May as PM to steady the ship. Leadership rule change that states an incumbent Tory PM can only be replaced by a vote of Tory MPs and not by the membership. New Tory leadership vote and PM in 12 months. General Election in two years. Sorted.
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 any case, if he advised the King Truss had lost the confidence of the House, that's an argument *for* an election. The only way it might be different is if he could tell Charles she had been stripped of the party leadership and who had replaced her.
"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."
Charles would clearly be delighted to grant the PM a general election. As would most of the country. And it would be constitutionally correct.
What's not to like ?
In 2023 though obvs for my betting positions ta...
On the 2017/2021 IR35 reforms, I'm fairly certain a by the books corporatist like Hunt will look no further than whether they're raising tax revenues, HMRC will answer "yes", so they will stay. Besides, who wants those pesky contractors competing with his consultancy mates anyway? It is unfortunate though - that and the stamp duty changes were the only elements of the mini-budget that might have been economically useful.
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.
"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."
Charles would clearly be delighted to grant the PM a general election. As would most of the country. And it would be constitutionally correct.
What's not to like ?
In 2023 though obvs for my betting positions ta...
Obviously it would be an act of spite and revenge on Truss's part but tbf, if I were in her position it's what I'd do.
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.
I agree with that, but they are employees and as such employer's NI is payable.
May as PM to steady the ship. Leadership rule change that states an incumbent Tory PM can only be replaced by a vote of Tory MPs and not by the membership. New Tory leadership vote and PM in 12 months. General Election in two years. Sorted.
May as PM for two months would be funnier than watching Michael Fabricant get a haircut.
Because it would take her back ahead of Johnson...
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.
Back in 2015 when the changes to expenses were implemented for umbrella companies (but not implemented for directors of companies) I joked at multiple times that the issue is that you can't create rules based on the level of pay for political reasons.
Because there is a big difference between someone on £200 a day (easily fillable locally) and a someone on £500+ a day (specialist skills you probably only need for x months).
For the latter the loss of expenses means that whole sets of work have ended up offshore because it's simply not possible to staff a 6-9 months development project outside of a few large cities nowadays... And remote work doesn't help you here because all visits to the end client's head office is treated as standard commuting so comes out of my post tax income.
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".
But the whole implementation has meant that legitimate contracting is being killed. And that is costing the tax payer money.
The big problem they have is the implementation. With the responsibility lying with the end user, the easiest thing for ta company to do is simply say all contractors are inside IR35. They are not supposed to do this and the guidance is clear that there should be individual assessments but no company is doing this - or if they are then the outcome is pre determined.
The reason for this is simple. If a company makes an assessment that you are outside IR35 and HMRC decides you should be inside then they get a hefty fine from HMRC. If a company makes an assessment that you are inside IR35 but you should actually be outside there is no penalty on the company at all. So all companies are using blanket decisions and sticking everyone inside. The system is broken.
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"
May as PM to steady the ship. Leadership rule change that states an incumbent Tory PM can only be replaced by a vote of Tory MPs and not by the membership. New Tory leadership vote and PM in 12 months. General Election in two years. Sorted.
May as PM for two months would be funnier than watching Michael Fabricant get a haircut.
Because it would take her back ahead of Johnson...
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
You are witnessing the dying embers of the ERG and the like, and I would suggest you should join Farage and become his chief spokesperson as you have passed your audition for him
"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."
I doubt that King Chuck would be worried about being seen to be "dissenting from the advice of his ministers".
"are you back again? [teeth sucking noise] oh dear oh dear! "I would like to request the dissolution of Parliament and a general election your majesty" "Why? Your party has a majority of nearly 80 doesn't it?" "...... ........ ...... [buffering] ...... erm, I want it" "No no no, we can appoint another Prime Minister. What about Mr Sunak, could he command a majority of the house?" "...... ........ ...... [buffering] ...... erm" etc
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.
I agree with that, but they are employees and as such employer's NI is payable.
This week I start a short-term (9 month) piece of work to enhance a system for a UK bank.
Given that it is using my (rather specialist) techie skillset why should I be an employee of the bank when neither the bank (they don't need me once I've finished my piece of work) nor myself wish for that to be the case.
May as PM to steady the ship. Leadership rule change that states an incumbent Tory PM can only be replaced by a vote of Tory MPs and not by the membership. New Tory leadership vote and PM in 12 months. General Election in two years. Sorted.
May as PM for two months would be funnier than watching Michael Fabricant get a haircut.
Because it would take her back ahead of Johnson...
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 any case, if he advised the King Truss had lost the confidence of the House, that's an argument *for* an election. The only way it might be different is if he could tell Charles she had been stripped of the party leadership and who had replaced her.
There’s a well-known way of testing whether or not the government retains the confidence of the House.
"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."
I doubt that King Chuck would be worried about being seen to be "dissenting from the advice of his ministers".
"are you back again? [teeth sucking noise] oh dear oh dear! "I would like to request the dissolution of Parliament and a general election your majesty" "Why? Your party has a majority of nearly 80 doesn't it?" "...... ........ ...... [buffering] ...... erm, I want it" "No no no, we can appoint another Prime Minister. What about Mr Sunak, could he command a majority of the house?" "...... ........ ...... [buffering] ...... erm" etc
Chopping Charles from Cop27 might not have been a great idea after all. He appears to be a vindictive b******!
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".
The big problem they have is the implementation. With the responsibility lying with the end user, the easiest thing for ta company to do is simply say all contractors are inside IR35. They are not supposed to do this and the guidance is clear that there should be individual assessments but no company is doing this - or if they are then the outcome is pre determined.
Technically that is illegal - the legal approach (and the one) most firms took is that working via a PSC is not acceptable to the end client - hence you have no choice but to use an umbrella company / agency payroll but no determination is made.
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".
But the whole implementation has meant that legitimate contracting is being killed. And that is costing the tax payer money.
The big problem they have is the implementation. With the responsibility lying with the end user, the easiest thing for ta company to do is simply say all contractors are inside IR35. They are not supposed to do this and the guidance is clear that there should be individual assessments but no company is doing this - or if they are then the outcome is pre determined.
The reason for this is simple. If a company makes an assessment that you are outside IR35 and HMRC decides you should be inside then they get a hefty fine from HMRC. If a company makes an assessment that you are inside IR35 but you should actually be outside there is no penalty on the company at all. So all companies are using blanket decisions and sticking everyone inside. The system is broken.
I have seen exactly this same issue at play. I had one major consultancy firm for whom I was doing several hours of advice per month tell me I had to be covered by IR35 even though I had multiple clients. It's clear they were just covering their backsides in case there was any risk of losing Government contracts / getting fined. Whereas another firm - with whom I am doing a lot more work time wise - decided correctly I didn't need to go under IR35.
On the 2017/2021 IR35 reforms, I'm fairly certain a by the books corporatist like Hunt will look no further than whether they're raising tax revenues, HMRC will answer "yes", so they will stay. Besides, who wants those pesky contractors competing with his consultancy mates anyway? It is unfortunate though - that and the stamp duty changes were the only elements of the mini-budget that might have been economically useful.
Hunt is an awful choice as Chancellor, The epitome of managed decline plus do what's best for his friends.
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".
But the whole implementation has meant that legitimate contracting is being killed. And that is costing the tax payer money.
The big problem they have is the implementation. With the responsibility lying with the end user, the easiest thing for ta company to do is simply say all contractors are inside IR35. They are not supposed to do this and the guidance is clear that there should be individual assessments but no company is doing this - or if they are then the outcome is pre determined.
The reason for this is simple. If a company makes an assessment that you are outside IR35 and HMRC decides you should be inside then they get a hefty fine from HMRC. If a company makes an assessment that you are inside IR35 but you should actually be outside there is no penalty on the company at all. So all companies are using blanket decisions and sticking everyone inside. The system is broken.
I have seen exactly this same issue at play. I had one major consultancy firm for whom I was doing several hours of advice per month tell me I had to be covered by IR35 even though I had multiple clients. It's clear they were just covering their backsides in case there was any risk of losing Government contracts / getting fined. Whereas another firm - with whom I am doing a lot more work time wise - decided correctly I didn't need to go under IR35.
Under IR35 (actually under tax law) every contract is unique and self-contained. There are examples where a 1 afternoon / fortnight contract was treated as inside IR35 for expense purposes (it was that part of HMRC that got there first in that case).
CRAZY BETTING POST GIVEN ALL THE CRAZINESS BEAR WITH ME
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).
I had that mad thought myself recently, because he's shown some admirable qualities recently, but it's a wild gamble. Given the situation they are in I would think the Tories would be very risk averse. Suppose it goes wrong?
My guess is that the attractive option will be one that allows them to enjoy Christmas without worrying the government/economy will collapse. Safety. Calm.
May as PM to steady the ship. Leadership rule change that states an incumbent Tory PM can only be replaced by a vote of Tory MPs and not by the membership. New Tory leadership vote and PM in 12 months. General Election in two years. Sorted.
May as PM for two months would be funnier than watching Michael Fabricant get a haircut.
Because it would take her back ahead of Johnson...
Not in my table it wouldn't!
Really? How long would it have to be?
My table is stints not total time. Mind you, I'd love to be able to add a second stint for a PM to my list.
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.
I am not an expert on this but is the big problem not the more generous/ reasonable allowances a true contractor gets on expenses? How does your solution, which would certainly stop the dividend nonsense for small companies, sort that?
"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."
I doubt that King Chuck would be worried about being seen to be "dissenting from the advice of his ministers".
"are you back again? [teeth sucking noise] oh dear oh dear! "I would like to request the dissolution of Parliament and a general election your majesty" "Why? Your party has a majority of nearly 80 doesn't it?" "...... ........ ...... [buffering] ...... erm, I want it" "No no no, we can appoint another Prime Minister. What about Mr Sunak, could he command a majority of the house?" "...... ........ ...... [buffering] ...... erm" etc
Chopping Charles from Cop27 might not have been a great idea after all. He appears to be a vindictive b******!
There is No Reason for a controlled General Election - may be needed if the government collapse is uncontrolled. But if she asks for one I think it would be the Duty of the King to say no. Whilst there is a major crisis here we need to stabilise it before we have an election. As the government holds a sizeable majority of MPs it is not an outrageous pushback to say that another PM could be found to steady the ship.
That person is Sunak. A unity team around him. Provide stability (albeit with a democratic deficit as large as the moon) with the inevitable GE in the Spring once all sides have had chance to prepare themselves.
"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."
I doubt that King Chuck would be worried about being seen to be "dissenting from the advice of his ministers".
"are you back again? [teeth sucking noise] oh dear oh dear! "I would like to request the dissolution of Parliament and a general election your majesty" "Why? Your party has a majority of nearly 80 doesn't it?" "...... ........ ...... [buffering] ...... erm, I want it" "No no no, we can appoint another Prime Minister. What about Mr Sunak, could he command a majority of the house?" "...... ........ ...... [buffering] ...... erm" etc
Chopping Charles from Cop27 might not have been a great idea after all. He appears to be a vindictive b******!
Would Sunak be able to carry the confidence of the Commons ?
Probably but there might be enough Boris die-hards to blow the plan up. Noone outside the Conservatives (Perhaps the DUP) would vote for him as they'd all want a GE with PM Truss in place.
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.
I agree with that, but they are employees and as such employer's NI is payable.
If they’re employees, they should be entitled to holiday pay, sick pay, pension contributions, allowed to unionise etc.
The current IR35 arrangements remove all of the positives for contractors, but keep all of the negatives - they can still be fired for no reason with no notice, have to pay their own expenses from post-tax income, even if weekly commuting, etc.
On the 2017/2021 IR35 reforms, I'm fairly certain a by the books corporatist like Hunt will look no further than whether they're raising tax revenues, HMRC will answer "yes", so they will stay. Besides, who wants those pesky contractors competing with his consultancy mates anyway? It is unfortunate though - that and the stamp duty changes were the only elements of the mini-budget that might have been economically useful.
Those consultancies are now employing people abroad because it's the only way they can staff a project.
From what I hear it's boom time in Sofia and Tirana with UK firms staffing up there to resolve roles they can't fill here.
Wouldn't the increase in corporation tax help to deal with the IR35 issue as they'd be less incentive to set up a ltd company when you are really just a sole trader?
On the 2017/2021 IR35 reforms, I'm fairly certain a by the books corporatist like Hunt will look no further than whether they're raising tax revenues, HMRC will answer "yes", so they will stay. Besides, who wants those pesky contractors competing with his consultancy mates anyway? It is unfortunate though - that and the stamp duty changes were the only elements of the mini-budget that might have been economically useful.
Those consultancies are now employing people abroad because it's the only way they can staff a project.
From what I hear it's boom time in Sofia and Tirana with UK firms staffing up there to resolve roles they can't fill here.
Bit like Crimea then, where our exports are also causing something of a boom time.
Having read the same post from HY about 150 times over the course of the weekend, I think I can summarise his position:
The only way for the Conservative Party to survive is to pick a leader he does not support, to enact policies he does not approve of. But they will still have his 100% support.
CRAZY BETTING POST GIVEN ALL THE CRAZINESS BEAR WITH ME
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).
I had that mad thought myself recently, because he's shown some admirable qualities recently, but it's a wild gamble. Given the situation they are in I would think the Tories would be very risk averse. Suppose it goes wrong?
My guess is that the attractive option will be one that allows them to enjoy Christmas without worrying the government/economy will collapse. Safety. Calm.
Steve Baker for PM?
LibDems go back to your constituencies and prepare for government.
"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."
I doubt that King Chuck would be worried about being seen to be "dissenting from the advice of his ministers".
"are you back again? [teeth sucking noise] oh dear oh dear! "I would like to request the dissolution of Parliament and a general election your majesty" "Why? Your party has a majority of nearly 80 doesn't it?" "...... ........ ...... [buffering] ...... erm, I want it" "No no no, we can appoint another Prime Minister. What about Mr Sunak, could he command a majority of the house?" "...... ........ ...... [buffering] ...... erm" etc
Chopping Charles from Cop27 might not have been a great idea after all. He appears to be a vindictive b******!
Would Sunak be able to carry the confidence of the Commons ?
Probably but there might be enough Boris die-hards to blow the plan up. Noone outside the Conservatives (Perhaps the DUP) would vote for him as they'd all want a GE with PM Truss in place.
In the scenario where PM Sunak faces an immediate confidence vote then there would already no longer be a PM Truss...
Supposedly Mrs Brady has double the number of required letters for a challenge. Never mind changing the rules, that is the point where he takes his cheshire cat grin to Downing Street and dispatches his 3rd PM.
Sunak was the choice of the majority of Tory MPs. Having seen Truss resign the remaining holdouts would have no choice than to back Sunak or face an immediate General Election and the loss of their seats.
Wouldn't be a comfortable ride for Sunak, but I doubt his government would stick around long, hence me tipping a GE in May 23 alongside the locals.
Having read the same post from HY about 150 times over the course of the weekend, I think I can summarise his position:
The only way for the Conservative Party to survive is to pick a leader he does not support, to enact policies he does not approve of. But they will still have his 100% support.
When gracious Charles replaced our Queen the Church of England's glory Another face of things was seen and H became a Tory. Occasional conformists base; He blamed their moderation; And thought the State in danger was from such prevarication.
"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."
I doubt that King Chuck would be worried about being seen to be "dissenting from the advice of his ministers".
"are you back again? [teeth sucking noise] oh dear oh dear! "I would like to request the dissolution of Parliament and a general election your majesty" "Why? Your party has a majority of nearly 80 doesn't it?" "...... ........ ...... [buffering] ...... erm, I want it" "No no no, we can appoint another Prime Minister. What about Mr Sunak, could he command a majority of the house?" "...... ........ ...... [buffering] ...... erm" etc
Chopping Charles from Cop27 might not have been a great idea after all. He appears to be a vindictive b******!
There is No Reason for a controlled General Election - may be needed if the government collapse is uncontrolled. But if she asks for one I think it would be the Duty of the King to say no. Whilst there is a major crisis here we need to stabilise it before we have an election. As the government holds a sizeable majority of MPs it is not an outrageous pushback to say that another PM could be found to steady the ship.
That person is Sunak. A unity team around him. Provide stability (albeit with a democratic deficit as large as the moon) with the inevitable GE in the Spring once all sides have had chance to prepare themselves.
Ultimate humiliation for her if he says no. Which is why she won't ask.
It looks may take a while for the Conservatives to figure out exactly who they want as leader/PM, to begin address the particular problems they currently have both as a party and a government.
In the meantime, it is perfectly possible for Truss to carry on even into the new year, like a sort of late Qing Emperor, while Dowager Empress Hunt runs the affairs of state.
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.
I am not a fan of Blairism but that is undoubtably correct. He would have been a hell of a barrister.
Wouldn't the increase in corporation tax help to deal with the IR35 issue as they'd be less incentive to set up a ltd company when you are really just a sole trader?
Yep - I made that point earlier - HMRC's original figures are based on a 19% corporate tax rate.
The reality is the only element of the Kwasi mini-budget that generated growth was the reversal of the IR35 changes because the current scheme simply doesn't work and it destroyed what made the UK economy so flexible.
"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."
I doubt that King Chuck would be worried about being seen to be "dissenting from the advice of his ministers".
"are you back again? [teeth sucking noise] oh dear oh dear! "I would like to request the dissolution of Parliament and a general election your majesty" "Why? Your party has a majority of nearly 80 doesn't it?" "...... ........ ...... [buffering] ...... erm, I want it" "No no no, we can appoint another Prime Minister. What about Mr Sunak, could he command a majority of the house?" "...... ........ ...... [buffering] ...... erm" etc
Chopping Charles from Cop27 might not have been a great idea after all. He appears to be a vindictive b******!
Would Sunak be able to carry the confidence of the Commons ?
Probably but there might be enough Boris die-hards to blow the plan up. Noone outside the Conservatives (Perhaps the DUP) would vote for him as they'd all want a GE with PM Truss in place.
In the scenario where PM Sunak faces an immediate confidence vote then there would already no longer be a PM Truss...
Supposedly Mrs Brady has double the number of required letters for a challenge. Never mind changing the rules, that is the point where he takes his cheshire cat grin to Downing Street and dispatches his 3rd PM.
Sunak was the choice of the majority of Tory MPs. Having seen Truss resign the remaining holdouts would have no choice than to back Sunak or face an immediate General Election and the loss of their seats.
Wouldn't be a comfortable ride for Sunak, but I doubt his government would stick around long, hence me tipping a GE in May 23 alongside the locals.
Which would allow the date of the local elections to be changed so it doesn't clash with the coronation.
"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."
I doubt that King Chuck would be worried about being seen to be "dissenting from the advice of his ministers".
"are you back again? [teeth sucking noise] oh dear oh dear! "I would like to request the dissolution of Parliament and a general election your majesty" "Why? Your party has a majority of nearly 80 doesn't it?" "...... ........ ...... [buffering] ...... erm, I want it" "No no no, we can appoint another Prime Minister. What about Mr Sunak, could he command a majority of the house?" "...... ........ ...... [buffering] ...... erm" etc
Chopping Charles from Cop27 might not have been a great idea after all. He appears to be a vindictive b******!
Would Sunak be able to carry the confidence of the Commons ?
Probably but there might be enough Boris die-hards to blow the plan up. Noone outside the Conservatives (Perhaps the DUP) would vote for him as they'd all want a GE with PM Truss in place.
In the scenario where PM Sunak faces an immediate confidence vote then there would already no longer be a PM Truss...
Supposedly Mrs Brady has double the number of required letters for a challenge. Never mind changing the rules, that is the point where he takes his cheshire cat grin to Downing Street and dispatches his 3rd PM.
Sunak was the choice of the majority of Tory MPs. Having seen Truss resign the remaining holdouts would have no choice than to back Sunak or face an immediate General Election and the loss of their seats.
Wouldn't be a comfortable ride for Sunak, but I doubt his government would stick around long, hence me tipping a GE in May 23 alongside the locals.
Which would allow the date of the local elections to be changed so it doesn't clash with the coronation.
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.
I am not a fan of Blairism but that is undoubtably correct. He would have been a hell of a barrister.
Having read the same post from HY about 150 times over the course of the weekend, I think I can summarise his position:
The only way for the Conservative Party to survive is to pick a leader he does not support, to enact policies he does not approve of. But they will still have his 100% support.
When gracious Charles replaced our Queen the Church of England's glory Another face of things was seen and H became a Tory. Occasional conformists base; He blamed their moderation; And thought the State in danger was from such prevarication.
Wouldn't the increase in corporation tax help to deal with the IR35 issue as they'd be less incentive to set up a ltd company when you are really just a sole trader?
I'm wondering if he might also be tempted to leave Sunak's dividend tax hike in place, rather than reducing it in line with NI. I'd happily take that deal - the biggest issue with IR35 isn't really the higher headline tax rate, it's that you can't claim expenses or build up a reserve of cash in the LTD company to smooth out your personal income when you aren't billing. But I'm not hopeful.
Having read the same post from HY about 150 times over the course of the weekend, I think I can summarise his position:
The only way for the Conservative Party to survive is to pick a leader he does not support, to enact policies he does not approve of. But they will still have his 100% support.
When gracious Charles replaced our Queen the Church of England's glory Another face of things was seen and H became a Tory. Occasional conformists base; He blamed their moderation; And thought the State in danger was from such prevarication.
That goes very well to 'Aurelia'!
It goes rather better to the Vicar of Bray, which I based it on.
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.
Correct. Not being able to command a majority would be MORE of a reason for a GE, not less. Ismael has set it out better than I. The Lascelles principles apply, and therefore if Truss went for it, KC could not reasonably refuse I think.
Interesting the Chancellor also met the head of the Debt Management Office last night…suggests that these announcements could have a material impact on the remit for financing - it went up £72bn on day of mini budget. As I recall it was this press notice that triggered gilt routhttps://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1581932794099380225/photo/1
OT thanks to the PBers who recommended the film 13 Lives, about the Thai cave rescue. It really is good, and maintains the tension even though we all know the ending.
CRAZY BETTING POST GIVEN ALL THE CRAZINESS BEAR WITH ME
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).
Human, able to bring different sides of the party together, media savvy, friendly. I'm backing John Redwood as the next Tory leader. It would follow the trend of selections so far.
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.
I don't agree. If Truss took the nuclear option and tried to call a GE, Brady would need more than 178 MPs. He'd need 326. Anything else and the government collapses anyway.
Truss would simply call a VoNC in her own government. Sure, 200 Conservatives 'oppose' her VoNC, but Labour won't and it'll sail through. GE.
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.
I don't agree. If Truss took the nuclear option and tried to call a GE, Brady would need more than 178 MPs. He'd need 326. Anything else and the government collapses anyway.
Truss would simply call a VoNC in her own government. Sure, 200 Conservatives 'oppose' her VoNC, but Labour won't and it'll sail through. GE.
Can you actually call a VONC in your own government? I thought only the Leader of the Opposition can do that?
She could of course propose a money bill, which would have the same effect in practice.
Damien Green backs Truss - not time for another leadership change.
If the rebels don’t get their act together this week she might have bought at least a few more weeks.
I want the Tory party destroyed, so now that the immediate threat to the economy has been removed, I have no problem with their MPs gathering round the skip fire that is Truss, warming their hands and saying "this is fine".
Leave her in office as long as you want! But - and its a big but - its in their best interests to remove her. Because "lets all rally behind her" doesn't work when Every Single Time she opens her mouth she drags the party closer to the ELE scenario.
It’s remarkably childish how presenters have this “problem” with J Hunt, politician, when it never seemed to be an issue with the late racing driver. I’m hardly a Tory but there are enough sticks to beat what passes for a “Government” here without prurient swipes at someone’s surname, rhyming slang or no.
"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."
I doubt that King Chuck would be worried about being seen to be "dissenting from the advice of his ministers".
"are you back again? [teeth sucking noise] oh dear oh dear! "I would like to request the dissolution of Parliament and a general election your majesty" "Why? Your party has a majority of nearly 80 doesn't it?" "...... ........ ...... [buffering] ...... erm, I want it" "No no no, we can appoint another Prime Minister. What about Mr Sunak, could he command a majority of the house?" "...... ........ ...... [buffering] ...... erm" etc
Chopping Charles from Cop27 might not have been a great idea after all. He appears to be a vindictive b******!
There is No Reason for a controlled General Election - may be needed if the government collapse is uncontrolled. But if she asks for one I think it would be the Duty of the King to say no. Whilst there is a major crisis here we need to stabilise it before we have an election. As the government holds a sizeable majority of MPs it is not an outrageous pushback to say that another PM could be found to steady the ship.
That person is Sunak. A unity team around him. Provide stability (albeit with a democratic deficit as large as the moon) with the inevitable GE in the Spring once all sides have had chance to prepare themselves.
I don't see why it's the duty of the King to say no - certainly Mastermind Lammy was on the radio at the weekend demanding a general election so if Truss asks for one, there's cross-party support for it.
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.
I don't agree. If Truss took the nuclear option and tried to call a GE, Brady would need more than 178 MPs. He'd need 326. Anything else and the government collapses anyway.
Truss would simply call a VoNC in her own government. Sure, 200 Conservatives 'oppose' her VoNC, but Labour won't and it'll sail through. GE.
Can you actually call a VONC in your own government? I thought only the Leader of the Opposition can do that?
She could of course propose a money bill, which would have the same effect in practice.
Short memory? You have to go way back to July to find the last Motion of Confidence
CRAZY BETTING POST GIVEN ALL THE CRAZINESS BEAR WITH ME
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).
Human, able to bring different sides of the party together, media savvy, friendly. I'm backing John Redwood as the next Tory leader. It would follow the trend of selections so far.
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.
I don't agree. If Truss took the nuclear option and tried to call a GE, Brady would need more than 178 MPs. He'd need 326. Anything else and the government collapses anyway.
Truss would simply call a VoNC in her own government. Sure, 200 Conservatives 'oppose' her VoNC, but Labour won't and it'll sail through. GE.
Can you actually call a VONC in your own government? I thought only the Leader of the Opposition can do that?
She could of course propose a money bill, which would have the same effect in practice.
You can. May did it on the night of... was it 17th January 2019? She said that the confidence of the government needed to be tested and if Labour didn't oblige, she would let the LD or SNP propose it. Corbyn stood up and called a VoNC anyway.
"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."
I doubt that King Chuck would be worried about being seen to be "dissenting from the advice of his ministers".
"are you back again? [teeth sucking noise] oh dear oh dear! "I would like to request the dissolution of Parliament and a general election your majesty" "Why? Your party has a majority of nearly 80 doesn't it?" "...... ........ ...... [buffering] ...... erm, I want it" "No no no, we can appoint another Prime Minister. What about Mr Sunak, could he command a majority of the house?" "...... ........ ...... [buffering] ...... erm" etc
Chopping Charles from Cop27 might not have been a great idea after all. He appears to be a vindictive b******!
Would Sunak be able to carry the confidence of the Commons ?
Probably but there might be enough Boris die-hards to blow the plan up. Noone outside the Conservatives (Perhaps the DUP) would vote for him as they'd all want a GE with PM Truss in place.
In the scenario where PM Sunak faces an immediate confidence vote then there would already no longer be a PM Truss...
Supposedly Mrs Brady has double the number of required letters for a challenge. Never mind changing the rules, that is the point where he takes his cheshire cat grin to Downing Street and dispatches his 3rd PM.
Sunak was the choice of the majority of Tory MPs. Having seen Truss resign the remaining holdouts would have no choice than to back Sunak or face an immediate General Election and the loss of their seats.
Wouldn't be a comfortable ride for Sunak, but I doubt his government would stick around long, hence me tipping a GE in May 23 alongside the locals.
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.
I don't agree. If Truss took the nuclear option and tried to call a GE, Brady would need more than 178 MPs. He'd need 326. Anything else and the government collapses anyway.
Truss would simply call a VoNC in her own government. Sure, 200 Conservatives 'oppose' her VoNC, but Labour won't and it'll sail through. GE.
In all these scenarios however, there seems to be one big elephant in the room..
Why, erm, would Liz Truss call a GE?
If it’s the threat of calling one to get rebels to back off, that will go down like a cup of cold sick and will divide the Tory Party even further and make it even more ungovernable.
If she calls a GE she loses it horrifically and is forever persona non grata to the Tory Party.
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.
I don't agree. If Truss took the nuclear option and tried to call a GE, Brady would need more than 178 MPs. He'd need 326. Anything else and the government collapses anyway.
Truss would simply call a VoNC in her own government. Sure, 200 Conservatives 'oppose' her VoNC, but Labour won't and it'll sail through. GE.
In all these scenarios however, there seems to be one big elephant in the room..
Why, erm, would Liz Truss call a GE?
If it’s the threat of calling one to get rebels to back off, that will go down like a cup of cold sick and will divide the Tory Party even further and make it even more ungovernable.
If she calls a GE she loses it horrifically and is forever persona non grata to the Tory Party.
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.
I don't agree. If Truss took the nuclear option and tried to call a GE, Brady would need more than 178 MPs. He'd need 326. Anything else and the government collapses anyway.
Truss would simply call a VoNC in her own government. Sure, 200 Conservatives 'oppose' her VoNC, but Labour won't and it'll sail through. GE.
Can you actually call a VONC in your own government? I thought only the Leader of the Opposition can do that?
She could of course propose a money bill, which would have the same effect in practice.
Short memory? You have to go way back to July to find the last Motion of Confidence
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.
Some on here (me included) did say that electing Boris would result in the destruction of the Tory Party. The only question was how it would occur.
I never thought it would be by Boris's replacement self-destructing within weeks though
Was it not predicted years ago that the eurosceptics (John Major's "Bastards") would ultimately destroy the Tory Party. I think that is what is unfolding before our eyes, though it looks as though the party may finally have found reverse gear just in time. They just need to kick out Mogg, Braverman and a few of the others out of the cabinet.
If we get to that stage, it will be very interesting to see if the ERG block the coronation of anyone of insufficient Brexit purity and throw it to the membership again.
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.
I don't agree. If Truss took the nuclear option and tried to call a GE, Brady would need more than 178 MPs. He'd need 326. Anything else and the government collapses anyway.
Truss would simply call a VoNC in her own government. Sure, 200 Conservatives 'oppose' her VoNC, but Labour won't and it'll sail through. GE.
In all these scenarios however, there seems to be one big elephant in the room..
Why, erm, would Liz Truss call a GE?
If it’s the threat of calling one to get rebels to back off, that will go down like a cup of cold sick and will divide the Tory Party even further and make it even more ungovernable.
If she calls a GE she loses it horrifically and is forever persona non grata to the Tory Party.
What is the upside to Liz Truss in all of this?
What is the upside to Liz Truss in not calling one?
Comments
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lascelles_Principles
What's not to like ?
In 2023 though obvs for my betting positions ta...
Because it would take her back ahead of Johnson...
Because there is a big difference between someone on £200 a day (easily fillable locally) and a someone on £500+ a day (specialist skills you probably only need for x months).
For the latter the loss of expenses means that whole sets of work have ended up offshore because it's simply not possible to staff a 6-9 months development project outside of a few large cities nowadays... And remote work doesn't help you here because all visits to the end client's head office is treated as standard commuting so comes out of my post tax income.
The big problem they have is the implementation. With the responsibility lying with the end user, the easiest thing for ta company to do is simply say all contractors are inside IR35. They are not supposed to do this and the guidance is clear that there should be individual assessments but no company is doing this - or if they are then the outcome is pre determined.
The reason for this is simple. If a company makes an assessment that you are outside IR35 and HMRC decides you should be inside then they get a hefty fine from HMRC. If a company makes an assessment that you are inside IR35 but you should actually be outside there is no penalty on the company at all. So all companies are using blanket decisions and sticking everyone inside. The system is broken.
"are you back again? [teeth sucking noise] oh dear oh dear!
"I would like to request the dissolution of Parliament and a general election your majesty"
"Why? Your party has a majority of nearly 80 doesn't it?"
"...... ........ ...... [buffering] ...... erm, I want it"
"No no no, we can appoint another Prime Minister. What about Mr Sunak, could he command a majority of the house?"
"...... ........ ...... [buffering] ...... erm" etc
Given that it is using my (rather specialist) techie skillset why should I be an employee of the bank when neither the bank (they don't need me once I've finished my piece of work) nor myself wish for that to be the case.
My guess is that the attractive option will be one that allows them to enjoy Christmas without worrying the government/economy will collapse. Safety. Calm.
That person is Sunak. A unity team around him. Provide stability (albeit with a democratic deficit as large as the moon) with the inevitable GE in the Spring once all sides have had chance to prepare themselves.
Probably but there might be enough Boris die-hards to blow the plan up. Noone outside the Conservatives (Perhaps the DUP) would vote for him as they'd all want a GE with PM Truss in place.
The current IR35 arrangements remove all of the positives for contractors, but keep all of the negatives - they can still be fired for no reason with no notice, have to pay their own expenses from post-tax income, even if weekly commuting, etc.
From what I hear it's boom time in Sofia and Tirana with UK firms staffing up there to resolve roles they can't fill here.
The only way for the Conservative Party to survive is to pick a leader he does not support, to enact policies he does not approve of. But they will still have his 100% support.
LibDems go back to your constituencies and prepare for government.
Supposedly Mrs Brady has double the number of required letters for a challenge. Never mind changing the rules, that is the point where he takes his cheshire cat grin to Downing Street and dispatches his 3rd PM.
Sunak was the choice of the majority of Tory MPs. Having seen Truss resign the remaining holdouts would have no choice than to back Sunak or face an immediate General Election and the loss of their seats.
Wouldn't be a comfortable ride for Sunak, but I doubt his government would stick around long, hence me tipping a GE in May 23 alongside the locals.
Another face of things was seen and H became a Tory.
Occasional conformists base; He blamed their moderation;
And thought the State in danger was from such prevarication.
In the meantime, it is perfectly possible for Truss to carry on even into the new year, like a sort of late Qing Emperor, while Dowager Empress Hunt runs the affairs of state.
The reality is the only element of the Kwasi mini-budget that generated growth was the reversal of the IR35 changes because the current scheme simply doesn't work and it destroyed what made the UK economy so flexible.
Remove that and the economy is really screwed.
https://twitter.com/KirstyStricklan/status/1581930601334312963
The gender gap is even higher than in 2018 . That year saw the big anti Trump vote driven to a large degree by suburban white women .
So some encouraging signs for Dems that the abortion issue might be a big factor .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDhhXIfIDUs
Ismael has set it out better than I. The Lascelles principles apply, and therefore if Truss went for it, KC could not reasonably refuse I think.
If the rebels don’t get their act together this week she might have bought at least a few more weeks.
Truss would simply call a VoNC in her own government. Sure, 200 Conservatives 'oppose' her VoNC, but Labour won't and it'll sail through. GE.
She could of course propose a money bill, which would have the same effect in practice.
Leave her in office as long as you want! But - and its a big but - its in their best interests to remove her. Because "lets all rally behind her" doesn't work when Every Single Time she opens her mouth she drags the party closer to the ELE scenario.
I wonder how many times they'd called him it off air before those "mistakes"?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_vote_of_confidence_in_the_Johnson_ministry
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-63159762
She said that the confidence of the government needed to be tested and if Labour didn't oblige, she would let the LD or SNP propose it. Corbyn stood up and called a VoNC anyway.
Why, erm, would Liz Truss call a GE?
If it’s the threat of calling one to get rebels to back off, that will go down like a cup of cold sick and will divide the Tory Party even further and make it even more ungovernable.
If she calls a GE she loses it horrifically and is forever persona non grata to the Tory Party.
What is the upside to Liz Truss in all of this?
Moscow has revealed its next target in resource-rich west Africa, where a deteriorating security environment is helping the Kremlin wrench influence over former French colonies from Paris.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/putin-lies-in-the-shadows-after-france-loses-sway-in-west-africa-z0tj8qkk6 (£££)
Thousands of times in the newsroom.
I have of course been trying to blank out the last ghastly days of the Johnson administration which may account for it.
If we get to that stage, it will be very interesting to see if the ERG block the coronation of anyone of insufficient Brexit purity and throw it to the membership again.
There is no upside whatever she does.