for HMRC so would leave it up to them to come up with some suggestions that could raise more. Off feel I would start by reducing the 91% investment rebate or perhaps change it to only apply to green investment with a much lower rate for fossil fuel investment.
A number of companies (including the one I am currently drilling wells for) have already decided to abandon a whole series of UK development campaigns on the back of the Windfall tax in spite of the investment rebate. If you want to drive the rest out then all you do is accelerate the end of the North Sea and make yourself more reliant on imported O&G. Not exactly the best way to deal with an energy crisis.
Excellent news. Anything that helps to keep it in the ground gets my vote. The underlying cause of the energy crisis has been insufficient urgency in the development of renewables, and anything that helps push progress on that front is a good thing. Hydrocarbons should be exploited only when necessary, not squandered as they have been on providing unsustainably cheap energy thus hindering the development of clean alternatives.
Again., stupidly short sighted. Part of the reason for the current energy crisis is that we decided to cut back on oil and gas production long before we could ever have sufficient renewables to fill the gap and so have to rely on imports.
Stanislaw Lem, the great Polish Sci-F writer once wrote a story about a king who wanted all his subjects to become amphibians and so, to make them develop gills he started to raise the water level in his country by an inch a year. He couldn't understand it when all his subjects drowned.
Your policy is much the same. Wishing it would be any other way doesn't change reality.
If you don't understand why renewables would have been developed more quickly if the price of fossil fuels had reflected their finite nature and the environmental damage they cause, then you don't know the first principles of economics.
And if you don't understand how much the continued use of fossil fuels has subsidised the development of renewables and provided breathing space for their development then you don't understand the energy sector.
You are like a priest telling an old lady out in the snow that suffering is good for the soul and no matter if they freeze to death at least they have more chance of getting into heaven.
It's a question of degree. At it's most simple, we have two potential sources of energy: one ready available, but finite and damaging, the other requiring development, but clean and sustainable. In any sane world it makes sense to use the former as sparingly as possible (without anyone freezing) while doing our utmost to develop the latter. Instead, we have squandered the former on on luxuries like big cars and cheap aviation while only half-heartedly developing the latter. Now payback time is here, and it's those who have kept us addicted to fossil fuels who will be to blame for those freezing during this and subsequent winters.
That is a completely different argument to the one you just made. I would not disagree with you about big cars and cheap flights. Indeed that is the point I am making. We should be dealing with this by dealing with demand not supply. This is why, if it actually can be sustained, the move to electric cars is god. It is why energy saving in all its forms is good. A lot of us have spent the last 30 or more years arguing that fossil fuels are too important to burn. We need them for too many other things. But you deal with that by reducing demand and providing alternatives, not by simply witching off the tap and expecting everything to be fine and rosy.
It would be bloody marvellous if, in 20 years, we didn't have to burn any fossil fuels. But you won't get there any quicker by causing the sorts of energy crisis that we have now. And it has, in part, been caused by reducing our domestic production of fossil fuels whilst failing to reduce demand or provide enough alternatives.
Australia I think is evenly balanced. I don't think it's certain.
Canada won't.
New Zealand won't either, too much history with Waitangi and not much appetite for it either.
Edit: as I said last night I think the most likely is Jamaica.
My son's Canadian girlfriend is staying with us at the moment. Her view, and it is a sample of one, is that Canada is very likely to become a Republic in the next couple of years. There is a huge aftermath of irritation with the conduct of Julie Payette as Governor General, asking why do we need to put up with this? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/21/canadas-governor-general-resigns-report-harassment
Well she is completely wrong, both PM Trudeau and new leader of the Conservative opposition Poilievre are monarchists. Only the NDP and Maxime Bernier's party in Canada back a republic.
Indeed there is a new governor general who replaced the one you linked to and proclaimed King Charles IIIrd as Canada's new King yesterday
I would suggest a Canadian is more reliable than yourself and while it may not be imminent it is quite possible all of Aus, NZ and Canada will become republics and others will and quicker
No they aren't, you could be on Mars and still note that both the main party leaders in Canada are monarchists, so there is zero chance of any change there.
I said Australia might be possible as the Labor PM is a republican and wants another referendum on it but even there polling is evenly divided.
God save King Charles IIIrd!!!!
If I were running the republican campaign anywhere I would just show the inkpot footage on a loop.
I would just show President Johnson or President Blair on a loop.
There was nothing wrong with Charles asking for his desk to be cleared as it needed documents on
There was everything wrong with his demeanour and utter disrespect to another human being
It showed his true nature which has long since been known and which Camilla struggles to contain
You need to take your blinkers off
Go away you and stop being so disrespectful, Charles IIIrd is your King, tough
Charles III
I would hate to be your spouse, child or waiter in a restaurant if you can look at that without cringeing.
I dont understand that ? why is it cringing?
I would think cringing rhymed with bringing (cf swingeing vs swinging) but you seem to be correct
Also mildly sociopathic. Normies react to that footage with a scaled down version of how they would react to him kicking a dog or slapping a woman.
Australia I think is evenly balanced. I don't think it's certain.
Canada won't.
New Zealand won't either, too much history with Waitangi and not much appetite for it either.
Edit: as I said last night I think the most likely is Jamaica.
My son's Canadian girlfriend is staying with us at the moment. Her view, and it is a sample of one, is that Canada is very likely to become a Republic in the next couple of years. There is a huge aftermath of irritation with the conduct of Julie Payette as Governor General, asking why do we need to put up with this? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/21/canadas-governor-general-resigns-report-harassment
Well she is completely wrong, both PM Trudeau and new leader of the Conservative opposition Poilievre are monarchists. Only the NDP and Maxime Bernier's party in Canada back a republic.
Indeed there is a new governor general who replaced the one you linked to and proclaimed King Charles IIIrd as Canada's new King yesterday
I would suggest a Canadian is more reliable than yourself and while it may not be imminent it is quite possible all of Aus, NZ and Canada will become republics and others will and quicker
No they aren't, you could be on Mars and still note that both the main party leaders in Canada are monarchists, so there is zero chance of any change there.
I said Australia might be possible as the Labor PM is a republican and wants another referendum on it but even there polling is evenly divided.
God save King Charles IIIrd!!!!
If I were running the republican campaign anywhere I would just show the inkpot footage on a loop.
I would just show President Johnson or President Blair on a loop.
There was nothing wrong with Charles asking for his desk to be cleared as it needed documents on
There was everything wrong with his demeanour and utter disrespect to another human being
It showed his true nature which has long since been known and which Camilla struggles to contain
You need to take your blinkers off
Go away you and stop being so disrespectful, Charles IIIrd is your King, tough
I can and will criticise Charles and comments like that will only be grist to the republican cause
You made clear you wanted a republic when the Queen died long ago as a non Tory former Labour voter.
Charles made an excellent broadcast last week, long live the King!
I have equally made it clear I am content with Charles and the monarchy continuing but he is not divinity that should not be criticised
Your continued reference to my voting for Blair, notwithstanding throughout my life I have voted conservative and actively campaigned for them over 5 decades, is as absurd as you voting for Plaid as you did
I have never voted Labour at a general election and I voted for every Tory candidate on that town council ballot paper
If I were a CEO considering investing in any UK energy scheme, I'd want a very clear definition of "excess profits" so I could be prepared for any future windfall taxes on them
Perhaps best not to be a CEO then, as if you are investing on projects with returns spread out over decades in a volatile industry dealing with such uncertainty is part of the job.
One of the things that businesses like is stability. It’s not so much the tax levels (though they have an effect) as a set of rules they can rely on.
Norway is better than the U.K. on such stability in the tax rules for the North Sea - and I think they take more in tax, ultimately. They are better because they have a rule book which they stick to and which makes more sense.
Yep this has been my argument for years. All the more so when the tax rates are not that much different between the two countries but the UK side tinkers with them continuously. As I think I pointed out the other day, in 2014 Osborne changed the North Sea tax regime 3 times in one year. They do the same with regulation. In the last decade regulation of the North Sea has been the responsibility of 3 different Government bodies - DECC, OGA and now NSTA. And even though these are to a large extent the same organisations just rebranded, they always seem to feel the need for a 'clean broom' and start changing all the regulatory systems to justify their existence.
I remember Vasella, the CEO of Novartis, telling me that predictable tax levels and regulation were key for deciding investment, to a far greater degree than their actual level. Obviously high tax rates and strict regulation were a drawback for a multinational, but if you knew they were broadly constant, you could make rational, evidence-based planning decisions. By contrast, a country with fluctuating rates and erratic regulation was too uncertain to bother with, even if they were temporarily helpful.
The other key criterion for him, which I'd not expected, was an education system generating an ample supply of highly-educated local staff. He felt that was a big plus point for Britain (this was 30 years ago --not sure it's still true).
and what rational decision would companies make about investment if they knew with certainty the tax rates were high ? errrm not invest ? Nice try Nick but if all you believe is that businesses just want certainty of a tax rate whatever it is , it is on a par with believing that unions just want certainty of a pay deal in the next five years even if is is zero
Sorry but you are not correct. A lot of companies in my sector make investment decisions based on stability rather than just a few extra % of tax here and there. They do so because they need to plan for many years in the future when they are making multi billion pound investment decisions. Even if the tax is a little higher then you just factor that in. Far more difficult to factor in wild swings in tax regime which is what we have had in the UK for the last few decades.
This is why Norway is far more successful than the UK attracting oil and gas investment. In spite of both taxes and operating costs being higher they can make long term decisions based on stability and certainty.
well sorry but you are not correct - high taxes mean less projects get invested in as the risk of investment is not worth the rewards -
Norway says you are wrong. Same geology, same oil, same risks, same methods and basic costs. Higher but stable tax regime compared to our hugely fluctuating regimes. And of course much more investment by O&G companies.
If I were a CEO considering investing in any UK energy scheme, I'd want a very clear definition of "excess profits" so I could be prepared for any future windfall taxes on them
Perhaps best not to be a CEO then, as if you are investing on projects with returns spread out over decades in a volatile industry dealing with such uncertainty is part of the job.
One of the things that businesses like is stability. It’s not so much the tax levels (though they have an effect) as a set of rules they can rely on.
Norway is better than the U.K. on such stability in the tax rules for the North Sea - and I think they take more in tax, ultimately. They are better because they have a rule book which they stick to and which makes more sense.
Yep this has been my argument for years. All the more so when the tax rates are not that much different between the two countries but the UK side tinkers with them continuously. As I think I pointed out the other day, in 2014 Osborne changed the North Sea tax regime 3 times in one year. They do the same with regulation. In the last decade regulation of the North Sea has been the responsibility of 3 different Government bodies - DECC, OGA and now NSTA. And even though these are to a large extent the same organisations just rebranded, they always seem to feel the need for a 'clean broom' and start changing all the regulatory systems to justify their existence.
I remember Vasella, the CEO of Novartis, telling me that predictable tax levels and regulation were key for deciding investment, to a far greater degree than their actual level. Obviously high tax rates and strict regulation were a drawback for a multinational, but if you knew they were broadly constant, you could make rational, evidence-based planning decisions. By contrast, a country with fluctuating rates and erratic regulation was too uncertain to bother with, even if they were temporarily helpful.
The other key criterion for him, which I'd not expected, was an education system generating an ample supply of highly-educated local staff. He felt that was a big plus point for Britain (this was 30 years ago --not sure it's still true).
and what rational decision would companies make about investment if they knew with certainty the tax rates were high ? errrm not invest ? Nice try Nick but if all you believe is that businesses just want certainty of a tax rate whatever it is , it is on a par with believing that unions just want certainty of a pay deal in the next five years even if is is zero
Sorry but you are not correct. A lot of companies in my sector make investment decisions based on stability rather than just a few extra % of tax here and there. They do so because they need to plan for many years in the future when they are making multi billion pound investment decisions. Even if the tax is a little higher then you just factor that in. Far more difficult to factor in wild swings in tax regime which is what we have had in the UK for the last few decades.
This is why Norway is far more successful than the UK attracting oil and gas investment. In spite of both taxes and operating costs being higher they can make long term decisions based on stability and certainty.
well sorry but you are not correct - high taxes mean less projects get invested in as the risk of investment is not worth the rewards -
Um, you do know what Richard's job is, right?
No does he know mine? stop being so pompous that whatever his job is it somehow means I have to be the one that is not correct.
Australia I think is evenly balanced. I don't think it's certain.
Canada won't.
New Zealand won't either, too much history with Waitangi and not much appetite for it either.
Edit: as I said last night I think the most likely is Jamaica.
My son's Canadian girlfriend is staying with us at the moment. Her view, and it is a sample of one, is that Canada is very likely to become a Republic in the next couple of years. There is a huge aftermath of irritation with the conduct of Julie Payette as Governor General, asking why do we need to put up with this? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/21/canadas-governor-general-resigns-report-harassment
Well she is completely wrong, both PM Trudeau and new leader of the Conservative opposition Poilievre are monarchists. Only the NDP and Maxime Bernier's party in Canada back a republic.
Indeed there is a new governor general who replaced the one you linked to and proclaimed King Charles IIIrd as Canada's new King yesterday
I would suggest a Canadian is more reliable than yourself and while it may not be imminent it is quite possible all of Aus, NZ and Canada will become republics and others will and quicker
No they aren't, you could be on Mars and still note that both the main party leaders in Canada are monarchists, so there is zero chance of any change there.
I said Australia might be possible as the Labor PM is a republican and wants another referendum on it but even there polling is evenly divided.
God save King Charles IIIrd!!!!
If I were running the republican campaign anywhere I would just show the inkpot footage on a loop.
I would just show President Johnson or President Blair on a loop.
There was nothing wrong with Charles asking for his desk to be cleared as it needed documents on
There was everything wrong with his demeanour and utter disrespect to another human being
It showed his true nature which has long since been known and which Camilla struggles to contain
You need to take your blinkers off
Go away you and stop being so disrespectful, Charles IIIrd is your King, tough
So it is alright for a person to be disrespectful to another, but it is disrespectful for another to point out the first is being disrespectful. How do you square that piece of logic? Or is it that certain people can treat others as they like and the rest of us should know our place.
Personally I would like to give Charles the benefit of the doubt, but it certainly did not look good. Most people would have simply asked someone to please remove the items and then thank them for doing so.
Anyway the rest of the proceedings went well. I liked Charles', and later the sons', walk about. Hopefully that was more in character.
Australia I think is evenly balanced. I don't think it's certain.
Canada won't.
New Zealand won't either, too much history with Waitangi and not much appetite for it either.
Edit: as I said last night I think the most likely is Jamaica.
My son's Canadian girlfriend is staying with us at the moment. Her view, and it is a sample of one, is that Canada is very likely to become a Republic in the next couple of years. There is a huge aftermath of irritation with the conduct of Julie Payette as Governor General, asking why do we need to put up with this? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/21/canadas-governor-general-resigns-report-harassment
Well she is completely wrong, both PM Trudeau and new leader of the Conservative opposition Poilievre are monarchists. Only the NDP and Maxime Bernier's party in Canada back a republic.
Indeed there is a new governor general who replaced the one you linked to and proclaimed King Charles IIIrd as Canada's new King yesterday
I would suggest a Canadian is more reliable than yourself and while it may not be imminent it is quite possible all of Aus, NZ and Canada will become republics and others will and quicker
No they aren't, you could be on Mars and still note that both the main party leaders in Canada are monarchists, so there is zero chance of any change there.
I said Australia might be possible as the Labor PM is a republican and wants another referendum on it but even there polling is evenly divided.
God save King Charles IIIrd!!!!
If I were running the republican campaign anywhere I would just show the inkpot footage on a loop.
I would just show President Johnson or President Blair on a loop.
There was nothing wrong with Charles asking for his desk to be cleared as it needed documents on
There was everything wrong with his demeanour and utter disrespect to another human being
It showed his true nature which has long since been known and which Camilla struggles to contain
You need to take your blinkers off
Go away you and stop being so disrespectful, Charles IIIrd is your King, tough
I can and will criticise Charles and comments like that will only be grist to the republican cause
You made clear you wanted a republic when the Queen died long ago as a non Tory former Labour voter.
Charles made an excellent broadcast last week, long live the King!
I have equally made it clear I am content with Charles and the monarchy continuing but he is not divinity that should not be criticised
Your continued reference to my voting for Blair, notwithstanding throughout my life I have voted conservative and actively campaigned for them over 5 decades, is as absurd as you voting for Plaid as you did
I have never voted Labour at a general election and I voted for every Tory candidate on that town council ballot paper
Australia I think is evenly balanced. I don't think it's certain.
Canada won't.
New Zealand won't either, too much history with Waitangi and not much appetite for it either.
Edit: as I said last night I think the most likely is Jamaica.
My son's Canadian girlfriend is staying with us at the moment. Her view, and it is a sample of one, is that Canada is very likely to become a Republic in the next couple of years. There is a huge aftermath of irritation with the conduct of Julie Payette as Governor General, asking why do we need to put up with this? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/21/canadas-governor-general-resigns-report-harassment
Well she is completely wrong, both PM Trudeau and new leader of the Conservative opposition Poilievre are monarchists. Only the NDP and Maxime Bernier's party in Canada back a republic.
Indeed there is a new governor general who replaced the one you linked to and proclaimed King Charles IIIrd as Canada's new King yesterday
I would suggest a Canadian is more reliable than yourself and while it may not be imminent it is quite possible all of Aus, NZ and Canada will become republics and others will and quicker
No they aren't, you could be on Mars and still note that both the main party leaders in Canada are monarchists, so there is zero chance of any change there.
I said Australia might be possible as the Labor PM is a republican and wants another referendum on it but even there polling is evenly divided.
God save King Charles IIIrd!!!!
If I were running the republican campaign anywhere I would just show the inkpot footage on a loop.
I would just show President Johnson or President Blair on a loop.
There was nothing wrong with Charles asking for his desk to be cleared as it needed documents on
There was everything wrong with his demeanour and utter disrespect to another human being
It showed his true nature which has long since been known and which Camilla struggles to contain
You need to take your blinkers off
Go away you and stop being so disrespectful, Charles IIIrd is your King, tough
I can and will criticise Charles and comments like that will only be grist to the republican cause
You made clear you wanted a republic when the Queen died long ago as a non Tory former Labour voter.
Charles made an excellent broadcast last week, long live the King!
I have equally made it clear I am content with Charles and the monarchy continuing but he is not divinity that should not be criticised
Your continued reference to my voting for Blair, notwithstanding throughout my life I have voted conservative and actively campaigned for them over 5 decades, is as absurd as you voting for Plaid as you did
I have never voted Labour at a general election and I voted for every Tory candidate on that town council ballot paper
Australia I think is evenly balanced. I don't think it's certain.
Canada won't.
New Zealand won't either, too much history with Waitangi and not much appetite for it either.
Edit: as I said last night I think the most likely is Jamaica.
My son's Canadian girlfriend is staying with us at the moment. Her view, and it is a sample of one, is that Canada is very likely to become a Republic in the next couple of years. There is a huge aftermath of irritation with the conduct of Julie Payette as Governor General, asking why do we need to put up with this? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/21/canadas-governor-general-resigns-report-harassment
Well she is completely wrong, both PM Trudeau and new leader of the Conservative opposition Poilievre are monarchists. Only the NDP and Maxime Bernier's party in Canada back a republic.
Indeed there is a new governor general who replaced the one you linked to and proclaimed King Charles IIIrd as Canada's new King yesterday
I would suggest a Canadian is more reliable than yourself and while it may not be imminent it is quite possible all of Aus, NZ and Canada will become republics and others will and quicker
No they aren't, you could be on Mars and still note that both the main party leaders in Canada are monarchists, so there is zero chance of any change there.
I said Australia might be possible as the Labor PM is a republican and wants another referendum on it but even there polling is evenly divided.
God save King Charles IIIrd!!!!
If I were running the republican campaign anywhere I would just show the inkpot footage on a loop.
I would just show President Johnson or President Blair on a loop.
There was nothing wrong with Charles asking for his desk to be cleared as it needed documents on
There was everything wrong with his demeanour and utter disrespect to another human being
It showed his true nature which has long since been known and which Camilla struggles to contain
You need to take your blinkers off
Go away you and stop being so disrespectful, Charles IIIrd is your King, tough
I can and will criticise Charles and comments like that will only be grist to the republican cause
You made clear you wanted a republic when the Queen died long ago as a non Tory former Labour voter.
Charles made an excellent broadcast last week, long live the King!
I have equally made it clear I am content with Charles and the monarchy continuing but he is not divinity that should not be criticised
Your continued reference to my voting for Blair, notwithstanding throughout my life I have voted conservative and actively campaigned for them over 5 decades, is as absurd as you voting for Plaid as you did
I have never voted Labour at a general election and I voted for every Tory candidate on that town council ballot paper
That is actually really sad.
why ? Its sad to me if an individual does not vote how he wants
Did we do this? Speculation that Ukraine formed three battle groups for this offensive. But has used only two. Another blow might be coming soon.
Could it be an “Operational Manoeuvre” Group (I think that is the right Soviet jargon)?
A army held is reserve to exploit a success.
The idea is that after a breach has been made, in depth, in the enemy lines, the OMG, fresh and with all its equipment intact and a full load of fuel and ammunition exploits the success, while the units that made the breach guard the flanks of the breach.
Australia I think is evenly balanced. I don't think it's certain.
Canada won't.
New Zealand won't either, too much history with Waitangi and not much appetite for it either.
Edit: as I said last night I think the most likely is Jamaica.
My son's Canadian girlfriend is staying with us at the moment. Her view, and it is a sample of one, is that Canada is very likely to become a Republic in the next couple of years. There is a huge aftermath of irritation with the conduct of Julie Payette as Governor General, asking why do we need to put up with this? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/21/canadas-governor-general-resigns-report-harassment
Well she is completely wrong, both PM Trudeau and new leader of the Conservative opposition Poilievre are monarchists. Only the NDP and Maxime Bernier's party in Canada back a republic.
Indeed there is a new governor general who replaced the one you linked to and proclaimed King Charles IIIrd as Canada's new King yesterday
I would suggest a Canadian is more reliable than yourself and while it may not be imminent it is quite possible all of Aus, NZ and Canada will become republics and others will and quicker
No they aren't, you could be on Mars and still note that both the main party leaders in Canada are monarchists, so there is zero chance of any change there.
I said Australia might be possible as the Labor PM is a republican and wants another referendum on it but even there polling is evenly divided.
God save King Charles IIIrd!!!!
If I were running the republican campaign anywhere I would just show the inkpot footage on a loop.
I would just show President Johnson or President Blair on a loop.
There was nothing wrong with Charles asking for his desk to be cleared as it needed documents on
There was everything wrong with his demeanour and utter disrespect to another human being
It showed his true nature which has long since been known and which Camilla struggles to contain
You need to take your blinkers off
Go away you and stop being so disrespectful, Charles IIIrd is your King, tough
Regnal Numbers are usually written just as that; George VI, Elizabeth II. So Charles III.
I'd put NZ as likely too personally. Most of the Caribbean certain, the Pacific areas unlikely.
Less convinced on this whole inevitable stuff. The Australian referendum showed the problems with switching. The pro-Republic stuff seems to be a Boomer thing. The young are more driven by the Green etc stuff.
I also think the Ukrainian conflict will, bizarrely, dampen some of the pro-Republican move in the Carribean. It's probably not coincidence Barbados' move coincided with growing Chinese influence - for the latter, states with a monarch as HoS represent an additional barrier to effective control / influence. Post-the conflict, there may be more of an attempt by the US / U.K. to counter that.
I'm close to the average domestic energy user and from October I will be paying on an annual basis £1,500 more than I was last October even with the new 'cap'. I'm not getting any saving. I can afford it, but in preparation I have already cut discretionary spending as I expect many other people are. The £400 bills credit will barely touch the sides factoring wider cost of living rises e.g. food. I really struggle to see how people are going to cheer the Government's measures especially when companies are making massive war profits.
For the war, it means that we are seeing the disintegration of Russian forces in Ukraine. They may be able to stabilise their lines temporarily, but we have crossed a point of no return. Russia's forces were previously poorly equipped, supplied and of low morale. To that list you can now add terrified of encirclement…
The Russians are not going to be able to pull this together - we are witnessing an army in rapid decline, it is just a question of the speed at which it declines…
But what does this mean for Russia?
Well, first and foremost it means that Putin could be finished. This has been his war. And it has not only failed, but achieved the opposite of what he said it would: Russia is now ostracised, sanctioned, has unified its enemies, and is about to have its army defeated in the field. This may seem like a good thing but there is only one thing worse than a strong Russia, and that is a weak one.
A weak Russia, with its leader defenestrated, leaves many unknown questions. Could there be a coup? Who takes over after Putin? Does Russia stay whole? What happens to the nuclear weapons — and Russia has over 5,000 of them while all of this is happening?
So while everyone’s eyes are focused on what is happening in Ukraine, I hope someone is thinking about what may be shortly to happen to Russia.
The BBC and I daresay others are going to show footage of those cars for the next six hours. JFC.
Hearse seems to have a Mercedes star on the front and a Bentley B on the back.
It's a 4th gen E-Klasse but with a CLS front grill and bumper. How cringe, it's like a South London hotboi cut'n'shut. I assume the 'B' is the coachbuilder.
I'd put NZ as likely too personally. Most of the Caribbean certain, the Pacific areas unlikely.
While there may be (some?) popular sentiment for a republic in New Zealand the position is considerably complicated by the Treaty of Waitangi between the Crown and the Māori for which there will need to be a suitable solution:
Interesting. I had always seen it being a bit like a house of cards - once Australia in particular goes, the others will follow. In any event the debate has often been muted in recent years because it has long been accepted in NZ/AU/CA that this wasn’t a debate worth having until EIIR was gone.
My assumption is that very few places will have the shared monarchy by 2032. But given the constitutional complexities in Canada, and the slightly less anti-monarchy sentiment in NZ, perhaps they will hang around for a while longer.
Australia I think is evenly balanced. I don't think it's certain.
Canada won't.
New Zealand won't either, too much history with Waitangi and not much appetite for it either.
Edit: as I said last night I think the most likely is Jamaica.
My son's Canadian girlfriend is staying with us at the moment. Her view, and it is a sample of one, is that Canada is very likely to become a Republic in the next couple of years. There is a huge aftermath of irritation with the conduct of Julie Payette as Governor General, asking why do we need to put up with this? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/21/canadas-governor-general-resigns-report-harassment
Well she is completely wrong, both PM Trudeau and new leader of the Conservative opposition Poilievre are monarchists. Only the NDP and Maxime Bernier's party in Canada back a republic.
Indeed there is a new governor general who replaced the one you linked to and proclaimed King Charles IIIrd as Canada's new King yesterday
I would suggest a Canadian is more reliable than yourself and while it may not be imminent it is quite possible all of Aus, NZ and Canada will become republics and others will and quicker
No they aren't, you could be on Mars and still note that both the main party leaders in Canada are monarchists, so there is zero chance of any change there.
I said Australia might be possible as the Labor PM is a republican and wants another referendum on it but even there polling is evenly divided.
God save King Charles IIIrd!!!!
If I were running the republican campaign anywhere I would just show the inkpot footage on a loop.
I would just show President Johnson or President Blair on a loop.
There was nothing wrong with Charles asking for his desk to be cleared as it needed documents on
There was everything wrong with his demeanour and utter disrespect to another human being
It showed his true nature which has long since been known and which Camilla struggles to contain
You need to take your blinkers off
Go away you and stop being so disrespectful, Charles IIIrd is your King, tough
So it is alright for a person to be disrespectful to another, but it is disrespectful for another to point out the first is being disrespectful. How do you square that piece of logic? Or is it that certain people can treat others as they like and the rest of us should know our place.
Personally I would like to give Charles the benefit of the doubt, but it certainly did not look good. Most people would have simply asked someone to please remove the items and then thank them for doing so.
Anyway the rest of the proceedings went well. I liked Charles', and later the sons', walk about. Hopefully that was more in character.
However, unless we can be 100% sure that we would have handled the situation better (and I don't think any of us can), kindness would suggest keeping quiet, wouldn't it?
Though that would cut off the business model of a certain sort of celebrity journalism.
The BBC and I daresay others are going to show footage of those cars for the next six hours. JFC.
Hearse seems to have a Mercedes star on the front and a Bentley B on the back.
Always the way when you have to cobble something together A factory I worked in had a forklift truck with a different number plate on the front and back. They probably had the same sort of issues.
Princess Anne looks absolutely heartbroken. I know that those lining the streets want to pay their respects and that it is right that Anne accompanies her mother but, still, it is a reminder of how hard it is to be in the public eye at such a time.
Is Princess Anne in the cortège? There was some debate on the BBC over who was in the Royal Limo behind the hearse.
Yes. With her husband. Don't know if any others in the family are in the other cars.
A 6 hour journey. That's tough.
Anyway I don't know enough about windfall taxes to comment on that. But holding back on green energy projects, if that is what the Truss government is doing, is remarkably stupid indeed.
If I were a CEO considering investing in any UK energy scheme, I'd want a very clear definition of "excess profits" so I could be prepared for any future windfall taxes on them
Perhaps best not to be a CEO then, as if you are investing on projects with returns spread out over decades in a volatile industry dealing with such uncertainty is part of the job.
One of the things that businesses like is stability. It’s not so much the tax levels (though they have an effect) as a set of rules they can rely on.
Norway is better than the U.K. on such stability in the tax rules for the North Sea - and I think they take more in tax, ultimately. They are better because they have a rule book which they stick to and which makes more sense.
Yep this has been my argument for years. All the more so when the tax rates are not that much different between the two countries but the UK side tinkers with them continuously. As I think I pointed out the other day, in 2014 Osborne changed the North Sea tax regime 3 times in one year. They do the same with regulation. In the last decade regulation of the North Sea has been the responsibility of 3 different Government bodies - DECC, OGA and now NSTA. And even though these are to a large extent the same organisations just rebranded, they always seem to feel the need for a 'clean broom' and start changing all the regulatory systems to justify their existence.
I remember Vasella, the CEO of Novartis, telling me that predictable tax levels and regulation were key for deciding investment, to a far greater degree than their actual level. Obviously high tax rates and strict regulation were a drawback for a multinational, but if you knew they were broadly constant, you could make rational, evidence-based planning decisions. By contrast, a country with fluctuating rates and erratic regulation was too uncertain to bother with, even if they were temporarily helpful.
The other key criterion for him, which I'd not expected, was an education system generating an ample supply of highly-educated local staff. He felt that was a big plus point for Britain (this was 30 years ago --not sure it's still true).
and what rational decision would companies make about investment if they knew with certainty the tax rates were high ? errrm not invest ? Nice try Nick but if all you believe is that businesses just want certainty of a tax rate whatever it is , it is on a par with believing that unions just want certainty of a pay deal in the next five years even if is is zero
Sorry but you are not correct. A lot of companies in my sector make investment decisions based on stability rather than just a few extra % of tax here and there. They do so because they need to plan for many years in the future when they are making multi billion pound investment decisions. Even if the tax is a little higher then you just factor that in. Far more difficult to factor in wild swings in tax regime which is what we have had in the UK for the last few decades.
This is why Norway is far more successful than the UK attracting oil and gas investment. In spite of both taxes and operating costs being higher they can make long term decisions based on stability and certainty.
well sorry but you are not correct - high taxes mean less projects get invested in as the risk of investment is not worth the rewards -
Norway says you are wrong. Same geology, same oil, same risks, same methods and basic costs. Higher but stable tax regime compared to our hugely fluctuating regimes. And of course much more investment by O&G companies.
Real life trumps your theories.
There’s a live debate going on within the right wing (indeed with the Tufton st think tanks) about how best to encourage investment.
A low headline rate, with relatively wide tax base - like Ireland, Eastern Europe and Scandinavia, and the UK.
Or a higher headline rate with generous targeted reliefs fog investment and innovation - like the US, France, Netherlands, Belgium and a few others.
Or a third option which is highish rate, few tax incentives, but focus on non-fiscal levers, like Germany or Korea.
The second option was gaining ground and becoming a new orthodoxy. Witness Sunak’s direction of travel and much of the post-Brexit policy direction. But Truss and Kwarteng are taking things in completely the opposite direction. We’re back to low rate high base.
In reality investment decisions are driven by different factors depending on the industry, the location of the decision maker (eg FDI or domestic investment) and the macroeconomic context. So it’s never going to be a simple answer.
Interesting. I had always seen it being a bit like a house of cards - once Australia in particular goes, the others will follow. In any event the debate has often been muted in recent years because it has long been accepted in NZ/AU/CA that this wasn’t a debate worth having until EIIR was gone.
The Solomon Islands must be in the seat next to the exit. They are wavering between failed state and Chinese satrapy. They don't even let the Royal Navy dock these days.
Australia I think is evenly balanced. I don't think it's certain.
Canada won't.
New Zealand won't either, too much history with Waitangi and not much appetite for it either.
Edit: as I said last night I think the most likely is Jamaica.
My son's Canadian girlfriend is staying with us at the moment. Her view, and it is a sample of one, is that Canada is very likely to become a Republic in the next couple of years. There is a huge aftermath of irritation with the conduct of Julie Payette as Governor General, asking why do we need to put up with this? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/21/canadas-governor-general-resigns-report-harassment
Well she is completely wrong, both PM Trudeau and new leader of the Conservative opposition Poilievre are monarchists. Only the NDP and Maxime Bernier's party in Canada back a republic.
Indeed there is a new governor general who replaced the one you linked to and proclaimed King Charles IIIrd as Canada's new King yesterday
I would suggest a Canadian is more reliable than yourself and while it may not be imminent it is quite possible all of Aus, NZ and Canada will become republics and others will and quicker
No they aren't, you could be on Mars and still note that both the main party leaders in Canada are monarchists, so there is zero chance of any change there.
I said Australia might be possible as the Labor PM is a republican and wants another referendum on it but even there polling is evenly divided.
God save King Charles IIIrd!!!!
If I were running the republican campaign anywhere I would just show the inkpot footage on a loop.
I would just show President Johnson or President Blair on a loop.
There was nothing wrong with Charles asking for his desk to be cleared as it needed documents on
There was everything wrong with his demeanour and utter disrespect to another human being
It showed his true nature which has long since been known and which Camilla struggles to contain
You need to take your blinkers off
Go away you and stop being so disrespectful, Charles IIIrd is your King, tough
I can and will criticise Charles and comments like that will only be grist to the republican cause
You made clear you wanted a republic when the Queen died long ago as a non Tory former Labour voter.
Charles made an excellent broadcast last week, long live the King!
I have equally made it clear I am content with Charles and the monarchy continuing but he is not divinity that should not be criticised
Your continued reference to my voting for Blair, notwithstanding throughout my life I have voted conservative and actively campaigned for them over 5 decades, is as absurd as you voting for Plaid as you did
I have never voted Labour at a general election and I voted for every Tory candidate on that town council ballot paper
I have never voted Labour in any election and have been voting for twice as many years as you, but I have no idea what that proves in that context.
Interesting. I had always seen it being a bit like a house of cards - once Australia in particular goes, the others will follow. In any event the debate has often been muted in recent years because it has long been accepted in NZ/AU/CA that this wasn’t a debate worth having until EIIR was gone.
My assumption is that very few places will have the shared monarchy by 2032. But given the constitutional complexities in Canada, and the slightly less anti-monarchy sentiment in NZ, perhaps they will hang around for a while longer.
I think Canada and New Zealand will be slower to go because of I) constitutional complexities and II) “we’re not them” wrt their immediate much bigger neighbours.
Interesting. I had always seen it being a bit like a house of cards - once Australia in particular goes, the others will follow. In any event the debate has often been muted in recent years because it has long been accepted in NZ/AU/CA that this wasn’t a debate worth having until EIIR was gone.
My assumption is that very few places will have the shared monarchy by 2032. But given the constitutional complexities in Canada, and the slightly less anti-monarchy sentiment in NZ, perhaps they will hang around for a while longer.
Plus in Canada both the PM and Leader of the Opposition are monarchists which is not the case in Australia and New Zealand where the Labor PMs are republicans unlike the conservative Leaders of the Opposition who are monarchists.
Australia is a bit more republican than New Zealand so if any of the white British origin majority Commonwealth realms switch to a republic, Australia is the likeliest though even that not certain and Australians voted 55% to keep the monarchy in 1999
Australia I think is evenly balanced. I don't think it's certain.
Canada won't.
New Zealand won't either, too much history with Waitangi and not much appetite for it either.
Edit: as I said last night I think the most likely is Jamaica.
My son's Canadian girlfriend is staying with us at the moment. Her view, and it is a sample of one, is that Canada is very likely to become a Republic in the next couple of years. There is a huge aftermath of irritation with the conduct of Julie Payette as Governor General, asking why do we need to put up with this? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/21/canadas-governor-general-resigns-report-harassment
Well she is completely wrong, both PM Trudeau and new leader of the Conservative opposition Poilievre are monarchists. Only the NDP and Maxime Bernier's party in Canada back a republic.
Indeed there is a new governor general who replaced the one you linked to and proclaimed King Charles IIIrd as Canada's new King yesterday
I would suggest a Canadian is more reliable than yourself and while it may not be imminent it is quite possible all of Aus, NZ and Canada will become republics and others will and quicker
No they aren't, you could be on Mars and still note that both the main party leaders in Canada are monarchists, so there is zero chance of any change there.
I said Australia might be possible as the Labor PM is a republican and wants another referendum on it but even there polling is evenly divided.
God save King Charles IIIrd!!!!
If I were running the republican campaign anywhere I would just show the inkpot footage on a loop.
I would just show President Johnson or President Blair on a loop.
There was nothing wrong with Charles asking for his desk to be cleared as it needed documents on
There was everything wrong with his demeanour and utter disrespect to another human being
It showed his true nature which has long since been known and which Camilla struggles to contain
You need to take your blinkers off
Go away you and stop being so disrespectful, Charles IIIrd is your King, tough
So it is alright for a person to be disrespectful to another, but it is disrespectful for another to point out the first is being disrespectful. How do you square that piece of logic? Or is it that certain people can treat others as they like and the rest of us should know our place.
Personally I would like to give Charles the benefit of the doubt, but it certainly did not look good. Most people would have simply asked someone to please remove the items and then thank them for doing so.
Anyway the rest of the proceedings went well. I liked Charles', and later the sons', walk about. Hopefully that was more in character.
I don't know why someone didn't organise to have a bigger desk. That was the problem. It simply was not big enough.
The BBC and I daresay others are going to show footage of those cars for the next six hours. JFC.
Hearse seems to have a Mercedes star on the front and a Bentley B on the back.
Always the way when you have to cobble something together A factory I worked in had a forklift truck with a different number plate on the front and back. They probably had the same sort of issues.
From where was it "borrowed"? That's what something like that usually means!
Ask BigG, most of the rest of us are very much pro King Charles
Nonsense comment
I have reiterated to you directly I support Charles and the monarchy but at the same time nobody , even a King, is outside criticism when dealing with an employee in such a way evidenced at the time
Comments
A week is a long time in politics.
Still plenty of positive content on Twitter but it’s all about yesterday’s victories.
There is an inevitabllty about it
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-09-11/king-charles-proclaimed-australia-monarch/101427102
The other key criterion for him, which I'd not expected, was an education system generating an ample supply of highly-educated local staff. He felt that was a big plus point for Britain (this was 30 years ago --not sure it's still true).
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Standard_of_the_United_Kingdom
So it would seem relatively easy to have an election for Governor General, the PM of Canada (or wherever) then advises the monarch to appoint the winner of the election to be Governor General, and you can have all the democratic advantages of a Republic, while retaining the historical and traditional links with the Monarchy.
https://www.dailystar.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league-fixtures-queen-funeral-27950434
Suggests Policing issues mean no Premier League till October.
Other countries have similar regimes that you apply for in advance and get a ruling. So you can then confidently factor the benefit into an investment business case.
Denmark signed a deal with Rwanda to move the Nordic country closer to setting up an asylum center outside of the European Union to reduce the number of people seeking refuge.
The two countries declared a “joint ambition” to collaborate on asylum and that they will set up a mechanism that could transfer seekers to Rwanda from Denmark, according to a statement published by the government in Copenhagen on Friday.
There was nothing wrong with Charles asking for his desk to be cleared as it needed documents on
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=O_FL01XLMPY
It showed his true nature which has long since been known and which Camilla struggles to contain
You need to take your blinkers off
This story is one of republicans howling at the moon. They thought the only thing keeping the UK a constitutional monarchy was the remarkable lady Elizabeth Windsor. And they’ve realised this week that they were probably wrong.
While in some respects they are extremely liberal, as in the Netherlands, this doesn’t translate to a let-em-all-come attitude on immigration.
I wish Charles and the monarchy well but the flash of distane and disrespect to an employee was not a pretty sight but also he is known for his entitled behaviour
The same for the Coronation as well, probably.
Bit much isn’t it?
I would hate to be your spouse, child or waiter in a restaurant if you can look at that without cringeing.
Much as I like Joanna she also does not have the global recognition of our royal family anyway
This is why Norway is far more successful than the UK attracting oil and gas investment. In spite of both taxes and operating costs being higher they can make long term decisions based on stability and certainty.
Charles made an excellent broadcast last week, long live the King!
I would probably vote to retain the monarchy in a referendum so don't impute motive, but in any case as with the French revolution it is a lot too soon to assess the consequences of HMQ dying. Let's give it a year.
Edit: pauses for consolidation, refuelling and rearming. What kind of pause this is, if it is a pause and not a news blackout, we will see shortly.
Your continued reference to my voting for Blair, notwithstanding throughout my life I have voted conservative and actively campaigned for them over 5 decades, is as absurd as you voting for Plaid as you did
Did we do this? Speculation that Ukraine formed three battle groups for this offensive. But has used only two. Another blow might be coming soon.
It would be bloody marvellous if, in 20 years, we didn't have to burn any fossil fuels. But you won't get there any quicker by causing the sorts of energy crisis that we have now. And it has, in part, been caused by reducing our domestic production of fossil fuels whilst failing to reduce demand or provide enough alternatives.
Also mildly sociopathic. Normies react to that footage with a scaled down version of how they would react to him kicking a dog or slapping a woman.
http://www.republic.org.nz/latestblog/2021/11/17/opinion-poll-44-republic-50-monarchy-after-the-queen
Plus the leader of the Opposition Nationals, Christopher Luxon is a strong monarchist and leads Ardern in current polls
https://twitter.com/chrisluxonmp/status/1568774941595824129?s=20&t=dikgTAdpmaXYgrgTmSrLnQ
The only thing I would say it is showing just how beautiful Deeside and Scotland is
Real life trumps your theories.
Personally I would like to give Charles the benefit of the doubt, but it certainly did not look good. Most people would have simply asked someone to please remove the items and then thank them for doing so.
Anyway the rest of the proceedings went well. I liked Charles', and later the sons', walk about. Hopefully that was more in character.
Her Majesty The Queen’s coffin has left Balmoral.
Accompanied by The Princess Royal and Sir Tim Laurence, the cortege will travel to the Palace of Holyroodhouse.
The Wreath on the coffin features Dhalias, Sweet Peas, Phlox, White Heather and Pine Fir from the Balmoral Estate.
https://twitter.com/RoyalFamily/status/1568902529957642240
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/sep/11/jacinda-ardern-expects-new-zealands-royal-ties-to-deepen-under-king-charles-iii
Looks unlikely to be any imminent change. Its a 2040, 2050 thing i reckon
A army held is reserve to exploit a success.
The idea is that after a breach has been made, in depth, in the enemy lines, the OMG, fresh and with all its equipment intact and a full load of fuel and ammunition exploits the success, while the units that made the breach guard the flanks of the breach.
I also think the Ukrainian conflict will, bizarrely, dampen some of the pro-Republican move in the Carribean. It's probably not coincidence Barbados' move coincided with growing Chinese influence - for the latter, states with a monarch as HoS represent an additional barrier to effective control / influence. Post-the conflict, there may be more of an attempt by the US / U.K. to counter that.
Mike Martin on Ukraine/Russia.
So what does this mean?
For the war, it means that we are seeing the disintegration of Russian forces in Ukraine. They may be able to stabilise their lines temporarily, but we have crossed a point of no return. Russia's forces were previously poorly equipped, supplied and of low morale. To that list you can now add terrified of encirclement…
The Russians are not going to be able to pull this together - we are witnessing an army in rapid decline, it is just a question of the speed at which it declines…
But what does this mean for Russia?
Well, first and foremost it means that Putin could be finished. This has been his war. And it has not only failed, but achieved the opposite of what he said it would: Russia is now ostracised, sanctioned, has unified its enemies, and is about to have its army defeated in the field. This may seem like a good thing but there is only one thing worse than a strong Russia, and that is a weak one.
A weak Russia, with its leader defenestrated, leaves many unknown questions. Could there be a coup? Who takes over after Putin? Does Russia stay whole? What happens to the nuclear weapons — and Russia has over 5,000 of them while all of this is happening?
So while everyone’s eyes are focused on what is happening in Ukraine, I hope someone is thinking about what may be shortly to happen to Russia.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Waitangi
My assumption is that very few places will have the shared monarchy by 2032. But given the constitutional complexities in Canada, and the slightly less anti-monarchy sentiment in NZ, perhaps they will hang around for a while longer.
Though that would cut off the business model of a certain sort of celebrity journalism.
A 6 hour journey. That's tough.
Anyway I don't know enough about windfall taxes to comment on that. But holding back on green energy projects, if that is what the Truss government is doing, is remarkably stupid indeed.
A low headline rate, with relatively wide tax base - like Ireland, Eastern Europe and Scandinavia, and the UK.
Or a higher headline rate with generous targeted reliefs fog investment and innovation - like the US, France, Netherlands, Belgium and a few others.
Or a third option which is highish rate, few tax incentives, but focus on non-fiscal levers, like Germany or Korea.
The second option was gaining ground and becoming a new orthodoxy. Witness Sunak’s direction of travel and much of the post-Brexit policy direction. But Truss and Kwarteng are taking things in completely the opposite
direction. We’re back to low rate high base.
In reality investment decisions are driven by different factors depending on the industry, the location of the decision maker (eg FDI or domestic investment) and the macroeconomic context. So it’s never going to be a simple answer.
Australia is a bit more republican than New Zealand so if any of the white British origin majority Commonwealth realms switch to a republic, Australia is the likeliest though even that not certain and Australians voted 55% to keep the monarchy in 1999
Having said that I logged in this morning quietly hoping to see an ongoing rout and Putin in trouble.
Following a war in real time is fascinating but a bit of an emotional rollercoaster.
That's what something like that usually means!
I have reiterated to you directly I support Charles and the monarchy but at the same time nobody , even a King, is outside criticism when dealing with an employee in such a way evidenced at the time
I hope he is able to curtail these instincts