Ir35 is for the chop according to the infoadmercial of one of those umbrella company selling websites.
There’s a lot of disinformation about that been going round to that effect since the mini-budget. As I’m sure you’re aware, it’s the 2017/2021 changes that are being scrapped, not IR35 itself. But that hasn’t stopped a lot of these companies pumping these out. F***ing LinkedIn is full of them.
I can’t see Hunt abolishing it either and, if he was, there won’t have been time to pump out an infomercial, let alone based on a leak.
I presume the thing that is for the chop is the idea that contractors themselves can declare whether they are working inside or outside IR35, rather than the employer having to make a declaration and being liable for it. I've discussed this with some tax lawyers and the conclusion was that the changes would just lead to more people declaring themselves outside of IR35, thus reducing tax generated, and then leading to more disputes and investigations which are obviously time and resource draining for HMRC.
The opposite. Responsibility for the determination of IR35, and the tax liability, is moving back to the the contractor and away from the end client. It had been shifted to the end client in public sector contracts in 2017, and to all others in 2021.
That's getting chopped today, IR35 will once again be a client determination, it's worth ~£4bn per year to the government and was a stupid thing to cut.
Mr Hunt right to bring forward statement. Opportunity to calm markets and reduce debt interest pressures. Important to retain perspective. UK is solvent. Economy will recover. Inflation will fall. HMT and BoE working well together. Much more a political than an economic crisis.
I think that this is optimistic. Yes, the immediate pressure will dissipate but the underlying weaknesses will still be there until we start to address them.
I think his point is that the thing in danger of collapse is the government, not the economy.
https://twitter.com/RobDotHutton/status/1581907570394292224 Robert Hutton @RobDotHutton (Anecdotage: in 2005, Bloomberg asked me to interview Tony Blair live on TV. I was *terrified*. As the producer counted us in, I tried to even the balance of fear: "Not to worry, prime minister, it's just five minutes on the bond market." Interview opens on Blair look of horror.)
The tweet before it says the BBC needs to spend 5 minutes explaining with a video how the bond market works (remember it's counter intuitive to many people)...
Well there is the small matter of yields going up when the price goes down for a start.
Truss is going nowhere unless she resigns. The current Conservative Party uniting round a single candidate? Or alternatively putting it back to the members? Do me a favour.
Here's the thing: everyone faces extinction if she stays.
So, she won't be allowed to fight a GE and, therefore, Keir Starmer won't be the *next* Prime Minister.
The appointment of Hunt muddies the waters somewhat, but I think it's possible that we might see an explicit caretaker replace Truss, so that the Tories then have a breathing space to change their leadership election rules, and hold a new contest to pick someone to fight the next election.
If Hunt can steady the ship, then it's possible that it will be seen as too much trouble to install a caretaker, and they'll move straight to the contest for next "permanent" leader. In that scenario she could stay as PM well into next year, because it will take some time to change the constitution of the Conservative Party to change the leadership election rules.
Truss is going nowhere unless she resigns. The current Conservative Party uniting round a single candidate? Or alternatively putting it back to the members? Do me a favour.
Here's the thing: everyone faces extinction if she stays.
So, she won't be allowed to fight a GE and, therefore, Keir Starmer won't be the *next* Prime Minister.
The appointment of Hunt muddies the waters somewhat, but I think it's possible that we might see an explicit caretaker replace Truss, so that the Tories then have a breathing space to change their leadership election rules, and hold a new contest to pick someone to fight the next election.
If Hunt can steady the ship, then it's possible that it will be seen as too much trouble to install a caretaker, and they'll move straight to the contest for next "permanent" leader. In that scenario she could stay as PM well into next year, because it will take some time to change the constitution of the Conservative Party to change the leadership election rules.
Yes, that's possible, and it's worth remembering that there's no such things as a caretaker Prime Minister.
The next Prime Minister is the next Prime Minister.
Ir35 is for the chop according to the infoadmercial of one of those umbrella company selling websites.
There’s a lot of disinformation about that been going round to that effect since the mini-budget. As I’m sure you’re aware, it’s the 2017/2021 changes that are being scrapped, not IR35 itself. But that hasn’t stopped a lot of these companies pumping these out. F***ing LinkedIn is full of them.
I can’t see Hunt abolishing it either and, if he was, there won’t have been time to pump out an infomercial, let alone based on a leak.
I presume the thing that is for the chop is the idea that contractors themselves can declare whether they are working inside or outside IR35, rather than the employer having to make a declaration and being liable for it. I've discussed this with some tax lawyers and the conclusion was that the changes would just lead to more people declaring themselves outside of IR35, thus reducing tax generated, and then leading to more disputes and investigations which are obviously time and resource draining for HMRC.
The opposite. Responsibility for the determination of IR35, and the tax liability, is moving back to the the contractor and away from the end client. It had been shifted to the end client in public sector contracts in 2017, and to all others in 2021.
That's getting chopped today, IR35 will once again be a client determination, it's worth ~£4bn per year to the government and was a stupid thing to cut.
No HMRC thinks it costs £1.1bn in 2023/24 rising to £2bn in 2026/7 and those figures are based on corporation tax at 19% rather than 25%.
As I've pointed out below - that will be more than covered by tax avoidance savings because oh boy that market has been booming for months.
1 Mini umbrella group has run through 32,000 limited companies so far. I suspect that is £100m in tax avoidance within that scheme alone...
I was arguing yesterday that Truss can survive and I have backed Starmer to be next PM. Hardly anyone here believes this to be at all possible and the betting suggests otherwise. So I decided - and thankfully managed - to reverse out of about half of my position betting on Starmer to be next PM, by laying him at 7.6 having backed him at an average of 7.0. Along with my large lay position on Truss to be PM after the next GE at 4.4, I will be a bit in a bit of profit if Truss is forced out. But not as much as I could have been if I'd just stuck with the latter bet.
I accept that it's hard to see Truss surviving now. But still not impossible in my view while Tory MPs struggle to agree on a unity candidate. I still favour Teresa May for the unity role as an experienced, relatively safe pair of hands and I have bets on her at 100/1. There would need to be some sort of a succession plan and I don't know how that might work?
Russia now wasting their Iranian drones on non-military targets in Kiev this morning. What on Earth do they think they’ll achieve here, given that they’re close to being exhausted of any decent weapons?
They're using them for the purpose they wee designed for. They're not of much use against military targets. They're designed to attack population centres and their infrastructure. Effectively a much cheaper and slightly more accurate version of the V1.
But they still cost millions, are relatively large and slow - therefore easy targets for the defenders - and there’s at most a couple of hundred of them, half of which have been used in less than a week, with little real damage to show for their efforts.
The enemy is getting increasingly desparate, and it shows. They’re hoping to find a way resolve the air before winter, one way or another.
Oh, and a few drones heading for Kiev is a huge domestic distraction for Russia from the real story, which is them losing even more ground in Kherson and Kharkiv. Kherson could fall this week.
Ir35 is for the chop according to the infoadmercial of one of those umbrella company selling websites.
There’s a lot of disinformation about that been going round to that effect since the mini-budget. As I’m sure you’re aware, it’s the 2017/2021 changes that are being scrapped, not IR35 itself. But that hasn’t stopped a lot of these companies pumping these out. F***ing LinkedIn is full of them.
I can’t see Hunt abolishing it either and, if he was, there won’t have been time to pump out an infomercial, let alone based on a leak.
I presume the thing that is for the chop is the idea that contractors themselves can declare whether they are working inside or outside IR35, rather than the employer having to make a declaration and being liable for it. I've discussed this with some tax lawyers and the conclusion was that the changes would just lead to more people declaring themselves outside of IR35, thus reducing tax generated, and then leading to more disputes and investigations which are obviously time and resource draining for HMRC.
The opposite. Responsibility for the determination of IR35, and the tax liability, is moving back to the the contractor and away from the end client. It had been shifted to the end client in public sector contracts in 2017, and to all others in 2021.
I do wonder though if Hunt might just find it easier to simply scrap the whole mini-budget. Revert to the previous statis quo and then use that as the baseline for his own changes.
Yes he might as well:
45p and corporation tax already gone. SDLT - Go back to status quo until you have a clearer idea of the house price correction. 19/20p - initial Sunak idea was to lower this in the pre-GE budget. Push it back, or put it on ice. NI Rise - the controversial one but the tax is already being paid, so people will not feel the impact. This is the trickiest one politically, but probably the easiest one fiscally to just reverse.
They will keep the NI cut as it's basically gone though parliament, so would be a ok point.
Ir35 is for the chop according to the infoadmercial of one of those umbrella company selling websites.
There’s a lot of disinformation about that been going round to that effect since the mini-budget. As I’m sure you’re aware, it’s the 2017/2021 changes that are being scrapped, not IR35 itself. But that hasn’t stopped a lot of these companies pumping these out. F***ing LinkedIn is full of them.
I can’t see Hunt abolishing it either and, if he was, there won’t have been time to pump out an infomercial, let alone based on a leak.
I presume the thing that is for the chop is the idea that contractors themselves can declare whether they are working inside or outside IR35, rather than the employer having to make a declaration and being liable for it. I've discussed this with some tax lawyers and the conclusion was that the changes would just lead to more people declaring themselves outside of IR35, thus reducing tax generated, and then leading to more disputes and investigations which are obviously time and resource draining for HMRC.
The opposite. Responsibility for the determination of IR35, and the tax liability, is moving back to the the contractor and away from the end client. It had been shifted to the end client in public sector contracts in 2017, and to all others in 2021.
I do wonder though if Hunt might just find it easier to simply scrap the whole mini-budget. Revert to the previous statis quo and then use that as the baseline for his own changes.
In terms of IR35 do you mean the pre 2021 status quo or the status quo 2021-22? I mean…it’s a bit hard to keep up frankly. And I’m an employment lawyer. This is one of the few bits of tax law I know (indeed understand) intimately.
I thought Hunt might just scrap the most recently announced changes and go back to the post 2017/21 'end user decides' situation. I doubt IR35 is on his horizon at the moment one way or another but the latest 2022 changes might be a victim of his simply scrapping the mini-budget wholesale and doing his own thing in the autumn statement.
Hunt has to scrap the mini budget bit by bit because there is no way he can pull the November 6th NI changes again....
Ir35 is for the chop according to the infoadmercial of one of those umbrella company selling websites.
There’s a lot of disinformation about that been going round to that effect since the mini-budget. As I’m sure you’re aware, it’s the 2017/2021 changes that are being scrapped, not IR35 itself. But that hasn’t stopped a lot of these companies pumping these out. F***ing LinkedIn is full of them.
I can’t see Hunt abolishing it either and, if he was, there won’t have been time to pump out an infomercial, let alone based on a leak.
I presume the thing that is for the chop is the idea that contractors themselves can declare whether they are working inside or outside IR35, rather than the employer having to make a declaration and being liable for it. I've discussed this with some tax lawyers and the conclusion was that the changes would just lead to more people declaring themselves outside of IR35, thus reducing tax generated, and then leading to more disputes and investigations which are obviously time and resource draining for HMRC.
The opposite. Responsibility for the determination of IR35, and the tax liability, is moving back to the the contractor and away from the end client. It had been shifted to the end client in public sector contracts in 2017, and to all others in 2021.
That's getting chopped today, IR35 will once again be a client determination, it's worth ~£4bn per year to the government and was a stupid thing to cut.
No HMRC thinks it costs £1.1bn in 2023/24 rising to £2bn in 2026/7 and those figures are based on corporation tax at 19% rather than 25%.
As I've pointed out below - that will be more than covered by tax avoidance savings because oh boy that market has been booming for months.
1 Mini umbrella group has run through 32,000 limited companies so far. I suspect that is £100m in tax avoidance within that scheme alone...
£4bn is our estimate, we think HMRC has underestimated how many people will shift to contracting if it becomes easy again.
Dream coverage for Hunt in the DM: "Pound surges as new Chancellor Jeremy Hunt braces to axe MORE key planks of 'lame duck' Liz Truss's economic policy TODAY"
Question for the PB constitutional experts: is there anything to stop Truss going to KC and asking him to dissolve Parliament for a General Election?
Crazy, yes, but if she's had enough and is going to be kicked out by her party anyway, why not?
Lascelles principles. He can refuse if all of
if the existing Parliament is still "vital, viable, and capable of doing its job",
if a general election would be "detrimental to the national economy", and
if the sovereign could "rely on finding another prime minister who could govern for a reasonable period with a working majority in the House of Commons".
Ir35 is for the chop according to the infoadmercial of one of those umbrella company selling websites.
There’s a lot of disinformation about that been going round to that effect since the mini-budget. As I’m sure you’re aware, it’s the 2017/2021 changes that are being scrapped, not IR35 itself. But that hasn’t stopped a lot of these companies pumping these out. F***ing LinkedIn is full of them.
I can’t see Hunt abolishing it either and, if he was, there won’t have been time to pump out an infomercial, let alone based on a leak.
I presume the thing that is for the chop is the idea that contractors themselves can declare whether they are working inside or outside IR35, rather than the employer having to make a declaration and being liable for it. I've discussed this with some tax lawyers and the conclusion was that the changes would just lead to more people declaring themselves outside of IR35, thus reducing tax generated, and then leading to more disputes and investigations which are obviously time and resource draining for HMRC.
The opposite. Responsibility for the determination of IR35, and the tax liability, is moving back to the the contractor and away from the end client. It had been shifted to the end client in public sector contracts in 2017, and to all others in 2021.
That's getting chopped today, IR35 will once again be a client determination, it's worth ~£4bn per year to the government and was a stupid thing to cut.
Thinking about IR35, by primarily how much it’s worth to the government, was what made the mess so big in the first place.
The contractor market is totally messed up, because no-one wants to take a temporay job where they can’t claim expenses, as @Richard_Tyndall and @eek have suggested.
Ir35 is for the chop according to the infoadmercial of one of those umbrella company selling websites.
There’s a lot of disinformation about that been going round to that effect since the mini-budget. As I’m sure you’re aware, it’s the 2017/2021 changes that are being scrapped, not IR35 itself. But that hasn’t stopped a lot of these companies pumping these out. F***ing LinkedIn is full of them.
I can’t see Hunt abolishing it either and, if he was, there won’t have been time to pump out an infomercial, let alone based on a leak.
I presume the thing that is for the chop is the idea that contractors themselves can declare whether they are working inside or outside IR35, rather than the employer having to make a declaration and being liable for it. I've discussed this with some tax lawyers and the conclusion was that the changes would just lead to more people declaring themselves outside of IR35, thus reducing tax generated, and then leading to more disputes and investigations which are obviously time and resource draining for HMRC.
The opposite. Responsibility for the determination of IR35, and the tax liability, is moving back to the the contractor and away from the end client. It had been shifted to the end client in public sector contracts in 2017, and to all others in 2021.
I do wonder though if Hunt might just find it easier to simply scrap the whole mini-budget. Revert to the previous statis quo and then use that as the baseline for his own changes.
In terms of IR35 do you mean the pre 2021 status quo or the status quo 2021-22? I mean…it’s a bit hard to keep up frankly. And I’m an employment lawyer. This is one of the few bits of tax law I know (indeed understand) intimately.
Do you understand the Managed Service Company legislation? I'm having a mare finding anyone with a better understanding than me (which is slightly worrying as that really is devil is in the detail)..
As for IR35 - I've added a run down below of the 4 stages. And that address the biggest issue with IR35 which isn't the tax it's the inability to claim commute expenses for what the worker knows is a short-term piece of work. Which means as @Richard_Tyndall points out many people turn work down because the location makes accepting it impossible. Work directly with Avanade or other consultancy and you can head to a client XYZ's office without a problem, work as a contract on Avanade's XYZ project and you can't claim expenses. so even the consultancies have difficulty finding enough staff.
It’s part of what I do but I would be mis-selling to advertise myself as an expert. I do more the status determination side of things as it impacts employment rights as well as tax
Being caretaker PM would be a pretty good gig, even if it were for only a few months before an election.
When Mrs Thatcher was ousted after 11 years, out of sympathy for her financial situation, Parliament introduced a Public Duties Cost Allowance of roughly £115,000pa for ex-PMs. If Liz Truss resigns after 2 months, she will receive the PDCA "pocket money" for the rest of her life. https://twitter.com/theJeremyVine/status/1581861733383434240
Ir35 is for the chop according to the infoadmercial of one of those umbrella company selling websites.
There’s a lot of disinformation about that been going round to that effect since the mini-budget. As I’m sure you’re aware, it’s the 2017/2021 changes that are being scrapped, not IR35 itself. But that hasn’t stopped a lot of these companies pumping these out. F***ing LinkedIn is full of them.
I can’t see Hunt abolishing it either and, if he was, there won’t have been time to pump out an infomercial, let alone based on a leak.
I presume the thing that is for the chop is the idea that contractors themselves can declare whether they are working inside or outside IR35, rather than the employer having to make a declaration and being liable for it. I've discussed this with some tax lawyers and the conclusion was that the changes would just lead to more people declaring themselves outside of IR35, thus reducing tax generated, and then leading to more disputes and investigations which are obviously time and resource draining for HMRC.
The opposite. Responsibility for the determination of IR35, and the tax liability, is moving back to the the contractor and away from the end client. It had been shifted to the end client in public sector contracts in 2017, and to all others in 2021.
That's getting chopped today, IR35 will once again be a client determination, it's worth ~£4bn per year to the government and was a stupid thing to cut.
Thinking about IR35, by primarily how much it’s worth to the government, was what made the mess so big in the first place.
The contractor market is totally messed up, because no-one wants to take a temporay job where they can’t claim expenses, as @Richard_Tyndall and @eek have suggested.
The problem is that contracting just turned into a way for companies to avoid paying employer's NI with millions of "self employed" people doing a 5 day week.
There's no entrepreneurship going on, no risk taking by either party. They're just doing a standard 5 day, 9-5 job but calling it consulting.
Truss cannot go until Tory MPs can agree a unity candidate to be crowned the new Tory leader and PM
Does Wallace actually want the job?
He has not ruled it out now and is the only viable unity candidate who could unite the Truss backers and the Tory moderates with a broad based Cabinet while still being acceptable to the membership
He would be another IDS; just not bright enough. Entirely coincidental that he too was a Jock Guard.
I have to say I have the same reservations and I wonder if he knows it too, hence why he bowed out last time.
I think he's a solid guy - and a nice one - but being PM is a completely different sort of job.
You don't need to be that bright to be PM, just reasonably competent with a clear message.
Especially if you have a bright Chancellor and Cabinet Ministers to do the day to day work in their departments
There also a need to be able to tune into the zeitgeist - something that Thatcher, Blair, and Cameron to an extent had; Major, Brown and May less so; Truss, not at all.
I'd put @HYUFD at the Truss end of the spectrum on that one.
Ir35 is for the chop according to the infoadmercial of one of those umbrella company selling websites.
There’s a lot of disinformation about that been going round to that effect since the mini-budget. As I’m sure you’re aware, it’s the 2017/2021 changes that are being scrapped, not IR35 itself. But that hasn’t stopped a lot of these companies pumping these out. F***ing LinkedIn is full of them.
I can’t see Hunt abolishing it either and, if he was, there won’t have been time to pump out an infomercial, let alone based on a leak.
I presume the thing that is for the chop is the idea that contractors themselves can declare whether they are working inside or outside IR35, rather than the employer having to make a declaration and being liable for it. I've discussed this with some tax lawyers and the conclusion was that the changes would just lead to more people declaring themselves outside of IR35, thus reducing tax generated, and then leading to more disputes and investigations which are obviously time and resource draining for HMRC.
The opposite. Responsibility for the determination of IR35, and the tax liability, is moving back to the the contractor and away from the end client. It had been shifted to the end client in public sector contracts in 2017, and to all others in 2021.
That's getting chopped today, IR35 will once again be a client determination, it's worth ~£4bn per year to the government and was a stupid thing to cut.
No HMRC thinks it costs £1.1bn in 2023/24 rising to £2bn in 2026/7 and those figures are based on corporation tax at 19% rather than 25%.
As I've pointed out below - that will be more than covered by tax avoidance savings because oh boy that market has been booming for months.
1 Mini umbrella group has run through 32,000 limited companies so far. I suspect that is £100m in tax avoidance within that scheme alone...
£4bn is our estimate, we think HMRC has underestimated how many people will shift to contracting if it becomes easy again.
How might you reform the regulations, without it costing the revenue excessive amounts, as it seems to be a bit of a mess currently ?
The point about the current incentive for tax avoidance is a good one, even if there don't seem to be any hard numbers.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 16m Seen Tory MPs arguing we should back successful PMs. I’ve seen them argue we should back pretty average PMs. I’ve even seen them arguing we should back utterly useless PMs. But this is the first time l’ve seen them tell the British people they must accept not having a PM at all.
As for next leader market (might be next LotO market!), it was put to me that the only person with the moral authority to be PM now is Rishi. His view has been consistent in terms of a fiscal plan and he didn't suddenly switch to the Truss view of the world like so many others.
Rishi as PM however would leave the membership apoplectic.
Quite where that leaves the Party or the country goodness only knows.
Hence the suggestion of Wallace (with Sunak as Chancellor). Problem is that he'd either be another figurehead without power - though at least untainted as Truss is - or another unpredictable gamble without a mandate. And the appointment of Hunt, essentially following Sunak's economic playbook, rather undercuts the case for Sunak.
Fundamentally the party is screwed, unless the awkward squads can be cowed into submission, as it can't go into an election with Truss as leader, and the means of replacing her is deeply problematic.
Is there any evidence that Wallace has any of the necessary leadership or political skills?
Ir35 is for the chop according to the infoadmercial of one of those umbrella company selling websites.
There’s a lot of disinformation about that been going round to that effect since the mini-budget. As I’m sure you’re aware, it’s the 2017/2021 changes that are being scrapped, not IR35 itself. But that hasn’t stopped a lot of these companies pumping these out. F***ing LinkedIn is full of them.
I can’t see Hunt abolishing it either and, if he was, there won’t have been time to pump out an infomercial, let alone based on a leak.
I presume the thing that is for the chop is the idea that contractors themselves can declare whether they are working inside or outside IR35, rather than the employer having to make a declaration and being liable for it. I've discussed this with some tax lawyers and the conclusion was that the changes would just lead to more people declaring themselves outside of IR35, thus reducing tax generated, and then leading to more disputes and investigations which are obviously time and resource draining for HMRC.
The opposite. Responsibility for the determination of IR35, and the tax liability, is moving back to the the contractor and away from the end client. It had been shifted to the end client in public sector contracts in 2017, and to all others in 2021.
That's getting chopped today, IR35 will once again be a client determination, it's worth ~£4bn per year to the government and was a stupid thing to cut.
No HMRC thinks it costs £1.1bn in 2023/24 rising to £2bn in 2026/7 and those figures are based on corporation tax at 19% rather than 25%.
As I've pointed out below - that will be more than covered by tax avoidance savings because oh boy that market has been booming for months.
1 Mini umbrella group has run through 32,000 limited companies so far. I suspect that is £100m in tax avoidance within that scheme alone...
£4bn is our estimate, we think HMRC has underestimated how many people will shift to contracting if it becomes easy again.
Depends on the sectors you have looked at - it's possible even that's an underestimate because were the change to occur whole sectors would switch to outside only as it would be the only way to keep staff without seriously increasing costs (Social care / Lorry drivers are prime examples even though much case law resolves round what makes a lorry driver an employee)
On the other hand, it would resolve some large NHS issues which would make some of the cost worthwhile for other political reasons.
However, as I pointed out below I do think avoidance and scams are costing HMRC at least £2bn a year so it may not be that bad in reality.
As for next leader market (might be next LotO market!), it was put to me that the only person with the moral authority to be PM now is Rishi. His view has been consistent in terms of a fiscal plan and he didn't suddenly switch to the Truss view of the world like so many others.
Rishi as PM however would leave the membership apoplectic.
Quite where that leaves the Party or the country goodness only knows.
Rishi back as Chancellor under PM Wallace (if not him, then Mordaunt). That is where it leaves the Party.
I can't see any circumstances where we replace the Chancellor. After everything we have put the markets through there can't be another change. So Sunak as the guy who predicted all this becomes PM - as the MPs thought should have happened. Hunt is already Sunak's chancellor implementing his policies. It just needs to be made formal.
The question is simple. Do the Tories let Father Dougal do a funeral Truss do PMQs on Wednesday? Because it will be painfully funny. Though less funny for the economy because every time she stands up and speaks the markets react badly.
Also, think about what she said last week. She guaranteed "absolutely" that there would be no cuts to public spending. We knew at the time this to be a blatant lie as Kwarteng was to do so and KT endlessly refused to rule it out despite ruling out a cut in pensions.
Yesterday her (Sunak's) chancellor confirmed a big cut in public spending. So she deliberately mislead the House. Which is a resignation offence. And some think she should be allowed to stay in place? She didn't intend to lie, she simply hadn't considered the question and can't think on her feet. Supposedly a red wall MP at the 22 meeting asked her about promised investment up north being pro-rated to inflation. Not only did she not respond but she did an open mouthed silent response like at her press conference.
And some people think she should be given more time...?
If Truss were a normal failed PM- think Major, Brown or May- there would be a plausible case for keeping her on. The next election is lost anyway, and the PM's failure doesn't stop them cleaning up some of the mess. Indeed, it's sometimes better for the nasty stuff to be done by a Dead Prime Minister Walking.
Trouble is that Truss doesn't even meet the standards of a normal failed PM...
Deceased royal Lord Mountbatten set to be named in court as alleged child abuser - Accusations of sex crimes at Belfast boys’ home to be made in court against the late Queen’s second cousin
Question for the PB constitutional experts: is there anything to stop Truss going to KC and asking him to dissolve Parliament for a General Election?
Crazy, yes, but if she's had enough and is going to be kicked out by her party anyway, why not?
Lascelles principles. He can refuse if all of
if the existing Parliament is still "vital, viable, and capable of doing its job",
if a general election would be "detrimental to the national economy", and
if the sovereign could "rely on finding another prime minister who could govern for a reasonable period with a working majority in the House of Commons".
For me Hunt will now have to stay as Chancellor unless he screws up this morning. Rishi as PM, Coffey sent outside for a fag and replaced by Javid, Mordant for HS and anybody, literally anybody, to replace JRM from whatever he is doing now.
Redwood should be appointed to the role he was born for: preparing for the arrival of @Leon’s aliens.
Oh, and we need a replacement for Roger Gale as opinionated loudmouth. He’s done sterling work for years but enough is enough.
Ir35 is for the chop according to the infoadmercial of one of those umbrella company selling websites.
There’s a lot of disinformation about that been going round to that effect since the mini-budget. As I’m sure you’re aware, it’s the 2017/2021 changes that are being scrapped, not IR35 itself. But that hasn’t stopped a lot of these companies pumping these out. F***ing LinkedIn is full of them.
I can’t see Hunt abolishing it either and, if he was, there won’t have been time to pump out an infomercial, let alone based on a leak.
I presume the thing that is for the chop is the idea that contractors themselves can declare whether they are working inside or outside IR35, rather than the employer having to make a declaration and being liable for it. I've discussed this with some tax lawyers and the conclusion was that the changes would just lead to more people declaring themselves outside of IR35, thus reducing tax generated, and then leading to more disputes and investigations which are obviously time and resource draining for HMRC.
The opposite. Responsibility for the determination of IR35, and the tax liability, is moving back to the the contractor and away from the end client. It had been shifted to the end client in public sector contracts in 2017, and to all others in 2021.
That's getting chopped today, IR35 will once again be a client determination, it's worth ~£4bn per year to the government and was a stupid thing to cut.
No HMRC thinks it costs £1.1bn in 2023/24 rising to £2bn in 2026/7 and those figures are based on corporation tax at 19% rather than 25%.
As I've pointed out below - that will be more than covered by tax avoidance savings because oh boy that market has been booming for months.
1 Mini umbrella group has run through 32,000 limited companies so far. I suspect that is £100m in tax avoidance within that scheme alone...
£4bn is our estimate, we think HMRC has underestimated how many people will shift to contracting if it becomes easy again.
Depends on the sectors you have looked at - it's possible even that's an underestimate because were the change to occur whole sectors would switch to outside only as it would be the only way to keep staff without seriously increasing costs (Social care / Lorry drivers are prime examples even though much case law resolves round what makes a lorry driver an employee)
On the other hand, it would resolve some large NHS issues which would make some of the cost worthwhile for other political reasons.
However, as I pointed out below I do think avoidance and scams are costing HMRC at least £2bn a year so it may not be that bad in reality.
In my sector I very much doubt HMRC has made any money overall out of the changes. Indeed I suspect it has cost the taxpayer a lot in lost taxes with highly paid contractors moving out of the UK tax system entirely one way or another. Certainly with the project delays coming up it stands to cost the country very badly indeed.
Truss cannot go until Tory MPs can agree a unity candidate to be crowned the new Tory leader and PM
Does Wallace actually want the job?
He has not ruled it out now and is the only viable unity candidate who could unite the Truss backers and the Tory moderates with a broad based Cabinet while still being acceptable to the membership
He would be another IDS; just not bright enough. Entirely coincidental that he too was a Jock Guard.
I have to say I have the same reservations and I wonder if he knows it too, hence why he bowed out last time.
I think he's a solid guy - and a nice one - but being PM is a completely different sort of job.
You don't need to be that bright to be PM, just reasonably competent with a clear message.
Especially if you have a bright Chancellor and Cabinet Ministers to do the day to day work in their departments
As for next leader market (might be next LotO market!), it was put to me that the only person with the moral authority to be PM now is Rishi. His view has been consistent in terms of a fiscal plan and he didn't suddenly switch to the Truss view of the world like so many others.
Rishi as PM however would leave the membership apoplectic.
Quite where that leaves the Party or the country goodness only knows.
Hence the suggestion of Wallace (with Sunak as Chancellor). Problem is that he'd either be another figurehead without power - though at least untainted as Truss is - or another unpredictable gamble without a mandate. And the appointment of Hunt, essentially following Sunak's economic playbook, rather undercuts the case for Sunak.
Fundamentally the party is screwed, unless the awkward squads can be cowed into submission, as it can't go into an election with Truss as leader, and the means of replacing her is deeply problematic.
Is there any evidence that Wallace has any of the necessary leadership or political skills?
I think we’ve taken a punt “may surprise on the upside” once too often.
MrHarryCole of course would like Truss to last until Christmas at least 😉
Why? the advance for the book is likely to be way more than the royalty on sales from it. Provided MrHarryCole has delivered the manuscript he's sorted.
Ir35 is for the chop according to the infoadmercial of one of those umbrella company selling websites.
There’s a lot of disinformation about that been going round to that effect since the mini-budget. As I’m sure you’re aware, it’s the 2017/2021 changes that are being scrapped, not IR35 itself. But that hasn’t stopped a lot of these companies pumping these out. F***ing LinkedIn is full of them.
I can’t see Hunt abolishing it either and, if he was, there won’t have been time to pump out an infomercial, let alone based on a leak.
I presume the thing that is for the chop is the idea that contractors themselves can declare whether they are working inside or outside IR35, rather than the employer having to make a declaration and being liable for it. I've discussed this with some tax lawyers and the conclusion was that the changes would just lead to more people declaring themselves outside of IR35, thus reducing tax generated, and then leading to more disputes and investigations which are obviously time and resource draining for HMRC.
The opposite. Responsibility for the determination of IR35, and the tax liability, is moving back to the the contractor and away from the end client. It had been shifted to the end client in public sector contracts in 2017, and to all others in 2021.
That's getting chopped today, IR35 will once again be a client determination, it's worth ~£4bn per year to the government and was a stupid thing to cut.
No HMRC thinks it costs £1.1bn in 2023/24 rising to £2bn in 2026/7 and those figures are based on corporation tax at 19% rather than 25%.
As I've pointed out below - that will be more than covered by tax avoidance savings because oh boy that market has been booming for months.
1 Mini umbrella group has run through 32,000 limited companies so far. I suspect that is £100m in tax avoidance within that scheme alone...
£4bn is our estimate, we think HMRC has underestimated how many people will shift to contracting if it becomes easy again.
Depends on the sectors you have looked at - it's possible even that's an underestimate because were the change to occur whole sectors would switch to outside only as it would be the only way to keep staff without seriously increasing costs (Social care / Lorry drivers are prime examples even though much case law resolves round what makes a lorry driver an employee)
On the other hand, it would resolve some large NHS issues which would make some of the cost worthwhile for other political reasons.
However, as I pointed out below I do think avoidance and scams are costing HMRC at least £2bn a year so it may not be that bad in reality.
In my sector I very much doubt HMRC has made any money overall out of the changes. Indeed I suspect it has cost the taxpayer a lot in lost taxes with highly paid contractors moving out of the UK tax system entirely one way or another. Certainly with the project delays coming up it stands to cost the country very badly indeed.
Our entire tax system is a mess.
In fact, if it weren't for the constant cuts to HMRC's budget (starting with the essentially failed merger that created it) you might wonder if it was designed that way to give a lot of otherwise unemployable civil servants gainful employment enforcing it.
Rishi as PM however would leave the membership apoplectic.
Fuck 'em
They got us into this mess.
Imagine waking up this morning worried about your mortgage or your pension. And then you see Sir Roger Gale saying “we’ll, yeah, we’d like to do something to help. But you know, the rules of the 1922 committee do have to be obeyed…”. What gets into the heads of these people. https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1581900069418127360
Who's going to deliver the leaflets?
I think we've got way beyond worrying about that now.
Leaflets are not nothing, but members overestimate how effective they are in my book. Canvassing in general I dont think helps as much as canvassers think.
Leaflets over a period are very effective, but you do need a reasonably settled population. The purpose of canvassing is often misunderstood, and best seen as collecting information rather than disseminating it. The best you can do is leave a good impression. There is research evidence that canvassing does tend to increase turnout, however, by reminding people of the election and making them feel part of it - so best not to canvass your opponents!
Truss is going nowhere unless she resigns. The current Conservative Party uniting round a single candidate? Or alternatively putting it back to the members? Do me a favour.
Here's the thing: everyone faces extinction if she stays.
So, she won't be allowed to fight a GE and, therefore, Keir Starmer won't be the *next* Prime Minister.
The appointment of Hunt muddies the waters somewhat, but I think it's possible that we might see an explicit caretaker replace Truss, so that the Tories then have a breathing space to change their leadership election rules, and hold a new contest to pick someone to fight the next election.
If Hunt can steady the ship, then it's possible that it will be seen as too much trouble to install a caretaker, and they'll move straight to the contest for next "permanent" leader. In that scenario she could stay as PM well into next year, because it will take some time to change the constitution of the Conservative Party to change the leadership election rules.
Yes, that's possible, and it's worth remembering that there's no such things as a caretaker Prime Minister.
The next Prime Minister is the next Prime Minister.
As for next leader market (might be next LotO market!), it was put to me that the only person with the moral authority to be PM now is Rishi. His view has been consistent in terms of a fiscal plan and he didn't suddenly switch to the Truss view of the world like so many others.
Rishi as PM however would leave the membership apoplectic.
Quite where that leaves the Party or the country goodness only knows.
Hence the suggestion of Wallace (with Sunak as Chancellor). Problem is that he'd either be another figurehead without power - though at least untainted as Truss is - or another unpredictable gamble without a mandate. And the appointment of Hunt, essentially following Sunak's economic playbook, rather undercuts the case for Sunak.
Fundamentally the party is screwed, unless the awkward squads can be cowed into submission, as it can't go into an election with Truss as leader, and the means of replacing her is deeply problematic.
Is there any evidence that Wallace has any of the necessary leadership or political skills?
I think we’ve taken a punt “may surprise on the upside” once too often.
Unless Leon predicts that Wallace would be a disaster, making him PM is surely too risky?
Question for the PB constitutional experts: is there anything to stop Truss going to KC and asking him to dissolve Parliament for a General Election?
Crazy, yes, but if she's had enough and is going to be kicked out by her party anyway, why not?
Brady would advise she no longer commands a majority in the party.
So what? Brady would not be consulted and even if he were the fact that she cannot command a majority of a party is irrelevant.
No, he'd make the call to KC. 178 MPs vote to oust her as leader within an hour and within another a new PM is installed without consulting party members.
Ir35 is for the chop according to the infoadmercial of one of those umbrella company selling websites.
There’s a lot of disinformation about that been going round to that effect since the mini-budget. As I’m sure you’re aware, it’s the 2017/2021 changes that are being scrapped, not IR35 itself. But that hasn’t stopped a lot of these companies pumping these out. F***ing LinkedIn is full of them.
I can’t see Hunt abolishing it either and, if he was, there won’t have been time to pump out an infomercial, let alone based on a leak.
I presume the thing that is for the chop is the idea that contractors themselves can declare whether they are working inside or outside IR35, rather than the employer having to make a declaration and being liable for it. I've discussed this with some tax lawyers and the conclusion was that the changes would just lead to more people declaring themselves outside of IR35, thus reducing tax generated, and then leading to more disputes and investigations which are obviously time and resource draining for HMRC.
The opposite. Responsibility for the determination of IR35, and the tax liability, is moving back to the the contractor and away from the end client. It had been shifted to the end client in public sector contracts in 2017, and to all others in 2021.
That's getting chopped today, IR35 will once again be a client determination, it's worth ~£4bn per year to the government and was a stupid thing to cut.
Thinking about IR35, by primarily how much it’s worth to the government, was what made the mess so big in the first place.
The contractor market is totally messed up, because no-one wants to take a temporay job where they can’t claim expenses, as @Richard_Tyndall and @eek have suggested.
The problem is that contracting just turned into a way for companies to avoid paying employer's NI with millions of "self employed" people doing a 5 day week.
There's no entrepreneurship going on, no risk taking by either party. They're just doing a standard 5 day, 9-5 job but calling it consulting.
Even the argument about job security became bogus in IT after the dot com boom/crash and in entertainment. There aren't many jobs for life left.
Being caretaker PM would be a pretty good gig, even if it were for only a few months before an election.
When Mrs Thatcher was ousted after 11 years, out of sympathy for her financial situation, Parliament introduced a Public Duties Cost Allowance of roughly £115,000pa for ex-PMs. If Liz Truss resigns after 2 months, she will receive the PDCA "pocket money" for the rest of her life. https://twitter.com/theJeremyVine/status/1581861733383434240
So the equivalent of around £4m quid?
Given the average PM lasts about 5 years, in reality they are therefore paid closer to £1m a year than the claimed £164k.
Is there a standard parliamentary/ministerial pension on top too?
Don't rule out compromise candidates like Steve Barclay, Dominic Raab, Geoffrey Cox or even Theresa May.
Nigel Farage has ruled out Theresa May.
What's it got to do with him?
Eff all. But a number of PB posters (see also HYUFD) accord him outsize influence.
When May last led the party Farage's party overtook the Tories in the polls.
If it looks like a Sunak, Hunt, May coup to take over the party again without a membership vote the party would go into a civil war and Farage would return to lead RefUK. There is no way the ERG and right of the parliamentary party would agree a Sunak or May coronation with Hunt still Chancellor either
Ir35 is for the chop according to the infoadmercial of one of those umbrella company selling websites.
There’s a lot of disinformation about that been going round to that effect since the mini-budget. As I’m sure you’re aware, it’s the 2017/2021 changes that are being scrapped, not IR35 itself. But that hasn’t stopped a lot of these companies pumping these out. F***ing LinkedIn is full of them.
I can’t see Hunt abolishing it either and, if he was, there won’t have been time to pump out an infomercial, let alone based on a leak.
I presume the thing that is for the chop is the idea that contractors themselves can declare whether they are working inside or outside IR35, rather than the employer having to make a declaration and being liable for it. I've discussed this with some tax lawyers and the conclusion was that the changes would just lead to more people declaring themselves outside of IR35, thus reducing tax generated, and then leading to more disputes and investigations which are obviously time and resource draining for HMRC.
The opposite. Responsibility for the determination of IR35, and the tax liability, is moving back to the the contractor and away from the end client. It had been shifted to the end client in public sector contracts in 2017, and to all others in 2021.
That's getting chopped today, IR35 will once again be a client determination, it's worth ~£4bn per year to the government and was a stupid thing to cut.
No HMRC thinks it costs £1.1bn in 2023/24 rising to £2bn in 2026/7 and those figures are based on corporation tax at 19% rather than 25%.
As I've pointed out below - that will be more than covered by tax avoidance savings because oh boy that market has been booming for months.
1 Mini umbrella group has run through 32,000 limited companies so far. I suspect that is £100m in tax avoidance within that scheme alone...
£4bn is our estimate, we think HMRC has underestimated how many people will shift to contracting if it becomes easy again.
How might you reform the regulations, without it costing the revenue excessive amounts, as it seems to be a bit of a mess currently ?
The point about the current incentive for tax avoidance is a good one, even if there don't seem to be any hard numbers.
You can't because fixing this mess would require fixing both employment law and employment tax law and no Government has wanted to do that for 30 odd years for multiple reasons.
One issue that the post 2021 system created is that no sane company ever issued a determination on status - the sane approach was to operate a corporate policy banning the use of personal service companies.
If I were Rishi Sunak I'd accept nothing but PM. If asked to play support to Wallace or Mordaunt or Hunt my response would be "fuck that for a game of soldiers".
Question for the PB constitutional experts: is there anything to stop Truss going to KC and asking him to dissolve Parliament for a General Election?
Crazy, yes, but if she's had enough and is going to be kicked out by her party anyway, why not?
If the TV documentaries are to be believed (I think the Crown mooted it, and the one with Lindsay Duncan yonks ago now briefly skirted around it), Thatcher considered it as a way to 'stop' Heseltine.
I think, with the FTPA now gone, then yes, Truss could consider it. In theory, Charles could refuse if it is believed an alternative government could be formed by Parliament. I'm not sure that's true though as I suspect sufficient number of Truss loyalties might mean the Conservatives couldn't unify around an alternative candidate.
A GE might be a way out for Truss to avoid getting the boot by her own party this week, but it would mean the end of her as Prime Minister and party leader by the end of November either way.
Question - with the collapse of the government now a realistic prospect, are the opposition parties ready to go...? Fine to demand an election, but I know that a lot of candidates have not yet been selected. And we know what happens when they just throw the list together!
Ir35 is for the chop according to the infoadmercial of one of those umbrella company selling websites.
There’s a lot of disinformation about that been going round to that effect since the mini-budget. As I’m sure you’re aware, it’s the 2017/2021 changes that are being scrapped, not IR35 itself. But that hasn’t stopped a lot of these companies pumping these out. F***ing LinkedIn is full of them.
I can’t see Hunt abolishing it either and, if he was, there won’t have been time to pump out an infomercial, let alone based on a leak.
I presume the thing that is for the chop is the idea that contractors themselves can declare whether they are working inside or outside IR35, rather than the employer having to make a declaration and being liable for it. I've discussed this with some tax lawyers and the conclusion was that the changes would just lead to more people declaring themselves outside of IR35, thus reducing tax generated, and then leading to more disputes and investigations which are obviously time and resource draining for HMRC.
The opposite. Responsibility for the determination of IR35, and the tax liability, is moving back to the the contractor and away from the end client. It had been shifted to the end client in public sector contracts in 2017, and to all others in 2021.
That's getting chopped today, IR35 will once again be a client determination, it's worth ~£4bn per year to the government and was a stupid thing to cut.
No HMRC thinks it costs £1.1bn in 2023/24 rising to £2bn in 2026/7 and those figures are based on corporation tax at 19% rather than 25%.
As I've pointed out below - that will be more than covered by tax avoidance savings because oh boy that market has been booming for months.
1 Mini umbrella group has run through 32,000 limited companies so far. I suspect that is £100m in tax avoidance within that scheme alone...
£4bn is our estimate, we think HMRC has underestimated how many people will shift to contracting if it becomes easy again.
How might you reform the regulations, without it costing the revenue excessive amounts, as it seems to be a bit of a mess currently ?
The point about the current incentive for tax avoidance is a good one, even if there don't seem to be any hard numbers.
I'd take a sector by sector approach. Where appropriate have IR35 contractor declared.
Ir35 is for the chop according to the infoadmercial of one of those umbrella company selling websites.
There’s a lot of disinformation about that been going round to that effect since the mini-budget. As I’m sure you’re aware, it’s the 2017/2021 changes that are being scrapped, not IR35 itself. But that hasn’t stopped a lot of these companies pumping these out. F***ing LinkedIn is full of them.
I can’t see Hunt abolishing it either and, if he was, there won’t have been time to pump out an infomercial, let alone based on a leak.
I presume the thing that is for the chop is the idea that contractors themselves can declare whether they are working inside or outside IR35, rather than the employer having to make a declaration and being liable for it. I've discussed this with some tax lawyers and the conclusion was that the changes would just lead to more people declaring themselves outside of IR35, thus reducing tax generated, and then leading to more disputes and investigations which are obviously time and resource draining for HMRC.
The opposite. Responsibility for the determination of IR35, and the tax liability, is moving back to the the contractor and away from the end client. It had been shifted to the end client in public sector contracts in 2017, and to all others in 2021.
That's getting chopped today, IR35 will once again be a client determination, it's worth ~£4bn per year to the government and was a stupid thing to cut.
Thinking about IR35, by primarily how much it’s worth to the government, was what made the mess so big in the first place.
The contractor market is totally messed up, because no-one wants to take a temporay job where they can’t claim expenses, as @Richard_Tyndall and @eek have suggested.
The problem is that contracting just turned into a way for companies to avoid paying employer's NI with millions of "self employed" people doing a 5 day week.
There's no entrepreneurship going on, no risk taking by either party. They're just doing a standard 5 day, 9-5 job but calling it consulting.
In case you missed it, it has remained that way. No end user company is paying employers NI for contractors inside IR35. They have just told the contractors that is part of their own tax arrangements that they have to sort out within the existing day rate. The responsibility for paying employers NI hasn't shifted to the end user, only the IR35 determination. Most companies are following the mantra that the IR35 changes must be cost neutral. So no increase in day rates and no additional employment costs.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 16m Seen Tory MPs arguing we should back successful PMs. I’ve seen them argue we should back pretty average PMs. I’ve even seen them arguing we should back utterly useless PMs. But this is the first time l’ve seen them tell the British people they must accept not having a PM at all.
That reminds me of Ken Clarke saying after Black Wednesday, it is the first time he'd known a government with no economic policy. Now he has seen two.
Question for the PB constitutional experts: is there anything to stop Truss going to KC and asking him to dissolve Parliament for a General Election?
Crazy, yes, but if she's had enough and is going to be kicked out by her party anyway, why not?
Brady would advise she no longer commands a majority in the party.
So what? Brady would not be consulted and even if he were the fact that she cannot command a majority of a party is irrelevant.
No, he'd make the call to KC. 178 MPs vote to oust her as leader within an hour and within another a new PM is installed without consulting party members.
Er... another leader that Truss would have to recommend to the King.
Perhaps the best option for a caretaker Prime Minister would be John Major.
It might also be nice if Truss, as a parting gesture, agreed to forego the lifetime payment of the Public Duty Costs Allowance; after all she was never really PM.
Question - with the collapse of the government now a realistic prospect, are the opposition parties ready to go...? Fine to demand an election, but I know that a lot of candidates have not yet been selected. And we know what happens when they just throw the list together!
Looking at the Bellerive Oval - which I believe is home to Australia's smallest state club - it is striking to think it has a larger capacity than any English ground other than Lord's, the Oval, Southampton and Edgbaston.
Again, something the ECB don't quite seem to grasp is the difference in revenue this can mean for the sides hosting the matches.
(Admittedly, it isn't just used for cricket, which does make a difference.)
As for next leader market (might be next LotO market!), it was put to me that the only person with the moral authority to be PM now is Rishi. His view has been consistent in terms of a fiscal plan and he didn't suddenly switch to the Truss view of the world like so many others.
Rishi as PM however would leave the membership apoplectic.
Quite where that leaves the Party or the country goodness only knows.
Rishi back as Chancellor under PM Wallace (if not him, then Mordaunt). That is where it leaves the Party.
Sacking Hunt in favour of Sunak just when Hunt has stabilised the market would be insane. This isn't a musical chairs game ffs.
On Blair/Brown, there are different kinds of intelligence, broadly depth vs speed. Brown undoubtedly would write better research papers. But Blair has one of the fastest minds that I've ever encountered - say anything to him and he can process, analyse and coherently respond to it within seconds.
Ir35 is for the chop according to the infoadmercial of one of those umbrella company selling websites.
There’s a lot of disinformation about that been going round to that effect since the mini-budget. As I’m sure you’re aware, it’s the 2017/2021 changes that are being scrapped, not IR35 itself. But that hasn’t stopped a lot of these companies pumping these out. F***ing LinkedIn is full of them.
I can’t see Hunt abolishing it either and, if he was, there won’t have been time to pump out an infomercial, let alone based on a leak.
I presume the thing that is for the chop is the idea that contractors themselves can declare whether they are working inside or outside IR35, rather than the employer having to make a declaration and being liable for it. I've discussed this with some tax lawyers and the conclusion was that the changes would just lead to more people declaring themselves outside of IR35, thus reducing tax generated, and then leading to more disputes and investigations which are obviously time and resource draining for HMRC.
The opposite. Responsibility for the determination of IR35, and the tax liability, is moving back to the the contractor and away from the end client. It had been shifted to the end client in public sector contracts in 2017, and to all others in 2021.
That's getting chopped today, IR35 will once again be a client determination, it's worth ~£4bn per year to the government and was a stupid thing to cut.
Thinking about IR35, by primarily how much it’s worth to the government, was what made the mess so big in the first place.
The contractor market is totally messed up, because no-one wants to take a temporay job where they can’t claim expenses, as @Richard_Tyndall and @eek have suggested.
The problem is that contracting just turned into a way for companies to avoid paying employer's NI with millions of "self employed" people doing a 5 day week.
There's no entrepreneurship going on, no risk taking by either party. They're just doing a standard 5 day, 9-5 job but calling it consulting.
In case you missed it, it has remained that way. No end user company is paying employers NI for contractors inside IR35. They have just told the contractors that is part of their own tax arrangements that they have to sort out within the existing day rate. The responsibility for paying employers NI hasn't shifted to the end user, only the IR35 determination. Most companies are following the mantra that the IR35 changes must be cost neutral. So no increase in day rates and no additional employment costs.
That was the intended effect though. Ending the NI avoidance boondoggle by "contractors".
Ir35 is for the chop according to the infoadmercial of one of those umbrella company selling websites.
There’s a lot of disinformation about that been going round to that effect since the mini-budget. As I’m sure you’re aware, it’s the 2017/2021 changes that are being scrapped, not IR35 itself. But that hasn’t stopped a lot of these companies pumping these out. F***ing LinkedIn is full of them.
I can’t see Hunt abolishing it either and, if he was, there won’t have been time to pump out an infomercial, let alone based on a leak.
I presume the thing that is for the chop is the idea that contractors themselves can declare whether they are working inside or outside IR35, rather than the employer having to make a declaration and being liable for it. I've discussed this with some tax lawyers and the conclusion was that the changes would just lead to more people declaring themselves outside of IR35, thus reducing tax generated, and then leading to more disputes and investigations which are obviously time and resource draining for HMRC.
The opposite. Responsibility for the determination of IR35, and the tax liability, is moving back to the the contractor and away from the end client. It had been shifted to the end client in public sector contracts in 2017, and to all others in 2021.
That's getting chopped today, IR35 will once again be a client determination, it's worth ~£4bn per year to the government and was a stupid thing to cut.
Thinking about IR35, by primarily how much it’s worth to the government, was what made the mess so big in the first place.
The contractor market is totally messed up, because no-one wants to take a temporay job where they can’t claim expenses, as @Richard_Tyndall and @eek have suggested.
The problem is that contracting just turned into a way for companies to avoid paying employer's NI with millions of "self employed" people doing a 5 day week.
There's no entrepreneurship going on, no risk taking by either party. They're just doing a standard 5 day, 9-5 job but calling it consulting.
In that case the problem is employer's NI and employment regulation in general.
There's no rule that a contractual relationship needs to involve 'entrepreneurship', and a contractor is bearing the risk that they can be terminated at any time.
Question for the PB constitutional experts: is there anything to stop Truss going to KC and asking him to dissolve Parliament for a General Election?
Crazy, yes, but if she's had enough and is going to be kicked out by her party anyway, why not?
Brady would advise she no longer commands a majority in the party.
So what? Brady would not be consulted and even if he were the fact that she cannot command a majority of a party is irrelevant.
No, he'd make the call to KC. 178 MPs vote to oust her as leader within an hour and within another a new PM is installed without consulting party members.
Er... another leader that Truss would have to recommend to the King.
She'd have no choice, just as Boris didn't despite clearly not wanting to give it up.
Question for the PB constitutional experts: is there anything to stop Truss going to KC and asking him to dissolve Parliament for a General Election?
Crazy, yes, but if she's had enough and is going to be kicked out by her party anyway, why not?
Brady would advise she no longer commands a majority in the party.
So what? Brady would not be consulted and even if he were the fact that she cannot command a majority of a party is irrelevant.
No, he'd make the call to KC. 178 MPs vote to oust her as leader within an hour and within another a new PM is installed without consulting party members.
He really, really would not. Constitutional law may be created by letters to the Times, but not yet by posts on PB.
"In repealing FTPA, the government has effectively restored a royal prerogative. This has not been done before because normally the direction is always in turning historic crown powers into statute. While there has been debate as to whether it was possible to ‘revive’ a prerogative, the government has done so by legislating to make a previous power under the prerogative ‘exercisable again’.
The major concern is that the government is taking away from the Commons the right to decide when parliament should be dissolved and instead giving the prime minister unconstrained power over elections...
...The 2019 prorogation saga, when the Queen felt compelled to grant Boris Johnson a five-week prorogation of parliament (later reversed by the Supreme Court), highlighted the monarch’s difficulty in dissenting from the advice of her ministers. To do so would expose the monarch to allegations of political interference of an undemocratic nature, even if the intention of the refusal was to preserve the good functioning of democracy. This makes for an uneasy role if a future dissolution occurred controversially."
Ir35 is for the chop according to the infoadmercial of one of those umbrella company selling websites.
There’s a lot of disinformation about that been going round to that effect since the mini-budget. As I’m sure you’re aware, it’s the 2017/2021 changes that are being scrapped, not IR35 itself. But that hasn’t stopped a lot of these companies pumping these out. F***ing LinkedIn is full of them.
I can’t see Hunt abolishing it either and, if he was, there won’t have been time to pump out an infomercial, let alone based on a leak.
I presume the thing that is for the chop is the idea that contractors themselves can declare whether they are working inside or outside IR35, rather than the employer having to make a declaration and being liable for it. I've discussed this with some tax lawyers and the conclusion was that the changes would just lead to more people declaring themselves outside of IR35, thus reducing tax generated, and then leading to more disputes and investigations which are obviously time and resource draining for HMRC.
The opposite. Responsibility for the determination of IR35, and the tax liability, is moving back to the the contractor and away from the end client. It had been shifted to the end client in public sector contracts in 2017, and to all others in 2021.
That's getting chopped today, IR35 will once again be a client determination, it's worth ~£4bn per year to the government and was a stupid thing to cut.
No HMRC thinks it costs £1.1bn in 2023/24 rising to £2bn in 2026/7 and those figures are based on corporation tax at 19% rather than 25%.
As I've pointed out below - that will be more than covered by tax avoidance savings because oh boy that market has been booming for months.
1 Mini umbrella group has run through 32,000 limited companies so far. I suspect that is £100m in tax avoidance within that scheme alone...
£4bn is our estimate, we think HMRC has underestimated how many people will shift to contracting if it becomes easy again.
How might you reform the regulations, without it costing the revenue excessive amounts, as it seems to be a bit of a mess currently ?
The point about the current incentive for tax avoidance is a good one, even if there don't seem to be any hard numbers.
You can't because fixing this mess would require fixing both employment law and employment tax law and no Government has wanted to do that for 30 odd years for multiple reasons.
One issue that the post 2021 system created is that no sane company ever issued a determination on status - the sane approach was to operate a corporate policy banning the use of personal service companies.
Fixing it is simple in theory.
Merge tax and NI so there is no incentive for using contracting to avoid NI. This would also deal with the issue of expenses as contractors would be able to claim them again.
But then introduce a headcount tax on all end user companies to replace employers NI. They need to pay the tax on both employees and contractors who would otherwise be deemed inside IR35.
If I were Rishi Sunak I'd accept nothing but PM. If asked to play support to Wallace or Mordaunt or Hunt my response would be "fuck that for a game of soldiers".
The names in your frame would, as a dream team trouble Labour greatly, but then, as if by magic we hear calls for compromise candidates like Cox, Barclay and Raab. Are the Conservatives determined to lose the next election? Who next? Cruella to preserve the RedWall.
Comments
She cannot survive this nor should she
She has also lost conservative home
Crazy, yes, but if she's had enough and is going to be kicked out by her party anyway, why not?
If Hunt can steady the ship, then it's possible that it will be seen as too much trouble to install a caretaker, and they'll move straight to the contest for next "permanent" leader. In that scenario she could stay as PM well into next year, because it will take some time to change the constitution of the Conservative Party to change the leadership election rules.
The next Prime Minister is the next Prime Minister.
As I've pointed out below - that will be more than covered by tax avoidance savings because oh boy that market has been booming for months.
1 Mini umbrella group has run through 32,000 limited companies so far. I suspect that is £100m in tax avoidance within that scheme alone...
I accept that it's hard to see Truss surviving now. But still not impossible in my view while Tory MPs struggle to agree on a unity candidate. I still favour Teresa May for the unity role as an experienced, relatively safe pair of hands and I have bets on her at 100/1. There would need to be some sort of a succession plan and I don't know how that might work?
Cox would be a voter turn off. Raab would be seen as a male Truss. Barclay doesn't have the gravitas.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11322673/UKs-Hunt-brings-forward-fiscal-announcement-Monday.html
if the existing Parliament is still "vital, viable, and capable of doing its job",
if a general election would be "detrimental to the national economy", and
if the sovereign could "rely on finding another prime minister who could govern for a reasonable period with a working majority in the House of Commons".
I would have said none of that lot was the case.
The contractor market is totally messed up, because no-one wants to take a temporay job where they can’t claim expenses, as @Richard_Tyndall and @eek have suggested.
When Mrs Thatcher was ousted after 11 years, out of sympathy for her financial situation, Parliament introduced a Public Duties Cost Allowance of roughly £115,000pa for ex-PMs. If Liz Truss resigns after 2 months, she will receive the PDCA "pocket money" for the rest of her life.
https://twitter.com/theJeremyVine/status/1581861733383434240
He ends up getting assimilated by The Borg, of course:
There's no entrepreneurship going on, no risk taking by either party. They're just doing a standard 5 day, 9-5 job but calling it consulting.
There also a need to be able to tune into the zeitgeist - something that Thatcher, Blair, and Cameron to an extent had; Major, Brown and May less so; Truss, not at all.
I'd put @HYUFD at the Truss end of the spectrum on that one.
How are the mighty fallen...
The point about the current incentive for tax avoidance is a good one, even if there don't seem to be any hard numbers.
@DPJHodges
·
16m
Seen Tory MPs arguing we should back successful PMs. I’ve seen them argue we should back pretty average PMs. I’ve even seen them arguing we should back utterly useless PMs. But this is the first time l’ve seen them tell the British people they must accept not having a PM at all.
On the other hand, it would resolve some large NHS issues which would make some of the cost worthwhile for other political reasons.
However, as I pointed out below I do think avoidance and scams are costing HMRC at least £2bn a year so it may not be that bad in reality.
Trouble is that Truss doesn't even meet the standards of a normal failed PM...
The law is obliged to keep an open mind.
But a number of PB posters (see also HYUFD) accord him outsize influence.
Redwood should be appointed to the role he was born for: preparing for the arrival of @Leon’s aliens.
Oh, and we need a replacement for Roger Gale as opinionated loudmouth. He’s done sterling work for years but enough is enough.
⚡️ Energy Price Guarantee is in play - talk of better targeting in year two⚡️
Likely that stamp duty + nics only thing left intact from mini budget by end of day
Meanwhile two lobbying efforts on Brady today: senior MPs saying change rules but some saying *don’t*
https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/1581913924483440641
It’s lack of targeting was an IMF criticism.
He pools sovereignty with the Borg. Totally different.
In fact, if it weren't for the constant cuts to HMRC's budget (starting with the essentially failed merger that created it) you might wonder if it was designed that way to give a lot of otherwise unemployable civil servants gainful employment enforcing it.
Cons need someone who is
Smart
Pragmatic
Human
Able to bring differing sides of the party together
Media-savvy/friendly
Step forward...Steve Baker.
Surprised on the upside wrt NI (the province not the tax break) and might thereby bring ex-Remainers and Leavers with him.
Needs to get rid of the facial hair and he is well worth a few quid at 60s (bf).
https://youtu.be/Sm-RE95lKJ0
Given the average PM lasts about 5 years, in reality they are therefore paid closer to £1m a year than the claimed £164k.
Is there a standard parliamentary/ministerial pension on top too?
If it looks like a Sunak, Hunt, May coup to take over the party again without a membership vote the party would go into a civil war and Farage would return to lead RefUK. There is no way the ERG and right of the parliamentary party would agree a Sunak or May coronation with Hunt still Chancellor either
One issue that the post 2021 system created is that no sane company ever issued a determination on status - the sane approach was to operate a corporate policy banning the use of personal service companies.
I think, with the FTPA now gone, then yes, Truss could consider it.
In theory, Charles could refuse if it is believed an alternative government could be formed by Parliament. I'm not sure that's true though as I suspect sufficient number of Truss loyalties might mean the Conservatives couldn't unify around an alternative candidate.
A GE might be a way out for Truss to avoid getting the boot by her own party this week, but it would mean the end of her as Prime Minister and party leader by the end of November either way.
It might also be nice if Truss, as a parting gesture, agreed to forego the lifetime payment of the Public Duty Costs Allowance; after all she was never really PM.
Again, something the ECB don't quite seem to grasp is the difference in revenue this can mean for the sides hosting the matches.
(Admittedly, it isn't just used for cricket, which does make a difference.)
On Blair/Brown, there are different kinds of intelligence, broadly depth vs speed. Brown undoubtedly would write better research papers. But Blair has one of the fastest minds that I've ever encountered - say anything to him and he can process, analyse and coherently respond to it within seconds.
The policing of these protestors, could be about to become a story that blows up in the government’s face.
There's no rule that a contractual relationship needs to involve 'entrepreneurship', and a contractor is bearing the risk that they can be terminated at any time.
https://mobile.twitter.com/Nigel_Farage/status/1581646846539182081
"Nigel Farage
@Nigel_Farage
The Mail on Sunday speculating on a comeback for Mrs May. You really couldn't make it up.
I got rid of her once and would be very tempted to go for a second time.
3:02 pm · 16 Oct 2022
·Twitter for iPhone"
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/elections
"In repealing FTPA, the government has effectively restored a royal prerogative. This has not been done before because normally the direction is always in turning historic crown powers into statute. While there has been debate as to whether it was possible to ‘revive’ a prerogative, the government has done so by legislating to make a previous power under the prerogative ‘exercisable again’.
The major concern is that the government is taking away from the Commons the right to decide when parliament should be dissolved and instead giving the prime minister unconstrained power over elections...
...The 2019 prorogation saga, when the Queen felt compelled to grant Boris Johnson a five-week prorogation of parliament (later reversed by the Supreme Court), highlighted the monarch’s difficulty in dissenting from the advice of her ministers. To do so would expose the monarch to allegations of political interference of an undemocratic nature, even if the intention of the refusal was to preserve the good functioning of democracy. This makes for an uneasy role if a future dissolution occurred controversially."
Merge tax and NI so there is no incentive for using contracting to avoid NI. This would also deal with the issue of expenses as contractors would be able to claim them again.
But then introduce a headcount tax on all end user companies to replace employers NI. They need to pay the tax on both employees and contractors who would otherwise be deemed inside IR35.