For morethan the last year you have been telling us, the Tories simply need to lose their overall majority and it’s Starmer Primeminister, becuase the Tories are UnCoalition-able. Now that adults are back in control of the Conservatives, putting together a very effective government, Rishi’s ratings rising as well as the parties polling numbers, are they still UnCoalition-able?
Or, if the post election numberwork has Rishi much closer to 326 than Starmer, is a Conservative led coalition quickly becoming a serious political bet?
With whom? Sunak is more competent, but isn't in any meaningful sense more palatable to the Lib Dems or SNP.
Really?
Yes. Sunak is an original Brexiteer and a key part of his agenda is a hardline approach on immigration that doesn't accord with either Lib Dem or SNP values (it might actually appeal to some of their voters but it's not them deciding on a coalition).
It was hard enough for the Lib Dems to go into coalition in 2010. That was at the time justified (I think rightly) based on compelling reasons to bring economic stability via a Government that could (and easily did) provide five solid years of political stability. It was helped by Brown being difficult, Cameron pretty liberal, several key Labour figures (notably Miliband, D) being hostile to a deal, and the numbers not working. And with hindsight it was a disaster for Clegg's party.
The position now is EASILY less amenable for a deal by a very, very long way. And in Scotland it makes even less sense - the fact the new SNP leader may be somewhat socially conservative for religious reasons does not mean she sees any merit in a Tory deal, and the political problems with it are blindingly obvious.
Sunak is a right wing, original Brexiteer Tory holding together a party where he has to hand out goodies to some pretty hardcore culture warriors. The fact he doesn't have the extreme character flaws of his two immediate predecessors does not change that political reality.
In the days when the Lib Dems were the default protest vote option, they used to fish in the same pool as UKIP for many of their voters. The party was more electorally successful when it was able to accommodate the likes of Norman Lamb than when it became an anti-Brexit cult.
In the sense it will remind people he is stonkingly wealthy then any release may be considered 'bad'. I doubt opposition and media will fail to make a story even if he paid every penny in tax he owes (by which I mean without all those legal but bullshit methods to evade).
Released just after it is revealed that Keir Starmer had a personal law passed for his tax/pension arrangements.
Not a coincidence.
I'm looking forward to the Labour manifesto pledge to repeal the Pensions Increase (Pension Scheme for Keir Starmer QC) Regulations 2013.
To be honest, scrapping the overall £1m lifetime limit on tax-free pensions savings in the Tory budget announced last week is a policy that absolutely stinks. As regressive and wasteful approach to tackling a problem as anything else these 13 years of Tory government has come up with. It should and will quite rightly come under sustained attack from now I think from the point of view claiming it helps NHS is why they done it is actually a patent lie - only a relatively small number of better-off workers will stay in the workforce a bit longer - it’s effectively just a bung to the rich, which these Tories have been doing throughout these 13 years while at same time forcing austerity on everybody else’s incomes.
Also, that increase for the DPP seems to have been part of a wider change for judges as well. But we don't seem to hear about that. Probably because PBTories like to try and make everything personal about SKS.
The law was very personal to Keir Starmer
Pensions to which the 1971 Act shall apply
3. The 1971 Act shall have effect in relation to any pension payable under the Pension Scheme for Keir Starmer QC (being a scheme made under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972(1)), as if it were a pension specified in Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the 1971 Act.
EXPLANATORY NOTE (This note is not part of the Regulations)
These Regulations apply the provisions of the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971 to any pension payable under the pension scheme made under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972 for the Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer QC.
An impact assessment has not been prepared for these Regulations as they have no impact upon the private or voluntary sectors.
Thanks - I had not realised such an act existed. Yet judges also had a similar provision, presumabluy for similar reasons?
He is no longer DPP. He is firmly outside the law profession. *If* the rules apply only to the time (and pension he accrued) whilst DPP, then it's odd, but excusable. If it gives him an advantage to the money he earns whilst not being part of the law profession - say, as an MP or LOTO, then it stinks.
But widening it a little, why should judges get special treatment?
It was done to stop very experienced senior judges leaving the workforce. Which goes to show that if the Govt was worried about very experienced senior doctors leaving the workforce, they could have introduced a doctors-only rule. They didn’t.
It all sounds highly odd to me. How about people in the private sector, who are high-earning and employ many people? You know, the people who actually do things?
On the face of it, it stinks for judges. It doubly stinks for Starmer.
In the sense it will remind people he is stonkingly wealthy then any release may be considered 'bad'. I doubt opposition and media will fail to make a story even if he paid every penny in tax he owes (by which I mean without all those legal but bullshit methods to evade).
Released just after it is revealed that Keir Starmer had a personal law passed for his tax/pension arrangements.
Not a coincidence.
I'm looking forward to the Labour manifesto pledge to repeal the Pensions Increase (Pension Scheme for Keir Starmer QC) Regulations 2013.
To be honest, scrapping the overall £1m lifetime limit on tax-free pensions savings in the Tory budget announced last week is a policy that absolutely stinks. As regressive and wasteful approach to tackling a problem as anything else these 13 years of Tory government has come up with. It should and will quite rightly come under sustained attack from now I think from the point of view claiming it helps NHS is why they done it is actually a patent lie - only a relatively small number of better-off workers will stay in the workforce a bit longer - it’s effectively just a bung to the rich, which these Tories have been doing throughout these 13 years while at same time forcing austerity on everybody else’s incomes.
Also, that increase for the DPP seems to have been part of a wider change for judges as well. But we don't seem to hear about that. Probably because PBTories like to try and make everything personal about SKS.
The law was very personal to Keir Starmer
Pensions to which the 1971 Act shall apply
3. The 1971 Act shall have effect in relation to any pension payable under the Pension Scheme for Keir Starmer QC (being a scheme made under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972(1)), as if it were a pension specified in Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the 1971 Act.
EXPLANATORY NOTE (This note is not part of the Regulations)
These Regulations apply the provisions of the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971 to any pension payable under the pension scheme made under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972 for the Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer QC.
An impact assessment has not been prepared for these Regulations as they have no impact upon the private or voluntary sectors.
Thanks - I had not realised such an act existed. Yet judges also had a similar provision, presumabluy for similar reasons?
He is no longer DPP. He is firmly outside the law profession. *If* the rules apply only to the time (and pension he accrued) whilst DPP, then it's odd, but excusable. If it gives him an advantage to the money he earns whilst not being part of the law profession - say, as an MP or LOTO, then it stinks.
But widening it a little, why should judges get special treatment?
It was done to stop very experienced senior judges leaving the workforce. Which goes to show that if the Govt was worried about very experienced senior doctors leaving the workforce, they could have introduced a doctors-only rule. They didn’t.
It all sounds highly odd to me. How about people in the private sector, who are high-earning and employ many people? You know, the people who actually do things?
On the face of it, it stinks for judges. It doubly stinks for Starmer.
It's just a quirk of regulations it appears. I cannot imagine many people will get exercised by 'Keir Starmer has regulations made under his name under section 5(2) of the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971'. And making anything to do with Pensions comprehensible and salacious for a negative story won't be easy.
Evening all! Will have to watch some packaged clips of the show as I've been unavailable to watch.
It does sound like Johnson has been proven to have been massively lying - both to parliament and to the committee. I know the consensus view has been 'sanction but not the ultimate sanction.'
I'm not sure now. If he had been apologetic and humble - "whoops, sorry" - then perhaps. But he has done the opposite. If they aren't going to smash him with penalties for this, you have to ask what you have to do to receive them?
"It does sound like Johnson has been proven to have been massively lying"
I am really, really surprised that you are of that opinion.
Good day for Sunak. Carries the vote without having to rely on external support. Bad day for embittered former PMs.
The next polls could be very good for Sunak.
50% of my own personal focus group telling me tonight angry at the conservatives treatment of Boris, and thinking of switching from Sunak to Reform.
What, exactly, have 'the conservatives' done to Boris?
The way it was explained, by a Boris, Farage and Brexit fan, Boris was under attack by the Conservative Parties enemies, and the Conservative Party were not defending him.
Can’t you work that out yourself? that some people may still be on Boris side? and from their perspective the Tory’s did not protect one of their own from enemy attack.
Take the poll in the header for example, which is categorical and I think certainly accurate. But then ask the follow up, but do you care?
Some do. But are you saying there is no one out there who say, yeah of course he lied about the parties, but I don’t give a toss about that, it’s not a problem with me.
I have never said that. I think the Members would choose Boris again tomorrow. I've also praised his judgement on occasion and that he has surprised people time and again, even though I dislike him. But why should I have worked out a specific reason myself when you were the one making an assertion about their reasoning? I'm not a mindreader, though you appear to be doing a lot of that to infer what you believe I think.
Their reasoning is irrational whining to boot. The government has paid for Boris's legal advice for a start, and it hasn't even gotten the point of deciding whether or not to support a sanction - we do not even know what the sanction will be. So what are they expecting the party to have done?
I'm prepared to believe the Committee cannot prove Boris knowingly mislead parliament, even though I find his defence on that point insulting. Your respondents by contrast seem to believe the Conservative Party, which is not running the investigation, should have stopped it somehow?
Defending someone as a reflex because the 'enemy' is attacking them is also the height of partisan ridiculousness. People will naturally have a preference and inclination to support people based on their current and past affiliations, but it isn't supposed to be without any conditions whatsoever - otherwise we literally are just saying 'my side can do anything because it's my side'
Totally agree with your fantastic post.
Why should you have worked it out? I didn’t expect myself till I had the conversation, so happy to say sorry to you about that bit.
But then on the other hand, perhaps we both should have worked it out. Using a black mirror is a key tool in politics isn’t it?
For example, I’ll take the key phrase from your post “ partisan ridiculousness” and use it to caption something.
As he published conclusive evidence he did not lie over partygate.
Who do we know who reads this partisan ridiculousness
The problem for the Tories here, is partisan to who versus who?
Boris: I work incredibly hard, have a great intellect and have great judgement as PM. I achieved so much great stuff.
Boris fans: The above is true, yet somehow he was easily brought down by phony allegations 2.5 years after winning a massive majority, by a cabal of weak traitors or something. I guess because Tory MPs love engaging in self sabotage.
Also Boris: I found lockdown rules too confusing to understand, but this in no way undermines my above point. I take what I am told on faith and expecting me to make my own judgement call is absurd.
Are these direct quotations?
No, and the lack of link or use of quotations or italics, their intentional absurdity, and one being generic 'Boris fans' makes it I think sufficiently clear it was not a direct quote of anyone but parodic.
In the sense it will remind people he is stonkingly wealthy then any release may be considered 'bad'. I doubt opposition and media will fail to make a story even if he paid every penny in tax he owes (by which I mean without all those legal but bullshit methods to evade).
Released just after it is revealed that Keir Starmer had a personal law passed for his tax/pension arrangements.
Not a coincidence.
I'm looking forward to the Labour manifesto pledge to repeal the Pensions Increase (Pension Scheme for Keir Starmer QC) Regulations 2013.
To be honest, scrapping the overall £1m lifetime limit on tax-free pensions savings in the Tory budget announced last week is a policy that absolutely stinks. As regressive and wasteful approach to tackling a problem as anything else these 13 years of Tory government has come up with. It should and will quite rightly come under sustained attack from now I think from the point of view claiming it helps NHS is why they done it is actually a patent lie - only a relatively small number of better-off workers will stay in the workforce a bit longer - it’s effectively just a bung to the rich, which these Tories have been doing throughout these 13 years while at same time forcing austerity on everybody else’s incomes.
Also, that increase for the DPP seems to have been part of a wider change for judges as well. But we don't seem to hear about that. Probably because PBTories like to try and make everything personal about SKS.
The law was very personal to Keir Starmer
Pensions to which the 1971 Act shall apply
3. The 1971 Act shall have effect in relation to any pension payable under the Pension Scheme for Keir Starmer QC (being a scheme made under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972(1)), as if it were a pension specified in Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the 1971 Act.
EXPLANATORY NOTE (This note is not part of the Regulations)
These Regulations apply the provisions of the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971 to any pension payable under the pension scheme made under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972 for the Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer QC.
An impact assessment has not been prepared for these Regulations as they have no impact upon the private or voluntary sectors.
Thanks - I had not realised such an act existed. Yet judges also had a similar provision, presumabluy for similar reasons?
He is no longer DPP. He is firmly outside the law profession. *If* the rules apply only to the time (and pension he accrued) whilst DPP, then it's odd, but excusable. If it gives him an advantage to the money he earns whilst not being part of the law profession - say, as an MP or LOTO, then it stinks.
But widening it a little, why should judges get special treatment?
It was done to stop very experienced senior judges leaving the workforce. Which goes to show that if the Govt was worried about very experienced senior doctors leaving the workforce, they could have introduced a doctors-only rule. They didn’t.
It all sounds highly odd to me. How about people in the private sector, who are high-earning and employ many people? You know, the people who actually do things?
On the face of it, it stinks for judges. It doubly stinks for Starmer.
In the sense it will remind people he is stonkingly wealthy then any release may be considered 'bad'. I doubt opposition and media will fail to make a story even if he paid every penny in tax he owes (by which I mean without all those legal but bullshit methods to evade).
Released just after it is revealed that Keir Starmer had a personal law passed for his tax/pension arrangements.
Not a coincidence.
I'm looking forward to the Labour manifesto pledge to repeal the Pensions Increase (Pension Scheme for Keir Starmer QC) Regulations 2013.
To be honest, scrapping the overall £1m lifetime limit on tax-free pensions savings in the Tory budget announced last week is a policy that absolutely stinks. As regressive and wasteful approach to tackling a problem as anything else these 13 years of Tory government has come up with. It should and will quite rightly come under sustained attack from now I think from the point of view claiming it helps NHS is why they done it is actually a patent lie - only a relatively small number of better-off workers will stay in the workforce a bit longer - it’s effectively just a bung to the rich, which these Tories have been doing throughout these 13 years while at same time forcing austerity on everybody else’s incomes.
Also, that increase for the DPP seems to have been part of a wider change for judges as well. But we don't seem to hear about that. Probably because PBTories like to try and make everything personal about SKS.
The law was very personal to Keir Starmer
Pensions to which the 1971 Act shall apply
3. The 1971 Act shall have effect in relation to any pension payable under the Pension Scheme for Keir Starmer QC (being a scheme made under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972(1)), as if it were a pension specified in Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the 1971 Act.
EXPLANATORY NOTE (This note is not part of the Regulations)
These Regulations apply the provisions of the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971 to any pension payable under the pension scheme made under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972 for the Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer QC.
An impact assessment has not been prepared for these Regulations as they have no impact upon the private or voluntary sectors.
Thanks - I had not realised such an act existed. Yet judges also had a similar provision, presumabluy for similar reasons?
He is no longer DPP. He is firmly outside the law profession. *If* the rules apply only to the time (and pension he accrued) whilst DPP, then it's odd, but excusable. If it gives him an advantage to the money he earns whilst not being part of the law profession - say, as an MP or LOTO, then it stinks.
But widening it a little, why should judges get special treatment?
It was done to stop very experienced senior judges leaving the workforce. Which goes to show that if the Govt was worried about very experienced senior doctors leaving the workforce, they could have introduced a doctors-only rule. They didn’t.
It all sounds highly odd to me. How about people in the private sector, who are high-earning and employ many people? You know, the people who actually do things?
On the face of it, it stinks for judges. It doubly stinks for Starmer.
It's just a quirk of regulations it appears. I cannot imagine many people will get exercised by 'Keir Starmer has regulations made under his name under section 5(2) of the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971. And making anything to do with Pensions comprehensible and salacious for a negative story won't be easy.
HMRC (Geordie Branch, c/o BigG, JJ and Daily Mail) Investigations will be on overtime. Lets hope the investigators declare it properly otherwise Starmer will have yet more questions to answer.
Boris: I work incredibly hard, have a great intellect and have great judgement as PM. I achieved so much great stuff.
Boris fans: The above is true, yet somehow he was easily brought down by phony allegations 2.5 years after winning a massive majority, by a cabal of weak traitors or something. I guess because Tory MPs love engaging in self sabotage.
Also Boris: I found lockdown rules too confusing to understand, but this in no way undermines my above point. I take what I am told on faith and expecting me to make my own judgement call is absurd.
Are these direct quotations?
No, and the lack of link or use of quotations or italics, their intentional absurdity, and one being generic 'Boris fans' makes it I think sufficiently clear it was not a direct quote of anyone but parodic.
The problem is, I have been put in the 'Boris fans' category by some on here. Despite having been vocally against Boris being PM when he was well in the MoL phase of his career (*). Because it seems anyone who doesn't have BDS is now a 'Boris fan'
(*) I said his behaviour during, and reaction to, the Garden Bridge debacle was a sign (amongst many) why he should not be PM.
Have to wait for the Committee’s verdict. Suspect it will not be favourable to Boris. But one thing is certain. The prospect of him replacing Rishi Sunak as Prime Minister ended today. It’s over.
Big winner from today is Rishi Sunak. Rebellion squashed. Boris threat neutralised. Keir Starmer embroiled in pensions hypocrisy row. Might well be some more bottles opened in Downing Street tonight.
Boris: I work incredibly hard, have a great intellect and have great judgement as PM. I achieved so much great stuff.
Boris fans: The above is true, yet somehow he was easily brought down by phony allegations 2.5 years after winning a massive majority, by a cabal of weak traitors or something. I guess because Tory MPs love engaging in self sabotage.
Also Boris: I found lockdown rules too confusing to understand, but this in no way undermines my above point. I take what I am told on faith and expecting me to make my own judgement call is absurd.
Are these direct quotations?
No, and the lack of link or use of quotations or italics, their intentional absurdity, and one being generic 'Boris fans' makes it I think sufficiently clear it was not a direct quote of anyone but parodic.
In the sense it will remind people he is stonkingly wealthy then any release may be considered 'bad'. I doubt opposition and media will fail to make a story even if he paid every penny in tax he owes (by which I mean without all those legal but bullshit methods to evade).
Released just after it is revealed that Keir Starmer had a personal law passed for his tax/pension arrangements.
Not a coincidence.
I'm looking forward to the Labour manifesto pledge to repeal the Pensions Increase (Pension Scheme for Keir Starmer QC) Regulations 2013.
To be honest, scrapping the overall £1m lifetime limit on tax-free pensions savings in the Tory budget announced last week is a policy that absolutely stinks. As regressive and wasteful approach to tackling a problem as anything else these 13 years of Tory government has come up with. It should and will quite rightly come under sustained attack from now I think from the point of view claiming it helps NHS is why they done it is actually a patent lie - only a relatively small number of better-off workers will stay in the workforce a bit longer - it’s effectively just a bung to the rich, which these Tories have been doing throughout these 13 years while at same time forcing austerity on everybody else’s incomes.
Also, that increase for the DPP seems to have been part of a wider change for judges as well. But we don't seem to hear about that. Probably because PBTories like to try and make everything personal about SKS.
The law was very personal to Keir Starmer
Pensions to which the 1971 Act shall apply
3. The 1971 Act shall have effect in relation to any pension payable under the Pension Scheme for Keir Starmer QC (being a scheme made under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972(1)), as if it were a pension specified in Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the 1971 Act.
EXPLANATORY NOTE (This note is not part of the Regulations)
These Regulations apply the provisions of the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971 to any pension payable under the pension scheme made under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972 for the Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer QC.
An impact assessment has not been prepared for these Regulations as they have no impact upon the private or voluntary sectors.
Thanks - I had not realised such an act existed. Yet judges also had a similar provision, presumabluy for similar reasons?
He is no longer DPP. He is firmly outside the law profession. *If* the rules apply only to the time (and pension he accrued) whilst DPP, then it's odd, but excusable. If it gives him an advantage to the money he earns whilst not being part of the law profession - say, as an MP or LOTO, then it stinks.
But widening it a little, why should judges get special treatment?
It was done to stop very experienced senior judges leaving the workforce. Which goes to show that if the Govt was worried about very experienced senior doctors leaving the workforce, they could have introduced a doctors-only rule. They didn’t.
It all sounds highly odd to me. How about people in the private sector, who are high-earning and employ many people? You know, the people who actually do things?
On the face of it, it stinks for judges. It doubly stinks for Starmer.
why does a certain job require every - or it every? - person who performs the role to have a Statutory Instrument?
Does your job?
The reality is every DPP could earn squillions in the private sector.
To attract the best you have to give some perks to get them to work for you.
Would a DPP calibre person earn more by being DPP for a few years and private sector the rest, plus memoirs, directorships etc that flow from being DPP or staying in the private sector their whole career?
Genuine question, but assume it is not as one sided as you describe if you look at career earnings rather than annual earnings?
In the sense it will remind people he is stonkingly wealthy then any release may be considered 'bad'. I doubt opposition and media will fail to make a story even if he paid every penny in tax he owes (by which I mean without all those legal but bullshit methods to evade).
Released just after it is revealed that Keir Starmer had a personal law passed for his tax/pension arrangements.
Not a coincidence.
I'm looking forward to the Labour manifesto pledge to repeal the Pensions Increase (Pension Scheme for Keir Starmer QC) Regulations 2013.
To be honest, scrapping the overall £1m lifetime limit on tax-free pensions savings in the Tory budget announced last week is a policy that absolutely stinks. As regressive and wasteful approach to tackling a problem as anything else these 13 years of Tory government has come up with. It should and will quite rightly come under sustained attack from now I think from the point of view claiming it helps NHS is why they done it is actually a patent lie - only a relatively small number of better-off workers will stay in the workforce a bit longer - it’s effectively just a bung to the rich, which these Tories have been doing throughout these 13 years while at same time forcing austerity on everybody else’s incomes.
Also, that increase for the DPP seems to have been part of a wider change for judges as well. But we don't seem to hear about that. Probably because PBTories like to try and make everything personal about SKS.
The law was very personal to Keir Starmer
Pensions to which the 1971 Act shall apply
3. The 1971 Act shall have effect in relation to any pension payable under the Pension Scheme for Keir Starmer QC (being a scheme made under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972(1)), as if it were a pension specified in Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the 1971 Act.
EXPLANATORY NOTE (This note is not part of the Regulations)
These Regulations apply the provisions of the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971 to any pension payable under the pension scheme made under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972 for the Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer QC.
An impact assessment has not been prepared for these Regulations as they have no impact upon the private or voluntary sectors.
Thanks - I had not realised such an act existed. Yet judges also had a similar provision, presumabluy for similar reasons?
He is no longer DPP. He is firmly outside the law profession. *If* the rules apply only to the time (and pension he accrued) whilst DPP, then it's odd, but excusable. If it gives him an advantage to the money he earns whilst not being part of the law profession - say, as an MP or LOTO, then it stinks.
But widening it a little, why should judges get special treatment?
It was done to stop very experienced senior judges leaving the workforce. Which goes to show that if the Govt was worried about very experienced senior doctors leaving the workforce, they could have introduced a doctors-only rule. They didn’t.
It all sounds highly odd to me. How about people in the private sector, who are high-earning and employ many people? You know, the people who actually do things?
On the face of it, it stinks for judges. It doubly stinks for Starmer.
Boris: I work incredibly hard, have a great intellect and have great judgement as PM. I achieved so much great stuff.
Boris fans: The above is true, yet somehow he was easily brought down by phony allegations 2.5 years after winning a massive majority, by a cabal of weak traitors or something. I guess because Tory MPs love engaging in self sabotage.
Also Boris: I found lockdown rules too confusing to understand, but this in no way undermines my above point. I take what I am told on faith and expecting me to make my own judgement call is absurd.
Are these direct quotations?
No, and the lack of link or use of quotations or italics, their intentional absurdity, and one being generic 'Boris fans' makes it I think sufficiently clear it was not a direct quote of anyone but parodic.
Don't give up your day posting-style.
Variety is the spice of life, I am told. Personally I'm happy to leave things plain.
In the sense it will remind people he is stonkingly wealthy then any release may be considered 'bad'. I doubt opposition and media will fail to make a story even if he paid every penny in tax he owes (by which I mean without all those legal but bullshit methods to evade).
Released just after it is revealed that Keir Starmer had a personal law passed for his tax/pension arrangements.
Not a coincidence.
I'm looking forward to the Labour manifesto pledge to repeal the Pensions Increase (Pension Scheme for Keir Starmer QC) Regulations 2013.
To be honest, scrapping the overall £1m lifetime limit on tax-free pensions savings in the Tory budget announced last week is a policy that absolutely stinks. As regressive and wasteful approach to tackling a problem as anything else these 13 years of Tory government has come up with. It should and will quite rightly come under sustained attack from now I think from the point of view claiming it helps NHS is why they done it is actually a patent lie - only a relatively small number of better-off workers will stay in the workforce a bit longer - it’s effectively just a bung to the rich, which these Tories have been doing throughout these 13 years while at same time forcing austerity on everybody else’s incomes.
Also, that increase for the DPP seems to have been part of a wider change for judges as well. But we don't seem to hear about that. Probably because PBTories like to try and make everything personal about SKS.
The law was very personal to Keir Starmer
Pensions to which the 1971 Act shall apply
3. The 1971 Act shall have effect in relation to any pension payable under the Pension Scheme for Keir Starmer QC (being a scheme made under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972(1)), as if it were a pension specified in Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the 1971 Act.
EXPLANATORY NOTE (This note is not part of the Regulations)
These Regulations apply the provisions of the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971 to any pension payable under the pension scheme made under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972 for the Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer QC.
An impact assessment has not been prepared for these Regulations as they have no impact upon the private or voluntary sectors.
Thanks - I had not realised such an act existed. Yet judges also had a similar provision, presumabluy for similar reasons?
He is no longer DPP. He is firmly outside the law profession. *If* the rules apply only to the time (and pension he accrued) whilst DPP, then it's odd, but excusable. If it gives him an advantage to the money he earns whilst not being part of the law profession - say, as an MP or LOTO, then it stinks.
But widening it a little, why should judges get special treatment?
It was done to stop very experienced senior judges leaving the workforce. Which goes to show that if the Govt was worried about very experienced senior doctors leaving the workforce, they could have introduced a doctors-only rule. They didn’t.
It all sounds highly odd to me. How about people in the private sector, who are high-earning and employ many people? You know, the people who actually do things?
On the face of it, it stinks for judges. It doubly stinks for Starmer.
It's just a quirk of regulations it appears. I cannot imagine many people will get exercised by 'Keir Starmer has regulations made under his name under section 5(2) of the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971. And making anything to do with Pensions comprehensible and salacious for a negative story won't be easy.
HMRC (Geordie Branch, c/o BigG, JJ and Daily Mail) Investigations will be on overtime. Lets hope the investigators declare it properly otherwise Starmer will have yet more questions to answer.
Which would be a superb rejoinder, except I'm arguing *against* such special arrangements.
Today has achieved everything you’ve wanted to see since I have been reading the site, has it not?
Sleep well tonight.
No not by a long way but today was an important moment for Sunak and the direction of the conservative party
WF to be ratified by UK and EU London on Friday, two days after the ERG could only muster 22 against
Sunak is entitled to a quiet drink of coke cola tonight after a successful PMQ's, endorsement across the HOC of the WF, the utter humiliation of Johnson largely by 4 if his own mps, and tonight the RMT call off the strikes against the Rail Delivery Group
Today has brought him a breather until the May local elections but they will be a completely different test.
If we see heavy Conservative losses and backbenchers seeing their "safe" majorities under threat, the mood could shift very quickly as we've seen before.
On the latest Survation the Conservative voteshare will be 3% more in May than the 28% it was in the local elections of May 2019, so the Conservatives could even make net gains. Especially from the Liberal Democrats and Independents
Yes. If the votes go as a “gold standard” you will say poll.
But the poll was not about Mays elections. And can’t partys underperform GE polling at locals with differential turn out?
And, as a Rishi supporter, shouldn’t you be cautious about how it will go, dampen expectations a bit, not boast of gains and creating hostages to fortune 🤷♀️
Boris: I work incredibly hard, have a great intellect and have great judgement as PM. I achieved so much great stuff.
Boris fans: The above is true, yet somehow he was easily brought down by phony allegations 2.5 years after winning a massive majority, by a cabal of weak traitors or something. I guess because Tory MPs love engaging in self sabotage.
Also Boris: I found lockdown rules too confusing to understand, but this in no way undermines my above point. I take what I am told on faith and expecting me to make my own judgement call is absurd.
Are these direct quotations?
No, and the lack of link or use of quotations or italics, their intentional absurdity, and one being generic 'Boris fans' makes it I think sufficiently clear it was not a direct quote of anyone but parodic.
Don't give up your day posting-style.
Variety is the spice of life, I am told. Personally I'm happy to leave things plain.
Boris: I work incredibly hard, have a great intellect and have great judgement as PM. I achieved so much great stuff.
Boris fans: The above is true, yet somehow he was easily brought down by phony allegations 2.5 years after winning a massive majority, by a cabal of weak traitors or something. I guess because Tory MPs love engaging in self sabotage.
Also Boris: I found lockdown rules too confusing to understand, but this in no way undermines my above point. I take what I am told on faith and expecting me to make my own judgement call is absurd.
Are these direct quotations?
No, and the lack of link or use of quotations or italics, their intentional absurdity, and one being generic 'Boris fans' makes it I think sufficiently clear it was not a direct quote of anyone but parodic.
The problem is, I have been put in the 'Boris fans' category by some on here. Despite having been vocally against Boris being PM when he was well in the MoL phase of his career (*). Because it seems anyone who doesn't have BDS is now a 'Boris fan'
(*) I said his behaviour during, and reaction to, the Garden Bridge debacle was a sign (amongst many) why he should not be PM.
Nah, youre persistently anti Starmer rather than pro Boris. Similar to BigG, a curious type of partisanship where you are not actually quite for the side you bat for.
For morethan the last year you have been telling us, the Tories simply need to lose their overall majority and it’s Starmer Primeminister, becuase the Tories are UnCoalition-able. Now that adults are back in control of the Conservatives, putting together a very effective government, Rishi’s ratings rising as well as the parties polling numbers, are they still UnCoalition-able?
Or, if the post election numberwork has Rishi much closer to 326 than Starmer, is a Conservative led coalition quickly becoming a serious political bet?
With whom? Sunak is more competent, but isn't in any meaningful sense more palatable to the Lib Dems or SNP.
Really?
Yes. Sunak is an original Brexiteer and a key part of his agenda is a hardline approach on immigration that doesn't accord with either Lib Dem or SNP values (it might actually appeal to some of their voters but it's not them deciding on a coalition).
It was hard enough for the Lib Dems to go into coalition in 2010. That was at the time justified (I think rightly) based on compelling reasons to bring economic stability via a Government that could (and easily did) provide five solid years of political stability. It was helped by Brown being difficult, Cameron pretty liberal, several key Labour figures (notably Miliband, D) being hostile to a deal, and the numbers not working. And with hindsight it was a disaster for Clegg's party.
The position now is EASILY less amenable for a deal by a very, very long way. And in Scotland it makes even less sense - the fact the new SNP leader may be somewhat socially conservative for religious reasons does not mean she sees any merit in a Tory deal, and the political problems with it are blindingly obvious.
Sunak is a right wing, original Brexiteer Tory holding together a party where he has to hand out goodies to some pretty hardcore culture warriors. The fact he doesn't have the extreme character flaws of his two immediate predecessors does not change that political reality.
In the days when the Lib Dems were the default protest vote option, they used to fish in the same pool as UKIP for many of their voters. The party was more electorally successful when it was able to accommodate the likes of Norman Lamb than when it became an anti-Brexit cult.
The problem with that account is that the collapse in their vote came before (I think) the word "Brexit" had even been coined, back in 2015. Although I agree it was a flawed strategy to rule out half the electorate with the post-referendum line up to 2019, it doesn't account for the collapse, and clearly Davey has moved on in the sense of winning Brexit voting constituencies in Shropshire and Devon.
Also, as an aside, Lamb did actually hold his seat in a post-referendum General Election (2017) although it was lost pretty comprehensively when he retired in 2019.
For morethan the last year you have been telling us, the Tories simply need to lose their overall majority and it’s Starmer Primeminister, becuase the Tories are UnCoalition-able. Now that adults are back in control of the Conservatives, putting together a very effective government, Rishi’s ratings rising as well as the parties polling numbers, are they still UnCoalition-able?
Or, if the post election numberwork has Rishi much closer to 326 than Starmer, is a Conservative led coalition quickly becoming a serious political bet?
The DUP will always prefer to go into coalition with the Tories than Labour, and 8 seats can be very useful if you come out of the election on around 315.
Boris: I work incredibly hard, have a great intellect and have great judgement as PM. I achieved so much great stuff.
Boris fans: The above is true, yet somehow he was easily brought down by phony allegations 2.5 years after winning a massive majority, by a cabal of weak traitors or something. I guess because Tory MPs love engaging in self sabotage.
Also Boris: I found lockdown rules too confusing to understand, but this in no way undermines my above point. I take what I am told on faith and expecting me to make my own judgement call is absurd.
Are these direct quotations?
No, and the lack of link or use of quotations or italics, their intentional absurdity, and one being generic 'Boris fans' makes it I think sufficiently clear it was not a direct quote of anyone but parodic.
Don't give up your day posting-style.
Variety is the spice of life, I am told. Personally I'm happy to leave things plain.
I was being mean. I apologise.
Sensitive though I am I think I have to accept a requirement to being thick skinned enough to take a mild critique, don't worry about it.
In the sense it will remind people he is stonkingly wealthy then any release may be considered 'bad'. I doubt opposition and media will fail to make a story even if he paid every penny in tax he owes (by which I mean without all those legal but bullshit methods to evade).
Released just after it is revealed that Keir Starmer had a personal law passed for his tax/pension arrangements.
Not a coincidence.
I'm looking forward to the Labour manifesto pledge to repeal the Pensions Increase (Pension Scheme for Keir Starmer QC) Regulations 2013.
To be honest, scrapping the overall £1m lifetime limit on tax-free pensions savings in the Tory budget announced last week is a policy that absolutely stinks. As regressive and wasteful approach to tackling a problem as anything else these 13 years of Tory government has come up with. It should and will quite rightly come under sustained attack from now I think from the point of view claiming it helps NHS is why they done it is actually a patent lie - only a relatively small number of better-off workers will stay in the workforce a bit longer - it’s effectively just a bung to the rich, which these Tories have been doing throughout these 13 years while at same time forcing austerity on everybody else’s incomes.
Also, that increase for the DPP seems to have been part of a wider change for judges as well. But we don't seem to hear about that. Probably because PBTories like to try and make everything personal about SKS.
The law was very personal to Keir Starmer
Pensions to which the 1971 Act shall apply
3. The 1971 Act shall have effect in relation to any pension payable under the Pension Scheme for Keir Starmer QC (being a scheme made under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972(1)), as if it were a pension specified in Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the 1971 Act.
EXPLANATORY NOTE (This note is not part of the Regulations)
These Regulations apply the provisions of the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971 to any pension payable under the pension scheme made under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972 for the Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer QC.
An impact assessment has not been prepared for these Regulations as they have no impact upon the private or voluntary sectors.
Thanks - I had not realised such an act existed. Yet judges also had a similar provision, presumabluy for similar reasons?
He is no longer DPP. He is firmly outside the law profession. *If* the rules apply only to the time (and pension he accrued) whilst DPP, then it's odd, but excusable. If it gives him an advantage to the money he earns whilst not being part of the law profession - say, as an MP or LOTO, then it stinks.
But widening it a little, why should judges get special treatment?
Because, like the senior doctors, they were retiring because of a pension trap.
IIRC they were especially hit by a combination of a Judicial Pension reform in 2015 and subsequent changes in the limits in contributions - @PBLawyers?
It partially comes down to a question I asked below, and I don't think has been answered (apols if it has and I've missed it):
does this apply to just his earnings whilst DPP, or his entire lifetime earnings?
If the former, then it's odd but perhaps excusable (*). If the latter it's as dodgy as f**k.
(*) And I'd prefer it not to be done, as it's a route to corruption.
Boris has to hold Uxbridge to be a contender for Leader of the Opposition if Rishi loses the next general election
No, surely? The potential sequence is this:
1. Boris is sanctioned for 2 weeks (60% chance?) 2. 10% of voters in Uxbridge sign a recalll to force a by-election (99%) 3. Boris loses (90%). How unfair, says Boris supporters, but at least he fought gravely instead of a cihcken run. 4. Boris is selected for a safe seat like Henley 5. The Tories lose the election on a swing of 5-10%. Boris holds on (60%?) 6. Sunak resigns. Boris is elected LOTO.
Note that this ONLY works if he is forced out now - not if he loses at the GE.
For morethan the last year you have been telling us, the Tories simply need to lose their overall majority and it’s Starmer Primeminister, becuase the Tories are UnCoalition-able. Now that adults are back in control of the Conservatives, putting together a very effective government, Rishi’s ratings rising as well as the parties polling numbers, are they still UnCoalition-able?
Or, if the post election numberwork has Rishi much closer to 326 than Starmer, is a Conservative led coalition quickly becoming a serious political bet?
With whom? Sunak is more competent, but isn't in any meaningful sense more palatable to the Lib Dems or SNP.
Really?
Yes. Sunak is an original Brexiteer and a key part of his agenda is a hardline approach on immigration that doesn't accord with either Lib Dem or SNP values (it might actually appeal to some of their voters but it's not them deciding on a coalition).
It was hard enough for the Lib Dems to go into coalition in 2010. That was at the time justified (I think rightly) based on compelling reasons to bring economic stability via a Government that could (and easily did) provide five solid years of political stability. It was helped by Brown being difficult, Cameron pretty liberal, several key Labour figures (notably Miliband, D) being hostile to a deal, and the numbers not working. And with hindsight it was a disaster for Clegg's party.
The position now is EASILY less amenable for a deal by a very, very long way. And in Scotland it makes even less sense - the fact the new SNP leader may be somewhat socially conservative for religious reasons does not mean she sees any merit in a Tory deal, and the political problems with it are blindingly obvious.
Sunak is a right wing, original Brexiteer Tory holding together a party where he has to hand out goodies to some pretty hardcore culture warriors. The fact he doesn't have the extreme character flaws of his two immediate predecessors does not change that political reality.
In the days when the Lib Dems were the default protest vote option, they used to fish in the same pool as UKIP for many of their voters. The party was more electorally successful when it was able to accommodate the likes of Norman Lamb than when it became an anti-Brexit cult.
The problem with that account is that the collapse in their vote came before (I think) the word "Brexit" had even been coined, back in 2015. Although I agree it was a flawed strategy to rule out half the electorate with the post-referendum line up to 2019, it doesn't account for the collapse, and clearly Davey has moved on in the sense of winning Brexit voting constituencies in Shropshire and Devon.
Also, as an aside, Lamb did actually hold his seat in a post-referendum General Election (2017) although it was lost pretty comprehensively when he retired in 2019.
Yes, I didn't mean to attribute the Lib Dems' initial collapse to Brexit, but I think it's a mistake to conclude that because Sunak is a Brexiteer, he can't appeal to the kind of people who used to vote Lib Dem c. 2010.
Today has achieved everything you’ve wanted to see since I have been reading the site, has it not?
Sleep well tonight.
No not by a long way but today was an important moment for Sunak and the direction of the conservative party
WF to be ratified by UK and EU London on Friday, two days after the ERG could only muster 22 against
Sunak is entitled to a quiet drink of coke cola tonight after a successful PMQ's, endorsement across the HOC of the WF, the utter humiliation of Johnson largely by 4 if his own mps, and tonight the RMT call off the strikes against the Rail Delivery Group
Today has brought him a breather until the May local elections but they will be a completely different test.
If we see heavy Conservative losses and backbenchers seeing their "safe" majorities under threat, the mood could shift very quickly as we've seen before.
On the latest Survation the Conservative voteshare will be 3% more in May than the 28% it was in the local elections of May 2019, so the Conservatives could even make net gains. Especially from the Liberal Democrats and Independents
Yes. If the votes go as a “gold standard” you will say poll.
But the poll was not about Mays elections. And can’t partys underperform GE polling at locals with differential turn out?
And, as a Rishi supporter, shouldn’t you be cautious about how it will go, dampen expectations a bit, not boast of gains and creating hostages to fortune 🤷♀️
In fairness to HYUFD (and I very rarely am but am feeling kind) he might actually believe that the Conservatives will do quite well in May against Lib Dems and Independents.
He might well be wrong. But he doesn't have to spin it if he doesn't want to - you can't seriously criticise him for having a view and saying what it is.
I mean this isn't the spin room... plainly some people do it, but in theory it's people shooting the breeze on what they think will happen for betting purposes.
Evening all! Will have to watch some packaged clips of the show as I've been unavailable to watch.
It does sound like Johnson has been proven to have been massively lying - both to parliament and to the committee. I know the consensus view has been 'sanction but not the ultimate sanction.'
I'm not sure now. If he had been apologetic and humble - "whoops, sorry" - then perhaps. But he has done the opposite. If they aren't going to smash him with penalties for this, you have to ask what you have to do to receive them?
Have you ever dealt with a four/five year old whose hands and face are covered with chocolate who then spend the next 4 hours denying they haven't eaten the missing sweeties?
That's what watching Boris Johnson today was like.
I expect you'll be becoming a schoolmaster GB News presenter, sir. That's what most of the gentlemen does, sir, that gets sent down for indecent behavior.
Interesting approach to the question of disruption at and protests at a university- have the Dean release a 10 page letter and get legalistic and cite a myriad of legal precedent on academic freedom and limitations in certain forums.
Granted it is from a law school, but still, interesting approach.
Stanford Law School's dean: "our commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion is not going to take the form of having the school administration announce institutional positions on a wide range of current social and political issues."
Boris: I work incredibly hard, have a great intellect and have great judgement as PM. I achieved so much great stuff.
Boris fans: The above is true, yet somehow he was easily brought down by phony allegations 2.5 years after winning a massive majority, by a cabal of weak traitors or something. I guess because Tory MPs love engaging in self sabotage.
Also Boris: I found lockdown rules too confusing to understand, but this in no way undermines my above point. I take what I am told on faith and expecting me to make my own judgement call is absurd.
Are these direct quotations?
No, and the lack of link or use of quotations or italics, their intentional absurdity, and one being generic 'Boris fans' makes it I think sufficiently clear it was not a direct quote of anyone but parodic.
The problem is, I have been put in the 'Boris fans' category by some on here. Despite having been vocally against Boris being PM when he was well in the MoL phase of his career (*). Because it seems anyone who doesn't have BDS is now a 'Boris fan'
(*) I said his behaviour during, and reaction to, the Garden Bridge debacle was a sign (amongst many) why he should not be PM.
Nah, youre persistently anti Starmer rather than pro Boris. Similar to BigG, a curious type of partisanship where you are not actually quite for the side you bat for.
Hang on. I've stated several times I want a general election ASAP, and I want Labour to win it.
Unless you're calling me a liar, that doesn't make me 'persistently anti-Starmer'.
But it doesn't mean I think the sun shines out if his backside, and he shouldn't be treated to the same rigorous (or in the case of some on here, non-rigorous), analysis that his opponents get.
So you can stick your 'partisanship' up your backside, along with your rosette.
Good day for Sunak. Carries the vote without having to rely on external support. Bad day for embittered former PMs.
The next polls could be very good for Sunak.
50% of my own personal focus group telling me tonight angry at the conservatives treatment of Boris, and thinking of switching from Sunak to Reform.
Where was this focus group taken, with over 50 white non graduate Leave voters in the Dog and Duck?
We need to know the views of the 11 farmers in someones pub from last week too. Better than yougov them.
Fortunately half the farmers round here or their wives are or were Tory councillors
What about farmers mums?
Especially farmers mums
You may be taking the ****, but I think that’s an interesting subset of people to survey how they think today has gone.
You can’t just rely on did he lie or not polls, it needs the “does it bother you much” follow up.
And it’s not really across the whole population either that’s important as to wether he makes a comeback as Tory leader soon enough, such as when Rishi resigns next year.
Boris has to hold Uxbridge to be a contender for Leader of the Opposition if Rishi loses the next general election
Or stand in another seat.
You have heard of the Conservative Democratic Organisation? You have been following their good work of recent months?
For morethan the last year you have been telling us, the Tories simply need to lose their overall majority and it’s Starmer Primeminister, becuase the Tories are UnCoalition-able. Now that adults are back in control of the Conservatives, putting together a very effective government, Rishi’s ratings rising as well as the parties polling numbers, are they still UnCoalition-able?
Or, if the post election numberwork has Rishi much closer to 326 than Starmer, is a Conservative led coalition quickly becoming a serious political bet?
With whom? Sunak is more competent, but isn't in any meaningful sense more palatable to the Lib Dems or SNP.
Really?
Yes. Sunak is an original Brexiteer and a key part of his agenda is a hardline approach on immigration that doesn't accord with either Lib Dem or SNP values (it might actually appeal to some of their voters but it's not them deciding on a coalition).
It was hard enough for the Lib Dems to go into coalition in 2010. That was at the time justified (I think rightly) based on compelling reasons to bring economic stability via a Government that could (and easily did) provide five solid years of political stability. It was helped by Brown being difficult, Cameron pretty liberal, several key Labour figures (notably Miliband, D) being hostile to a deal, and the numbers not working. And with hindsight it was a disaster for Clegg's party.
The position now is EASILY less amenable for a deal by a very, very long way. And in Scotland it makes even less sense - the fact the new SNP leader may be somewhat socially conservative for religious reasons does not mean she sees any merit in a Tory deal, and the political problems with it are blindingly obvious.
Sunak is a right wing, original Brexiteer Tory holding together a party where he has to hand out goodies to some pretty hardcore culture warriors. The fact he doesn't have the extreme character flaws of his two immediate predecessors does not change that political reality.
In the days when the Lib Dems were the default protest vote option, they used to fish in the same pool as UKIP for many of their voters. The party was more electorally successful when it was able to accommodate the likes of Norman Lamb than when it became an anti-Brexit cult.
The problem with that account is that the collapse in their vote came before (I think) the word "Brexit" had even been coined, back in 2015. Although I agree it was a flawed strategy to rule out half the electorate with the post-referendum line up to 2019, it doesn't account for the collapse, and clearly Davey has moved on in the sense of winning Brexit voting constituencies in Shropshire and Devon.
Also, as an aside, Lamb did actually hold his seat in a post-referendum General Election (2017) although it was lost pretty comprehensively when he retired in 2019.
Yes, I didn't mean to attribute the Lib Dems' initial collapse to Brexit, but I think it's a mistake to conclude that because Sunak is a Brexiteer, he can't appeal to the kind of people who used to vote Lib Dem c. 2010.
That's not what I said, though. I said he's uncoalitionable, which doesn't actually depend on Lib Dem voters but Lib Dem MPs and members (and the same for the SNP).
Indeed, I agree that some Lib Dem voters or potential voters will quite like Sunak on Brexit or immigration... but his position on those things (along with other factors including recent unpleasant experience of blue-yellow coalition and, in Scotland, pretty deep-seated anti-Tory sentiment) just mean that there isn't going to be a coalition in reality - absolutely no chance in fact.
For morethan the last year you have been telling us, the Tories simply need to lose their overall majority and it’s Starmer Primeminister, becuase the Tories are UnCoalition-able. Now that adults are back in control of the Conservatives, putting together a very effective government, Rishi’s ratings rising as well as the parties polling numbers, are they still UnCoalition-able?
Or, if the post election numberwork has Rishi much closer to 326 than Starmer, is a Conservative led coalition quickly becoming a serious political bet?
With whom? Sunak is more competent, but isn't in any meaningful sense more palatable to the Lib Dems or SNP.
Really?
Yes. Sunak is an original Brexiteer and a key part of his agenda is a hardline approach on immigration that doesn't accord with either Lib Dem or SNP values (it might actually appeal to some of their voters but it's not them deciding on a coalition).
It was hard enough for the Lib Dems to go into coalition in 2010. That was at the time justified (I think rightly) based on compelling reasons to bring economic stability via a Government that could (and easily did) provide five solid years of political stability. It was helped by Brown being difficult, Cameron pretty liberal, several key Labour figures (notably Miliband, D) being hostile to a deal, and the numbers not working. And with hindsight it was a disaster for Clegg's party.
The position now is EASILY less amenable for a deal by a very, very long way. And in Scotland it makes even less sense - the fact the new SNP leader may be somewhat socially conservative for religious reasons does not mean she sees any merit in a Tory deal, and the political problems with it are blindingly obvious.
Sunak is a right wing, original Brexiteer Tory holding together a party where he has to hand out goodies to some pretty hardcore culture warriors. The fact he doesn't have the extreme character flaws of his two immediate predecessors does not change that political reality.
In the days when the Lib Dems were the default protest vote option, they used to fish in the same pool as UKIP for many of their voters. The party was more electorally successful when it was able to accommodate the likes of Norman Lamb than when it became an anti-Brexit cult.
The problem with that account is that the collapse in their vote came before (I think) the word "Brexit" had even been coined, back in 2015. Although I agree it was a flawed strategy to rule out half the electorate with the post-referendum line up to 2019, it doesn't account for the collapse, and clearly Davey has moved on in the sense of winning Brexit voting constituencies in Shropshire and Devon.
Also, as an aside, Lamb did actually hold his seat in a post-referendum General Election (2017) although it was lost pretty comprehensively when he retired in 2019.
Yes, I didn't mean to attribute the Lib Dems' initial collapse to Brexit, but I think it's a mistake to conclude that because Sunak is a Brexiteer, he can't appeal to the kind of people who used to vote Lib Dem c. 2010.
That's not what I said, though. I said he's uncoalitionable, which doesn't actually depend on Lib Dem voters but Lib Dem MPs and members (and the same for the SNP).
Indeed, I agree that some Lib Dem voters or potential voters will quite like Sunak on Brexit or immigration... but his position on those things just mean that there isn't going to be a coalition in reality - absolutely no chance.
I can't really see who Rishi appeals to. He doesn't seem a bad bloke (neither does Starmer), but neither have the same feel, or dare I say charisma, as Blair or Clinton.
Even with other regional variations being presumably similar this figure seems very low? It is wild to think that in 1794, only 12% the population of France spoke French.
Tbf, many others spoke languages closely associated with it, but still.
In the same year, about 14% percent of the population of the Habsburg Empire spoke German.
Today has achieved everything you’ve wanted to see since I have been reading the site, has it not?
Sleep well tonight.
No not by a long way but today was an important moment for Sunak and the direction of the conservative party
WF to be ratified by UK and EU London on Friday, two days after the ERG could only muster 22 against
Sunak is entitled to a quiet drink of coke cola tonight after a successful PMQ's, endorsement across the HOC of the WF, the utter humiliation of Johnson largely by 4 if his own mps, and tonight the RMT call off the strikes against the Rail Delivery Group
Today has brought him a breather until the May local elections but they will be a completely different test.
If we see heavy Conservative losses and backbenchers seeing their "safe" majorities under threat, the mood could shift very quickly as we've seen before.
I doubt we will see net heavy Conservative losses. The Conservatives were in a terrible place when these were last contested. They will lose seats to Labour, but the LibDems were riding much higher in 2019.
In the sense it will remind people he is stonkingly wealthy then any release may be considered 'bad'. I doubt opposition and media will fail to make a story even if he paid every penny in tax he owes (by which I mean without all those legal but bullshit methods to evade).
Released just after it is revealed that Keir Starmer had a personal law passed for his tax/pension arrangements.
Not a coincidence.
I'm looking forward to the Labour manifesto pledge to repeal the Pensions Increase (Pension Scheme for Keir Starmer QC) Regulations 2013.
To be honest, scrapping the overall £1m lifetime limit on tax-free pensions savings in the Tory budget announced last week is a policy that absolutely stinks. As regressive and wasteful approach to tackling a problem as anything else these 13 years of Tory government has come up with. It should and will quite rightly come under sustained attack from now I think from the point of view claiming it helps NHS is why they done it is actually a patent lie - only a relatively small number of better-off workers will stay in the workforce a bit longer - it’s effectively just a bung to the rich, which these Tories have been doing throughout these 13 years while at same time forcing austerity on everybody else’s incomes.
Also, that increase for the DPP seems to have been part of a wider change for judges as well. But we don't seem to hear about that. Probably because PBTories like to try and make everything personal about SKS.
The law was very personal to Keir Starmer
Pensions to which the 1971 Act shall apply
3. The 1971 Act shall have effect in relation to any pension payable under the Pension Scheme for Keir Starmer QC (being a scheme made under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972(1)), as if it were a pension specified in Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the 1971 Act.
EXPLANATORY NOTE (This note is not part of the Regulations)
These Regulations apply the provisions of the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971 to any pension payable under the pension scheme made under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972 for the Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer QC.
An impact assessment has not been prepared for these Regulations as they have no impact upon the private or voluntary sectors.
Thanks - I had not realised such an act existed. Yet judges also had a similar provision, presumabluy for similar reasons?
He is no longer DPP. He is firmly outside the law profession. *If* the rules apply only to the time (and pension he accrued) whilst DPP, then it's odd, but excusable. If it gives him an advantage to the money he earns whilst not being part of the law profession - say, as an MP or LOTO, then it stinks.
But widening it a little, why should judges get special treatment?
It was done to stop very experienced senior judges leaving the workforce. Which goes to show that if the Govt was worried about very experienced senior doctors leaving the workforce, they could have introduced a doctors-only rule. They didn’t.
It all sounds highly odd to me. How about people in the private sector, who are high-earning and employ many people? You know, the people who actually do things?
On the face of it, it stinks for judges. It doubly stinks for Starmer.
It's just a quirk of regulations it appears. I cannot imagine many people will get exercised by 'Keir Starmer has regulations made under his name under section 5(2) of the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971. And making anything to do with Pensions comprehensible and salacious for a negative story won't be easy.
HMRC (Geordie Branch, c/o BigG, JJ and Daily Mail) Investigations will be on overtime. Lets hope the investigators declare it properly otherwise Starmer will have yet more questions to answer.
I don’t think it does any damage to Starmer.
It kills any comments about the provision Hunt out in the budget about pension contributions.
Also, it probably kills attacks on Sunsk’s tax arrangements.
Boris: I work incredibly hard, have a great intellect and have great judgement as PM. I achieved so much great stuff.
Boris fans: The above is true, yet somehow he was easily brought down by phony allegations 2.5 years after winning a massive majority, by a cabal of weak traitors or something. I guess because Tory MPs love engaging in self sabotage.
Also Boris: I found lockdown rules too confusing to understand, but this in no way undermines my above point. I take what I am told on faith and expecting me to make my own judgement call is absurd.
Are these direct quotations?
No, and the lack of link or use of quotations or italics, their intentional absurdity, and one being generic 'Boris fans' makes it I think sufficiently clear it was not a direct quote of anyone but parodic.
The problem is, I have been put in the 'Boris fans' category by some on here. Despite having been vocally against Boris being PM when he was well in the MoL phase of his career (*). Because it seems anyone who doesn't have BDS is now a 'Boris fan'
(*) I said his behaviour during, and reaction to, the Garden Bridge debacle was a sign (amongst many) why he should not be PM.
Nah, youre persistently anti Starmer rather than pro Boris. Similar to BigG, a curious type of partisanship where you are not actually quite for the side you bat for.
Hang on. I've stated several times I want a general election ASAP, and I want Labour to win it.
Unless you're calling me a liar, that doesn't make me 'persistently anti-Starmer'.
But it doesn't mean I think the sun shines out if his backside, and he shouldn't be treated to the same rigorous (or in the case of some on here, non-rigorous), analysis that his opponents get.
So you can stick your 'partisanship' up your backside, along with your rosette.
For the avoidance of doubt not calling anyone a liar today bar the clown. It is a day attention should be on him, and that is my point.
Whenever Tory sleaze is at the top of the media agenda, silly stories about Starmer, such as todays or currygate become absurdly prominent.
Boris has to hold Uxbridge to be a contender for Leader of the Opposition if Rishi loses the next general election
No, surely? The potential sequence is this:
1. Boris is sanctioned for 2 weeks (60% chance?) 2. 10% of voters in Uxbridge sign a recalll to force a by-election (99%) 3. Boris loses (90%). How unfair, says Boris supporters, but at least he fought gravely instead of a cihcken run. 4. Boris is selected for a safe seat like Henley 5. The Tories lose the election on a swing of 5-10%. Boris holds on (60%?) 6. Sunak resigns. Boris is elected LOTO.
Note that this ONLY works if he is forced out now - not if he loses at the GE.
If it gets as far as a successful recall then why wouldn't the Conservative Party high command simply bar him from standing as a candidate?
Today has achieved everything you’ve wanted to see since I have been reading the site, has it not?
Sleep well tonight.
No not by a long way but today was an important moment for Sunak and the direction of the conservative party
WF to be ratified by UK and EU London on Friday, two days after the ERG could only muster 22 against
Sunak is entitled to a quiet drink of coke cola tonight after a successful PMQ's, endorsement across the HOC of the WF, the utter humiliation of Johnson largely by 4 if his own mps, and tonight the RMT call off the strikes against the Rail Delivery Group
Today has brought him a breather until the May local elections but they will be a completely different test.
If we see heavy Conservative losses and backbenchers seeing their "safe" majorities under threat, the mood could shift very quickly as we've seen before.
On the latest Survation the Conservative voteshare will be 3% more in May than the 28% it was in the local elections of May 2019, so the Conservatives could even make net gains. Especially from the Liberal Democrats and Independents
Yes. If the votes go as a “gold standard” you will say poll.
But the poll was not about Mays elections. And can’t partys underperform GE polling at locals with differential turn out?
And, as a Rishi supporter, shouldn’t you be cautious about how it will go, dampen expectations a bit, not boast of gains and creating hostages to fortune 🤷♀️
In fairness to HYUFD (and I very rarely am but am feeling kind) he might actually believe that the Conservatives will do quite well in May against Lib Dems and Independents.
He might well be wrong. But he doesn't have to spin it if he doesn't want to - you can't seriously criticise him for having a view and saying what it is.
I mean this isn't the spin room... plainly some people do it, but in theory it's people shooting the breeze on what they think will happen for betting purposes.
Rubbish! Even if HY thinks it’s going to be great for the Conservatives next month, mostly at Lib Dem expense but also some victory parties over Labour in Red Wall - which I very much doubted last month, but now thinking he’s going to be proved right - he still has to spin this properly.
Stop interfering. If HY stops spinning the world might as well too, as none of us will know where we are anymore.
Good day for Sunak. Carries the vote without having to rely on external support. Bad day for embittered former PMs.
The next polls could be very good for Sunak.
50% of my own personal focus group telling me tonight angry at the conservatives treatment of Boris, and thinking of switching from Sunak to Reform.
Where was this focus group taken, with over 50 white non graduate Leave voters in the Dog and Duck?
We need to know the views of the 11 farmers in someones pub from last week too. Better than yougov them.
Fortunately half the farmers round here or their wives are or were Tory councillors
What about farmers mums?
Especially farmers mums
You may be taking the ****, but I think that’s an interesting subset of people to survey how they think today has gone.
You can’t just rely on did he lie or not polls, it needs the “does it bother you much” follow up.
And it’s not really across the whole population either that’s important as to wether he makes a comeback as Tory leader soon enough, such as when Rishi resigns next year.
Boris has to hold Uxbridge to be a contender for Leader of the Opposition if Rishi loses the next general election
Or stand in another seat.
You have heard of the Conservative Democratic Organisation? You have been following their good work of recent months?
We could have a Patrick Gordon Walker type situation. That didn’t end well.
Boris: I work incredibly hard, have a great intellect and have great judgement as PM. I achieved so much great stuff.
Boris fans: The above is true, yet somehow he was easily brought down by phony allegations 2.5 years after winning a massive majority, by a cabal of weak traitors or something. I guess because Tory MPs love engaging in self sabotage.
Also Boris: I found lockdown rules too confusing to understand, but this in no way undermines my above point. I take what I am told on faith and expecting me to make my own judgement call is absurd.
Are these direct quotations?
No, and the lack of link or use of quotations or italics, their intentional absurdity, and one being generic 'Boris fans' makes it I think sufficiently clear it was not a direct quote of anyone but parodic.
The problem is, I have been put in the 'Boris fans' category by some on here. Despite having been vocally against Boris being PM when he was well in the MoL phase of his career (*). Because it seems anyone who doesn't have BDS is now a 'Boris fan'
(*) I said his behaviour during, and reaction to, the Garden Bridge debacle was a sign (amongst many) why he should not be PM.
Nah, youre persistently anti Starmer rather than pro Boris. Similar to BigG, a curious type of partisanship where you are not actually quite for the side you bat for.
Hang on. I've stated several times I want a general election ASAP, and I want Labour to win it.
Unless you're calling me a liar, that doesn't make me 'persistently anti-Starmer'.
But it doesn't mean I think the sun shines out if his backside, and he shouldn't be treated to the same rigorous (or in the case of some on here, non-rigorous), analysis that his opponents get.
So you can stick your 'partisanship' up your backside, along with your rosette.
For the avoidance of doubt not calling anyone a liar today bar the clown. It is a day attention should be on him, and that is my point.
Whenever Tory sleaze is at the top of the media agenda, silly stories about Starmer, such as todays or currygate become absurdly prominent.
It's not a 'silly story' though. *If* (and no-one has replied to the question) it applies to his lifetime earnings and not his time in that role, then it's effing dodgy - and would be for anyone else getting such SI's.
For morethan the last year you have been telling us, the Tories simply need to lose their overall majority and it’s Starmer Primeminister, becuase the Tories are UnCoalition-able. Now that adults are back in control of the Conservatives, putting together a very effective government, Rishi’s ratings rising as well as the parties polling numbers, are they still UnCoalition-able?
Or, if the post election numberwork has Rishi much closer to 326 than Starmer, is a Conservative led coalition quickly becoming a serious political bet?
With whom? Sunak is more competent, but isn't in any meaningful sense more palatable to the Lib Dems or SNP.
Really?
Yes. Sunak is an original Brexiteer and a key part of his agenda is a hardline approach on immigration that doesn't accord with either Lib Dem or SNP values (it might actually appeal to some of their voters but it's not them deciding on a coalition).
It was hard enough for the Lib Dems to go into coalition in 2010. That was at the time justified (I think rightly) based on compelling reasons to bring economic stability via a Government that could (and easily did) provide five solid years of political stability. It was helped by Brown being difficult, Cameron pretty liberal, several key Labour figures (notably Miliband, D) being hostile to a deal, and the numbers not working. And with hindsight it was a disaster for Clegg's party.
The position now is EASILY less amenable for a deal by a very, very long way. And in Scotland it makes even less sense - the fact the new SNP leader may be somewhat socially conservative for religious reasons does not mean she sees any merit in a Tory deal, and the political problems with it are blindingly obvious.
Sunak is a right wing, original Brexiteer Tory holding together a party where he has to hand out goodies to some pretty hardcore culture warriors. The fact he doesn't have the extreme character flaws of his two immediate predecessors does not change that political reality.
In the days when the Lib Dems were the default protest vote option, they used to fish in the same pool as UKIP for many of their voters. The party was more electorally successful when it was able to accommodate the likes of Norman Lamb than when it became an anti-Brexit cult.
The problem with that account is that the collapse in their vote came before (I think) the word "Brexit" had even been coined, back in 2015. Although I agree it was a flawed strategy to rule out half the electorate with the post-referendum line up to 2019, it doesn't account for the collapse, and clearly Davey has moved on in the sense of winning Brexit voting constituencies in Shropshire and Devon.
Also, as an aside, Lamb did actually hold his seat in a post-referendum General Election (2017) although it was lost pretty comprehensively when he retired in 2019.
Yes, I didn't mean to attribute the Lib Dems' initial collapse to Brexit, but I think it's a mistake to conclude that because Sunak is a Brexiteer, he can't appeal to the kind of people who used to vote Lib Dem c. 2010.
That's not what I said, though. I said he's uncoalitionable, which doesn't actually depend on Lib Dem voters but Lib Dem MPs and members (and the same for the SNP).
Indeed, I agree that some Lib Dem voters or potential voters will quite like Sunak on Brexit or immigration... but his position on those things just mean that there isn't going to be a coalition in reality - absolutely no chance.
I can't really see who Rishi appeals to. He doesn't seem a bad bloke (neither does Starmer), but neither have the same feel, or dare I say charisma, as Blair or Clinton.
Not that Blair or Clinton were stellar leaders...
I can see who in the electorate Sunak appeals too. People who are pretty right wing on a lot of issues and value competence (or at least stability/normality).
I don't think it's going to win him an election, as it's pretty hard to win on, "please ignore the last several years and the fact the economy has gone to sh1t, because Mr Normal is here..." But I get the strategy and why he appeals to some people.
Good day for Sunak. Carries the vote without having to rely on external support. Bad day for embittered former PMs.
The next polls could be very good for Sunak.
50% of my own personal focus group telling me tonight angry at the conservatives treatment of Boris, and thinking of switching from Sunak to Reform.
Where was this focus group taken, with over 50 white non graduate Leave voters in the Dog and Duck?
We need to know the views of the 11 farmers in someones pub from last week too. Better than yougov them.
Fortunately half the farmers round here or their wives are or were Tory councillors
What about farmers mums?
Especially farmers mums
You may be taking the ****, but I think that’s an interesting subset of people to survey how they think today has gone.
You can’t just rely on did he lie or not polls, it needs the “does it bother you much” follow up.
And it’s not really across the whole population either that’s important as to wether he makes a comeback as Tory leader soon enough, such as when Rishi resigns next year.
Boris has to hold Uxbridge to be a contender for Leader of the Opposition if Rishi loses the next general election
Or stand in another seat.
You have heard of the Conservative Democratic Organisation? You have been following their good work of recent months?
We could have a Patrick Gordon Walker type situation. That didn’t end well.
Boris has to hold Uxbridge to be a contender for Leader of the Opposition if Rishi loses the next general election
No, surely? The potential sequence is this:
1. Boris is sanctioned for 2 weeks (60% chance?) 2. 10% of voters in Uxbridge sign a recalll to force a by-election (99%) 3. Boris loses (90%). How unfair, says Boris supporters, but at least he fought gravely instead of a cihcken run. 4. Boris is selected for a safe seat like Henley 5. The Tories lose the election on a swing of 5-10%. Boris holds on (60%?) 6. Sunak resigns. Boris is elected LOTO.
Note that this ONLY works if he is forced out now - not if he loses at the GE.
If it gets as far as a successful recall then why wouldn't the Conservative Party high command simply bar him from standing as a candidate?
Christopher Davies was selected to stand in the Brecon and Radnorshire recall by-election after being convicted as a fraudster. He then got 39% of the vote.
According to wiki he was then selected to stand in Ynys Mon, but locals complained so they dropped him. Good thing too, they won it by 2k votes.
If Boris wants to be the candidate in a recall he surely will, and if he loses it there's surely a seat that would have him, without a reason for the high command to bar him since he will have taken his punishment.
Boris: I work incredibly hard, have a great intellect and have great judgement as PM. I achieved so much great stuff.
Boris fans: The above is true, yet somehow he was easily brought down by phony allegations 2.5 years after winning a massive majority, by a cabal of weak traitors or something. I guess because Tory MPs love engaging in self sabotage.
Also Boris: I found lockdown rules too confusing to understand, but this in no way undermines my above point. I take what I am told on faith and expecting me to make my own judgement call is absurd.
Are these direct quotations?
No, and the lack of link or use of quotations or italics, their intentional absurdity, and one being generic 'Boris fans' makes it I think sufficiently clear it was not a direct quote of anyone but parodic.
The problem is, I have been put in the 'Boris fans' category by some on here. Despite having been vocally against Boris being PM when he was well in the MoL phase of his career (*). Because it seems anyone who doesn't have BDS is now a 'Boris fan'
(*) I said his behaviour during, and reaction to, the Garden Bridge debacle was a sign (amongst many) why he should not be PM.
Nah, youre persistently anti Starmer rather than pro Boris. Similar to BigG, a curious type of partisanship where you are not actually quite for the side you bat for.
Hang on. I've stated several times I want a general election ASAP, and I want Labour to win it.
Unless you're calling me a liar, that doesn't make me 'persistently anti-Starmer'.
But it doesn't mean I think the sun shines out if his backside, and he shouldn't be treated to the same rigorous (or in the case of some on here, non-rigorous), analysis that his opponents get.
So you can stick your 'partisanship' up your backside, along with your rosette.
For the avoidance of doubt not calling anyone a liar today bar the clown. It is a day attention should be on him, and that is my point.
Whenever Tory sleaze is at the top of the media agenda, silly stories about Starmer, such as todays or currygate become absurdly prominent.
It's not a 'silly story' though. *If* (and no-one has replied to the question) it applies to his lifetime earnings and not his time in that role, then it's effing dodgy - and would be for anyone else getting such SI's.
In the sense it will remind people he is stonkingly wealthy then any release may be considered 'bad'. I doubt opposition and media will fail to make a story even if he paid every penny in tax he owes (by which I mean without all those legal but bullshit methods to evade).
Released just after it is revealed that Keir Starmer had a personal law passed for his tax/pension arrangements.
Not a coincidence.
I'm looking forward to the Labour manifesto pledge to repeal the Pensions Increase (Pension Scheme for Keir Starmer QC) Regulations 2013.
To be honest, scrapping the overall £1m lifetime limit on tax-free pensions savings in the Tory budget announced last week is a policy that absolutely stinks. As regressive and wasteful approach to tackling a problem as anything else these 13 years of Tory government has come up with. It should and will quite rightly come under sustained attack from now I think from the point of view claiming it helps NHS is why they done it is actually a patent lie - only a relatively small number of better-off workers will stay in the workforce a bit longer - it’s effectively just a bung to the rich, which these Tories have been doing throughout these 13 years while at same time forcing austerity on everybody else’s incomes.
Also, that increase for the DPP seems to have been part of a wider change for judges as well. But we don't seem to hear about that. Probably because PBTories like to try and make everything personal about SKS.
The law was very personal to Keir Starmer
Pensions to which the 1971 Act shall apply
3. The 1971 Act shall have effect in relation to any pension payable under the Pension Scheme for Keir Starmer QC (being a scheme made under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972(1)), as if it were a pension specified in Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the 1971 Act.
EXPLANATORY NOTE (This note is not part of the Regulations)
These Regulations apply the provisions of the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971 to any pension payable under the pension scheme made under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972 for the Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer QC.
An impact assessment has not been prepared for these Regulations as they have no impact upon the private or voluntary sectors.
Thanks - I had not realised such an act existed. Yet judges also had a similar provision, presumabluy for similar reasons?
He is no longer DPP. He is firmly outside the law profession. *If* the rules apply only to the time (and pension he accrued) whilst DPP, then it's odd, but excusable. If it gives him an advantage to the money he earns whilst not being part of the law profession - say, as an MP or LOTO, then it stinks.
But widening it a little, why should judges get special treatment?
It was done to stop very experienced senior judges leaving the workforce. Which goes to show that if the Govt was worried about very experienced senior doctors leaving the workforce, they could have introduced a doctors-only rule. They didn’t.
It all sounds highly odd to me. How about people in the private sector, who are high-earning and employ many people? You know, the people who actually do things?
On the face of it, it stinks for judges. It doubly stinks for Starmer.
why does a certain job require every - or it every? - person who performs the role to have a Statutory Instrument?
Does your job?
The reality is every DPP could earn squillions in the private sector.
To attract the best you have to give some perks to get them to work for you.
Jessops has picked up this ball and is running with it, and on "Johnson Day" of all days. I believe you comprehensively put the story to bed almost 24 hours ago. But hey, let him run.
Even with other regional variations being presumably similar this figure seems very low? It is wild to think that in 1794, only 12% the population of France spoke French.
Tbf, many others spoke languages closely associated with it, but still.
In the same year, about 14% percent of the population of the Habsburg Empire spoke German.
I suppose it hinges on the definition of “French” as you could argue that Occitan isn’t “French” if you are using the French of the court /Paris as the standard. So that removes large parts of the country.
You also have amongst many other regional languages or dialects, Breton, Norman French, Basque, and the languages of very remote isolated areas like the Landes.
For morethan the last year you have been telling us, the Tories simply need to lose their overall majority and it’s Starmer Primeminister, becuase the Tories are UnCoalition-able. Now that adults are back in control of the Conservatives, putting together a very effective government, Rishi’s ratings rising as well as the parties polling numbers, are they still UnCoalition-able?
Or, if the post election numberwork has Rishi much closer to 326 than Starmer, is a Conservative led coalition quickly becoming a serious political bet?
The DUP will always prefer to go into coalition with the Tories than Labour, and 8 seats can be very useful if you come out of the election on around 315.
More chance of Rishi coalescing with SF after today.
Today has achieved everything you’ve wanted to see since I have been reading the site, has it not?
Sleep well tonight.
No not by a long way but today was an important moment for Sunak and the direction of the conservative party
WF to be ratified by UK and EU London on Friday, two days after the ERG could only muster 22 against
Sunak is entitled to a quiet drink of coke cola tonight after a successful PMQ's, endorsement across the HOC of the WF, the utter humiliation of Johnson largely by 4 if his own mps, and tonight the RMT call off the strikes against the Rail Delivery Group
Today has brought him a breather until the May local elections but they will be a completely different test.
If we see heavy Conservative losses and backbenchers seeing their "safe" majorities under threat, the mood could shift very quickly as we've seen before.
I doubt we will see net heavy Conservative losses. The Conservatives were in a terrible place when these were last contested. They will lose seats to Labour, but the LibDems were riding much higher in 2019.
I'm not at all sure about this. The Tories had quite a poor set of local elections in 2019 but it was rather magnified by the fact that they had enjoyed excellent results when last contested in 2015 (on a winning General Election performance with high turnout and the Lib Dems in a terrible position).
I can see Sunak might have stabilised the position, but these could well still be very bad elections for them. They also run a lot of the Councils up, which is not a good position given the squeeze on financial resources and pressure on Council Tax (even for competent authorities, let alone those that have had a bigger crisis of which there are several). Basically a good set of local elections to be in opposition at the council level as a lot of services are creaking and there's not a lot to trumpet in terms of record for most.
For morethan the last year you have been telling us, the Tories simply need to lose their overall majority and it’s Starmer Primeminister, becuase the Tories are UnCoalition-able. Now that adults are back in control of the Conservatives, putting together a very effective government, Rishi’s ratings rising as well as the parties polling numbers, are they still UnCoalition-able?
Or, if the post election numberwork has Rishi much closer to 326 than Starmer, is a Conservative led coalition quickly becoming a serious political bet?
The DUP will always prefer to go into coalition with the Tories than Labour, and 8 seats can be very useful if you come out of the election on around 315.
More chance of Rishi coalescing with SF after today.
Sure, but Boris treated them far worse with his deal (since everyone but Boris, including the DUP, seem to think the WF is an improvement, the DUP just don't think it is enough) yet they are now aligned once again.
Boris: I work incredibly hard, have a great intellect and have great judgement as PM. I achieved so much great stuff.
Boris fans: The above is true, yet somehow he was easily brought down by phony allegations 2.5 years after winning a massive majority, by a cabal of weak traitors or something. I guess because Tory MPs love engaging in self sabotage.
Also Boris: I found lockdown rules too confusing to understand, but this in no way undermines my above point. I take what I am told on faith and expecting me to make my own judgement call is absurd.
Are these direct quotations?
No, and the lack of link or use of quotations or italics, their intentional absurdity, and one being generic 'Boris fans' makes it I think sufficiently clear it was not a direct quote of anyone but parodic.
The problem is, I have been put in the 'Boris fans' category by some on here. Despite having been vocally against Boris being PM when he was well in the MoL phase of his career (*). Because it seems anyone who doesn't have BDS is now a 'Boris fan'
(*) I said his behaviour during, and reaction to, the Garden Bridge debacle was a sign (amongst many) why he should not be PM.
Nah, youre persistently anti Starmer rather than pro Boris. Similar to BigG, a curious type of partisanship where you are not actually quite for the side you bat for.
Hang on. I've stated several times I want a general election ASAP, and I want Labour to win it.
Unless you're calling me a liar, that doesn't make me 'persistently anti-Starmer'.
But it doesn't mean I think the sun shines out if his backside, and he shouldn't be treated to the same rigorous (or in the case of some on here, non-rigorous), analysis that his opponents get.
So you can stick your 'partisanship' up your backside, along with your rosette.
For the avoidance of doubt not calling anyone a liar today bar the clown. It is a day attention should be on him, and that is my point.
Whenever Tory sleaze is at the top of the media agenda, silly stories about Starmer, such as todays or currygate become absurdly prominent.
It's not a 'silly story' though. *If* (and no-one has replied to the question) it applies to his lifetime earnings and not his time in that role, then it's effing dodgy - and would be for anyone else getting such SI's.
It'd be good to get an answer to that question.
That is a question for his employers, i.e. the govt, who decide what to pay him and what tax laws to write, not him.
Boris: I work incredibly hard, have a great intellect and have great judgement as PM. I achieved so much great stuff.
Boris fans: The above is true, yet somehow he was easily brought down by phony allegations 2.5 years after winning a massive majority, by a cabal of weak traitors or something. I guess because Tory MPs love engaging in self sabotage.
Also Boris: I found lockdown rules too confusing to understand, but this in no way undermines my above point. I take what I am told on faith and expecting me to make my own judgement call is absurd.
Are these direct quotations?
No, and the lack of link or use of quotations or italics, their intentional absurdity, and one being generic 'Boris fans' makes it I think sufficiently clear it was not a direct quote of anyone but parodic.
The problem is, I have been put in the 'Boris fans' category by some on here. Despite having been vocally against Boris being PM when he was well in the MoL phase of his career (*). Because it seems anyone who doesn't have BDS is now a 'Boris fan'
(*) I said his behaviour during, and reaction to, the Garden Bridge debacle was a sign (amongst many) why he should not be PM.
Nah, youre persistently anti Starmer rather than pro Boris. Similar to BigG, a curious type of partisanship where you are not actually quite for the side you bat for.
Hang on. I've stated several times I want a general election ASAP, and I want Labour to win it.
Unless you're calling me a liar, that doesn't make me 'persistently anti-Starmer'.
But it doesn't mean I think the sun shines out if his backside, and he shouldn't be treated to the same rigorous (or in the case of some on here, non-rigorous), analysis that his opponents get.
So you can stick your 'partisanship' up your backside, along with your rosette.
For the avoidance of doubt not calling anyone a liar today bar the clown. It is a day attention should be on him, and that is my point.
Whenever Tory sleaze is at the top of the media agenda, silly stories about Starmer, such as todays or currygate become absurdly prominent.
It's not a 'silly story' though. *If* (and no-one has replied to the question) it applies to his lifetime earnings and not his time in that role, then it's effing dodgy - and would be for anyone else getting such SI's.
It'd be good to get an answer to that question.
Yet the judges too got it.
Why though? Why just judges? Who not all workers? And if it's a question of keeping people in the public sector, then why just judges?
And it it's meant to aid retention, it did not work in Starmer's case, did it? According to wiki, he was DPP for five years. If his entire lifetime pension gains because of it, then it stinks. I wish someone could answer that.
Boris: I work incredibly hard, have a great intellect and have great judgement as PM. I achieved so much great stuff.
Boris fans: The above is true, yet somehow he was easily brought down by phony allegations 2.5 years after winning a massive majority, by a cabal of weak traitors or something. I guess because Tory MPs love engaging in self sabotage.
Also Boris: I found lockdown rules too confusing to understand, but this in no way undermines my above point. I take what I am told on faith and expecting me to make my own judgement call is absurd.
Are these direct quotations?
No, and the lack of link or use of quotations or italics, their intentional absurdity, and one being generic 'Boris fans' makes it I think sufficiently clear it was not a direct quote of anyone but parodic.
The problem is, I have been put in the 'Boris fans' category by some on here. Despite having been vocally against Boris being PM when he was well in the MoL phase of his career (*). Because it seems anyone who doesn't have BDS is now a 'Boris fan'
(*) I said his behaviour during, and reaction to, the Garden Bridge debacle was a sign (amongst many) why he should not be PM.
Nah, youre persistently anti Starmer rather than pro Boris. Similar to BigG, a curious type of partisanship where you are not actually quite for the side you bat for.
Hang on. I've stated several times I want a general election ASAP, and I want Labour to win it.
Unless you're calling me a liar, that doesn't make me 'persistently anti-Starmer'.
But it doesn't mean I think the sun shines out if his backside, and he shouldn't be treated to the same rigorous (or in the case of some on here, non-rigorous), analysis that his opponents get.
So you can stick your 'partisanship' up your backside, along with your rosette.
For the avoidance of doubt not calling anyone a liar today bar the clown. It is a day attention should be on him, and that is my point.
Whenever Tory sleaze is at the top of the media agenda, silly stories about Starmer, such as todays or currygate become absurdly prominent.
It's not a 'silly story' though. *If* (and no-one has replied to the question) it applies to his lifetime earnings and not his time in that role, then it's effing dodgy - and would be for anyone else getting such SI's.
It'd be good to get an answer to that question.
That is a question for his employers, i.e. the govt, who decide what to pay him and what tax laws to write, not him.
In the sense it will remind people he is stonkingly wealthy then any release may be considered 'bad'. I doubt opposition and media will fail to make a story even if he paid every penny in tax he owes (by which I mean without all those legal but bullshit methods to evade).
Released just after it is revealed that Keir Starmer had a personal law passed for his tax/pension arrangements.
Not a coincidence.
I'm looking forward to the Labour manifesto pledge to repeal the Pensions Increase (Pension Scheme for Keir Starmer QC) Regulations 2013.
To be honest, scrapping the overall £1m lifetime limit on tax-free pensions savings in the Tory budget announced last week is a policy that absolutely stinks. As regressive and wasteful approach to tackling a problem as anything else these 13 years of Tory government has come up with. It should and will quite rightly come under sustained attack from now I think from the point of view claiming it helps NHS is why they done it is actually a patent lie - only a relatively small number of better-off workers will stay in the workforce a bit longer - it’s effectively just a bung to the rich, which these Tories have been doing throughout these 13 years while at same time forcing austerity on everybody else’s incomes.
Also, that increase for the DPP seems to have been part of a wider change for judges as well. But we don't seem to hear about that. Probably because PBTories like to try and make everything personal about SKS.
The law was very personal to Keir Starmer
Pensions to which the 1971 Act shall apply
3. The 1971 Act shall have effect in relation to any pension payable under the Pension Scheme for Keir Starmer QC (being a scheme made under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972(1)), as if it were a pension specified in Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the 1971 Act.
EXPLANATORY NOTE (This note is not part of the Regulations)
These Regulations apply the provisions of the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971 to any pension payable under the pension scheme made under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972 for the Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer QC.
An impact assessment has not been prepared for these Regulations as they have no impact upon the private or voluntary sectors.
Thanks - I had not realised such an act existed. Yet judges also had a similar provision, presumabluy for similar reasons?
He is no longer DPP. He is firmly outside the law profession. *If* the rules apply only to the time (and pension he accrued) whilst DPP, then it's odd, but excusable. If it gives him an advantage to the money he earns whilst not being part of the law profession - say, as an MP or LOTO, then it stinks.
But widening it a little, why should judges get special treatment?
Q1: it's not clear to me that the Act cited here does what you and others claim it to do. It *seems* to be a tidying up thing. Looks as if MoJ set up a pension scheme when SKS joined it, and there was some hitch in the formulation tat needed to be sorted out.
Q2: I expect it was the same recruitment and retirement issue as is being deployed for medics. Peopler were being asked to stay on late in their careers and be penalised for it.
Good day for Sunak. Carries the vote without having to rely on external support. Bad day for embittered former PMs.
The next polls could be very good for Sunak.
50% of my own personal focus group telling me tonight angry at the conservatives treatment of Boris, and thinking of switching from Sunak to Reform.
Where was this focus group taken, with over 50 white non graduate Leave voters in the Dog and Duck?
We need to know the views of the 11 farmers in someones pub from last week too. Better than yougov them.
Fortunately half the farmers round here or their wives are or were Tory councillors
What about farmers mums?
Especially farmers mums
You may be taking the ****, but I think that’s an interesting subset of people to survey how they think today has gone.
You can’t just rely on did he lie or not polls, it needs the “does it bother you much” follow up.
And it’s not really across the whole population either that’s important as to wether he makes a comeback as Tory leader soon enough, such as when Rishi resigns next year.
Boris has to hold Uxbridge to be a contender for Leader of the Opposition if Rishi loses the next general election
Or stand in another seat.
You have heard of the Conservative Democratic Organisation? You have been following their good work of recent months?
We could have a Patrick Gordon Walker type situation. That didn’t end well.
I’m going to have to Google that over dinner.
It's an interesting story. One of my favourites. Peter Griffiths won the Smethwick by election, unnecesarily called by Wilson to return his friend, Walker to Parliament. Griffiths won on the slogan, "Vote Labour, get a ****** for a neighbour". Oh those Tories!
In the sense it will remind people he is stonkingly wealthy then any release may be considered 'bad'. I doubt opposition and media will fail to make a story even if he paid every penny in tax he owes (by which I mean without all those legal but bullshit methods to evade).
Released just after it is revealed that Keir Starmer had a personal law passed for his tax/pension arrangements.
Not a coincidence.
I'm looking forward to the Labour manifesto pledge to repeal the Pensions Increase (Pension Scheme for Keir Starmer QC) Regulations 2013.
To be honest, scrapping the overall £1m lifetime limit on tax-free pensions savings in the Tory budget announced last week is a policy that absolutely stinks. As regressive and wasteful approach to tackling a problem as anything else these 13 years of Tory government has come up with. It should and will quite rightly come under sustained attack from now I think from the point of view claiming it helps NHS is why they done it is actually a patent lie - only a relatively small number of better-off workers will stay in the workforce a bit longer - it’s effectively just a bung to the rich, which these Tories have been doing throughout these 13 years while at same time forcing austerity on everybody else’s incomes.
Also, that increase for the DPP seems to have been part of a wider change for judges as well. But we don't seem to hear about that. Probably because PBTories like to try and make everything personal about SKS.
The law was very personal to Keir Starmer
Pensions to which the 1971 Act shall apply
3. The 1971 Act shall have effect in relation to any pension payable under the Pension Scheme for Keir Starmer QC (being a scheme made under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972(1)), as if it were a pension specified in Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the 1971 Act.
EXPLANATORY NOTE (This note is not part of the Regulations)
These Regulations apply the provisions of the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971 to any pension payable under the pension scheme made under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972 for the Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer QC.
An impact assessment has not been prepared for these Regulations as they have no impact upon the private or voluntary sectors.
Thanks - I had not realised such an act existed. Yet judges also had a similar provision, presumabluy for similar reasons?
He is no longer DPP. He is firmly outside the law profession. *If* the rules apply only to the time (and pension he accrued) whilst DPP, then it's odd, but excusable. If it gives him an advantage to the money he earns whilst not being part of the law profession - say, as an MP or LOTO, then it stinks.
But widening it a little, why should judges get special treatment?
It was done to stop very experienced senior judges leaving the workforce. Which goes to show that if the Govt was worried about very experienced senior doctors leaving the workforce, they could have introduced a doctors-only rule. They didn’t.
It all sounds highly odd to me. How about people in the private sector, who are high-earning and employ many people? You know, the people who actually do things?
On the face of it, it stinks for judges. It doubly stinks for Starmer.
why does a certain job require every - or it every? - person who performs the role to have a Statutory Instrument?
Does your job?
The reality is every DPP could earn squillions in the private sector.
To attract the best you have to give some perks to get them to work for you.
Jessops has picked up this ball and is running with it, and on "Johnson Day" of all days. I believe you comprehensively put the story to bed almost 24 hours ago. But hey, let him run.
Sorry, I'm not on PB 24/7 (though it seems it at times).
Can you point me to the post where TSE 'put it to bed' please?
For morethan the last year you have been telling us, the Tories simply need to lose their overall majority and it’s Starmer Primeminister, becuase the Tories are UnCoalition-able. Now that adults are back in control of the Conservatives, putting together a very effective government, Rishi’s ratings rising as well as the parties polling numbers, are they still UnCoalition-able?
Or, if the post election numberwork has Rishi much closer to 326 than Starmer, is a Conservative led coalition quickly becoming a serious political bet?
With whom? Sunak is more competent, but isn't in any meaningful sense more palatable to the Lib Dems or SNP.
Really?
Yes. Sunak is an original Brexiteer and a key part of his agenda is a hardline approach on immigration that doesn't accord with either Lib Dem or SNP values (it might actually appeal to some of their voters but it's not them deciding on a coalition).
It was hard enough for the Lib Dems to go into coalition in 2010. That was at the time justified (I think rightly) based on compelling reasons to bring economic stability via a Government that could (and easily did) provide five solid years of political stability. It was helped by Brown being difficult, Cameron pretty liberal, several key Labour figures (notably Miliband, D) being hostile to a deal, and the numbers not working. And with hindsight it was a disaster for Clegg's party.
The position now is EASILY less amenable for a deal by a very, very long way. And in Scotland it makes even less sense - the fact the new SNP leader may be somewhat socially conservative for religious reasons does not mean she sees any merit in a Tory deal, and the political problems with it are blindingly obvious.
Sunak is a right wing, original Brexiteer Tory holding together a party where he has to hand out goodies to some pretty hardcore culture warriors. The fact he doesn't have the extreme character flaws of his two immediate predecessors does not change that political reality.
In the days when the Lib Dems were the default protest vote option, they used to fish in the same pool as UKIP for many of their voters. The party was more electorally successful when it was able to accommodate the likes of Norman Lamb than when it became an anti-Brexit cult.
The problem with that account is that the collapse in their vote came before (I think) the word "Brexit" had even been coined, back in 2015. Although I agree it was a flawed strategy to rule out half the electorate with the post-referendum line up to 2019, it doesn't account for the collapse, and clearly Davey has moved on in the sense of winning Brexit voting constituencies in Shropshire and Devon.
Also, as an aside, Lamb did actually hold his seat in a post-referendum General Election (2017) although it was lost pretty comprehensively when he retired in 2019.
Yes, I didn't mean to attribute the Lib Dems' initial collapse to Brexit, but I think it's a mistake to conclude that because Sunak is a Brexiteer, he can't appeal to the kind of people who used to vote Lib Dem c. 2010.
That's not what I said, though. I said he's uncoalitionable, which doesn't actually depend on Lib Dem voters but Lib Dem MPs and members (and the same for the SNP).
Indeed, I agree that some Lib Dem voters or potential voters will quite like Sunak on Brexit or immigration... but his position on those things just mean that there isn't going to be a coalition in reality - absolutely no chance.
I can't really see who Rishi appeals to. He doesn't seem a bad bloke (neither does Starmer), but neither have the same feel, or dare I say charisma, as Blair or Clinton.
Not that Blair or Clinton were stellar leaders...
I can see who in the electorate Sunak appeals too. People who are pretty right wing on a lot of issues and value competence (or at least stability/normality).
I don't think it's going to win him an election, as it's pretty hard to win on, "please ignore the last several years and the fact the economy has gone to sh1t, because Mr Normal is here..." But I get the strategy and why he appeals to some people.
None of it makes his party coalitionable.
Indeed. If Rishi had been made leader straight after the coalition I could have been a supporter. After Truss, Johnson and May, not only is there too much legacy, the other people still around in senior roles are too unpalatable and incompetent.
"Influencer Andrew Tate is to remain in custody for another 30 days in Romania, a court has ruled. It is the fourth such ruling against Tate, who is being held on suspicion of organised crime and human trafficking, an official said. None of the four have yet been formally indicted."
Boris has to hold Uxbridge to be a contender for Leader of the Opposition if Rishi loses the next general election
No, surely? The potential sequence is this:
1. Boris is sanctioned for 2 weeks (60% chance?) 2. 10% of voters in Uxbridge sign a recalll to force a by-election (99%) 3. Boris loses (90%). How unfair, says Boris supporters, but at least he fought gravely instead of a cihcken run. 4. Boris is selected for a safe seat like Henley 5. The Tories lose the election on a swing of 5-10%. Boris holds on (60%?) 6. Sunak resigns. Boris is elected LOTO.
Note that this ONLY works if he is forced out now - not if he loses at the GE.
If it gets as far as a successful recall then why wouldn't the Conservative Party high command simply bar him from standing as a candidate?
Christopher Davies was selected to stand in the Brecon and Radnorshire recall by-election after being convicted as a fraudster. He then got 39% of the vote.
According to wiki he was then selected to stand in Ynys Mon, but locals complained so they dropped him. Good thing too, they won it by 2k votes.
If Boris wants to be the candidate in a recall he surely will, and if he loses it there's surely a seat that would have him, without a reason for the high command to bar him since he will have taken his punishment.
I dare say he'll end up being the candidate in the recall ballot if that comes to pass - but then, assuming that he loses, why does the party have to let him back in as a re-tread? They can simply say he's brought the party into disrepute and they don't want him back. If Keir Starmer can say that Jeremy Corbyn won't be a Labour candidate at the next election, why can't Rishi Sunak say the same of Boris Johnson? The man's a serious distraction and liability - why the current leadership wouldn't want to see him given the boot for good escapes me.
Boris: I work incredibly hard, have a great intellect and have great judgement as PM. I achieved so much great stuff.
Boris fans: The above is true, yet somehow he was easily brought down by phony allegations 2.5 years after winning a massive majority, by a cabal of weak traitors or something. I guess because Tory MPs love engaging in self sabotage.
Also Boris: I found lockdown rules too confusing to understand, but this in no way undermines my above point. I take what I am told on faith and expecting me to make my own judgement call is absurd.
Are these direct quotations?
No, and the lack of link or use of quotations or italics, their intentional absurdity, and one being generic 'Boris fans' makes it I think sufficiently clear it was not a direct quote of anyone but parodic.
The problem is, I have been put in the 'Boris fans' category by some on here. Despite having been vocally against Boris being PM when he was well in the MoL phase of his career (*). Because it seems anyone who doesn't have BDS is now a 'Boris fan'
(*) I said his behaviour during, and reaction to, the Garden Bridge debacle was a sign (amongst many) why he should not be PM.
Nah, youre persistently anti Starmer rather than pro Boris. Similar to BigG, a curious type of partisanship where you are not actually quite for the side you bat for.
Hang on. I've stated several times I want a general election ASAP, and I want Labour to win it.
Unless you're calling me a liar, that doesn't make me 'persistently anti-Starmer'.
But it doesn't mean I think the sun shines out if his backside, and he shouldn't be treated to the same rigorous (or in the case of some on here, non-rigorous), analysis that his opponents get.
So you can stick your 'partisanship' up your backside, along with your rosette.
For the avoidance of doubt not calling anyone a liar today bar the clown. It is a day attention should be on him, and that is my point.
Whenever Tory sleaze is at the top of the media agenda, silly stories about Starmer, such as todays or currygate become absurdly prominent.
It's not a 'silly story' though. *If* (and no-one has replied to the question) it applies to his lifetime earnings and not his time in that role, then it's effing dodgy - and would be for anyone else getting such SI's.
It'd be good to get an answer to that question.
That is a question for his employers, i.e. the govt, who decide what to pay him and what tax laws to write, not him.
That's an entertaining interpretation.
If the govt come to me and say do you want a personalised tax law that saves you half a million quid or so over your career, I'll say sure. Most people would.
Most people would also think governments are a bit silly to be doing this kind of thing.
"Influencer Andrew Tate is to remain in custody for another 30 days in Romania, a court has ruled. It is the fourth such ruling against Tate, who is being held on suspicion of organised crime and human trafficking, an official said. None of the four have yet been formally indicted."
In the sense it will remind people he is stonkingly wealthy then any release may be considered 'bad'. I doubt opposition and media will fail to make a story even if he paid every penny in tax he owes (by which I mean without all those legal but bullshit methods to evade).
Released just after it is revealed that Keir Starmer had a personal law passed for his tax/pension arrangements.
Not a coincidence.
I'm looking forward to the Labour manifesto pledge to repeal the Pensions Increase (Pension Scheme for Keir Starmer QC) Regulations 2013.
To be honest, scrapping the overall £1m lifetime limit on tax-free pensions savings in the Tory budget announced last week is a policy that absolutely stinks. As regressive and wasteful approach to tackling a problem as anything else these 13 years of Tory government has come up with. It should and will quite rightly come under sustained attack from now I think from the point of view claiming it helps NHS is why they done it is actually a patent lie - only a relatively small number of better-off workers will stay in the workforce a bit longer - it’s effectively just a bung to the rich, which these Tories have been doing throughout these 13 years while at same time forcing austerity on everybody else’s incomes.
Also, that increase for the DPP seems to have been part of a wider change for judges as well. But we don't seem to hear about that. Probably because PBTories like to try and make everything personal about SKS.
The law was very personal to Keir Starmer
Pensions to which the 1971 Act shall apply
3. The 1971 Act shall have effect in relation to any pension payable under the Pension Scheme for Keir Starmer QC (being a scheme made under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972(1)), as if it were a pension specified in Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the 1971 Act.
EXPLANATORY NOTE (This note is not part of the Regulations)
These Regulations apply the provisions of the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971 to any pension payable under the pension scheme made under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972 for the Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer QC.
An impact assessment has not been prepared for these Regulations as they have no impact upon the private or voluntary sectors.
Thanks - I had not realised such an act existed. Yet judges also had a similar provision, presumabluy for similar reasons?
He is no longer DPP. He is firmly outside the law profession. *If* the rules apply only to the time (and pension he accrued) whilst DPP, then it's odd, but excusable. If it gives him an advantage to the money he earns whilst not being part of the law profession - say, as an MP or LOTO, then it stinks.
But widening it a little, why should judges get special treatment?
It was done to stop very experienced senior judges leaving the workforce. Which goes to show that if the Govt was worried about very experienced senior doctors leaving the workforce, they could have introduced a doctors-only rule. They didn’t.
It all sounds highly odd to me. How about people in the private sector, who are high-earning and employ many people? You know, the people who actually do things?
On the face of it, it stinks for judges. It doubly stinks for Starmer.
why does a certain job require every - or it every? - person who performs the role to have a Statutory Instrument?
Does your job?
The reality is every DPP could earn squillions in the private sector.
To attract the best you have to give some perks to get them to work for you.
Jessops has picked up this ball and is running with it, and on "Johnson Day" of all days. I believe you comprehensively put the story to bed almost 24 hours ago. But hey, let him run.
Not put to bed according to all the media right now, running with “Starmer criticised over tax free pension scheme” terrible headlines for Starmer from BBC
Boris: I work incredibly hard, have a great intellect and have great judgement as PM. I achieved so much great stuff.
Boris fans: The above is true, yet somehow he was easily brought down by phony allegations 2.5 years after winning a massive majority, by a cabal of weak traitors or something. I guess because Tory MPs love engaging in self sabotage.
Also Boris: I found lockdown rules too confusing to understand, but this in no way undermines my above point. I take what I am told on faith and expecting me to make my own judgement call is absurd.
Are these direct quotations?
No, and the lack of link or use of quotations or italics, their intentional absurdity, and one being generic 'Boris fans' makes it I think sufficiently clear it was not a direct quote of anyone but parodic.
The problem is, I have been put in the 'Boris fans' category by some on here. Despite having been vocally against Boris being PM when he was well in the MoL phase of his career (*). Because it seems anyone who doesn't have BDS is now a 'Boris fan'
(*) I said his behaviour during, and reaction to, the Garden Bridge debacle was a sign (amongst many) why he should not be PM.
Nah, youre persistently anti Starmer rather than pro Boris. Similar to BigG, a curious type of partisanship where you are not actually quite for the side you bat for.
Hang on. I've stated several times I want a general election ASAP, and I want Labour to win it.
Unless you're calling me a liar, that doesn't make me 'persistently anti-Starmer'.
But it doesn't mean I think the sun shines out if his backside, and he shouldn't be treated to the same rigorous (or in the case of some on here, non-rigorous), analysis that his opponents get.
So you can stick your 'partisanship' up your backside, along with your rosette.
For the avoidance of doubt not calling anyone a liar today bar the clown. It is a day attention should be on him, and that is my point.
Whenever Tory sleaze is at the top of the media agenda, silly stories about Starmer, such as todays or currygate become absurdly prominent.
It's not a 'silly story' though. *If* (and no-one has replied to the question) it applies to his lifetime earnings and not his time in that role, then it's effing dodgy - and would be for anyone else getting such SI's.
It'd be good to get an answer to that question.
That is a question for his employers, i.e. the govt, who decide what to pay him and what tax laws to write, not him.
That's an entertaining interpretation.
If the govt come to me and say do you want a personalised tax law that saves you half a million quid or so over your career, I'll say sure. Most people would.
Most people would also think governments are a bit silly to be doing this kind of thing.
Also a bit odd given the Tories have just widened such schemes for medics and ... wait for it ... bankers. (And others tbf.) So they must be a Good Thing.
Evening all! Will have to watch some packaged clips of the show as I've been unavailable to watch.
It does sound like Johnson has been proven to have been massively lying - both to parliament and to the committee. I know the consensus view has been 'sanction but not the ultimate sanction.'
I'm not sure now. If he had been apologetic and humble - "whoops, sorry" - then perhaps. But he has done the opposite. If they aren't going to smash him with penalties for this, you have to ask what you have to do to receive them?
Have you ever dealt with a four/five year old whose hands and face are covered with chocolate who then spend the next 4 hours denying they haven't eaten the missing sweeties?
That's what watching Boris Johnson today was like.
4/5 year olds are lovable and get away with it
Johnson is neither
A string of women, 100 Tory MPs and 25%-30% of the electorate say different......
"Influencer Andrew Tate is to remain in custody for another 30 days in Romania, a court has ruled. It is the fourth such ruling against Tate, who is being held on suspicion of organised crime and human trafficking, an official said. None of the four have yet been formally indicted."
If Blair had had his way it would have been, in some cases.
Besides, he's not here and apparently it's all above board - he didn't have to spend time there.
In the sense it will remind people he is stonkingly wealthy then any release may be considered 'bad'. I doubt opposition and media will fail to make a story even if he paid every penny in tax he owes (by which I mean without all those legal but bullshit methods to evade).
Released just after it is revealed that Keir Starmer had a personal law passed for his tax/pension arrangements.
Not a coincidence.
I'm looking forward to the Labour manifesto pledge to repeal the Pensions Increase (Pension Scheme for Keir Starmer QC) Regulations 2013.
To be honest, scrapping the overall £1m lifetime limit on tax-free pensions savings in the Tory budget announced last week is a policy that absolutely stinks. As regressive and wasteful approach to tackling a problem as anything else these 13 years of Tory government has come up with. It should and will quite rightly come under sustained attack from now I think from the point of view claiming it helps NHS is why they done it is actually a patent lie - only a relatively small number of better-off workers will stay in the workforce a bit longer - it’s effectively just a bung to the rich, which these Tories have been doing throughout these 13 years while at same time forcing austerity on everybody else’s incomes.
Also, that increase for the DPP seems to have been part of a wider change for judges as well. But we don't seem to hear about that. Probably because PBTories like to try and make everything personal about SKS.
The law was very personal to Keir Starmer
Pensions to which the 1971 Act shall apply
3. The 1971 Act shall have effect in relation to any pension payable under the Pension Scheme for Keir Starmer QC (being a scheme made under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972(1)), as if it were a pension specified in Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the 1971 Act.
EXPLANATORY NOTE (This note is not part of the Regulations)
These Regulations apply the provisions of the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971 to any pension payable under the pension scheme made under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972 for the Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer QC.
An impact assessment has not been prepared for these Regulations as they have no impact upon the private or voluntary sectors.
Thanks - I had not realised such an act existed. Yet judges also had a similar provision, presumabluy for similar reasons?
He is no longer DPP. He is firmly outside the law profession. *If* the rules apply only to the time (and pension he accrued) whilst DPP, then it's odd, but excusable. If it gives him an advantage to the money he earns whilst not being part of the law profession - say, as an MP or LOTO, then it stinks.
But widening it a little, why should judges get special treatment?
It was done to stop very experienced senior judges leaving the workforce. Which goes to show that if the Govt was worried about very experienced senior doctors leaving the workforce, they could have introduced a doctors-only rule. They didn’t.
It all sounds highly odd to me. How about people in the private sector, who are high-earning and employ many people? You know, the people who actually do things?
On the face of it, it stinks for judges. It doubly stinks for Starmer.
why does a certain job require every - or it every? - person who performs the role to have a Statutory Instrument?
Does your job?
The reality is every DPP could earn squillions in the private sector.
To attract the best you have to give some perks to get them to work for you.
Jessops has picked up this ball and is running with it, and on "Johnson Day" of all days. I believe you comprehensively put the story to bed almost 24 hours ago. But hey, let him run.
Sorry, I'm not on PB 24/7 (though it seems it at times).
Can you point me to the post where TSE 'put it to bed' please?
No, find it yourself. Have a look around 10 pm yesterday.
Starmer's reign as DPP ended in 2013 - ten years ago. The fact that the Telegraph and others are desperately seeking dirt from his time as DPP does suggest that their ammunition for mud-slinging from the last 10 years is pretty thin. Unless they're holding some really good stuff back for the GE, of course.
Starmer's reign as DPP ended in 2013 - ten years ago. The fact that the Telegraph and others are desperately seeking dirt from his time as DPP does suggest that their ammunition for mud-slinging from the last 10 years is pretty thin. Unless they're holding some really good stuff back for the GE, of course.
I think they have the Oakeshott files for the GE. Own goals but sell some papers and their preference may still be Team Johnson ahead of Team Sunak.
Good day for Sunak. Carries the vote without having to rely on external support. Bad day for embittered former PMs.
The next polls could be very good for Sunak.
50% of my own personal focus group telling me tonight angry at the conservatives treatment of Boris, and thinking of switching from Sunak to Reform.
Where was this focus group taken, with over 50 white non graduate Leave voters in the Dog and Duck?
We need to know the views of the 11 farmers in someones pub from last week too. Better than yougov them.
Fortunately half the farmers round here or their wives are or were Tory councillors
What about farmers mums?
Especially farmers mums
You may be taking the ****, but I think that’s an interesting subset of people to survey how they think today has gone.
You can’t just rely on did he lie or not polls, it needs the “does it bother you much” follow up.
And it’s not really across the whole population either that’s important as to wether he makes a comeback as Tory leader soon enough, such as when Rishi resigns next year.
Boris has to hold Uxbridge to be a contender for Leader of the Opposition if Rishi loses the next general election
Or stand in another seat.
You have heard of the Conservative Democratic Organisation? You have been following their good work of recent months?
Good day for Sunak. Carries the vote without having to rely on external support. Bad day for embittered former PMs.
The next polls could be very good for Sunak.
50% of my own personal focus group telling me tonight angry at the conservatives treatment of Boris, and thinking of switching from Sunak to Reform.
Where was this focus group taken, with over 50 white non graduate Leave voters in the Dog and Duck?
We need to know the views of the 11 farmers in someones pub from last week too. Better than yougov them.
Fortunately half the farmers round here or their wives are or were Tory councillors
What about farmers mums?
Especially farmers mums
You may be taking the ****, but I think that’s an interesting subset of people to survey how they think today has gone.
You can’t just rely on did he lie or not polls, it needs the “does it bother you much” follow up.
And it’s not really across the whole population either that’s important as to wether he makes a comeback as Tory leader soon enough, such as when Rishi resigns next year.
Boris has to hold Uxbridge to be a contender for Leader of the Opposition if Rishi loses the next general election
Or stand in another seat.
You have heard of the Conservative Democratic Organisation? You have been following their good work of recent months?
We could have a Patrick Gordon Walker type situation. That didn’t end well.
I’m going to have to Google that over dinner.
It's an interesting story. One of my favourites. Peter Griffiths won the Smethwick by election, unnecesarily called by Wilson to return his friend, Walker to Parliament. Griffiths won on the slogan, "Vote Labour, get a ****** for a neighbour". Oh those Tories!
For morethan the last year you have been telling us, the Tories simply need to lose their overall majority and it’s Starmer Primeminister, becuase the Tories are UnCoalition-able. Now that adults are back in control of the Conservatives, putting together a very effective government, Rishi’s ratings rising as well as the parties polling numbers, are they still UnCoalition-able?
Or, if the post election numberwork has Rishi much closer to 326 than Starmer, is a Conservative led coalition quickly becoming a serious political bet?
With whom? Sunak is more competent, but isn't in any meaningful sense more palatable to the Lib Dems or SNP.
Really?
Yes. Sunak is an original Brexiteer and a key part of his agenda is a hardline approach on immigration that doesn't accord with either Lib Dem or SNP values (it might actually appeal to some of their voters but it's not them deciding on a coalition).
It was hard enough for the Lib Dems to go into coalition in 2010. That was at the time justified (I think rightly) based on compelling reasons to bring economic stability via a Government that could (and easily did) provide five solid years of political stability. It was helped by Brown being difficult, Cameron pretty liberal, several key Labour figures (notably Miliband, D) being hostile to a deal, and the numbers not working. And with hindsight it was a disaster for Clegg's party.
The position now is EASILY less amenable for a deal by a very, very long way. And in Scotland it makes even less sense - the fact the new SNP leader may be somewhat socially conservative for religious reasons does not mean she sees any merit in a Tory deal, and the political problems with it are blindingly obvious.
Sunak is a right wing, original Brexiteer Tory holding together a party where he has to hand out goodies to some pretty hardcore culture warriors. The fact he doesn't have the extreme character flaws of his two immediate predecessors does not change that political reality.
In the days when the Lib Dems were the default protest vote option, they used to fish in the same pool as UKIP for many of their voters. The party was more electorally successful when it was able to accommodate the likes of Norman Lamb than when it became an anti-Brexit cult.
The problem with that account is that the collapse in their vote came before (I think) the word "Brexit" had even been coined, back in 2015. Although I agree it was a flawed strategy to rule out half the electorate with the post-referendum line up to 2019, it doesn't account for the collapse, and clearly Davey has moved on in the sense of winning Brexit voting constituencies in Shropshire and Devon.
Also, as an aside, Lamb did actually hold his seat in a post-referendum General Election (2017) although it was lost pretty comprehensively when he retired in 2019.
Yes, I didn't mean to attribute the Lib Dems' initial collapse to Brexit, but I think it's a mistake to conclude that because Sunak is a Brexiteer, he can't appeal to the kind of people who used to vote Lib Dem c. 2010.
That's not what I said, though. I said he's uncoalitionable, which doesn't actually depend on Lib Dem voters but Lib Dem MPs and members (and the same for the SNP).
Indeed, I agree that some Lib Dem voters or potential voters will quite like Sunak on Brexit or immigration... but his position on those things just mean that there isn't going to be a coalition in reality - absolutely no chance.
I can't really see who Rishi appeals to. He doesn't seem a bad bloke (neither does Starmer), but neither have the same feel, or dare I say charisma, as Blair or Clinton.
Not that Blair or Clinton were stellar leaders...
I can see who in the electorate Sunak appeals too. People who are pretty right wing on a lot of issues and value competence (or at least stability/normality).
I don't think it's going to win him an election, as it's pretty hard to win on, "please ignore the last several years and the fact the economy has gone to sh1t, because Mr Normal is here..." But I get the strategy and why he appeals to some people.
None of it makes his party coalitionable.
Perhaps Kate Forbes' SNP could think the unthinkable.
For morethan the last year you have been telling us, the Tories simply need to lose their overall majority and it’s Starmer Primeminister, becuase the Tories are UnCoalition-able. Now that adults are back in control of the Conservatives, putting together a very effective government, Rishi’s ratings rising as well as the parties polling numbers, are they still UnCoalition-able?
Or, if the post election numberwork has Rishi much closer to 326 than Starmer, is a Conservative led coalition quickly becoming a serious political bet?
As a LD you would be wise to hope they don't repeat 2010 again, although Forbes could surprise, coalesce with the Tories and kill the SNP forever. That would be no bad thing in my view
Starmer's reign as DPP ended in 2013 - ten years ago. The fact that the Telegraph and others are desperately seeking dirt from his time as DPP does suggest that their ammunition for mud-slinging from the last 10 years is pretty thin. Unless they're holding some really good stuff back for the GE, of course.
Maybe, but you have to admit it’s pretty funny that, after having made such a song and dance about the abolition of the limit (after themselves supporting it originally), it turns out Labour’s leader has special legislation ensuring part of his pensions savings are exempt from the cap.
In the sense it will remind people he is stonkingly wealthy then any release may be considered 'bad'. I doubt opposition and media will fail to make a story even if he paid every penny in tax he owes (by which I mean without all those legal but bullshit methods to evade).
Released just after it is revealed that Keir Starmer had a personal law passed for his tax/pension arrangements.
Not a coincidence.
I'm looking forward to the Labour manifesto pledge to repeal the Pensions Increase (Pension Scheme for Keir Starmer QC) Regulations 2013.
To be honest, scrapping the overall £1m lifetime limit on tax-free pensions savings in the Tory budget announced last week is a policy that absolutely stinks. As regressive and wasteful approach to tackling a problem as anything else these 13 years of Tory government has come up with. It should and will quite rightly come under sustained attack from now I think from the point of view claiming it helps NHS is why they done it is actually a patent lie - only a relatively small number of better-off workers will stay in the workforce a bit longer - it’s effectively just a bung to the rich, which these Tories have been doing throughout these 13 years while at same time forcing austerity on everybody else’s incomes.
Also, that increase for the DPP seems to have been part of a wider change for judges as well. But we don't seem to hear about that. Probably because PBTories like to try and make everything personal about SKS.
The law was very personal to Keir Starmer
Pensions to which the 1971 Act shall apply
3. The 1971 Act shall have effect in relation to any pension payable under the Pension Scheme for Keir Starmer QC (being a scheme made under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972(1)), as if it were a pension specified in Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the 1971 Act.
EXPLANATORY NOTE (This note is not part of the Regulations)
These Regulations apply the provisions of the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971 to any pension payable under the pension scheme made under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972 for the Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer QC.
An impact assessment has not been prepared for these Regulations as they have no impact upon the private or voluntary sectors.
Thanks - I had not realised such an act existed. Yet judges also had a similar provision, presumabluy for similar reasons?
He is no longer DPP. He is firmly outside the law profession. *If* the rules apply only to the time (and pension he accrued) whilst DPP, then it's odd, but excusable. If it gives him an advantage to the money he earns whilst not being part of the law profession - say, as an MP or LOTO, then it stinks.
But widening it a little, why should judges get special treatment?
It was done to stop very experienced senior judges leaving the workforce. Which goes to show that if the Govt was worried about very experienced senior doctors leaving the workforce, they could have introduced a doctors-only rule. They didn’t.
It all sounds highly odd to me. How about people in the private sector, who are high-earning and employ many people? You know, the people who actually do things?
On the face of it, it stinks for judges. It doubly stinks for Starmer.
In the sense it will remind people he is stonkingly wealthy then any release may be considered 'bad'. I doubt opposition and media will fail to make a story even if he paid every penny in tax he owes (by which I mean without all those legal but bullshit methods to evade).
Released just after it is revealed that Keir Starmer had a personal law passed for his tax/pension arrangements.
Not a coincidence.
I'm looking forward to the Labour manifesto pledge to repeal the Pensions Increase (Pension Scheme for Keir Starmer QC) Regulations 2013.
To be honest, scrapping the overall £1m lifetime limit on tax-free pensions savings in the Tory budget announced last week is a policy that absolutely stinks. As regressive and wasteful approach to tackling a problem as anything else these 13 years of Tory government has come up with. It should and will quite rightly come under sustained attack from now I think from the point of view claiming it helps NHS is why they done it is actually a patent lie - only a relatively small number of better-off workers will stay in the workforce a bit longer - it’s effectively just a bung to the rich, which these Tories have been doing throughout these 13 years while at same time forcing austerity on everybody else’s incomes.
Also, that increase for the DPP seems to have been part of a wider change for judges as well. But we don't seem to hear about that. Probably because PBTories like to try and make everything personal about SKS.
The law was very personal to Keir Starmer
Pensions to which the 1971 Act shall apply
3. The 1971 Act shall have effect in relation to any pension payable under the Pension Scheme for Keir Starmer QC (being a scheme made under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972(1)), as if it were a pension specified in Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the 1971 Act.
EXPLANATORY NOTE (This note is not part of the Regulations)
These Regulations apply the provisions of the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971 to any pension payable under the pension scheme made under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972 for the Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer QC.
An impact assessment has not been prepared for these Regulations as they have no impact upon the private or voluntary sectors.
Thanks - I had not realised such an act existed. Yet judges also had a similar provision, presumabluy for similar reasons?
He is no longer DPP. He is firmly outside the law profession. *If* the rules apply only to the time (and pension he accrued) whilst DPP, then it's odd, but excusable. If it gives him an advantage to the money he earns whilst not being part of the law profession - say, as an MP or LOTO, then it stinks.
But widening it a little, why should judges get special treatment?
Q1: it's not clear to me that the Act cited here does what you and others claim it to do. It *seems* to be a tidying up thing. Looks as if MoJ set up a pension scheme when SKS joined it, and there was some hitch in the formulation tat needed to be sorted out.
Q2: I expect it was the same recruitment and retirement issue as is being deployed for medics. Peopler were being asked to stay on late in their careers and be penalised for it.
I'm trying to understand what the act says - and thanks for trying to clarify it. When I looked at the relevant SI earlier, my lack of legal and pensions knowledge failed me. For instance, to interpret the SI, it seems you need to know the 'Pensions (increase) Act 1971'. I carry much wonderful and arcane knowledge in my mind, but that act's utterly absent.
As for your response to Q2: why did only he / DPP's get an SI, and not all medics and similar people? Why are judges and the DPP 'special' ?
Reading the SI, as a non-legal expert, it seems to be saying: *) There is a law that allows certain 'official' public service pensions to be uprated. (why?) *) The DPP is not on the list of 'official pensions'. *) Therefore this SI allows Starmer's pension to be treated as though it is on the list, without it being added to the list.
This leads to several questions. Like why not just update the list of 'official pensions' to include the role of DPP? Why is the DPP such a critical position that it deserves such favourable treatment (it's hardly a role for life). Why is an SI the obvious way of dealing with this?
I'm sure other who stay 'late in their careers', but don't get SI's to help with their pension arrangements, appreciate it.
In the sense it will remind people he is stonkingly wealthy then any release may be considered 'bad'. I doubt opposition and media will fail to make a story even if he paid every penny in tax he owes (by which I mean without all those legal but bullshit methods to evade).
Released just after it is revealed that Keir Starmer had a personal law passed for his tax/pension arrangements.
Not a coincidence.
I'm looking forward to the Labour manifesto pledge to repeal the Pensions Increase (Pension Scheme for Keir Starmer QC) Regulations 2013.
To be honest, scrapping the overall £1m lifetime limit on tax-free pensions savings in the Tory budget announced last week is a policy that absolutely stinks. As regressive and wasteful approach to tackling a problem as anything else these 13 years of Tory government has come up with. It should and will quite rightly come under sustained attack from now I think from the point of view claiming it helps NHS is why they done it is actually a patent lie - only a relatively small number of better-off workers will stay in the workforce a bit longer - it’s effectively just a bung to the rich, which these Tories have been doing throughout these 13 years while at same time forcing austerity on everybody else’s incomes.
Also, that increase for the DPP seems to have been part of a wider change for judges as well. But we don't seem to hear about that. Probably because PBTories like to try and make everything personal about SKS.
The law was very personal to Keir Starmer
Pensions to which the 1971 Act shall apply
3. The 1971 Act shall have effect in relation to any pension payable under the Pension Scheme for Keir Starmer QC (being a scheme made under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972(1)), as if it were a pension specified in Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the 1971 Act.
EXPLANATORY NOTE (This note is not part of the Regulations)
These Regulations apply the provisions of the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971 to any pension payable under the pension scheme made under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972 for the Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer QC.
An impact assessment has not been prepared for these Regulations as they have no impact upon the private or voluntary sectors.
Thanks - I had not realised such an act existed. Yet judges also had a similar provision, presumabluy for similar reasons?
He is no longer DPP. He is firmly outside the law profession. *If* the rules apply only to the time (and pension he accrued) whilst DPP, then it's odd, but excusable. If it gives him an advantage to the money he earns whilst not being part of the law profession - say, as an MP or LOTO, then it stinks.
But widening it a little, why should judges get special treatment?
It was done to stop very experienced senior judges leaving the workforce. Which goes to show that if the Govt was worried about very experienced senior doctors leaving the workforce, they could have introduced a doctors-only rule. They didn’t.
It all sounds highly odd to me. How about people in the private sector, who are high-earning and employ many people? You know, the people who actually do things?
On the face of it, it stinks for judges. It doubly stinks for Starmer.
Good day for Sunak. Carries the vote without having to rely on external support. Bad day for embittered former PMs.
The next polls could be very good for Sunak.
50% of my own personal focus group telling me tonight angry at the conservatives treatment of Boris, and thinking of switching from Sunak to Reform.
Where was this focus group taken, with over 50 white non graduate Leave voters in the Dog and Duck?
We need to know the views of the 11 farmers in someones pub from last week too. Better than yougov them.
Fortunately half the farmers round here or their wives are or were Tory councillors
What about farmers mums?
Especially farmers mums
You may be taking the ****, but I think that’s an interesting subset of people to survey how they think today has gone.
You can’t just rely on did he lie or not polls, it needs the “does it bother you much” follow up.
And it’s not really across the whole population either that’s important as to wether he makes a comeback as Tory leader soon enough, such as when Rishi resigns next year.
Boris has to hold Uxbridge to be a contender for Leader of the Opposition if Rishi loses the next general election
Or stand in another seat.
You have heard of the Conservative Democratic Organisation? You have been following their good work of recent months?
Seems like they are masochists to me on current polls, if I was Boris I would have looked for a safe seat and if I was IDS gone to the Lords but there we are
Boris: I work incredibly hard, have a great intellect and have great judgement as PM. I achieved so much great stuff.
Boris fans: The above is true, yet somehow he was easily brought down by phony allegations 2.5 years after winning a massive majority, by a cabal of weak traitors or something. I guess because Tory MPs love engaging in self sabotage.
Also Boris: I found lockdown rules too confusing to understand, but this in no way undermines my above point. I take what I am told on faith and expecting me to make my own judgement call is absurd.
Are these direct quotations?
No, and the lack of link or use of quotations or italics, their intentional absurdity, and one being generic 'Boris fans' makes it I think sufficiently clear it was not a direct quote of anyone but parodic.
The problem is, I have been put in the 'Boris fans' category by some on here. Despite having been vocally against Boris being PM when he was well in the MoL phase of his career (*). Because it seems anyone who doesn't have BDS is now a 'Boris fan'
(*) I said his behaviour during, and reaction to, the Garden Bridge debacle was a sign (amongst many) why he should not be PM.
Nah, youre persistently anti Starmer rather than pro Boris. Similar to BigG, a curious type of partisanship where you are not actually quite for the side you bat for.
Hang on. I've stated several times I want a general election ASAP, and I want Labour to win it.
Unless you're calling me a liar, that doesn't make me 'persistently anti-Starmer'.
But it doesn't mean I think the sun shines out if his backside, and he shouldn't be treated to the same rigorous (or in the case of some on here, non-rigorous), analysis that his opponents get.
So you can stick your 'partisanship' up your backside, along with your rosette.
For the avoidance of doubt not calling anyone a liar today bar the clown. It is a day attention should be on him, and that is my point.
Whenever Tory sleaze is at the top of the media agenda, silly stories about Starmer, such as todays or currygate become absurdly prominent.
It's not a 'silly story' though. *If* (and no-one has replied to the question) it applies to his lifetime earnings and not his time in that role, then it's effing dodgy - and would be for anyone else getting such SI's.
It'd be good to get an answer to that question.
That is a question for his employers, i.e. the govt, who decide what to pay him and what tax laws to write, not him.
That's an entertaining interpretation.
If the govt come to me and say do you want a personalised tax law that saves you half a million quid or so over your career, I'll say sure. Most people would.
Most people would also think governments are a bit silly to be doing this kind of thing.
Urrm, I'd wonder why the government are singling me out for a pesonalised tax law. I'd particularly think that if I had a political career ahead of me, as Starmer obviously did.
It's been a bit of an eye-opener to me (*) to see that SI's can be used for this sort of thing. It's so obviously corruptible - and that's a problem, even when it's not corrupt.
In the sense it will remind people he is stonkingly wealthy then any release may be considered 'bad'. I doubt opposition and media will fail to make a story even if he paid every penny in tax he owes (by which I mean without all those legal but bullshit methods to evade).
Released just after it is revealed that Keir Starmer had a personal law passed for his tax/pension arrangements.
Not a coincidence.
I'm looking forward to the Labour manifesto pledge to repeal the Pensions Increase (Pension Scheme for Keir Starmer QC) Regulations 2013.
To be honest, scrapping the overall £1m lifetime limit on tax-free pensions savings in the Tory budget announced last week is a policy that absolutely stinks. As regressive and wasteful approach to tackling a problem as anything else these 13 years of Tory government has come up with. It should and will quite rightly come under sustained attack from now I think from the point of view claiming it helps NHS is why they done it is actually a patent lie - only a relatively small number of better-off workers will stay in the workforce a bit longer - it’s effectively just a bung to the rich, which these Tories have been doing throughout these 13 years while at same time forcing austerity on everybody else’s incomes.
Also, that increase for the DPP seems to have been part of a wider change for judges as well. But we don't seem to hear about that. Probably because PBTories like to try and make everything personal about SKS.
The law was very personal to Keir Starmer
Pensions to which the 1971 Act shall apply
3. The 1971 Act shall have effect in relation to any pension payable under the Pension Scheme for Keir Starmer QC (being a scheme made under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972(1)), as if it were a pension specified in Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the 1971 Act.
EXPLANATORY NOTE (This note is not part of the Regulations)
These Regulations apply the provisions of the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971 to any pension payable under the pension scheme made under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972 for the Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer QC.
An impact assessment has not been prepared for these Regulations as they have no impact upon the private or voluntary sectors.
Thanks - I had not realised such an act existed. Yet judges also had a similar provision, presumabluy for similar reasons?
He is no longer DPP. He is firmly outside the law profession. *If* the rules apply only to the time (and pension he accrued) whilst DPP, then it's odd, but excusable. If it gives him an advantage to the money he earns whilst not being part of the law profession - say, as an MP or LOTO, then it stinks.
But widening it a little, why should judges get special treatment?
Q1: it's not clear to me that the Act cited here does what you and others claim it to do. It *seems* to be a tidying up thing. Looks as if MoJ set up a pension scheme when SKS joined it, and there was some hitch in the formulation tat needed to be sorted out.
Q2: I expect it was the same recruitment and retirement issue as is being deployed for medics. Peopler were being asked to stay on late in their careers and be penalised for it.
I'm trying to understand what the act says - and thanks for trying to clarify it. When I looked at the relevant SI earlier, my lack of legal and pensions knowledge failed me. For instance, to interpret the SI, it seems you need to know the 'Pensions (increase) Act 1971'. I carry much wonderful and arcane knowledge in my mind, but that act's utterly absent.
As for your response to Q2: why did only he / DPP's get an SI, and not all medics and similar people? Why are judges and the DPP 'special' ?
Reading the SI, as a non-legal expert, it seems to be saying: *) There is a law that allows certain 'official' public service pensions to be uprated. (why?) *) The DPP is not on the list of 'official pensions'. *) Therefore this SI allows Starmer's pension to be treated as though it is on the list, without it being added to the list.
This leads to several questions. Like why not just update the list of 'official pensions' to include the role of DPP? Why is the DPP such a critical position that it deserves such favourable treatment (it's hardly a role for life). Why is an SI the obvious way of dealing with this?
I'm sure other who stay 'late in their careers', but don't get SI's to help with their pension arrangements, appreciate it.
IANAE. But re Q2, it's clearly a category principle, not a personal one (albeit implemented piecemeal), which applies to 'senior lawyers coming into government service to do necessary jobs'. Which is, somehow, slightly different from NHS medics and commercial bankers. And not a perk specific to Mr Starmer. Which is the key point today.
I wonder if the rule behaved differently between civil service and lawyers' private pensions in some way which was seen to penalise those shifting to the CS pension late in life. Possibly a calculation thing or a DC/DB thing.
Starmer's reign as DPP ended in 2013 - ten years ago. The fact that the Telegraph and others are desperately seeking dirt from his time as DPP does suggest that their ammunition for mud-slinging from the last 10 years is pretty thin. Unless they're holding some really good stuff back for the GE, of course.
Maybe, but you have to admit it’s pretty funny that, after having made such a song and dance about the abolition of the limit (after themselves supporting it originally), it turns out Labour’s leader has special legislation ensuring part of his pensions savings are exempt from the cap.
But it's not special legislation for Starmer. It's special legislation for the DPP, whoever it is. And yes, I'd repeal it. But then I wouldn't give huge tax bungs to our wealthiest citizens either.
By the time the three hours of grilling were over, there were two winners on Wednesday. In the short term, it is Sunak, who has reasserted his authority over his party and has seen his biggest internal threat greatly diminished.
“Before today, I though there was a rump of 60-70 supporters in the party who could resurrect Boris,” one ex-minister said. “Now I’d put that number at about 25.”
But there is probably a bigger winner in the long run – Keir Starmer – for the reasons that Levido and Sunak explained to MPs at their awayday. The more partygate and Johnson are back on the front pages, the more the Conservative brand is tainted and the harder the narrow path to victory in 2024.
In the sense it will remind people he is stonkingly wealthy then any release may be considered 'bad'. I doubt opposition and media will fail to make a story even if he paid every penny in tax he owes (by which I mean without all those legal but bullshit methods to evade).
Released just after it is revealed that Keir Starmer had a personal law passed for his tax/pension arrangements.
Not a coincidence.
I'm looking forward to the Labour manifesto pledge to repeal the Pensions Increase (Pension Scheme for Keir Starmer QC) Regulations 2013.
To be honest, scrapping the overall £1m lifetime limit on tax-free pensions savings in the Tory budget announced last week is a policy that absolutely stinks. As regressive and wasteful approach to tackling a problem as anything else these 13 years of Tory government has come up with. It should and will quite rightly come under sustained attack from now I think from the point of view claiming it helps NHS is why they done it is actually a patent lie - only a relatively small number of better-off workers will stay in the workforce a bit longer - it’s effectively just a bung to the rich, which these Tories have been doing throughout these 13 years while at same time forcing austerity on everybody else’s incomes.
Also, that increase for the DPP seems to have been part of a wider change for judges as well. But we don't seem to hear about that. Probably because PBTories like to try and make everything personal about SKS.
The law was very personal to Keir Starmer
Pensions to which the 1971 Act shall apply
3. The 1971 Act shall have effect in relation to any pension payable under the Pension Scheme for Keir Starmer QC (being a scheme made under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972(1)), as if it were a pension specified in Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the 1971 Act.
EXPLANATORY NOTE (This note is not part of the Regulations)
These Regulations apply the provisions of the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971 to any pension payable under the pension scheme made under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972 for the Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer QC.
An impact assessment has not been prepared for these Regulations as they have no impact upon the private or voluntary sectors.
Thanks - I had not realised such an act existed. Yet judges also had a similar provision, presumabluy for similar reasons?
He is no longer DPP. He is firmly outside the law profession. *If* the rules apply only to the time (and pension he accrued) whilst DPP, then it's odd, but excusable. If it gives him an advantage to the money he earns whilst not being part of the law profession - say, as an MP or LOTO, then it stinks.
But widening it a little, why should judges get special treatment?
It was done to stop very experienced senior judges leaving the workforce. Which goes to show that if the Govt was worried about very experienced senior doctors leaving the workforce, they could have introduced a doctors-only rule. They didn’t.
It all sounds highly odd to me. How about people in the private sector, who are high-earning and employ many people? You know, the people who actually do things?
On the face of it, it stinks for judges. It doubly stinks for Starmer.
Good day for Sunak. Carries the vote without having to rely on external support. Bad day for embittered former PMs.
The next polls could be very good for Sunak.
50% of my own personal focus group telling me tonight angry at the conservatives treatment of Boris, and thinking of switching from Sunak to Reform.
Where was this focus group taken, with over 50 white non graduate Leave voters in the Dog and Duck?
We need to know the views of the 11 farmers in someones pub from last week too. Better than yougov them.
Fortunately half the farmers round here or their wives are or were Tory councillors
What about farmers mums?
Especially farmers mums
You may be taking the ****, but I think that’s an interesting subset of people to survey how they think today has gone.
You can’t just rely on did he lie or not polls, it needs the “does it bother you much” follow up.
And it’s not really across the whole population either that’s important as to wether he makes a comeback as Tory leader soon enough, such as when Rishi resigns next year.
Boris has to hold Uxbridge to be a contender for Leader of the Opposition if Rishi loses the next general election
Or stand in another seat.
You have heard of the Conservative Democratic Organisation? You have been following their good work of recent months?
We could have a Patrick Gordon Walker type situation. That didn’t end well.
I’m going to have to Google that over dinner.
It's an interesting story. One of my favourites. Peter Griffiths won the Smethwick by election, unnecesarily called by Wilson to return his friend, Walker to Parliament. Griffiths won on the slogan, "Vote Labour, get a ****** for a neighbour". Oh those Tories!
And ending "so help me God" which aiui is an Americanism.
Martin Luther was an American?
"I cannot and will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. Here I stand, I can do no other, so help me God. Amen." - Martin Luther 1581
Presumably Luther actually said or wrote that in Latin or German; choice of wording in English would be down to the translator. I found a version online that picks "May God help me", for instance.
Starmer's reign as DPP ended in 2013 - ten years ago. The fact that the Telegraph and others are desperately seeking dirt from his time as DPP does suggest that their ammunition for mud-slinging from the last 10 years is pretty thin. Unless they're holding some really good stuff back for the GE, of course.
Maybe, but you have to admit it’s pretty funny that, after having made such a song and dance about the abolition of the limit (after themselves supporting it originally), it turns out Labour’s leader has special legislation ensuring part of his pensions savings are exempt from the cap.
But it's not special legislation for Starmer. It's special legislation for the DPP, whoever it is. And yes, I'd repeal it. But then I wouldn't give huge tax bungs to our wealthiest citizens either.
Splitting hairs, it has his name in the title! How can you not see the funny side?
Starmer's reign as DPP ended in 2013 - ten years ago. The fact that the Telegraph and others are desperately seeking dirt from his time as DPP does suggest that their ammunition for mud-slinging from the last 10 years is pretty thin. Unless they're holding some really good stuff back for the GE, of course.
Maybe, but you have to admit it’s pretty funny that, after having made such a song and dance about the abolition of the limit (after themselves supporting it originally), it turns out Labour’s leader has special legislation ensuring part of his pensions savings are exempt from the cap.
But then I wouldn't give huge tax bungs to our wealthiest citizens either.
You're never going to make it to the top of politics with that attitude.
Starmer's reign as DPP ended in 2013 - ten years ago. The fact that the Telegraph and others are desperately seeking dirt from his time as DPP does suggest that their ammunition for mud-slinging from the last 10 years is pretty thin. Unless they're holding some really good stuff back for the GE, of course.
Maybe, but you have to admit it’s pretty funny that, after having made such a song and dance about the abolition of the limit (after themselves supporting it originally), it turns out Labour’s leader has special legislation ensuring part of his pensions savings are exempt from the cap.
But it's not special legislation for Starmer. It's special legislation for the DPP, whoever it is. And yes, I'd repeal it. But then I wouldn't give huge tax bungs to our wealthiest citizens either.
Splitting hairs, it has his name in the title! How can you not see the funny side?
But, inside, it basically says 'DPP who happens to be KS".
In the sense it will remind people he is stonkingly wealthy then any release may be considered 'bad'. I doubt opposition and media will fail to make a story even if he paid every penny in tax he owes (by which I mean without all those legal but bullshit methods to evade).
Released just after it is revealed that Keir Starmer had a personal law passed for his tax/pension arrangements.
Not a coincidence.
I'm looking forward to the Labour manifesto pledge to repeal the Pensions Increase (Pension Scheme for Keir Starmer QC) Regulations 2013.
To be honest, scrapping the overall £1m lifetime limit on tax-free pensions savings in the Tory budget announced last week is a policy that absolutely stinks. As regressive and wasteful approach to tackling a problem as anything else these 13 years of Tory government has come up with. It should and will quite rightly come under sustained attack from now I think from the point of view claiming it helps NHS is why they done it is actually a patent lie - only a relatively small number of better-off workers will stay in the workforce a bit longer - it’s effectively just a bung to the rich, which these Tories have been doing throughout these 13 years while at same time forcing austerity on everybody else’s incomes.
Also, that increase for the DPP seems to have been part of a wider change for judges as well. But we don't seem to hear about that. Probably because PBTories like to try and make everything personal about SKS.
The law was very personal to Keir Starmer
Pensions to which the 1971 Act shall apply
3. The 1971 Act shall have effect in relation to any pension payable under the Pension Scheme for Keir Starmer QC (being a scheme made under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972(1)), as if it were a pension specified in Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the 1971 Act.
EXPLANATORY NOTE (This note is not part of the Regulations)
These Regulations apply the provisions of the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971 to any pension payable under the pension scheme made under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972 for the Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer QC.
An impact assessment has not been prepared for these Regulations as they have no impact upon the private or voluntary sectors.
Thanks - I had not realised such an act existed. Yet judges also had a similar provision, presumabluy for similar reasons?
He is no longer DPP. He is firmly outside the law profession. *If* the rules apply only to the time (and pension he accrued) whilst DPP, then it's odd, but excusable. If it gives him an advantage to the money he earns whilst not being part of the law profession - say, as an MP or LOTO, then it stinks.
But widening it a little, why should judges get special treatment?
Q1: it's not clear to me that the Act cited here does what you and others claim it to do. It *seems* to be a tidying up thing. Looks as if MoJ set up a pension scheme when SKS joined it, and there was some hitch in the formulation tat needed to be sorted out.
Q2: I expect it was the same recruitment and retirement issue as is being deployed for medics. Peopler were being asked to stay on late in their careers and be penalised for it.
I'm trying to understand what the act says - and thanks for trying to clarify it. When I looked at the relevant SI earlier, my lack of legal and pensions knowledge failed me. For instance, to interpret the SI, it seems you need to know the 'Pensions (increase) Act 1971'. I carry much wonderful and arcane knowledge in my mind, but that act's utterly absent.
As for your response to Q2: why did only he / DPP's get an SI, and not all medics and similar people? Why are judges and the DPP 'special' ?
Reading the SI, as a non-legal expert, it seems to be saying: *) There is a law that allows certain 'official' public service pensions to be uprated. (why?) *) The DPP is not on the list of 'official pensions'. *) Therefore this SI allows Starmer's pension to be treated as though it is on the list, without it being added to the list.
This leads to several questions. Like why not just update the list of 'official pensions' to include the role of DPP? Why is the DPP such a critical position that it deserves such favourable treatment (it's hardly a role for life). Why is an SI the obvious way of dealing with this?
I'm sure other who stay 'late in their careers', but don't get SI's to help with their pension arrangements, appreciate it.
IANAE. But re Q2, it's clearly a category rule, not a personal one, which applies to 'senior lawyers coming into government service to do necessary jobs'. Which is slightly different from NHS medics and commercial bankers. And not a perk specific to Mr Starmer. Which is the key point today.
If it mentions his name - in the title nonetheless - then surely it's personal, not a category?
If it was category, it would say 'DPP', and apply to all future DPPs?
Unless all DPPs have to change their name to 'Keir Starmer' ?
(On another note, I keep on having to correct 'Kier' to 'Keir', because I'm so used to reading about the construction company...)
Starmer's reign as DPP ended in 2013 - ten years ago. The fact that the Telegraph and others are desperately seeking dirt from his time as DPP does suggest that their ammunition for mud-slinging from the last 10 years is pretty thin. Unless they're holding some really good stuff back for the GE, of course.
Maybe, but you have to admit it’s pretty funny that, after having made such a song and dance about the abolition of the limit (after themselves supporting it originally), it turns out Labour’s leader has special legislation ensuring part of his pensions savings are exempt from the cap.
But it's not special legislation for Starmer. It's special legislation for the DPP, whoever it is. And yes, I'd repeal it. But then I wouldn't give huge tax bungs to our wealthiest citizens either.
Splitting hairs, it has his name in the title! How can you not see the funny side?
But, inside, it basically says 'DPP who happens to be KS".
So there would have been no issue for him had there just been a law excluding current and former DPPs from the cap? I don't think so, his stance would have still been called hypocritical.
Starmer's reign as DPP ended in 2013 - ten years ago. The fact that the Telegraph and others are desperately seeking dirt from his time as DPP does suggest that their ammunition for mud-slinging from the last 10 years is pretty thin. Unless they're holding some really good stuff back for the GE, of course.
I think they have the Oakeshott files for the GE. Own goals but sell some papers and their preference may still be Team Johnson ahead of Team Sunak.
Nobody from the Labour right would touch Oakeshott with a barge pole... so if she did find some smears against SKS it would have to come from disgruntled Corbynites.
In the sense it will remind people he is stonkingly wealthy then any release may be considered 'bad'. I doubt opposition and media will fail to make a story even if he paid every penny in tax he owes (by which I mean without all those legal but bullshit methods to evade).
Released just after it is revealed that Keir Starmer had a personal law passed for his tax/pension arrangements.
Not a coincidence.
I'm looking forward to the Labour manifesto pledge to repeal the Pensions Increase (Pension Scheme for Keir Starmer QC) Regulations 2013.
To be honest, scrapping the overall £1m lifetime limit on tax-free pensions savings in the Tory budget announced last week is a policy that absolutely stinks. As regressive and wasteful approach to tackling a problem as anything else these 13 years of Tory government has come up with. It should and will quite rightly come under sustained attack from now I think from the point of view claiming it helps NHS is why they done it is actually a patent lie - only a relatively small number of better-off workers will stay in the workforce a bit longer - it’s effectively just a bung to the rich, which these Tories have been doing throughout these 13 years while at same time forcing austerity on everybody else’s incomes.
Also, that increase for the DPP seems to have been part of a wider change for judges as well. But we don't seem to hear about that. Probably because PBTories like to try and make everything personal about SKS.
The law was very personal to Keir Starmer
Pensions to which the 1971 Act shall apply
3. The 1971 Act shall have effect in relation to any pension payable under the Pension Scheme for Keir Starmer QC (being a scheme made under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972(1)), as if it were a pension specified in Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the 1971 Act.
EXPLANATORY NOTE (This note is not part of the Regulations)
These Regulations apply the provisions of the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971 to any pension payable under the pension scheme made under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972 for the Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer QC.
An impact assessment has not been prepared for these Regulations as they have no impact upon the private or voluntary sectors.
Thanks - I had not realised such an act existed. Yet judges also had a similar provision, presumabluy for similar reasons?
He is no longer DPP. He is firmly outside the law profession. *If* the rules apply only to the time (and pension he accrued) whilst DPP, then it's odd, but excusable. If it gives him an advantage to the money he earns whilst not being part of the law profession - say, as an MP or LOTO, then it stinks.
But widening it a little, why should judges get special treatment?
It was done to stop very experienced senior judges leaving the workforce. Which goes to show that if the Govt was worried about very experienced senior doctors leaving the workforce, they could have introduced a doctors-only rule. They didn’t.
It all sounds highly odd to me. How about people in the private sector, who are high-earning and employ many people? You know, the people who actually do things?
On the face of it, it stinks for judges. It doubly stinks for Starmer.
why does a certain job require every - or it every? - person who performs the role to have a Statutory Instrument?
Does your job?
The reality is every DPP could earn squillions in the private sector.
To attract the best you have to give some perks to get them to work for you.
Jessops has picked up this ball and is running with it, and on "Johnson Day" of all days. I believe you comprehensively put the story to bed almost 24 hours ago. But hey, let him run.
Not put to bed according to all the media right now, running with “Starmer criticised over tax free pension scheme” terrible headlines for Starmer from BBC
Good day for Sunak. Carries the vote without having to rely on external support. Bad day for embittered former PMs.
The next polls could be very good for Sunak.
50% of my own personal focus group telling me tonight angry at the conservatives treatment of Boris, and thinking of switching from Sunak to Reform.
Where was this focus group taken, with over 50 white non graduate Leave voters in the Dog and Duck?
We need to know the views of the 11 farmers in someones pub from last week too. Better than yougov them.
Fortunately half the farmers round here or their wives are or were Tory councillors
What about farmers mums?
Especially farmers mums
You may be taking the ****, but I think that’s an interesting subset of people to survey how they think today has gone.
You can’t just rely on did he lie or not polls, it needs the “does it bother you much” follow up.
And it’s not really across the whole population either that’s important as to wether he makes a comeback as Tory leader soon enough, such as when Rishi resigns next year.
Boris has to hold Uxbridge to be a contender for Leader of the Opposition if Rishi loses the next general election
Or stand in another seat.
You have heard of the Conservative Democratic Organisation? You have been following their good work of recent months?
We could have a Patrick Gordon Walker type situation. That didn’t end well.
I’m going to have to Google that over dinner.
It's an interesting story. One of my favourites. Peter Griffiths won the Smethwick by election, unnecesarily called by Wilson to return his friend, Walker to Parliament. Griffiths won on the slogan, "Vote Labour, get a ****** for a neighbour". Oh those Tories!
Best not to though, don't you agree? I also misquoted the slogan, but you got my drift, yeah?
Yes. Sadly the slogan was If you want a ****** for a neighbour vote Labour.
The resulting furore was one of my very earliest detailed political memories, I was under 10, in a more innocent age, watching Lord Boothby (I think) being furious about it.
Talking of tax (which we weren't), what struck me most about Sunak's tax return was how little tax somebody with that sort of income pays. I'm not talking about amount - I mean as a % of income. I keep reading about how we are over-taxing the rich, but Sunak hangs on to not that far off 80% of his total income in 21/22 (c. 430k tax of £2m income). Doesn't look overtaxed to me, and has plenty of spending money left. Or have I misunderstood this, as I've never experienced anything other than PAYE?
By the time the three hours of grilling were over, there were two winners on Wednesday. In the short term, it is Sunak, who has reasserted his authority over his party and has seen his biggest internal threat greatly diminished.
“Before today, I though there was a rump of 60-70 supporters in the party who could resurrect Boris,” one ex-minister said. “Now I’d put that number at about 25.”
But there is probably a bigger winner in the long run – Keir Starmer – for the reasons that Levido and Sunak explained to MPs at their awayday. The more partygate and Johnson are back on the front pages, the more the Conservative brand is tainted and the harder the narrow path to victory in 2024.
Hence the fact that there's good reason to suppose that Johnson won't be allowed back as a Conservative MP if recalled and defeated in Uxbridge. That is, if it gets to that stage he'll most likely conclude for himself that a comeback is well and truly beyond him, and devote himself to earning as much money as possible writing rot for the Torygraph. But even if he does show any interest in being selected for another seat, I see no good reason why the current leadership wouldn't bar him from doing so. The best way to minimise the effectiveness of Labour attack lines about Johnson's time in office and his behaviour in general is to give him the boot.
Comments
why does a certain job require every - or it every? - person who performs the role to have a Statutory Instrument?
Does your job?
Why should you have worked it out? I didn’t expect myself till I had the conversation, so happy to say sorry to you about that bit.
But then on the other hand, perhaps we both should have worked it out. Using a black mirror is a key tool in politics isn’t it?
For example, I’ll take the key phrase from your post “ partisan ridiculousness” and use it to caption something.
As he published conclusive evidence he did not lie over partygate.
Who do we know who reads this partisan ridiculousness
The problem for the Tories here, is partisan to who versus who?
To attract the best you have to give some perks to get them to work for you.
(*) I said his behaviour during, and reaction to, the Garden Bridge debacle was a sign (amongst many) why he should not be PM.
Big winner from today is Rishi Sunak. Rebellion squashed. Boris threat neutralised. Keir Starmer embroiled in pensions hypocrisy row. Might well be some more bottles opened in Downing Street tonight.
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1638593240960999424?s=20
However, DO query the timing.
Perhaps best to wait a few days, to let the stench left by Big Dog's epic Big Dump today die down just a bit?
Realize that for some, point of the exercise is to damage both Starmer AND Sunak. But, again, today is probably NOT best day?
Genuine question, but assume it is not as one sided as you describe if you look at career earnings rather than annual earnings?
It stinks - for him and anyone else who gets such special arrangements.
If he deserves it, make it more general for others. Otherwise, don't make exceptions for him alone. That's a sure-fire way to corruption.
But the poll was not about Mays elections. And can’t partys underperform GE polling at locals with differential turn out?
And, as a Rishi supporter, shouldn’t you be cautious about how it will go, dampen expectations a bit, not boast of gains and creating hostages to fortune 🤷♀️
Also, as an aside, Lamb did actually hold his seat in a post-referendum General Election (2017) although it was lost pretty comprehensively when he retired in 2019.
does this apply to just his earnings whilst DPP, or his entire lifetime earnings?
If the former, then it's odd but perhaps excusable (*). If the latter it's as dodgy as f**k.
(*) And I'd prefer it not to be done, as it's a route to corruption.
1. Boris is sanctioned for 2 weeks (60% chance?)
2. 10% of voters in Uxbridge sign a recalll to force a by-election (99%)
3. Boris loses (90%). How unfair, says Boris supporters, but at least he fought gravely instead of a cihcken run.
4. Boris is selected for a safe seat like Henley
5. The Tories lose the election on a swing of 5-10%. Boris holds on (60%?)
6. Sunak resigns. Boris is elected LOTO.
Note that this ONLY works if he is forced out now - not if he loses at the GE.
He might well be wrong. But he doesn't have to spin it if he doesn't want to - you can't seriously criticise him for having a view and saying what it is.
I mean this isn't the spin room... plainly some people do it, but in theory it's people shooting the breeze on what they think will happen for betting purposes.
Johnson is neither
Granted it is from a law school, but still, interesting approach.
Stanford Law School's dean: "our commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion is not going to take the form of having the school administration announce institutional positions on a wide range of current social and political
issues."
https://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Next-Steps-on-Protests-and-Free-Speech.pdf?mkt_tok=ODg0LUZTQi0zMDcAAAGKqNfmUfz2S_PCzkgUjCQGrC2DR1ji-TGeKtn3NnnIoJpAduaZaZdKteNsL5dGzCkk5cwWC_6vm8autYIUyUQO4uIJy6lLbBGo47NHk8_3iTA
Unless you're calling me a liar, that doesn't make me 'persistently anti-Starmer'.
But it doesn't mean I think the sun shines out if his backside, and he shouldn't be treated to the same rigorous (or in the case of some on here, non-rigorous), analysis that his opponents get.
So you can stick your 'partisanship' up your backside, along with your rosette.
You have heard of the Conservative Democratic Organisation? You have been following their good work of recent months?
Indeed, I agree that some Lib Dem voters or potential voters will quite like Sunak on Brexit or immigration... but his position on those things (along with other factors including recent unpleasant experience of blue-yellow coalition and, in Scotland, pretty deep-seated anti-Tory sentiment) just mean that there isn't going to be a coalition in reality - absolutely no chance in fact.
Not that Blair or Clinton were stellar leaders...
It is wild to think that in 1794, only 12% the population of France spoke French.
Tbf, many others spoke languages closely associated with it, but still.
In the same year, about 14% percent of the population of the Habsburg Empire spoke German.
https://twitter.com/benbawan/status/1637940091417944072
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_United_Kingdom_local_elections
It kills any comments about the provision Hunt out in the budget about pension contributions.
Also, it probably kills attacks on Sunsk’s tax arrangements.
Whenever Tory sleaze is at the top of the media agenda, silly stories about Starmer, such as todays or currygate become absurdly prominent.
Stop interfering. If HY stops spinning the world might as well too, as none of us will know where we are anymore.
It'd be good to get an answer to that question.
I don't think it's going to win him an election, as it's pretty hard to win on, "please ignore the last several years and the fact the economy has gone to sh1t, because Mr Normal is here..." But I get the strategy and why he appeals to some people.
None of it makes his party coalitionable.
According to wiki he was then selected to stand in Ynys Mon, but locals complained so they dropped him. Good thing too, they won it by 2k votes.
If Boris wants to be the candidate in a recall he surely will, and if he loses it there's surely a seat that would have him, without a reason for the high command to bar him since he will have taken his punishment.
You also have amongst many other regional languages or dialects, Breton, Norman French, Basque, and the languages of very remote isolated areas like the Landes.
I can see Sunak might have stabilised the position, but these could well still be very bad elections for them. They also run a lot of the Councils up, which is not a good position given the squeeze on financial resources and pressure on Council Tax (even for competent authorities, let alone those that have had a bigger crisis of which there are several). Basically a good set of local elections to be in opposition at the council level as a lot of services are creaking and there's not a lot to trumpet in terms of record for most.
And it it's meant to aid retention, it did not work in Starmer's case, did it? According to wiki, he was DPP for five years. If his entire lifetime pension gains because of it, then it stinks. I wish someone could answer that.
And most of all, Starmer was DPP, not a judge.
No mention of lifetime limits.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/2588/memorandum/contents
Q2: I expect it was the same recruitment and retirement issue as is being deployed for medics. Peopler were being asked to stay on late in their careers and be penalised for it.
Can you point me to the post where TSE 'put it to bed' please?
https://www.itv.com/news/2023-03-22/influencer-andrew-tate-has-detention-extended-for-fourth-time
"Influencer Andrew Tate is to remain in custody for another 30 days in Romania, a court has ruled. It is the fourth such ruling against Tate, who is being held on suspicion of organised crime and human trafficking, an official said. None of the four have yet been formally indicted."
Most people would also think governments are a bit silly to be doing this kind of thing.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65037136
Besides, he's not here and apparently it's all above board - he didn't have to spend time there.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/mar/16/boris-johnson-reselected-as-tory-candidate-in-uxbridge
As for your response to Q2: why did only he / DPP's get an SI, and not all medics and similar people? Why are judges and the DPP 'special' ?
Reading the SI, as a non-legal expert, it seems to be saying:
*) There is a law that allows certain 'official' public service pensions to be uprated. (why?)
*) The DPP is not on the list of 'official pensions'.
*) Therefore this SI allows Starmer's pension to be treated as though it is on the list, without it being added to the list.
This leads to several questions. Like why not just update the list of 'official pensions' to include the role of DPP? Why is the DPP such a critical position that it deserves such favourable treatment (it's hardly a role for life). Why is an SI the obvious way of dealing with this?
I'm sure other who stay 'late in their careers', but don't get SI's to help with their pension arrangements, appreciate it.
https://twitter.com/MPIainDS/status/1637058882848579584?s=20
Seems like they are masochists to me on current polls, if I was Boris I would have looked for a safe seat and if I was IDS gone to the Lords but there we are
It's been a bit of an eye-opener to me (*) to see that SI's can be used for this sort of thing. It's so obviously corruptible - and that's a problem, even when it's not corrupt.
(*) Perhaps I'm naïve.
I wonder if the rule behaved differently between civil service and lawyers' private pensions in some way which was seen to penalise those shifting to the CS pension late in life. Possibly a calculation thing or a DC/DB thing.
“Before today, I though there was a rump of 60-70 supporters in the party who could resurrect Boris,” one ex-minister said. “Now I’d put that number at about 25.”
But there is probably a bigger winner in the long run – Keir Starmer – for the reasons that Levido and Sunak explained to MPs at their awayday. The more partygate and Johnson are back on the front pages, the more the Conservative brand is tainted and the harder the narrow path to victory in 2024.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/mar/22/sunak-in-fighting-spirit-after-brexit-rebels-and-johnson-hopes-dissolve
https://www.mdr.de/reformation500/martin-luther-hier-stehe-ich-refjahr-100.html
To be clear I do not suggest he's doing anything impermissible.
If it mentions his name - in the title nonetheless - then surely it's personal, not a category?
If it was category, it would say 'DPP', and apply to all future DPPs?
Unless all DPPs have to change their name to 'Keir Starmer' ?
(On another note, I keep on having to correct 'Kier' to 'Keir', because I'm so used to reading about the construction company...)
Maybe it has legs, but probably short ones.
The resulting furore was one of my very earliest detailed political memories, I was under 10, in a more innocent age, watching Lord Boothby (I think) being furious about it.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1145059/PM_Rishi_Sunak_Tax_Summary_.pdf