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.
Just as Boris Johnson imagines himself as the New Churchill, and Liz Truss performed her equally ludicrous cosplay of Margaret Thatcher, looks like Rishi Sunak is reprising the role of John Major/
AND far more convincingly than either of his immediate predecessors in No 10.
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.
IMV writing laws and regulations to advantage or disadvantage individuals, as opposed to roles or groups, is generally a bad thing, and a route to positive or negative corruption. I'm slightly surprised this happens, except in very rare cases.
The noteworthy thing about Sunak's stated tax payments is how little he pays. Probably not in a good way.
To be clear I do not suggest he's doing anything impermissible.
Beat me to it, so I've repeated.
Fully within the rules, which gives the impression that maybe the rules aren't right;
What do Sunak’s tax returns tell us? It is that a wealthy person with income beyond their immediate needs can always recategorise large parts of that income as capital gains to reduce their tax rate on that part to 20%, which is an insult to all who have to work for a living.
As far as the local elections are concerned, it's easy to confuse apples and oranges. At the 2019 set of contests, the Conservatives polled 31.4%, Labour 26.8% and the LDs 16.8%, the Greens 9.2%, UKIP 4.5% and Others 11%.
The national extrapolation of those votes gave us 28-28-19 leaving 25% for Greens, UKIP, Independents, Residents etc. As an indicator of how a GE fought on that day would have turned out, not very helpful.
There are as always two main fronts - Conservative vs Liberal Democrats/Residents/Independents and Conservative versus Labour. The first battle is where the discussion has been concentrated, the second may be of greater significance - the 2019 contests while bad for the Conservatives weren't good for Labour either who lost just shy of 100 seats overall.
Given how the national polls have moved since, it seems inconceivable to this observer Labour won't make sweeping gains against all parties - will they. for example gain Stockport from the LDs, Bolton from the Conservatives and Wirral from NOC?
Could Labour make progress in Dudley and Walsall against Conservative majority administrations?
What about Darlington, Derby and Medway as Unitaries which could switch to Labour control?
How will Labour fare in the southern and eastern District Councils?
The question is the degree to which losses to Labour will be offset by gains from the LDs, Independents and Residents?
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
On Bad news Boris day the BBC need a foil for balance, so even though it's a crock the DPP story fits the bill.
Maybe it has legs, but probably short ones.
I have a real issue with the BBC using this form of words. They do it a lot.
X “criticised “ about Y.
Or
X “wrong to do Y”.
I think they think the quotation marks clarify that the criticism is from a non-independent third party. I think the form of words implies the BBC endorses the fact it is a reasonable criticism.
The BBC should use the form of words:
Z says X is/was wrong to do Y”.
Might be less snappy but to be fair you have to include Z.
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?
It's a difficult one. And IMO it comes down to risk-reward. As the child of a small businessman, the more risk you take, the bigger rewards you should get. As an example, if you mortgage your house to start a business that employs 50 people for thirty years, you should perhaps get taxed slightly less. Whereas someone who just earns money with no risk, employing no-one, should pay more tax.
But perhaps I'm biased, as that's the situation my family was in when I was younger.
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?
The noteworthy thing about Sunak's stated tax payments is how little he pays. Probably not in a good way.
To be clear I do not suggest he's doing anything impermissible.
Beat me to it, so I've repeated.
Fully within the rules, which gives the impression that maybe the rules aren't right;
What do Sunak’s tax returns tell us? It is that a wealthy person with income beyond their immediate needs can always recategorise large parts of that income as capital gains to reduce their tax rate on that part to 20%, which is an insult to all who have to work for a living.
Put like that, it kinda makes brute sense, and I'd do the same if I were a globalised squillionaire.
Remember most of that income that has become investment income is likely to have been taxed as income before it is invested, so it is effectively double taxed.
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.
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?
The noteworthy thing about Sunak's stated tax payments is how little he pays. Probably not in a good way.
To be clear I do not suggest he's doing anything impermissible.
Do you have any evidence, or is this just a smear?
The point @Northern_Al makes. A super rich politician whose policies are primarily aimed at helping the wealthiest, pays rather little tax as a proportion of his income.
Smear is your term. If anything you're smearing me !
Will the Tories be in trouble if they gave the Telegraph the Starmer details from government records? CCHQ asked the Treasury a freedoms of information request the Treasurey just didn’t know was coming 😆
You can understand why they would like this particular timing of the Starmer story. 😈
Really fed up with this all politicians lie to us, to parliament this is an argument about who lies most. Fuck them all
Kind offer, but there are none I fancy that much. Besides, I'm a happily married man.
Anyone that wants to be a politician is going to lie, they offer things they can't deliver. They make claims that are untrue. Pass a law that if politicians lie even by omission they get a whole life sentence....would get rid of most of the twats
The noteworthy thing about Sunak's stated tax payments is how little he pays. Probably not in a good way.
To be clear I do not suggest he's doing anything impermissible.
Do you have any evidence, or is this just a smear?
The point @Northern_Al makes. A super rich politician whose policies are primarily aimed at helping the wealthiest, pays rather little tax as a proportion of his income.
Smear is your term. If anything you're smearing me !
I withdraw that then. Your statement "Probably not in a good way." to me implied he was doing something nefarious to avoid taxation.
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?
One thing I would say in defence of CGT being generally lower than income taxes is that gains are not the same thing as income. What I'm less on clear is how people go abut disguising their income as gains in order to reduce their tax bill.
One thing I would say in defence of CGT being generally lower than income taxes is that gains are not the same thing as income. What I'm less on clear is how people go abut disguising their income as gains in order to reduce their tax bill.
We hire expensive accountants and lawyers who come up with very good tax minimisation strategies.
DPP pensiongate will shift the polls and damage the same way Donkey Sanctuarygate did.
One lawyer siding with another lawyer. Quelle surprise
I am on the side of truth and fairness.
You are a lawyer, are you not? As a trial - or case - has at least two sides, generally with two represented by lawyers, and whose sides and views oppose, then the idea that lawyers are automatically on the side of truth and fairness is an odd one...
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?
I think it ensured the DPP got the same type of pension as a senior judge, which seems reasonable, even if an SI is a laborious way to go about it
I think in fact other public servants such as doctors, teachers, armed forces etc also got the same tax treatment at the time Starmer was DPP but have since lost the favourable treatment.
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?
I think it ensured the DPP got the same type of pension as a senior judge, which seems reasonable, even if an SI is a laborious way to go about it
I think in fact other public servants such as doctors, teachers, armed forces etc also got the same tax treatment at the time Starmer was DPP but have since lost the favourable treatment.
Why is it reasonable, if (and this is an assumption) DPP is a role which is fairly time-limited? And the role of a DPP is very different to that of a judge.
And the 'laborious' route is the major issue IMO. If the DPP role is the same as a judge (why?), then make it role-specific, so it only has to happen once, and is clearer.
As for the other public servants: were their names SIs for them as well? If not, why does the DPP/Starmer situation warrant them?
I have a rather clear aversion to laws that advantage or disadvantage named individuals. They're a really bad idea, especially when they become commonplace, as this little wheeze may have.
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.
Of all the possible things to criticise Starmer for, Tory government policy is possibly the most ridiculous. Though I’m sure some posters will have a go at further lowering the bar.
"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."
No. Though as I replied to you before, in Romania the limit is 90 days.
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.
Not quite right . PGW was MP for Smethwick but lost to Griffiths at the '64 GE. Griffiths did indeed use the slogan. Wilson persuaded the Labour MP for (?)Leyton to take a peerage so that PGW could get back to the Commons. Unfortunately the electorate did not take kindly to the idea and PGW lost the by-election. Griffiths lost Smethwick in '66 but came back to the Commons in '70 for one of the Portsmouth seats.
Comments
AND far more convincingly than either of his immediate predecessors in No 10.
IMV writing laws and regulations to advantage or disadvantage individuals, as opposed to roles or groups, is generally a bad thing, and a route to positive or negative corruption. I'm slightly surprised this happens, except in very rare cases.
What do Sunak’s tax returns tell us? It is that a wealthy person with income beyond their immediate needs can always recategorise large parts of that income as capital gains to reduce their tax rate on that part to 20%, which is an insult to all who have to work for a living.
https://twitter.com/RichardJMurphy/status/1638603781498609680
Put like that, it kinda makes brute sense, and I'd do the same if I were a globalised squillionaire.
As far as the local elections are concerned, it's easy to confuse apples and oranges. At the 2019 set of contests, the Conservatives polled 31.4%, Labour 26.8% and the LDs 16.8%, the Greens 9.2%, UKIP 4.5% and Others 11%.
The national extrapolation of those votes gave us 28-28-19 leaving 25% for Greens, UKIP, Independents, Residents etc. As an indicator of how a GE fought on that day would have turned out, not very helpful.
There are as always two main fronts - Conservative vs Liberal Democrats/Residents/Independents and Conservative versus Labour. The first battle is where the discussion has been concentrated, the second may be of greater significance - the 2019 contests while bad for the Conservatives weren't good for Labour either who lost just shy of 100 seats overall.
Given how the national polls have moved since, it seems inconceivable to this observer Labour won't make sweeping gains against all parties - will they. for example gain Stockport from the LDs, Bolton from the Conservatives and Wirral from NOC?
Could Labour make progress in Dudley and Walsall against Conservative majority administrations?
What about Darlington, Derby and Medway as Unitaries which could switch to Labour control?
How will Labour fare in the southern and eastern District Councils?
The question is the degree to which losses to Labour will be offset by gains from the LDs, Independents and Residents?
X “criticised “ about Y.
Or
X “wrong to do Y”.
I think they think the quotation marks clarify that the criticism is from a non-independent third party. I think the form of words implies the BBC endorses the fact it is a reasonable criticism.
The BBC should use the form of words:
Z says X is/was wrong to do Y”.
Might be less snappy but to be fair you have to include Z.
But perhaps I'm biased, as that's the situation my family was in when I was younger.
As the majority of his income is subject to cap gains, paying circa 20% of tax seems appropriate.
The PBers who do the rolling monthly average might disappoint you.
Smear is your term. If anything you're smearing me !
You can understand why they would like this particular timing of the Starmer story. 😈
I meant to say the capital gains he made, the dividends gets taxed differently.
NEW THREAD
I think in fact other public servants such as doctors, teachers, armed forces etc also got the same tax treatment at the time Starmer was DPP but have since lost the favourable treatment.
It's almost inconceivable that Labour + Greens would be on almost 60%.
And the 'laborious' route is the major issue IMO. If the DPP role is the same as a judge (why?), then make it role-specific, so it only has to happen once, and is clearer.
As for the other public servants: were their names SIs for them as well? If not, why does the DPP/Starmer situation warrant them?
I have a rather clear aversion to laws that advantage or disadvantage named individuals. They're a really bad idea, especially when they become commonplace, as this little wheeze may have.
Though I’m sure some posters will have a go at further lowering the bar.
Though as I replied to you before, in Romania the limit is 90 days.
Griffiths lost Smethwick in '66 but came back to the Commons in '70 for one of the Portsmouth seats.