Howdy, Stranger!

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

Ex-pm Johnson makes most of this morning’s front pages – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited January 29 in General
imageEx-pm Johnson makes most of this morning’s front pages – politicalbetting.com

Read the full story here

«134

Comments

  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,330
    Test and good morning
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 73,473
    36 million people – get more from the Government than they pay in tax, according to a study by Civitas.

    This is up from 24 million, or two-fifths of households, when Tony Blair was in power at the turn of the millennium.

    The top 10 per cent of earners pay 53 per cent of all income tax, turning the levy – the Treasury’s biggest single earner – into a ‘stealth wealth tax’, Civitas said.

    The surge in state ‘dependency’ means the poorest fifth of households receive £17,600 more on average in welfare and non-financial benefits from the State than they pay in tax.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11664757/Over-half-households-State-pay-tax.html
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 11,082
    Off Topic - Am obliged to PBer who pointed out, that Queen Victoria was named in honor (if that's the word) of Victoria Station.

    Now IF someone can say WHY London has a train station named after a saint who was named after a (misspelled) bodily organ - St Pancr(e)as?
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 11,082
    "Daily Mail" front page is hugely entertaining.

    > One-third says half of all Brits are "something for nothing" spongers.

    > One-third is desparately flogging DM for next-to-nothing (to said spongers with plenty of public pelf?)

    > One-third apparently devoted to report of convention of Winston Churchill imitators, with modern UKR master giving pointers to UK wannabe.
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 11,082
    Re: "Daily Star" front page, do PBers think that the Great British Public can be a-peased?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 42,503
    Good on Boris Johnson. A devisive character for sure, but totally unwavering in his support for Ukraine and their people, in their time of need.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 49,002
    edited January 23

    36 million people – get more from the Government than they pay in tax, according to a study by Civitas.

    This is up from 24 million, or two-fifths of households, when Tony Blair was in power at the turn of the millennium.

    The top 10 per cent of earners pay 53 per cent of all income tax, turning the levy – the Treasury’s biggest single earner – into a ‘stealth wealth tax’, Civitas said.

    The surge in state ‘dependency’ means the poorest fifth of households receive £17,600 more on average in welfare and non-financial benefits from the State than they pay in tax.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11664757/Over-half-households-State-pay-tax.html

    It is worth noting that this is a Covid year analysis - i.e. FY 2020/21 - and is therefore does not signify any major underlying shift.

    In normal times, it's very simple:

    - retirees are beneficiaries
    - people on low incomes with children are beneficiaries
    - households where everyone is out of work are beneficiaries
    - households where someone has a long-term chronic illness or disability are beneficiaries

    And that's about it.

    If you don't have kids and you're in work, then you are almost certainly a net contributor, even if you're on minimum wage.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 49,002
    edited January 23
    Sandpit said:

    Good on Boris Johnson. A devisive character for sure, but totally unwavering in his support for Ukraine and their people, in their time of need.

    Boris is a flawed character*: but he was right to invest in Covid vaccines, he was right to "get Brexit done"**, and he was right to back Ukraine.

    The country needs to move past him, but we shouldn't forget that he broadly got the big calls right.

    * This may be too kind.
    ** Sadly, this did involve quite a lot of dissimulation ***
    *** Or lying, as some would call it
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 17,949
    edited January 23

    Re: "Daily Star" front page, do PBers think that the Great British Public can be a-peased?

    The Daily Mirror has the best front page.


  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 11,743
    The more Johnson is in the spotlight, the happier Starmer and Sturgeon will be.


  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 47,316
    edited January 23
    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Good on Boris Johnson. A devisive character for sure, but totally unwavering in his support for Ukraine and their people, in their time of need.

    Boris is a flawed character*: but he was right to invest in Covid vaccines, he was right to "get Brexit done"**, and he was right to back Ukraine.

    The country needs to move past him, but we shouldn't forget that he broadly got the big calls right.

    * This may be too kind.
    ** Sadly, this did involve quite a lot of dissimulation ***
    *** Or lying, as some would call it
    ** Also bears much if the responsibility for the shitshow in the first place. Brexit was a call he got hugely wrong, and it resulted in a wasted decade.*

    So broadly, not really.

    Also, given the string life science base of the country, and the advice given to government, would any other administration not have invested in vaccines ? Seems a bit unlikely.

    Ukraine I give him credit for. That was a genuine call, and a correct one.

    *Polling shows most of the country agreed with me.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 16,322
    rcs1000 said:

    Nigelb said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Good on Boris Johnson. A devisive character for sure, but totally unwavering in his support for Ukraine and their people, in their time of need.

    Boris is a flawed character*: but he was right to invest in Covid vaccines, he was right to "get Brexit done"**, and he was right to back Ukraine.

    The country needs to move past him, but we shouldn't forget that he broadly got the big calls right.

    * This may be too kind.
    ** Sadly, this did involve quite a lot of dissimulation ***
    *** Or lying, as some would call it
    ** Also bears much if the responsibility for the shitshow in the first place. Brexit was a call he got hugely wrong, and it resulted in a wasted decade.*

    So broadly, not really.

    Also, given the string life science base of the country, and the advice given to government, would any other administration not have invested in vaccines ? Seems a bit unlikely.

    Ukraine I give him credit for. That was a genuine call, and a correct one.

    *Polling shows most of the country agreed with me.
    The country voted for Brexit. You may not like it, but they did. And it needed to be enacted, for good or for ill. Boris did that.

    On vaccines, it's a counterfactual so we can't ever truly know the alternative. But the UK did better earlier than others. Now, of course, the lead was a very short one, and pretty much everyone in the EU was done by summer 2021, but he did recognize the importance early and the UK did what they needed to.
    Brexit would have been passed by May if Boris had not theatrically rejected her deal without even bothering to read a single page.
  • FishingFishing Posts: 3,810
    rcs1000 said:

    Nigelb said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Good on Boris Johnson. A devisive character for sure, but totally unwavering in his support for Ukraine and their people, in their time of need.

    Boris is a flawed character*: but he was right to invest in Covid vaccines, he was right to "get Brexit done"**, and he was right to back Ukraine.

    The country needs to move past him, but we shouldn't forget that he broadly got the big calls right.

    * This may be too kind.
    ** Sadly, this did involve quite a lot of dissimulation ***
    *** Or lying, as some would call it
    ** Also bears much if the responsibility for the shitshow in the first place. Brexit was a call he got hugely wrong, and it resulted in a wasted decade.*

    So broadly, not really.

    Also, given the string life science base of the country, and the advice given to government, would any other administration not have invested in vaccines ? Seems a bit unlikely.

    Ukraine I give him credit for. That was a genuine call, and a correct one.

    *Polling shows most of the country agreed with me.
    The country voted for Brexit. You may not like it, but they did. And it needed to be enacted, for good or for ill. Boris did that.

    On vaccines, it's a counterfactual so we can't ever truly know the alternative. But the UK did better earlier than others. Now, of course, the lead was a very short one, and pretty much everyone in the EU was done by summer 2021, but he did recognize the importance early and the UK did what they needed to.
    He also delievered broadly what the country voted for, in terms of Brexit (four times - a referendum and three general elections) and economic policy, and what it wanted in lockdowns. I don't agree with much of it, but the country wanted lockdowns and a big government economic policy while avoiding any decisions on reforming public services, and that's broadly what it got. He broke his promise on taxation, but that was to fund two other pledges (social care and the NHS), and he junked planning reform, which was unpopular. Again, I don't agree with it, but on the big issues, he was mostly a man of his word and true to his self-description as a "Brexity Hezza".
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 16,322

    36 million people – get more from the Government than they pay in tax, according to a study by Civitas.

    This is up from 24 million, or two-fifths of households, when Tony Blair was in power at the turn of the millennium.

    The top 10 per cent of earners pay 53 per cent of all income tax, turning the levy – the Treasury’s biggest single earner – into a ‘stealth wealth tax’, Civitas said.

    The surge in state ‘dependency’ means the poorest fifth of households receive £17,600 more on average in welfare and non-financial benefits from the State than they pay in tax.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11664757/Over-half-households-State-pay-tax.html

    Have they come to the conclusion that the answer is to tax pensioners more to reduce the number getting more than they pay in......
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 36,825
    Nigelb said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Nigelb said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Good on Boris Johnson. A devisive character for sure, but totally unwavering in his support for Ukraine and their people, in their time of need.

    Boris is a flawed character*: but he was right to invest in Covid vaccines, he was right to "get Brexit done"**, and he was right to back Ukraine.

    The country needs to move past him, but we shouldn't forget that he broadly got the big calls right.

    * This may be too kind.
    ** Sadly, this did involve quite a lot of dissimulation ***
    *** Or lying, as some would call it
    ** Also bears much if the responsibility for the shitshow in the first place. Brexit was a call he got hugely wrong, and it resulted in a wasted decade.*

    So broadly, not really.

    Also, given the string life science base of the country, and the advice given to government, would any other administration not have invested in vaccines ? Seems a bit unlikely.

    Ukraine I give him credit for. That was a genuine call, and a correct one.

    *Polling shows most of the country agreed with me.
    The country voted for Brexit. You may not like it, but they did. And it needed to be enacted, for good or for ill. Boris did that...
    Boris's lies were a significant part of the country voting for Brexit, so he bears responsibility for that call. And much of the mess - the rejection of May's deal, and the subsequent dud deal - which followed.

    I don't see how any of that amounts to "the right call" unless you're still one if the small band of believers in it all having worked out for the best.

    And it has wasted a decade.

    And to repeat, most of the country regrets the whole mess.
    Worth noting too that his appearance on the front pages is at least in part for the rampant corruption and cronyism of his regime, even if the images used are of him in Ukraine.

    Certainly his early support of Ukraine was laudable, but as a discredited backbench MP shortly to be up before the Parliamentary Standards Committee, what help can he offer Ukraine now? Is his trip to Kyiv designed to help Ukraine, or himself?
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 1,477

    rcs1000 said:

    Nigelb said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Good on Boris Johnson. A devisive character for sure, but totally unwavering in his support for Ukraine and their people, in their time of need.

    Boris is a flawed character*: but he was right to invest in Covid vaccines, he was right to "get Brexit done"**, and he was right to back Ukraine.

    The country needs to move past him, but we shouldn't forget that he broadly got the big calls right.

    * This may be too kind.
    ** Sadly, this did involve quite a lot of dissimulation ***
    *** Or lying, as some would call it
    ** Also bears much if the responsibility for the shitshow in the first place. Brexit was a call he got hugely wrong, and it resulted in a wasted decade.*

    So broadly, not really.

    Also, given the string life science base of the country, and the advice given to government, would any other administration not have invested in vaccines ? Seems a bit unlikely.

    Ukraine I give him credit for. That was a genuine call, and a correct one.

    *Polling shows most of the country agreed with me.
    The country voted for Brexit. You may not like it, but they did. And it needed to be enacted, for good or for ill. Boris did that.

    On vaccines, it's a counterfactual so we can't ever truly know the alternative. But the UK did better earlier than others. Now, of course, the lead was a very short one, and pretty much everyone in the EU was done by summer 2021, but he did recognize the importance early and the UK did what they needed to.
    Brexit would have been passed by May if Boris had not theatrically rejected her deal without even bothering to read a single page.
    Or if remain MPs had realised that trying to overturn brexit was unconscionable and voted for May's deal on one of the three occasions it was presented to parliament, instead of trooping through the No lobby with the ERG so they could show off to each other and the public about how anti-brexit they were.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 25,298
    The government could also pay its employees enough so that people in full time work don't get more in Universal Credit than they pay in tax
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 36,825
    rcs1000 said:

    36 million people – get more from the Government than they pay in tax, according to a study by Civitas.

    This is up from 24 million, or two-fifths of households, when Tony Blair was in power at the turn of the millennium.

    The top 10 per cent of earners pay 53 per cent of all income tax, turning the levy – the Treasury’s biggest single earner – into a ‘stealth wealth tax’, Civitas said.

    The surge in state ‘dependency’ means the poorest fifth of households receive £17,600 more on average in welfare and non-financial benefits from the State than they pay in tax.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11664757/Over-half-households-State-pay-tax.html

    It is worth noting that this is a Covid year analysis - i.e. FY 2020/21 - and is therefore does not signify any major underlying shift.

    In normal times, it's very simple:

    - retirees are beneficiaries
    - people on low incomes with children are beneficiaries
    - households where everyone is out of work are beneficiaries
    - households where someone has a long-term chronic illness or disability are beneficiaries

    And that's about it.

    If you don't have kids and you're in work, then you are almost certainly a net contributor, even if you're on minimum wage.
    Clearly an unusual year, so it would be interesting to see the figure for FY 2019-20, which was barely touched by Covid and more representative.

    Apart from changing demographics, with more pensioner households, such a drop in net contributors to the national finances demonstrates the hollowing out of Britain with the rich getting richer and the struggling middle struggling even more.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 36,825
    carnforth said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Nigelb said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Good on Boris Johnson. A devisive character for sure, but totally unwavering in his support for Ukraine and their people, in their time of need.

    Boris is a flawed character*: but he was right to invest in Covid vaccines, he was right to "get Brexit done"**, and he was right to back Ukraine.

    The country needs to move past him, but we shouldn't forget that he broadly got the big calls right.

    * This may be too kind.
    ** Sadly, this did involve quite a lot of dissimulation ***
    *** Or lying, as some would call it
    ** Also bears much if the responsibility for the shitshow in the first place. Brexit was a call he got hugely wrong, and it resulted in a wasted decade.*

    So broadly, not really.

    Also, given the string life science base of the country, and the advice given to government, would any other administration not have invested in vaccines ? Seems a bit unlikely.

    Ukraine I give him credit for. That was a genuine call, and a correct one.

    *Polling shows most of the country agreed with me.
    The country voted for Brexit. You may not like it, but they did. And it needed to be enacted, for good or for ill. Boris did that.

    On vaccines, it's a counterfactual so we can't ever truly know the alternative. But the UK did better earlier than others. Now, of course, the lead was a very short one, and pretty much everyone in the EU was done by summer 2021, but he did recognize the importance early and the UK did what they needed to.
    Brexit would have been passed by May if Boris had not theatrically rejected her deal without even bothering to read a single page.
    Or if remain MPs had realised that trying to overturn brexit was unconscionable and voted for May's deal on one of the three occasions it was presented to parliament, instead of trooping through the No lobby with the ERG so they could show off to each other and the public about how anti-brexit they were.
    Or if May had attempted a less partisan form of Brexit, by including other parties in her negotiations, rather than drafting red lines to appease her own radical Brexiteers.

    Worth noting too that in Dec 2019 a majority of the popular vote went to parties supporting a further referendum on Brexit.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 32,815

    Off Topic - Am obliged to PBer who pointed out, that Queen Victoria was named in honor (if that's the word) of Victoria Station.

    Now IF someone can say WHY London has a train station named after a saint who was named after a (misspelled) bodily organ - St Pancr(e)as?

    When the Midland Railway built St Pancras station in the late 1860s, they had only a few choices as to where to place their terminus. They chose an area of slims called Agar Town, adjacent to the existing GNR King's Cross terminus.

    To build the terminus, they had to destroy much of the graveyard of St Pancras church (now Old St Pancras church) - famous poet and author Thomas Hardy was involved with disinterring all the bodies whilst he was working as an architect.

    So they had a choice to call their terminus 'Agar' after a slum, or 'St Pancras' after a saint. Unsurprisingly, they chose the latter, or you would be asking why a station was named after a gelatinous substance...

    As for who St Pancras was: he is the patron saint of children:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pancras_of_Rome

    The word 'pancreas' apparently comes from the Greek for 'flesh'.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 29,264
    rcs1000 said:

    The country voted for Brexit. You may not like it, but they did. And it needed to be enacted, for good or for ill.

    That's the problem.

    Nobody who voted for Brexit agrees what they voted for.

    And thus enacting "it" is not what most people voted for.

    And why people who did vote for Brexit are now loudly proclaiming this is not what they voted for.

    There were any number of better ways to proceed than "Getting Brexit Done with BoZo's oven ready deal"

    He will forever be vilified for that
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 29,264
    ...
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 1,477
    Foxy said:

    carnforth said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Nigelb said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Good on Boris Johnson. A devisive character for sure, but totally unwavering in his support for Ukraine and their people, in their time of need.

    Boris is a flawed character*: but he was right to invest in Covid vaccines, he was right to "get Brexit done"**, and he was right to back Ukraine.

    The country needs to move past him, but we shouldn't forget that he broadly got the big calls right.

    * This may be too kind.
    ** Sadly, this did involve quite a lot of dissimulation ***
    *** Or lying, as some would call it
    ** Also bears much if the responsibility for the shitshow in the first place. Brexit was a call he got hugely wrong, and it resulted in a wasted decade.*

    So broadly, not really.

    Also, given the string life science base of the country, and the advice given to government, would any other administration not have invested in vaccines ? Seems a bit unlikely.

    Ukraine I give him credit for. That was a genuine call, and a correct one.

    *Polling shows most of the country agreed with me.
    The country voted for Brexit. You may not like it, but they did. And it needed to be enacted, for good or for ill. Boris did that.

    On vaccines, it's a counterfactual so we can't ever truly know the alternative. But the UK did better earlier than others. Now, of course, the lead was a very short one, and pretty much everyone in the EU was done by summer 2021, but he did recognize the importance early and the UK did what they needed to.
    Brexit would have been passed by May if Boris had not theatrically rejected her deal without even bothering to read a single page.
    Or if remain MPs had realised that trying to overturn brexit was unconscionable and voted for May's deal on one of the three occasions it was presented to parliament, instead of trooping through the No lobby with the ERG so they could show off to each other and the public about how anti-brexit they were.
    Or if May had attempted a less partisan form of Brexit, by including other parties in her negotiations, rather than drafting red lines to appease her own radical Brexiteers.

    Worth noting too that in Dec 2019 a majority of the popular vote went to parties supporting a further referendum on Brexit.
    Correct. But what I will never understand is that May's red lines (and the EU's assessment of what form of brexit that inevitably meant) were known prior to the A50 vote. And yet that vote passed with a large majority. If remain MPs couldn't imagine supporting any deal based on May's red lines, what were they thinking voting to invoke A50?

    (Perhaps they just didn't grasp the issues: I watched the debates on May's deal, and virtually every backbench MP standing up seemed to have at least one basic misunderstanding in their question)
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 11,743
    Scott_xP said:

    ...

    … and Rishi’ll need to suckle at the teet too.


  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 47,316
    edited January 23

    Nigelb said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Nigelb said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Good on Boris Johnson. A devisive character for sure, but totally unwavering in his support for Ukraine and their people, in their time of need.

    Boris is a flawed character*: but he was right to invest in Covid vaccines, he was right to "get Brexit done"**, and he was right to back Ukraine.

    The country needs to move past him, but we shouldn't forget that he broadly got the big calls right.

    * This may be too kind.
    ** Sadly, this did involve quite a lot of dissimulation ***
    *** Or lying, as some would call it
    ** Also bears much if the responsibility for the shitshow in the first place. Brexit was a call he got hugely wrong, and it resulted in a wasted decade.*

    So broadly, not really.

    Also, given the string life science base of the country, and the advice given to government, would any other administration not have invested in vaccines ? Seems a bit unlikely.

    Ukraine I give him credit for. That was a genuine call, and a correct one.

    *Polling shows most of the country agreed with me.
    The country voted for Brexit. You may not like it, but they did. And it needed to be enacted, for good or for ill. Boris did that...
    Boris's lies were a significant part of the country voting for Brexit, so he bears responsibility for that call. And much of the mess - the rejection of May's deal, and the subsequent dud deal - which followed.

    I don't see how any of that amounts to "the right call" unless you're still one if the small band of believers in it all having worked out for the best.

    And it has wasted a decade.

    And to repeat, most of the country regrets the whole mess.
    My own top-level views on Brexit have not changed since before the vote:
    *) Britain could be a success within or without the EU.
    *) Britain could be a failure within or without the EU.

    Membership of the EU might make success easier or harder (depending on your viewpoint), but it is a small factor, not the cause.

    *If* we are failing as a country, it has little to do with Brexit, but on a while host of structural issues that are firmly under our control. If we had voted to remain in 2016, we would not be much better off...
    I don't really disagree with your first two paragraphs - except that they ignore the point that we've spent a decade, and most of the attention of government, on a process which you say is essentially irrelevant.

    And Boris is responsible, more than any other individual - both as instigator and saboteur - for how we have spent that decade.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 36,825

    Nigelb said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Nigelb said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Good on Boris Johnson. A devisive character for sure, but totally unwavering in his support for Ukraine and their people, in their time of need.

    Boris is a flawed character*: but he was right to invest in Covid vaccines, he was right to "get Brexit done"**, and he was right to back Ukraine.

    The country needs to move past him, but we shouldn't forget that he broadly got the big calls right.

    * This may be too kind.
    ** Sadly, this did involve quite a lot of dissimulation ***
    *** Or lying, as some would call it
    ** Also bears much if the responsibility for the shitshow in the first place. Brexit was a call he got hugely wrong, and it resulted in a wasted decade.*

    So broadly, not really.

    Also, given the string life science base of the country, and the advice given to government, would any other administration not have invested in vaccines ? Seems a bit unlikely.

    Ukraine I give him credit for. That was a genuine call, and a correct one.

    *Polling shows most of the country agreed with me.
    The country voted for Brexit. You may not like it, but they did. And it needed to be enacted, for good or for ill. Boris did that...
    Boris's lies were a significant part of the country voting for Brexit, so he bears responsibility for that call. And much of the mess - the rejection of May's deal, and the subsequent dud deal - which followed.

    I don't see how any of that amounts to "the right call" unless you're still one if the small band of believers in it all having worked out for the best.

    And it has wasted a decade.

    And to repeat, most of the country regrets the whole mess.
    My own top-level views on Brexit have not changed since before the vote:
    *) Britain could be a success within or without the EU.
    *) Britain could be a failure within or without the EU.

    Membership of the EU might make success easier or harder (depending on your viewpoint), but it is a small factor, not the cause.

    *If* we are failing as a country, it has little to do with Brexit, but on a while host of structural issues that are firmly under our control. If we had voted to remain in 2016, we would not be much better off.

    I'd also argue that pretending that all our issues are because of Brexit is singularly unhelpful, as it stops us examining those structural issues. It's the reverse of before Brexit, when Europhobes would blame all the country's failings on EU membership. That was nonsense. Likewise, it's nonsense to blame all the country's failings on the fact we left.
    I don't think all our economic malaise is due to Brexit, but it is delusional to deny that Brexit has done additional damage to hurt our economy. Brexit was a self inflicted wound, and the fact we voted for that self harm doesn't make it less of a wound.
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 1,477
    Foxy said:

    carnforth said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Nigelb said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Good on Boris Johnson. A devisive character for sure, but totally unwavering in his support for Ukraine and their people, in their time of need.

    Boris is a flawed character*: but he was right to invest in Covid vaccines, he was right to "get Brexit done"**, and he was right to back Ukraine.

    The country needs to move past him, but we shouldn't forget that he broadly got the big calls right.

    * This may be too kind.
    ** Sadly, this did involve quite a lot of dissimulation ***
    *** Or lying, as some would call it
    ** Also bears much if the responsibility for the shitshow in the first place. Brexit was a call he got hugely wrong, and it resulted in a wasted decade.*

    So broadly, not really.

    Also, given the string life science base of the country, and the advice given to government, would any other administration not have invested in vaccines ? Seems a bit unlikely.

    Ukraine I give him credit for. That was a genuine call, and a correct one.

    *Polling shows most of the country agreed with me.
    The country voted for Brexit. You may not like it, but they did. And it needed to be enacted, for good or for ill. Boris did that.

    On vaccines, it's a counterfactual so we can't ever truly know the alternative. But the UK did better earlier than others. Now, of course, the lead was a very short one, and pretty much everyone in the EU was done by summer 2021, but he did recognize the importance early and the UK did what they needed to.
    Brexit would have been passed by May if Boris had not theatrically rejected her deal without even bothering to read a single page.
    Or if remain MPs had realised that trying to overturn brexit was unconscionable and voted for May's deal on one of the three occasions it was presented to parliament, instead of trooping through the No lobby with the ERG so they could show off to each other and the public about how anti-brexit they were.
    Worth noting too that in Dec 2019 a majority of the popular vote went to parties supporting a further referendum on Brexit.
    Are you sure? Didn't the Lib Dems want to just repeal A50? A policy they chose to distinguish themselves from Labour?

  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 32,815
    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Nigelb said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Good on Boris Johnson. A devisive character for sure, but totally unwavering in his support for Ukraine and their people, in their time of need.

    Boris is a flawed character*: but he was right to invest in Covid vaccines, he was right to "get Brexit done"**, and he was right to back Ukraine.

    The country needs to move past him, but we shouldn't forget that he broadly got the big calls right.

    * This may be too kind.
    ** Sadly, this did involve quite a lot of dissimulation ***
    *** Or lying, as some would call it
    ** Also bears much if the responsibility for the shitshow in the first place. Brexit was a call he got hugely wrong, and it resulted in a wasted decade.*

    So broadly, not really.

    Also, given the string life science base of the country, and the advice given to government, would any other administration not have invested in vaccines ? Seems a bit unlikely.

    Ukraine I give him credit for. That was a genuine call, and a correct one.

    *Polling shows most of the country agreed with me.
    The country voted for Brexit. You may not like it, but they did. And it needed to be enacted, for good or for ill. Boris did that...
    Boris's lies were a significant part of the country voting for Brexit, so he bears responsibility for that call. And much of the mess - the rejection of May's deal, and the subsequent dud deal - which followed.

    I don't see how any of that amounts to "the right call" unless you're still one if the small band of believers in it all having worked out for the best.

    And it has wasted a decade.

    And to repeat, most of the country regrets the whole mess.
    My own top-level views on Brexit have not changed since before the vote:
    *) Britain could be a success within or without the EU.
    *) Britain could be a failure within or without the EU.

    Membership of the EU might make success easier or harder (depending on your viewpoint), but it is a small factor, not the cause.

    *If* we are failing as a country, it has little to do with Brexit, but on a while host of structural issues that are firmly under our control. If we had voted to remain in 2016, we would not be much better off...
    I don't really disagree with your first two paragraphs - except that they ignore the point that we've spent a decade, and most of the attention of government, on a process which you say is essentially irrelevant.

    And Boris is responsible, more than any other individual - both as instigator and saboteur - for how we have spent that decade.
    I probably disagree. 'Most' of the attention of government has not gone ion Brexit. The government has been doing a lot of other stuff, as they always do. The Brexit stuff is very visible, though.

    But let's have a counterfactual: *if* we had voted remain, the Brexiteers would not have gone away, and it is likely that a 2019 or 2020 GE would have been dominated by talk of Europe - which was always a side issue. Like in the 92-97 parliament, the government would have been paralysed by Europe from within.

    The problem is not Boris. The problem is not the EU. The problem is the way too many people on both sides take a relatively minor issue and project it into the MOST IMPORTANT issue facing the country.

    It really is not.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 32,815
    Foxy said:

    Nigelb said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Nigelb said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Good on Boris Johnson. A devisive character for sure, but totally unwavering in his support for Ukraine and their people, in their time of need.

    Boris is a flawed character*: but he was right to invest in Covid vaccines, he was right to "get Brexit done"**, and he was right to back Ukraine.

    The country needs to move past him, but we shouldn't forget that he broadly got the big calls right.

    * This may be too kind.
    ** Sadly, this did involve quite a lot of dissimulation ***
    *** Or lying, as some would call it
    ** Also bears much if the responsibility for the shitshow in the first place. Brexit was a call he got hugely wrong, and it resulted in a wasted decade.*

    So broadly, not really.

    Also, given the string life science base of the country, and the advice given to government, would any other administration not have invested in vaccines ? Seems a bit unlikely.

    Ukraine I give him credit for. That was a genuine call, and a correct one.

    *Polling shows most of the country agreed with me.
    The country voted for Brexit. You may not like it, but they did. And it needed to be enacted, for good or for ill. Boris did that...
    Boris's lies were a significant part of the country voting for Brexit, so he bears responsibility for that call. And much of the mess - the rejection of May's deal, and the subsequent dud deal - which followed.

    I don't see how any of that amounts to "the right call" unless you're still one if the small band of believers in it all having worked out for the best.

    And it has wasted a decade.

    And to repeat, most of the country regrets the whole mess.
    My own top-level views on Brexit have not changed since before the vote:
    *) Britain could be a success within or without the EU.
    *) Britain could be a failure within or without the EU.

    Membership of the EU might make success easier or harder (depending on your viewpoint), but it is a small factor, not the cause.

    *If* we are failing as a country, it has little to do with Brexit, but on a while host of structural issues that are firmly under our control. If we had voted to remain in 2016, we would not be much better off.

    I'd also argue that pretending that all our issues are because of Brexit is singularly unhelpful, as it stops us examining those structural issues. It's the reverse of before Brexit, when Europhobes would blame all the country's failings on EU membership. That was nonsense. Likewise, it's nonsense to blame all the country's failings on the fact we left.
    I don't think all our economic malaise is due to Brexit, but it is delusional to deny that Brexit has done additional damage to hurt our economy. Brexit was a self inflicted wound, and the fact we voted for that self harm doesn't make it less of a wound.
    I didn't say it has not caused additional damage. That was always going to be the case; there was going to be a period of adjustment (and a precious few Brexiteers said as much beforehand, although most ignored it). That is one of the reasons I voted remain, despite some euroscepticism.

    Brexit has been poorly handled, but even if it had been well handled, there would have been slight damage. But Brexit is not about the first five years after the split; it is about the next couple of decades. And sadly, the government does not appear to be addressing that.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 29,264
    @BBCr4today: 'We shouldn't be waiting around for him to resign. The Prime Minister should be sacking him'

    Lucy Powell, Shadow C… https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1617428565745713152
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 36,825
    carnforth said:

    Foxy said:

    carnforth said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Nigelb said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Good on Boris Johnson. A devisive character for sure, but totally unwavering in his support for Ukraine and their people, in their time of need.

    Boris is a flawed character*: but he was right to invest in Covid vaccines, he was right to "get Brexit done"**, and he was right to back Ukraine.

    The country needs to move past him, but we shouldn't forget that he broadly got the big calls right.

    * This may be too kind.
    ** Sadly, this did involve quite a lot of dissimulation ***
    *** Or lying, as some would call it
    ** Also bears much if the responsibility for the shitshow in the first place. Brexit was a call he got hugely wrong, and it resulted in a wasted decade.*

    So broadly, not really.

    Also, given the string life science base of the country, and the advice given to government, would any other administration not have invested in vaccines ? Seems a bit unlikely.

    Ukraine I give him credit for. That was a genuine call, and a correct one.

    *Polling shows most of the country agreed with me.
    The country voted for Brexit. You may not like it, but they did. And it needed to be enacted, for good or for ill. Boris did that.

    On vaccines, it's a counterfactual so we can't ever truly know the alternative. But the UK did better earlier than others. Now, of course, the lead was a very short one, and pretty much everyone in the EU was done by summer 2021, but he did recognize the importance early and the UK did what they needed to.
    Brexit would have been passed by May if Boris had not theatrically rejected her deal without even bothering to read a single page.
    Or if remain MPs had realised that trying to overturn brexit was unconscionable and voted for May's deal on one of the three occasions it was presented to parliament, instead of trooping through the No lobby with the ERG so they could show off to each other and the public about how anti-brexit they were.
    Worth noting too that in Dec 2019 a majority of the popular vote went to parties supporting a further referendum on Brexit.
    Are you sure? Didn't the Lib Dems want to just repeal A50? A policy they chose to distinguish themselves from Labour?

    The LD policy in the 2019 manifesto was to revoke A50 if forming an LD majority government (!!!), but in all other circumstances to support a further referendum including a Remain option.

    "The election of a Liberal Democrat majority government on a clear stop Brexit platform will provide a democratic mandate to stop this mess, revoke Article 50 and stay in the EU. In other circumstances, we will continue to fight for a people’s vote with the option to stay in the EU, and in that vote we would passionately campaign to keep the UK in the EU"

  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 29,264
    It does appear that Zahawi's dodgy financial dealings are distracting people from BoZo's dodgy financial dealings, which is not to Rishi's advantage.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 25,298
    Scott_xP said:

    @BBCr4today: 'We shouldn't be waiting around for him to resign. The Prime Minister should be sacking him'

    Lucy Powell, Shadow C… https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1617428565745713152

    Only the word "him" narrows it down.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 47,316

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Nigelb said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Good on Boris Johnson. A devisive character for sure, but totally unwavering in his support for Ukraine and their people, in their time of need.

    Boris is a flawed character*: but he was right to invest in Covid vaccines, he was right to "get Brexit done"**, and he was right to back Ukraine.

    The country needs to move past him, but we shouldn't forget that he broadly got the big calls right.

    * This may be too kind.
    ** Sadly, this did involve quite a lot of dissimulation ***
    *** Or lying, as some would call it
    ** Also bears much if the responsibility for the shitshow in the first place. Brexit was a call he got hugely wrong, and it resulted in a wasted decade.*

    So broadly, not really.

    Also, given the string life science base of the country, and the advice given to government, would any other administration not have invested in vaccines ? Seems a bit unlikely.

    Ukraine I give him credit for. That was a genuine call, and a correct one.

    *Polling shows most of the country agreed with me.
    The country voted for Brexit. You may not like it, but they did. And it needed to be enacted, for good or for ill. Boris did that...
    Boris's lies were a significant part of the country voting for Brexit, so he bears responsibility for that call. And much of the mess - the rejection of May's deal, and the subsequent dud deal - which followed.

    I don't see how any of that amounts to "the right call" unless you're still one if the small band of believers in it all having worked out for the best.

    And it has wasted a decade.

    And to repeat, most of the country regrets the whole mess.
    My own top-level views on Brexit have not changed since before the vote:
    *) Britain could be a success within or without the EU.
    *) Britain could be a failure within or without the EU.

    Membership of the EU might make success easier or harder (depending on your viewpoint), but it is a small factor, not the cause.

    *If* we are failing as a country, it has little to do with Brexit, but on a while host of structural issues that are firmly under our control. If we had voted to remain in 2016, we would not be much better off...
    I don't really disagree with your first two paragraphs - except that they ignore the point that we've spent a decade, and most of the attention of government, on a process which you say is essentially irrelevant.

    And Boris is responsible, more than any other individual - both as instigator and saboteur - for how we have spent that decade.
    I probably disagree. 'Most' of the attention of government has not gone on Brexit....
    We'll have to agree to disagree on that.

  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 36,825
    edited January 23

    Foxy said:

    Nigelb said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Nigelb said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Good on Boris Johnson. A devisive character for sure, but totally unwavering in his support for Ukraine and their people, in their time of need.

    Boris is a flawed character*: but he was right to invest in Covid vaccines, he was right to "get Brexit done"**, and he was right to back Ukraine.

    The country needs to move past him, but we shouldn't forget that he broadly got the big calls right.

    * This may be too kind.
    ** Sadly, this did involve quite a lot of dissimulation ***
    *** Or lying, as some would call it
    ** Also bears much if the responsibility for the shitshow in the first place. Brexit was a call he got hugely wrong, and it resulted in a wasted decade.*

    So broadly, not really.

    Also, given the string life science base of the country, and the advice given to government, would any other administration not have invested in vaccines ? Seems a bit unlikely.

    Ukraine I give him credit for. That was a genuine call, and a correct one.

    *Polling shows most of the country agreed with me.
    The country voted for Brexit. You may not like it, but they did. And it needed to be enacted, for good or for ill. Boris did that...
    Boris's lies were a significant part of the country voting for Brexit, so he bears responsibility for that call. And much of the mess - the rejection of May's deal, and the subsequent dud deal - which followed.

    I don't see how any of that amounts to "the right call" unless you're still one if the small band of believers in it all having worked out for the best.

    And it has wasted a decade.

    And to repeat, most of the country regrets the whole mess.
    My own top-level views on Brexit have not changed since before the vote:
    *) Britain could be a success within or without the EU.
    *) Britain could be a failure within or without the EU.

    Membership of the EU might make success easier or harder (depending on your viewpoint), but it is a small factor, not the cause.

    *If* we are failing as a country, it has little to do with Brexit, but on a while host of structural issues that are firmly under our control. If we had voted to remain in 2016, we would not be much better off.

    I'd also argue that pretending that all our issues are because of Brexit is singularly unhelpful, as it stops us examining those structural issues. It's the reverse of before Brexit, when Europhobes would blame all the country's failings on EU membership. That was nonsense. Likewise, it's nonsense to blame all the country's failings on the fact we left.
    I don't think all our economic malaise is due to Brexit, but it is delusional to deny that Brexit has done additional damage to hurt our economy. Brexit was a self inflicted wound, and the fact we voted for that self harm doesn't make it less of a wound.
    I didn't say it has not caused additional damage. That was always going to be the case; there was going to be a period of adjustment (and a precious few Brexiteers said as much beforehand, although most ignored it). That is one of the reasons I voted remain, despite some euroscepticism.

    Brexit has been poorly handled, but even if it had been well handled, there would have been slight damage. But Brexit is not about the first five years after the split; it is about the next couple of decades. And sadly, the government does not appear to be addressing that.
    Plenty of Brexiteers believed those sunny uplands were going to be immediate, for example:

    https://reaction.life/britain-looks-like-brexit/

    Would Britain have really voted Leave if Brexiteers had been clear that Brexit would involve years or decades of economic damage? Even now Brexiteers struggle to name any concrete economic advantage.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 32,815
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Nigelb said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Nigelb said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Good on Boris Johnson. A devisive character for sure, but totally unwavering in his support for Ukraine and their people, in their time of need.

    Boris is a flawed character*: but he was right to invest in Covid vaccines, he was right to "get Brexit done"**, and he was right to back Ukraine.

    The country needs to move past him, but we shouldn't forget that he broadly got the big calls right.

    * This may be too kind.
    ** Sadly, this did involve quite a lot of dissimulation ***
    *** Or lying, as some would call it
    ** Also bears much if the responsibility for the shitshow in the first place. Brexit was a call he got hugely wrong, and it resulted in a wasted decade.*

    So broadly, not really.

    Also, given the string life science base of the country, and the advice given to government, would any other administration not have invested in vaccines ? Seems a bit unlikely.

    Ukraine I give him credit for. That was a genuine call, and a correct one.

    *Polling shows most of the country agreed with me.
    The country voted for Brexit. You may not like it, but they did. And it needed to be enacted, for good or for ill. Boris did that...
    Boris's lies were a significant part of the country voting for Brexit, so he bears responsibility for that call. And much of the mess - the rejection of May's deal, and the subsequent dud deal - which followed.

    I don't see how any of that amounts to "the right call" unless you're still one if the small band of believers in it all having worked out for the best.

    And it has wasted a decade.

    And to repeat, most of the country regrets the whole mess.
    My own top-level views on Brexit have not changed since before the vote:
    *) Britain could be a success within or without the EU.
    *) Britain could be a failure within or without the EU.

    Membership of the EU might make success easier or harder (depending on your viewpoint), but it is a small factor, not the cause.

    *If* we are failing as a country, it has little to do with Brexit, but on a while host of structural issues that are firmly under our control. If we had voted to remain in 2016, we would not be much better off.

    I'd also argue that pretending that all our issues are because of Brexit is singularly unhelpful, as it stops us examining those structural issues. It's the reverse of before Brexit, when Europhobes would blame all the country's failings on EU membership. That was nonsense. Likewise, it's nonsense to blame all the country's failings on the fact we left.
    I don't think all our economic malaise is due to Brexit, but it is delusional to deny that Brexit has done additional damage to hurt our economy. Brexit was a self inflicted wound, and the fact we voted for that self harm doesn't make it less of a wound.
    I didn't say it has not caused additional damage. That was always going to be the case; there was going to be a period of adjustment (and a precious few Brexiteers said as much beforehand, although most ignored it). That is one of the reasons I voted remain, despite some euroscepticism.

    Brexit has been poorly handled, but even if it had been well handled, there would have been slight damage. But Brexit is not about the first five years after the split; it is about the next couple of decades. And sadly, the government does not appear to be addressing that.
    Plenty of Brexiteers believed those sunny uplands were going to be immediate, for example:

    https://reaction.life/britain-looks-like-brexit/

    Would Britain have really voted Leave if Brexiteers had been clear that Brexit would involve years or decades of economic damage? Even now Brexiteers struggle to name any concrete economic advantage.
    No, they would not. But Brexit did not have to be that way, either.

    IMV many of the issues come from the refusal of 'leave' to come up with a coherent plan *before* the vote. Instead, it was all vague and wishy-washy promises of sunny uplands. We're paying the consequences now.
  • Have to award the Tesco Chairman 12 out of 10 for both the chutzpah of his "the suppliers are coining it" statement and his success in getting a Daily Star front page which literally says the food companies are taking the public for a ride.

    Some of them are, that's obvious, and always have been. But it's the supermarkets who created the environment which drove so many farmers into the ground. And the supermarkets who have been so useless at reforming their own inefficiencies and thus trying to smash ever larger profit margins on cans of peas to cover their operational losses - something which efficient businesses like Aldi and Lidl don't suffer because they aren't as shitly run as Morrisons.

    I think the absolute Icarus moment of my career so far was sitting at the Sainsbury's supplier conference where their Commercial Director stood on stage berating all the suppliers in the audience. Our crime was that we were trading with Aldi and Lidl. Destroying Value. Threatening profits. "IT'S YOUR FAULT" he ranted.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 29,264

    IMV many of the issues come from the refusal of 'leave' to come up with a coherent plan *before* the vote.

    That was necessary to win the vote.

    The consequences are deliberate.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 3,664
    Scott_xP said:

    It does appear that Zahawi's dodgy financial dealings are distracting people from BoZo's dodgy financial dealings, which is not to Rishi's advantage.

    The BBC still seem to be fighting a brave rearguard action on Zahawi’s behalf this morning. In fact they’re giving him a better time than their own chairman over the loan.

    According to Today Zahawi was simply “settling a tax dispute” with HMRC that resulted in him paying more tax.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 47,316

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Nigelb said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Nigelb said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Good on Boris Johnson. A devisive character for sure, but totally unwavering in his support for Ukraine and their people, in their time of need.

    Boris is a flawed character*: but he was right to invest in Covid vaccines, he was right to "get Brexit done"**, and he was right to back Ukraine.

    The country needs to move past him, but we shouldn't forget that he broadly got the big calls right.

    * This may be too kind.
    ** Sadly, this did involve quite a lot of dissimulation ***
    *** Or lying, as some would call it
    ** Also bears much if the responsibility for the shitshow in the first place. Brexit was a call he got hugely wrong, and it resulted in a wasted decade.*

    So broadly, not really.

    Also, given the string life science base of the country, and the advice given to government, would any other administration not have invested in vaccines ? Seems a bit unlikely.

    Ukraine I give him credit for. That was a genuine call, and a correct one.

    *Polling shows most of the country agreed with me.
    The country voted for Brexit. You may not like it, but they did. And it needed to be enacted, for good or for ill. Boris did that...
    Boris's lies were a significant part of the country voting for Brexit, so he bears responsibility for that call. And much of the mess - the rejection of May's deal, and the subsequent dud deal - which followed.

    I don't see how any of that amounts to "the right call" unless you're still one if the small band of believers in it all having worked out for the best.

    And it has wasted a decade.

    And to repeat, most of the country regrets the whole mess.
    My own top-level views on Brexit have not changed since before the vote:
    *) Britain could be a success within or without the EU.
    *) Britain could be a failure within or without the EU.

    Membership of the EU might make success easier or harder (depending on your viewpoint), but it is a small factor, not the cause.

    *If* we are failing as a country, it has little to do with Brexit, but on a while host of structural issues that are firmly under our control. If we had voted to remain in 2016, we would not be much better off.

    I'd also argue that pretending that all our issues are because of Brexit is singularly unhelpful, as it stops us examining those structural issues. It's the reverse of before Brexit, when Europhobes would blame all the country's failings on EU membership. That was nonsense. Likewise, it's nonsense to blame all the country's failings on the fact we left.
    I don't think all our economic malaise is due to Brexit, but it is delusional to deny that Brexit has done additional damage to hurt our economy. Brexit was a self inflicted wound, and the fact we voted for that self harm doesn't make it less of a wound.
    I didn't say it has not caused additional damage. That was always going to be the case; there was going to be a period of adjustment (and a precious few Brexiteers said as much beforehand, although most ignored it). That is one of the reasons I voted remain, despite some euroscepticism.

    Brexit has been poorly handled, but even if it had been well handled, there would have been slight damage. But Brexit is not about the first five years after the split; it is about the next couple of decades. And sadly, the government does not appear to be addressing that.
    Plenty of Brexiteers believed those sunny uplands were going to be immediate, for example:

    https://reaction.life/britain-looks-like-brexit/

    Would Britain have really voted Leave if Brexiteers had been clear that Brexit would involve years or decades of economic damage? Even now Brexiteers struggle to name any concrete economic advantage.
    No, they would not. But Brexit did not have to be that way, either.

    IMV many of the issues come from the refusal of 'leave' to come up with a coherent plan *before* the vote. Instead, it was all vague and wishy-washy promises of sunny uplands. We're paying the consequences now.
    A current example of the enduring fatuity.
    ('Last' seems over optimistic to me.)

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jan/22/three-years-after-brexit-where-is-the-new-golden-age-that-they-promised-us
    ...The last and craziest hurrah of the Brextremists is the Retained EU Law bill, conceived by the ineffable Mr Rees-Mogg when he was still in the cabinet and Mr Johnson was still at Number 10. This proposes a mass cull of the EU laws that were turned into British law in the haste to get Brexit “done” and to do so by the end of this year – preserving only those laws that ministers choose to keep or adapt. The promoters of this undemocratic, rushed and reckless scheme are the same people who said that we had all the advantages in the withdrawal negotiations, that we would secure a superb deal and that Brexit would be brilliant for Britain. Now they propose a mission impossible, to review about 4,000 laws, covering everything from environmental protections to consumer rights, in less than a year at a time when the strains on the state are already acute. Business, the trade unions, civil servants and the government’s own assessor agree that it is madness...
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 20,506
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Nigelb said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Nigelb said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Good on Boris Johnson. A devisive character for sure, but totally unwavering in his support for Ukraine and their people, in their time of need.

    Boris is a flawed character*: but he was right to invest in Covid vaccines, he was right to "get Brexit done"**, and he was right to back Ukraine.

    The country needs to move past him, but we shouldn't forget that he broadly got the big calls right.

    * This may be too kind.
    ** Sadly, this did involve quite a lot of dissimulation ***
    *** Or lying, as some would call it
    ** Also bears much if the responsibility for the shitshow in the first place. Brexit was a call he got hugely wrong, and it resulted in a wasted decade.*

    So broadly, not really.

    Also, given the string life science base of the country, and the advice given to government, would any other administration not have invested in vaccines ? Seems a bit unlikely.

    Ukraine I give him credit for. That was a genuine call, and a correct one.

    *Polling shows most of the country agreed with me.
    The country voted for Brexit. You may not like it, but they did. And it needed to be enacted, for good or for ill. Boris did that...
    Boris's lies were a significant part of the country voting for Brexit, so he bears responsibility for that call. And much of the mess - the rejection of May's deal, and the subsequent dud deal - which followed.

    I don't see how any of that amounts to "the right call" unless you're still one if the small band of believers in it all having worked out for the best.

    And it has wasted a decade.

    And to repeat, most of the country regrets the whole mess.
    My own top-level views on Brexit have not changed since before the vote:
    *) Britain could be a success within or without the EU.
    *) Britain could be a failure within or without the EU.

    Membership of the EU might make success easier or harder (depending on your viewpoint), but it is a small factor, not the cause.

    *If* we are failing as a country, it has little to do with Brexit, but on a while host of structural issues that are firmly under our control. If we had voted to remain in 2016, we would not be much better off.

    I'd also argue that pretending that all our issues are because of Brexit is singularly unhelpful, as it stops us examining those structural issues. It's the reverse of before Brexit, when Europhobes would blame all the country's failings on EU membership. That was nonsense. Likewise, it's nonsense to blame all the country's failings on the fact we left.
    I don't think all our economic malaise is due to Brexit, but it is delusional to deny that Brexit has done additional damage to hurt our economy. Brexit was a self inflicted wound, and the fact we voted for that self harm doesn't make it less of a wound.
    I didn't say it has not caused additional damage. That was always going to be the case; there was going to be a period of adjustment (and a precious few Brexiteers said as much beforehand, although most ignored it). That is one of the reasons I voted remain, despite some euroscepticism.

    Brexit has been poorly handled, but even if it had been well handled, there would have been slight damage. But Brexit is not about the first five years after the split; it is about the next couple of decades. And sadly, the government does not appear to be addressing that.
    Plenty of Brexiteers believed those sunny uplands were going to be immediate, for example:

    https://reaction.life/britain-looks-like-brexit/

    Would Britain have really voted Leave if Brexiteers had been clear that Brexit would involve years or decades of economic damage? Even now Brexiteers struggle to name any concrete economic advantage.
    I think the assumption from all voters in the Brexit referendum, remain or leave, was that leaving entailed ceasing to be subject to European law, regulation, and overall direction of policy travel. Poor Government and exceedingly damaging administration have prevented that from happening. At all. It's absurd to complain of the lack of concrete advantages from 'leaving' when there is no meaningful sense in which we have actually left - except of course leaving the privileges of membership.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 17,634
    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Good on Boris Johnson. A devisive character for sure, but totally unwavering in his support for Ukraine and their people, in their time of need.

    Boris is a flawed character*: but he was right to invest in Covid vaccines, he was right to "get Brexit done"**, and he was right to back Ukraine.

    The country needs to move past him, but we shouldn't forget that he broadly got the big calls right.

    * This may be too kind.
    ** Sadly, this did involve quite a lot of dissimulation ***
    *** Or lying, as some would call it
    The Mussolini defense. I think I'm going to vomit.......
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 47,316

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Nigelb said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Nigelb said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Good on Boris Johnson. A devisive character for sure, but totally unwavering in his support for Ukraine and their people, in their time of need.

    Boris is a flawed character*: but he was right to invest in Covid vaccines, he was right to "get Brexit done"**, and he was right to back Ukraine.

    The country needs to move past him, but we shouldn't forget that he broadly got the big calls right.

    * This may be too kind.
    ** Sadly, this did involve quite a lot of dissimulation ***
    *** Or lying, as some would call it
    ** Also bears much if the responsibility for the shitshow in the first place. Brexit was a call he got hugely wrong, and it resulted in a wasted decade.*

    So broadly, not really.

    Also, given the string life science base of the country, and the advice given to government, would any other administration not have invested in vaccines ? Seems a bit unlikely.

    Ukraine I give him credit for. That was a genuine call, and a correct one.

    *Polling shows most of the country agreed with me.
    The country voted for Brexit. You may not like it, but they did. And it needed to be enacted, for good or for ill. Boris did that...
    Boris's lies were a significant part of the country voting for Brexit, so he bears responsibility for that call. And much of the mess - the rejection of May's deal, and the subsequent dud deal - which followed.

    I don't see how any of that amounts to "the right call" unless you're still one if the small band of believers in it all having worked out for the best.

    And it has wasted a decade.

    And to repeat, most of the country regrets the whole mess.
    My own top-level views on Brexit have not changed since before the vote:
    *) Britain could be a success within or without the EU.
    *) Britain could be a failure within or without the EU.

    Membership of the EU might make success easier or harder (depending on your viewpoint), but it is a small factor, not the cause.

    *If* we are failing as a country, it has little to do with Brexit, but on a while host of structural issues that are firmly under our control. If we had voted to remain in 2016, we would not be much better off.

    I'd also argue that pretending that all our issues are because of Brexit is singularly unhelpful, as it stops us examining those structural issues. It's the reverse of before Brexit, when Europhobes would blame all the country's failings on EU membership. That was nonsense. Likewise, it's nonsense to blame all the country's failings on the fact we left.
    I don't think all our economic malaise is due to Brexit, but it is delusional to deny that Brexit has done additional damage to hurt our economy. Brexit was a self inflicted wound, and the fact we voted for that self harm doesn't make it less of a wound.
    I didn't say it has not caused additional damage. That was always going to be the case; there was going to be a period of adjustment (and a precious few Brexiteers said as much beforehand, although most ignored it). That is one of the reasons I voted remain, despite some euroscepticism.

    Brexit has been poorly handled, but even if it had been well handled, there would have been slight damage. But Brexit is not about the first five years after the split; it is about the next couple of decades. And sadly, the government does not appear to be addressing that.
    Plenty of Brexiteers believed those sunny uplands were going to be immediate, for example:

    https://reaction.life/britain-looks-like-brexit/

    Would Britain have really voted Leave if Brexiteers had been clear that Brexit would involve years or decades of economic damage? Even now Brexiteers struggle to name any concrete economic advantage.
    No, they would not. But Brexit did not have to be that way, either.

    IMV many of the issues come from the refusal of 'leave' to come up with a coherent plan *before* the vote. Instead, it was all vague and wishy-washy promises of sunny uplands. We're paying the consequences now.
    Well, yes.
    But it's questionable whether there would have been a yes vote had there been a single prospectus.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 32,815
    Nigelb said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Nigelb said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Nigelb said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Good on Boris Johnson. A devisive character for sure, but totally unwavering in his support for Ukraine and their people, in their time of need.

    Boris is a flawed character*: but he was right to invest in Covid vaccines, he was right to "get Brexit done"**, and he was right to back Ukraine.

    The country needs to move past him, but we shouldn't forget that he broadly got the big calls right.

    * This may be too kind.
    ** Sadly, this did involve quite a lot of dissimulation ***
    *** Or lying, as some would call it
    ** Also bears much if the responsibility for the shitshow in the first place. Brexit was a call he got hugely wrong, and it resulted in a wasted decade.*

    So broadly, not really.

    Also, given the string life science base of the country, and the advice given to government, would any other administration not have invested in vaccines ? Seems a bit unlikely.

    Ukraine I give him credit for. That was a genuine call, and a correct one.

    *Polling shows most of the country agreed with me.
    The country voted for Brexit. You may not like it, but they did. And it needed to be enacted, for good or for ill. Boris did that...
    Boris's lies were a significant part of the country voting for Brexit, so he bears responsibility for that call. And much of the mess - the rejection of May's deal, and the subsequent dud deal - which followed.

    I don't see how any of that amounts to "the right call" unless you're still one if the small band of believers in it all having worked out for the best.

    And it has wasted a decade.

    And to repeat, most of the country regrets the whole mess.
    My own top-level views on Brexit have not changed since before the vote:
    *) Britain could be a success within or without the EU.
    *) Britain could be a failure within or without the EU.

    Membership of the EU might make success easier or harder (depending on your viewpoint), but it is a small factor, not the cause.

    *If* we are failing as a country, it has little to do with Brexit, but on a while host of structural issues that are firmly under our control. If we had voted to remain in 2016, we would not be much better off.

    I'd also argue that pretending that all our issues are because of Brexit is singularly unhelpful, as it stops us examining those structural issues. It's the reverse of before Brexit, when Europhobes would blame all the country's failings on EU membership. That was nonsense. Likewise, it's nonsense to blame all the country's failings on the fact we left.
    I don't think all our economic malaise is due to Brexit, but it is delusional to deny that Brexit has done additional damage to hurt our economy. Brexit was a self inflicted wound, and the fact we voted for that self harm doesn't make it less of a wound.
    I didn't say it has not caused additional damage. That was always going to be the case; there was going to be a period of adjustment (and a precious few Brexiteers said as much beforehand, although most ignored it). That is one of the reasons I voted remain, despite some euroscepticism.

    Brexit has been poorly handled, but even if it had been well handled, there would have been slight damage. But Brexit is not about the first five years after the split; it is about the next couple of decades. And sadly, the government does not appear to be addressing that.
    Plenty of Brexiteers believed those sunny uplands were going to be immediate, for example:

    https://reaction.life/britain-looks-like-brexit/

    Would Britain have really voted Leave if Brexiteers had been clear that Brexit would involve years or decades of economic damage? Even now Brexiteers struggle to name any concrete economic advantage.
    No, they would not. But Brexit did not have to be that way, either.

    IMV many of the issues come from the refusal of 'leave' to come up with a coherent plan *before* the vote. Instead, it was all vague and wishy-washy promises of sunny uplands. We're paying the consequences now.
    Well, yes.
    But it's questionable whether there would have been a yes vote had there been a single prospectus.
    Indeed. Which was why they did not do so. Leave was a very broad church.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 11,240
    Apparently Ukraine have received T-72 tanks from Morocco. That happened quietly and without fanfare.

    I wonder what other support, like that from Bulgaria early on, has also been provided unobtrusively?
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 29,264
    Nigelb said:

    But it's questionable whether there would have been a yes vote had there been a single prospectus.

    There is no question
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 11,743
    Roger said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Good on Boris Johnson. A devisive character for sure, but totally unwavering in his support for Ukraine and their people, in their time of need.

    Boris is a flawed character*: but he was right to invest in Covid vaccines, he was right to "get Brexit done"**, and he was right to back Ukraine.

    The country needs to move past him, but we shouldn't forget that he broadly got the big calls right.

    * This may be too kind.
    ** Sadly, this did involve quite a lot of dissimulation ***
    *** Or lying, as some would call it
    The Mussolini defense. I think I'm going to vomit.......
    The Oaf thinks he’s Churchill, but he’s actually Il Duce.
  • Foxy said:

    Nigelb said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Nigelb said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Good on Boris Johnson. A devisive character for sure, but totally unwavering in his support for Ukraine and their people, in their time of need.

    Boris is a flawed character*: but he was right to invest in Covid vaccines, he was right to "get Brexit done"**, and he was right to back Ukraine.

    The country needs to move past him, but we shouldn't forget that he broadly got the big calls right.

    * This may be too kind.
    ** Sadly, this did involve quite a lot of dissimulation ***
    *** Or lying, as some would call it
    ** Also bears much if the responsibility for the shitshow in the first place. Brexit was a call he got hugely wrong, and it resulted in a wasted decade.*

    So broadly, not really.

    Also, given the string life science base of the country, and the advice given to government, would any other administration not have invested in vaccines ? Seems a bit unlikely.

    Ukraine I give him credit for. That was a genuine call, and a correct one.

    *Polling shows most of the country agreed with me.
    The country voted for Brexit. You may not like it, but they did. And it needed to be enacted, for good or for ill. Boris did that...
    Boris's lies were a significant part of the country voting for Brexit, so he bears responsibility for that call. And much of the mess - the rejection of May's deal, and the subsequent dud deal - which followed.

    I don't see how any of that amounts to "the right call" unless you're still one if the small band of believers in it all having worked out for the best.

    And it has wasted a decade.

    And to repeat, most of the country regrets the whole mess.
    My own top-level views on Brexit have not changed since before the vote:
    *) Britain could be a success within or without the EU.
    *) Britain could be a failure within or without the EU.

    Membership of the EU might make success easier or harder (depending on your viewpoint), but it is a small factor, not the cause.

    *If* we are failing as a country, it has little to do with Brexit, but on a while host of structural issues that are firmly under our control. If we had voted to remain in 2016, we would not be much better off.

    I'd also argue that pretending that all our issues are because of Brexit is singularly unhelpful, as it stops us examining those structural issues. It's the reverse of before Brexit, when Europhobes would blame all the country's failings on EU membership. That was nonsense. Likewise, it's nonsense to blame all the country's failings on the fact we left.
    I don't think all our economic malaise is due to Brexit, but it is delusional to deny that Brexit has done additional damage to hurt our economy. Brexit was a self inflicted wound, and the fact we voted for that self harm doesn't make it less of a wound.
    I didn't say it has not caused additional damage. That was always going to be the case; there was going to be a period of adjustment (and a precious few Brexiteers said as much beforehand, although most ignored it). That is one of the reasons I voted remain, despite some euroscepticism.

    Brexit has been poorly handled, but even if it had been well handled, there would have been slight damage. But Brexit is not about the first five years after the split; it is about the next couple of decades. And sadly, the government does not appear to be addressing that.
    There's an elite version of Brexit which is about the next few decades and the possibilities for Free Britain to do things in a different better way. But by itself that would have lost.

    The mainstream campaign was that there is a huge flow of money going to Brussels which would be better spent on us (and not on them) here and now. Another bit of furniture we could chuck on the fire, another bag of seedcorn we could eat.

    That's happened, but not left us transformatively happier. Partly because the amount of money involved wasn't as huge as was implied (see also Foreign Aid) but also because the membership fee unlocked benefits for the UK.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 29,264
    @SkyNews: Lord Kerslake, the former head of the Civil Service, says there should be an independent investigation into the BBC… https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1617437101624016898
  • Apparently Ukraine have received T-72 tanks from Morocco. That happened quietly and without fanfare.

    I wonder what other support, like that from Bulgaria early on, has also been provided unobtrusively?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_foreign_aid_to_Ukraine_during_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War

    Sudan is one of the more unlikely providers of military aid to Ukraine.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 8,345
    edited January 23
    I don't think Boris or the chair of the BBC know what conflict of interest means. I think they think it means acting upon the conflict rather than it just existing. Otherwise how do they explain them denying a conflict exists.
  • Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Nigelb said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Nigelb said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Good on Boris Johnson. A devisive character for sure, but totally unwavering in his support for Ukraine and their people, in their time of need.

    Boris is a flawed character*: but he was right to invest in Covid vaccines, he was right to "get Brexit done"**, and he was right to back Ukraine.

    The country needs to move past him, but we shouldn't forget that he broadly got the big calls right.

    * This may be too kind.
    ** Sadly, this did involve quite a lot of dissimulation ***
    *** Or lying, as some would call it
    ** Also bears much if the responsibility for the shitshow in the first place. Brexit was a call he got hugely wrong, and it resulted in a wasted decade.*

    So broadly, not really.

    Also, given the string life science base of the country, and the advice given to government, would any other administration not have invested in vaccines ? Seems a bit unlikely.

    Ukraine I give him credit for. That was a genuine call, and a correct one.

    *Polling shows most of the country agreed with me.
    The country voted for Brexit. You may not like it, but they did. And it needed to be enacted, for good or for ill. Boris did that...
    Boris's lies were a significant part of the country voting for Brexit, so he bears responsibility for that call. And much of the mess - the rejection of May's deal, and the subsequent dud deal - which followed.

    I don't see how any of that amounts to "the right call" unless you're still one if the small band of believers in it all having worked out for the best.

    And it has wasted a decade.

    And to repeat, most of the country regrets the whole mess.
    My own top-level views on Brexit have not changed since before the vote:
    *) Britain could be a success within or without the EU.
    *) Britain could be a failure within or without the EU.

    Membership of the EU might make success easier or harder (depending on your viewpoint), but it is a small factor, not the cause.

    *If* we are failing as a country, it has little to do with Brexit, but on a while host of structural issues that are firmly under our control. If we had voted to remain in 2016, we would not be much better off.

    I'd also argue that pretending that all our issues are because of Brexit is singularly unhelpful, as it stops us examining those structural issues. It's the reverse of before Brexit, when Europhobes would blame all the country's failings on EU membership. That was nonsense. Likewise, it's nonsense to blame all the country's failings on the fact we left.
    I don't think all our economic malaise is due to Brexit, but it is delusional to deny that Brexit has done additional damage to hurt our economy. Brexit was a self inflicted wound, and the fact we voted for that self harm doesn't make it less of a wound.
    I didn't say it has not caused additional damage. That was always going to be the case; there was going to be a period of adjustment (and a precious few Brexiteers said as much beforehand, although most ignored it). That is one of the reasons I voted remain, despite some euroscepticism.

    Brexit has been poorly handled, but even if it had been well handled, there would have been slight damage. But Brexit is not about the first five years after the split; it is about the next couple of decades. And sadly, the government does not appear to be addressing that.
    Plenty of Brexiteers believed those sunny uplands were going to be immediate, for example:

    https://reaction.life/britain-looks-like-brexit/

    Would Britain have really voted Leave if Brexiteers had been clear that Brexit would involve years or decades of economic damage? Even now Brexiteers struggle to name any concrete economic advantage.
    I think the assumption from all voters in the Brexit referendum, remain or leave, was that leaving entailed ceasing to be subject to European law, regulation, and overall direction of policy travel. Poor Government and exceedingly damaging administration have prevented that from happening. At all. It's absurd to complain of the lack of concrete advantages from 'leaving' when there is no meaningful sense in which we have actually left - except of course leaving the privileges of membership.
    You do have a rather fundamental problem with this argument though. "Scrap the EU laws and regulations and the benefits will arrive". Which is the Singapore-on-Thames Brexit argument - bin off all those EU red tape barriers which stop us making workplaces more dangerous and workers easier to exploit and we can get richer.

    Problem is that Leave only won because the Workers Republic of Britain voters supported Brexit so that they could get paid more and have better workplaces. What you want directly conflicts with what they want.

    Which is why "BREXIT" would always fail long after we delivered Brexit - leaving the EU. I know that Rees-Mog and the spiv class want to be able to cut nanny-state red tape and worker protections, but the workers won't vote for you in thanks...
  • Nigelb said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Nigelb said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Nigelb said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Good on Boris Johnson. A devisive character for sure, but totally unwavering in his support for Ukraine and their people, in their time of need.

    Boris is a flawed character*: but he was right to invest in Covid vaccines, he was right to "get Brexit done"**, and he was right to back Ukraine.

    The country needs to move past him, but we shouldn't forget that he broadly got the big calls right.

    * This may be too kind.
    ** Sadly, this did involve quite a lot of dissimulation ***
    *** Or lying, as some would call it
    ** Also bears much if the responsibility for the shitshow in the first place. Brexit was a call he got hugely wrong, and it resulted in a wasted decade.*

    So broadly, not really.

    Also, given the string life science base of the country, and the advice given to government, would any other administration not have invested in vaccines ? Seems a bit unlikely.

    Ukraine I give him credit for. That was a genuine call, and a correct one.

    *Polling shows most of the country agreed with me.
    The country voted for Brexit. You may not like it, but they did. And it needed to be enacted, for good or for ill. Boris did that...
    Boris's lies were a significant part of the country voting for Brexit, so he bears responsibility for that call. And much of the mess - the rejection of May's deal, and the subsequent dud deal - which followed.

    I don't see how any of that amounts to "the right call" unless you're still one if the small band of believers in it all having worked out for the best.

    And it has wasted a decade.

    And to repeat, most of the country regrets the whole mess.
    My own top-level views on Brexit have not changed since before the vote:
    *) Britain could be a success within or without the EU.
    *) Britain could be a failure within or without the EU.

    Membership of the EU might make success easier or harder (depending on your viewpoint), but it is a small factor, not the cause.

    *If* we are failing as a country, it has little to do with Brexit, but on a while host of structural issues that are firmly under our control. If we had voted to remain in 2016, we would not be much better off.

    I'd also argue that pretending that all our issues are because of Brexit is singularly unhelpful, as it stops us examining those structural issues. It's the reverse of before Brexit, when Europhobes would blame all the country's failings on EU membership. That was nonsense. Likewise, it's nonsense to blame all the country's failings on the fact we left.
    I don't think all our economic malaise is due to Brexit, but it is delusional to deny that Brexit has done additional damage to hurt our economy. Brexit was a self inflicted wound, and the fact we voted for that self harm doesn't make it less of a wound.
    I didn't say it has not caused additional damage. That was always going to be the case; there was going to be a period of adjustment (and a precious few Brexiteers said as much beforehand, although most ignored it). That is one of the reasons I voted remain, despite some euroscepticism.

    Brexit has been poorly handled, but even if it had been well handled, there would have been slight damage. But Brexit is not about the first five years after the split; it is about the next couple of decades. And sadly, the government does not appear to be addressing that.
    Plenty of Brexiteers believed those sunny uplands were going to be immediate, for example:

    https://reaction.life/britain-looks-like-brexit/

    Would Britain have really voted Leave if Brexiteers had been clear that Brexit would involve years or decades of economic damage? Even now Brexiteers struggle to name any concrete economic advantage.
    No, they would not. But Brexit did not have to be that way, either.

    IMV many of the issues come from the refusal of 'leave' to come up with a coherent plan *before* the vote. Instead, it was all vague and wishy-washy promises of sunny uplands. We're paying the consequences now.
    Well, yes.
    But it's questionable whether there would have been a yes vote had there been a single prospectus.
    Indeed. Which was why they did not do so. Leave was a very broad church.
    It was cleverer than that. There were two different churches, with very different styles (and often bickering with each other in public) funneling souls to the same place. Whether that place was the good place or the bad place, I'll leave to your collective wits.

    A bit like the way that British Airways tried to run a low cost airline in competition with itself, except that it worked.

    So Vote Leave could do the "Farage goes too far, we love Europe but hate the EU" stuff, knowing that Leave.eu would pick up the "hate Europe and Europeans" voters anyway.

    (I'd be surprised if it were deliberate, but in a one shot referendum, it worked brilliantly.)
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 59,869
    Good morning, everyone.

    It remains very odd Cameron did not require an alternative prospectus in the referendum, as it would've been both legitimate and helpful for his own side. Leave would almost certainly have lost.

    But there we are.
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 6,260
    edited January 23
    Why did we vote Yes to Brexit. One word, and the word was 'Arrogance.'

    Tony led the way. We don't need to delay things on immigration, they're only racists. The Tories were as bad. We told you from the beginning that it wasn't just an economic union, you should have listened better.

    When was telling voters they were wrong and you know better ever a recipe for success?

    To be fair, the EU have a better class of thieves. Bribing ministers with suitcases of notes is old-fashioned, but classy.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 47,316
    Look at what you started, Robert. :smile:
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 19,093
    Scott_xP said:

    It does appear that Zahawi's dodgy financial dealings are distracting people from BoZo's dodgy financial dealings, which is not to Rishi's advantage.

    Sunak is sunk.

    Johnson's Chancellor Zahawi negotiated a deal for unpaid taxes whilst he was in office, Johnson arranged for personal liquidity whilst PM which involved all kinds of odd arrangements with people with vested interests.

    Yes Sunak is finished, not in small part due to Johnson's shenanigans, so enter PM Johnson stage right. It's a comedy of errors.

    For those of us who can't see Emperor Johnson's new clothes his visits to Kyiv at moments of Sunakian weakness do look suspicious, but then I suppose if the side effect of Johnson's manouvres accelerate a Russian defeat, what's the harm in that.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 32,815

    Apparently Ukraine have received T-72 tanks from Morocco. That happened quietly and without fanfare.

    I wonder what other support, like that from Bulgaria early on, has also been provided unobtrusively?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_foreign_aid_to_Ukraine_during_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War

    Sudan is one of the more unlikely providers of military aid to Ukraine.
    I quite like the Vatican City's contribution:

    "As of March 2022, the Vatican has sent two Cardinals to Ukraine to provide "material and spiritual support" to the Ukrainian people."

    I get this image of Reverend Philip Shooter from Hot Fuzz...

    " Stop! Stop this, please! Let us stop this mindless violence! Putin my son, you may not be a man of God, but surely you are a man of peace."

    Before blasting away with their guns.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 11,240

    Apparently Ukraine have received T-72 tanks from Morocco. That happened quietly and without fanfare.

    I wonder what other support, like that from Bulgaria early on, has also been provided unobtrusively?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_foreign_aid_to_Ukraine_during_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War

    Sudan is one of the more unlikely providers of military aid to Ukraine.
    After all the fuss about the Polish jets, North Macedonia is down as having provided four Su-25 jets last summer.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 32,815

    Apparently Ukraine have received T-72 tanks from Morocco. That happened quietly and without fanfare.

    I wonder what other support, like that from Bulgaria early on, has also been provided unobtrusively?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_foreign_aid_to_Ukraine_during_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War

    Sudan is one of the more unlikely providers of military aid to Ukraine.
    After all the fuss about the Polish jets, North Macedonia is down as having provided four Su-25 jets last summer.
    There are rumours about Dutch F16's potentially going to Ukraine, which may be a bit of a game-changer if Ukraien have enough pilots. Also a (so far false) claim that the UK will send Apaches.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 6,778
    CD13 said:

    Why did we vote Yes to Brexit. One word, and the word was 'Arrogance.'

    Tony led the way. We don't need to delay things on immigration, they're only racists. The Tories were as bad. We told you from the beginning that it wasn't just an economic union, you should have listened better.

    When was telling voters they were wrong and you know better ever a recipe for success?

    To be fair, the EU have a better class of thieves. Bribing ministers with suitcases of notes is old-fashioned, but classy.

    Yes. And a supreme arrogance was the habit of not holding, or holding and then ignoring or reholding, referendums.

    It remains the case that in 2016 no good outcome was available, due to 40 years of voter ignoring arrogance, and still that is so.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 29,264
    @JenniferMerode: It's 10 years to the day since David Cameron promised an in/out referendum on the UK's EU membership "to settle thi… https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1617443644968996865
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 11,240

    Good morning, everyone.

    It remains very odd Cameron did not require an alternative prospectus in the referendum, as it would've been both legitimate and helpful for his own side. Leave would almost certainly have lost.

    But there we are.

    Surely Leave would have had a plan of, "we'll agree a great trade deal with the EU so that we can keep all the good bits of membership and junk the bad."

    How would you stop them?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 59,869
    Mr. Password, Leave would have to spell out if we'd be in the EEA/EFTA or not, whether we'd be closely aligned, far apart, or somewhere in between etc etc.

    Because this was not the case, it was a lot easier to kick the EU, as politicians have not done a good job of making the case for it, the Lisbon deception did not engender voter trust, and the Leave campaign was able to make differing cases to different voters.

    Mind you, if Remain had run a campaign that wasn't incredibly bad, they still would've won...
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 19,093

    Good morning, everyone.

    It remains very odd Cameron did not require an alternative prospectus in the referendum, as it would've been both legitimate and helpful for his own side. Leave would almost certainly have lost.

    But there we are.

    Cameron thought he couldn't lose on "in" or "out", such was the man's arrogance. Still it gave us 3 years of Prime Minister Boris Johnson comedy gold with some more on the way it seems
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 6,778

    Good morning, everyone.

    It remains very odd Cameron did not require an alternative prospectus in the referendum, as it would've been both legitimate and helpful for his own side. Leave would almost certainly have lost.

    But there we are.

    If I have understood this point correctly the answer is that a prospectus or manifesto is only meaningful if issued by an outfit with the potential to carry it out (a political party seeking power, or an embryonic venture seeking capital). This was not possible.

    As a result parliament had a unique opportunity to serve the nation after the 2016 result by massively coalescing around a decent outcome without regard to political party. Well as it happens this didn't quite work,......

  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 37,544
    Brexit in and of itself has not created any additional problems for the UK, but the version of it chosen by this government clearly has. And in reducing growth it has made dealing with the many challenges that the UK faces, ones also confronting most other European countries, that much harder. There is no point in refighting the referendum, but there is a point in recognising the fundamentalists who’ve been calling the shots since 2019 got it horribly wrong and then doing something about it. Obviously, that can only happen once the fundamentalists no longer matter, so it means we need a new, non-Tory government.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 11,240

    Mr. Password, Leave would have to spell out if we'd be in the EEA/EFTA or not, whether we'd be closely aligned, far apart, or somewhere in between etc etc.

    Because this was not the case, it was a lot easier to kick the EU, as politicians have not done a good job of making the case for it, the Lisbon deception did not engender voter trust, and the Leave campaign was able to make differing cases to different voters.

    Mind you, if Remain had run a campaign that wasn't incredibly bad, they still would've won...

    They really wouldn't have had to choose, because they'd be able to say that they would negotiate a great trade deal which had all the free trade benefits of access to the single market with none of the constraints. The difficult choices only come later in actual negotiations, when there's a counterparty willing to say no.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 29,264
    @nicholascecil: Labour predicting Nadhim Zahawi will be axed as Tory chairman within hours..shadow business secretary Jonathan Reyn… https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1617445450725957632
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 37,544

    Scott_xP said:

    It does appear that Zahawi's dodgy financial dealings are distracting people from BoZo's dodgy financial dealings, which is not to Rishi's advantage.

    Sunak is sunk.

    Johnson's Chancellor Zahawi negotiated a deal for unpaid taxes whilst he was in office, Johnson arranged for personal liquidity whilst PM which involved all kinds of odd arrangements with people with vested interests.

    Yes Sunak is finished, not in small part due to Johnson's shenanigans, so enter PM Johnson stage right. It's a comedy of errors.

    For those of us who can't see Emperor Johnson's new clothes his visits to Kyiv at moments of Sunakian weakness do look suspicious, but then I suppose if the side effect of Johnson's manouvres accelerate a Russian defeat, what's the harm in that.
    A backbench MP going to Kyiv is not showing leadership. He is merely demonstrating high-level self-regard.

  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 11,036
    Daily Mail lead story is an interesting one. I'm guessing that a lot more of their readers are getting more out of the state than they pay in (especially if they're pensioners) while few of them are among the poor benighted top 10% of earners.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 38,072

    Foxy said:

    Nigelb said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Nigelb said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Good on Boris Johnson. A devisive character for sure, but totally unwavering in his support for Ukraine and their people, in their time of need.

    Boris is a flawed character*: but he was right to invest in Covid vaccines, he was right to "get Brexit done"**, and he was right to back Ukraine.

    The country needs to move past him, but we shouldn't forget that he broadly got the big calls right.

    * This may be too kind.
    ** Sadly, this did involve quite a lot of dissimulation ***
    *** Or lying, as some would call it
    ** Also bears much if the responsibility for the shitshow in the first place. Brexit was a call he got hugely wrong, and it resulted in a wasted decade.*

    So broadly, not really.

    Also, given the string life science base of the country, and the advice given to government, would any other administration not have invested in vaccines ? Seems a bit unlikely.

    Ukraine I give him credit for. That was a genuine call, and a correct one.

    *Polling shows most of the country agreed with me.
    The country voted for Brexit. You may not like it, but they did. And it needed to be enacted, for good or for ill. Boris did that...
    Boris's lies were a significant part of the country voting for Brexit, so he bears responsibility for that call. And much of the mess - the rejection of May's deal, and the subsequent dud deal - which followed.

    I don't see how any of that amounts to "the right call" unless you're still one if the small band of believers in it all having worked out for the best.

    And it has wasted a decade.

    And to repeat, most of the country regrets the whole mess.
    My own top-level views on Brexit have not changed since before the vote:
    *) Britain could be a success within or without the EU.
    *) Britain could be a failure within or without the EU.

    Membership of the EU might make success easier or harder (depending on your viewpoint), but it is a small factor, not the cause.

    *If* we are failing as a country, it has little to do with Brexit, but on a while host of structural issues that are firmly under our control. If we had voted to remain in 2016, we would not be much better off.

    I'd also argue that pretending that all our issues are because of Brexit is singularly unhelpful, as it stops us examining those structural issues. It's the reverse of before Brexit, when Europhobes would blame all the country's failings on EU membership. That was nonsense. Likewise, it's nonsense to blame all the country's failings on the fact we left.
    I don't think all our economic malaise is due to Brexit, but it is delusional to deny that Brexit has done additional damage to hurt our economy. Brexit was a self inflicted wound, and the fact we voted for that self harm doesn't make it less of a wound.
    I didn't say it has not caused additional damage. That was always going to be the case; there was going to be a period of adjustment (and a precious few Brexiteers said as much beforehand, although most ignored it). That is one of the reasons I voted remain, despite some euroscepticism.

    Brexit has been poorly handled, but even if it had been well handled, there would have been slight damage. But Brexit is not about the first five years after the split; it is about the next couple of decades. And sadly, the government does not appear to be addressing that.
    There's an elite version of Brexit which is about the next few decades and the possibilities for Free Britain to do things in a different better way. But by itself that would have lost.

    The mainstream campaign was that there is a huge flow of money going to Brussels which would be better spent on us (and not on them) here and now. Another bit of furniture we could chuck on the fire, another bag of seedcorn we could eat.

    That's happened, but not left us transformatively happier. Partly because the amount of money involved wasn't as huge as was implied (see also Foreign Aid) but also because the membership fee unlocked benefits for the UK.
    Yes and all the money went into the pockets of the tories and their chums.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 42,503

    Apparently Ukraine have received T-72 tanks from Morocco. That happened quietly and without fanfare.

    I wonder what other support, like that from Bulgaria early on, has also been provided unobtrusively?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_foreign_aid_to_Ukraine_during_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War

    Sudan is one of the more unlikely providers of military aid to Ukraine.
    After all the fuss about the Polish jets, North Macedonia is down as having provided four Su-25 jets last summer.
    There are rumours about Dutch F16's potentially going to Ukraine, which may be a bit of a game-changer if Ukraien have enough pilots. Also a (so far false) claim that the UK will send Apaches.
    I’d be surprised if NATO F-16s are heading to Ukraine, but over the moon if they were. There’s thousands of them available if required, and if they can get Ukranians trained on them. It’s not just pilots though, it’s also the maintenance crews and the various weapons systems. Perhaps the F-16 is old enough now, that the Americans won’t be too upset if one ends up shot down and in Russian hands.

    Tank warfare with modern tanks does require air superiority though, the Ukranians need to be able to fly the line and hold their airspace.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 37,544
    I understand the BBC news team is currently deciding which member of Nadhim Zahawi’s close family to invite onto the Kuenssberg show next Sunday to comment on his tax affairs.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 3,639

    Off Topic - Am obliged to PBer who pointed out, that Queen Victoria was named in honor (if that's the word) of Victoria Station.

    Now IF someone can say WHY London has a train station named after a saint who was named after a (misspelled) bodily organ - St Pancr(e)as?

    Because that was the parish that it was built in

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_Pancras_Old_Church
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 19,093

    Scott_xP said:

    It does appear that Zahawi's dodgy financial dealings are distracting people from BoZo's dodgy financial dealings, which is not to Rishi's advantage.

    Sunak is sunk.

    Johnson's Chancellor Zahawi negotiated a deal for unpaid taxes whilst he was in office, Johnson arranged for personal liquidity whilst PM which involved all kinds of odd arrangements with people with vested interests.

    Yes Sunak is finished, not in small part due to Johnson's shenanigans, so enter PM Johnson stage right. It's a comedy of errors.

    For those of us who can't see Emperor Johnson's new clothes his visits to Kyiv at moments of Sunakian weakness do look suspicious, but then I suppose if the side effect of Johnson's manouvres accelerate a Russian defeat, what's the harm in that.
    A backbench MP going to Kyiv is not showing leadership. He is merely demonstrating high-level self-regard.

    A backbencher who has made all the front pages today.

    A previously self-serving narcissist, who I was assured on this board yesterday has changed and is visiting Kyiv for purely altruistic purposes. Colour me skeptical.
  • Mr. Password, Leave would have to spell out if we'd be in the EEA/EFTA or not, whether we'd be closely aligned, far apart, or somewhere in between etc etc.

    Because this was not the case, it was a lot easier to kick the EU, as politicians have not done a good job of making the case for it, the Lisbon deception did not engender voter trust, and the Leave campaign was able to make differing cases to different voters.

    Mind you, if Remain had run a campaign that wasn't incredibly bad, they still would've won...

    Remember that one of Johnson's guiding creeds is "you can't make me". You can't make Vote Leave come up with a realistic prospectus, it would all be "pure upside, no downside".

    And if the EU said "no, we're not giving you that", then that gives VL two brilliant ripostes. The first is "look how awful Brussels is", the other is "Of course they're saying that now, they want to trap us in their web. Once we've voted to leave, they'll come running..." (See German car makers.)

    All totally dishonest, of course. But this is electoral politics, and sometimes the spoils go to the campaigner prepared to cross the line that bit more.
  • GhedebravGhedebrav Posts: 861
    LOL at the Mail headline - a good chunk of that half are the SKI-ing pensioners who make up their readership.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 29,264
    @whatukthinks: New post on whether a softer #Brexit might provide the basis of a compromise that secures support from Remainers an… https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1617447174404739076
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 29,264
    @lisaocarroll: Brexit impact on small business - not over yet, three years on, Cycloc tells of damage caused
    "We made an active de… https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1617447612688338944
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 42,503

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Nigelb said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Nigelb said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Good on Boris Johnson. A devisive character for sure, but totally unwavering in his support for Ukraine and their people, in their time of need.

    Boris is a flawed character*: but he was right to invest in Covid vaccines, he was right to "get Brexit done"**, and he was right to back Ukraine.

    The country needs to move past him, but we shouldn't forget that he broadly got the big calls right.

    * This may be too kind.
    ** Sadly, this did involve quite a lot of dissimulation ***
    *** Or lying, as some would call it
    ** Also bears much if the responsibility for the shitshow in the first place. Brexit was a call he got hugely wrong, and it resulted in a wasted decade.*

    So broadly, not really.

    Also, given the string life science base of the country, and the advice given to government, would any other administration not have invested in vaccines ? Seems a bit unlikely.

    Ukraine I give him credit for. That was a genuine call, and a correct one.

    *Polling shows most of the country agreed with me.
    The country voted for Brexit. You may not like it, but they did. And it needed to be enacted, for good or for ill. Boris did that...
    Boris's lies were a significant part of the country voting for Brexit, so he bears responsibility for that call. And much of the mess - the rejection of May's deal, and the subsequent dud deal - which followed.

    I don't see how any of that amounts to "the right call" unless you're still one if the small band of believers in it all having worked out for the best.

    And it has wasted a decade.

    And to repeat, most of the country regrets the whole mess.
    My own top-level views on Brexit have not changed since before the vote:
    *) Britain could be a success within or without the EU.
    *) Britain could be a failure within or without the EU.

    Membership of the EU might make success easier or harder (depending on your viewpoint), but it is a small factor, not the cause.

    *If* we are failing as a country, it has little to do with Brexit, but on a while host of structural issues that are firmly under our control. If we had voted to remain in 2016, we would not be much better off.

    I'd also argue that pretending that all our issues are because of Brexit is singularly unhelpful, as it stops us examining those structural issues. It's the reverse of before Brexit, when Europhobes would blame all the country's failings on EU membership. That was nonsense. Likewise, it's nonsense to blame all the country's failings on the fact we left.
    I don't think all our economic malaise is due to Brexit, but it is delusional to deny that Brexit has done additional damage to hurt our economy. Brexit was a self inflicted wound, and the fact we voted for that self harm doesn't make it less of a wound.
    I didn't say it has not caused additional damage. That was always going to be the case; there was going to be a period of adjustment (and a precious few Brexiteers said as much beforehand, although most ignored it). That is one of the reasons I voted remain, despite some euroscepticism.

    Brexit has been poorly handled, but even if it had been well handled, there would have been slight damage. But Brexit is not about the first five years after the split; it is about the next couple of decades. And sadly, the government does not appear to be addressing that.
    Plenty of Brexiteers believed those sunny uplands were going to be immediate, for example:

    https://reaction.life/britain-looks-like-brexit/

    Would Britain have really voted Leave if Brexiteers had been clear that Brexit would involve years or decades of economic damage? Even now Brexiteers struggle to name any concrete economic advantage.
    I think the assumption from all voters in the Brexit referendum, remain or leave, was that leaving entailed ceasing to be subject to European law, regulation, and overall direction of policy travel. Poor Government and exceedingly damaging administration have prevented that from happening. At all. It's absurd to complain of the lack of concrete advantages from 'leaving' when there is no meaningful sense in which we have actually left - except of course leaving the privileges of membership.
    You do have a rather fundamental problem with this argument though. "Scrap the EU laws and regulations and the benefits will arrive". Which is the Singapore-on-Thames Brexit argument - bin off all those EU red tape barriers which stop us making workplaces more dangerous and workers easier to exploit and we can get richer.

    Problem is that Leave only won because the Workers Republic of Britain voters supported Brexit so that they could get paid more and have better workplaces. What you want directly conflicts with what they want.

    Which is why "BREXIT" would always fail long after we delivered Brexit - leaving the EU. I know that Rees-Mog and the spiv class want to be able to cut nanny-state red tape and worker protections, but the workers won't vote for you in thanks...
    The worst thing is that neither “Singapore-on-Thames” nor “Workers Rebuplic of Britain” have happened - thanks to a combination of Treasury orthodoxy and an unwillingness from Whitehall to take advantage of the freedoms, lest it become more difficult to rejoin the EU in the near future.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 36,651
    rcs1000 said:

    36 million people – get more from the Government than they pay in tax, according to a study by Civitas.

    This is up from 24 million, or two-fifths of households, when Tony Blair was in power at the turn of the millennium.

    The top 10 per cent of earners pay 53 per cent of all income tax, turning the levy – the Treasury’s biggest single earner – into a ‘stealth wealth tax’, Civitas said.

    The surge in state ‘dependency’ means the poorest fifth of households receive £17,600 more on average in welfare and non-financial benefits from the State than they pay in tax.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11664757/Over-half-households-State-pay-tax.html

    It is worth noting that this is a Covid year analysis - i.e. FY 2020/21 - and is therefore does not signify any major underlying shift.

    In normal times, it's very simple:

    - retirees are beneficiaries
    - people on low incomes with children are beneficiaries
    - households where everyone is out of work are beneficiaries
    - households where someone has a long-term chronic illness or disability are beneficiaries

    And that's about it.

    If you don't have kids and you're in work, then you are almost certainly a net contributor, even if you're on minimum wage.
    It's a function of the retirement age not rising fast enough and not charging NI on retirement income. Fix those two and the numbers look a lot better.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 37,544

    Daily Mail lead story is an interesting one. I'm guessing that a lot more of their readers are getting more out of the state than they pay in (especially if they're pensioners) while few of them are among the poor benighted top 10% of earners.

    Yep, tens of thousands of retirees shaking with rage over their cornflakes, hating the spongers taking Britain for a ride, while not realising they are part of the Something for Nothing crowd themselves, is no doubt what the Mail was aiming for.

  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 47,316
    Ghedebrav said:

    LOL at the Mail headline - a good chunk of that half are the SKI-ing pensioners who make up their readership.

    Does SKI stand for Sir Kier Interested ?
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 38,072

    Scott_xP said:

    It does appear that Zahawi's dodgy financial dealings are distracting people from BoZo's dodgy financial dealings, which is not to Rishi's advantage.

    Sunak is sunk.

    Johnson's Chancellor Zahawi negotiated a deal for unpaid taxes whilst he was in office, Johnson arranged for personal liquidity whilst PM which involved all kinds of odd arrangements with people with vested interests.

    Yes Sunak is finished, not in small part due to Johnson's shenanigans, so enter PM Johnson stage right. It's a comedy of errors.

    For those of us who can't see Emperor Johnson's new clothes his visits to Kyiv at moments of Sunakian weakness do look suspicious, but then I suppose if the side effect of Johnson's manouvres accelerate a Russian defeat, what's the harm in that.
    Why would fatso visiting Kyiv hasten the end of the war in any way.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 29,264
    Sandpit said:

    The worst thing is that neither “Singapore-on-Thames” nor “Workers Rebuplic of Britain” have happened - thanks to a combination of Treasury orthodoxy and an unwillingness from Whitehall to take advantage of the freedoms, lest it become more difficult to rejoin the EU in the near future.

    neither “Singapore-on-Thames” nor “Workers Rebuplic of Britain” have happened - because reality overcomes fantasy every time
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 17,949

    Daily Mail lead story is an interesting one. I'm guessing that a lot more of their readers are getting more out of the state than they pay in (especially if they're pensioners) while few of them are among the poor benighted top 10% of earners.

    The top 10 per cent of earners means anyone on £62,000 a year so not your Deliveroo driver or shelf stacker but probably quite a few Mail readers.
    https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/earningsandworkinghours/bulletins/earningsandemploymentfrompayasyouearnrealtimeinformationuk/january2023#pay-distribution
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 11,240
    edited January 23
    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    36 million people – get more from the Government than they pay in tax, according to a study by Civitas.

    This is up from 24 million, or two-fifths of households, when Tony Blair was in power at the turn of the millennium.

    The top 10 per cent of earners pay 53 per cent of all income tax, turning the levy – the Treasury’s biggest single earner – into a ‘stealth wealth tax’, Civitas said.

    The surge in state ‘dependency’ means the poorest fifth of households receive £17,600 more on average in welfare and non-financial benefits from the State than they pay in tax.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11664757/Over-half-households-State-pay-tax.html

    It is worth noting that this is a Covid year analysis - i.e. FY 2020/21 - and is therefore does not signify any major underlying shift.

    In normal times, it's very simple:

    - retirees are beneficiaries
    - people on low incomes with children are beneficiaries
    - households where everyone is out of work are beneficiaries
    - households where someone has a long-term chronic illness or disability are beneficiaries

    And that's about it.

    If you don't have kids and you're in work, then you are almost certainly a net contributor, even if you're on minimum wage.
    It's a function of the retirement age not rising fast enough and not charging NI on retirement income. Fix those two and the numbers look a lot better.
    Where would you set the retirement age relative to life expectancy at birth?
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 35,876

    Off Topic - Am obliged to PBer who pointed out, that Queen Victoria was named in honor (if that's the word) of Victoria Station.

    Now IF someone can say WHY London has a train station named after a saint who was named after a (misspelled) bodily organ - St Pancr(e)as?

    London was in fact named after the beer, Edinburgh after tooth crushing confectionary and Glasgow after a head butt. Not a lot of people know that.
  • kamskikamski Posts: 3,023

    Apparently Ukraine have received T-72 tanks from Morocco. That happened quietly and without fanfare.

    I wonder what other support, like that from Bulgaria early on, has also been provided unobtrusively?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_foreign_aid_to_Ukraine_during_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War

    Sudan is one of the more unlikely providers of military aid to Ukraine.
    Surely Sudan hasn't actually directly provided military aid to Ukraine
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 2,641
    edited January 23
    Utterly delusional.

    Whilst most of the country is struggling Zahawi apparently received 27 million pounds and didn’t pay any tax until forced to by the HMRC and refuses to resign.

    The Tories deserve to get wiped out at the next election.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 29,264
    @georgegrylls: Exc - Nadhim Zahawi was asked by officials whether he had exchanged Whatsapps with David Cameron about Greensill Ca… https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1617448572277952512
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 42,503
    Scott_xP said:

    Sandpit said:

    The worst thing is that neither “Singapore-on-Thames” nor “Workers Rebuplic of Britain” have happened - thanks to a combination of Treasury orthodoxy and an unwillingness from Whitehall to take advantage of the freedoms, lest it become more difficult to rejoin the EU in the near future.

    neither “Singapore-on-Thames” nor “Workers Rebuplic of Britain” have happened - because reality overcomes fantasy every time
    Reality being that the permanent Whitehall blob can’t envisage why we should deviate an inch from EU law, with all its UK gold plating.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 36,651

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    36 million people – get more from the Government than they pay in tax, according to a study by Civitas.

    This is up from 24 million, or two-fifths of households, when Tony Blair was in power at the turn of the millennium.

    The top 10 per cent of earners pay 53 per cent of all income tax, turning the levy – the Treasury’s biggest single earner – into a ‘stealth wealth tax’, Civitas said.

    The surge in state ‘dependency’ means the poorest fifth of households receive £17,600 more on average in welfare and non-financial benefits from the State than they pay in tax.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11664757/Over-half-households-State-pay-tax.html

    It is worth noting that this is a Covid year analysis - i.e. FY 2020/21 - and is therefore does not signify any major underlying shift.

    In normal times, it's very simple:

    - retirees are beneficiaries
    - people on low incomes with children are beneficiaries
    - households where everyone is out of work are beneficiaries
    - households where someone has a long-term chronic illness or disability are beneficiaries

    And that's about it.

    If you don't have kids and you're in work, then you are almost certainly a net contributor, even if you're on minimum wage.
    It's a function of the retirement age not rising fast enough and not charging NI on retirement income. Fix those two and the numbers look a lot better.
    Where would you set the retirement age relative to life expectancy at birth?
    70 for women, 68 for men.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 11,743

    Off Topic - Am obliged to PBer who pointed out, that Queen Victoria was named in honor (if that's the word) of Victoria Station.

    Now IF someone can say WHY London has a train station named after a saint who was named after a (misspelled) bodily organ - St Pancr(e)as?

    London was in fact named after the beer, Edinburgh after tooth crushing confectionary and Glasgow after a head butt. Not a lot of people know that.
    And the UK is named after UKR.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 19,093
    ...
    malcolmg said:

    Scott_xP said:

    It does appear that Zahawi's dodgy financial dealings are distracting people from BoZo's dodgy financial dealings, which is not to Rishi's advantage.

    Sunak is sunk.

    Johnson's Chancellor Zahawi negotiated a deal for unpaid taxes whilst he was in office, Johnson arranged for personal liquidity whilst PM which involved all kinds of odd arrangements with people with vested interests.

    Yes Sunak is finished, not in small part due to Johnson's shenanigans, so enter PM Johnson stage right. It's a comedy of errors.

    For those of us who can't see Emperor Johnson's new clothes his visits to Kyiv at moments of Sunakian weakness do look suspicious, but then I suppose if the side effect of Johnson's manouvres accelerate a Russian defeat, what's the harm in that.
    Why would fatso visiting Kyiv hasten the end of the war in any way.
    It won't. I was just humouring the Johnsonians. Mind you I do like his new exaggerated round-shouldered Churchillian stoop. Very impressive.
This discussion has been closed.