This conversation leads me to an interesting question:
If the 2016 referendum had been Cameron's renegotiation versus Johnson's deal, would leave still have won?
Would anyone on here have voted differently?
Given Johnson's deal replaced Cameron's negotiation and most people think it was a mistake, in principle the vote should have been different.
If it had been known in 2016 that we would have a trade deal with zero-tariffs and quotas, it would have neutralised project fear and Leave would have won by a bigger margin.
Thank you Frank Carson. It is indeed the way you tell 'em.
I hadn't appreciated that the Italian company which developed Tesla's gigapress was Chinese owned.
When Tesla entered China, it helped Chinese firm LK Group develop the world’s largest casting machines to make Tesla parts. Later, LK sold similar casting machines to 6 Chinese firms, likely automakers.
This conversation leads me to an interesting question:
If the 2016 referendum had been Cameron's renegotiation versus Johnson's deal, would leave still have won?
Would anyone on here have voted differently?
Given Johnson's deal replaced Cameron's negotiation and most people think it was a mistake, in principle the vote should have been different.
If it had been known in 2016 that we would have a trade deal with zero-tariffs and quotas, it would have neutralised project fear and Leave would have won by a bigger margin.
If it had been known in 2016 that immigration under Brexit was going to sky-rocket, it would have neutralised project immigration fear and Remain would have won by a big margin.
Many people think it’s time for LIZ TRUSS to gracefully return to the helm.
She was hugely popular with many PB Tories of course, and with the wider world at large.
Perhaps this time she will stage a comeback based on a greater degree of ideological purity.
It seems inevitable.
TRUSS.
I do wish you wouldn't do that. I see the word and think 'oh good, something interesting on the Baltimore bridge collapse or something'. Instead of something that's chronologically stem-high to a lettuce.
Providing Truss's recollection is correct, how immensely wise once again from HMQ.
I am still livid with her doctors for allowing her to be taken from us.
It's amazing how quickly the royal famz has gone from too big to too small. This time next year, both King Prince Charles and Everybody's Second Favourite Princess of Wales could be brown bread. Leaving us with semi-bonkers King Cueball and the Flowers-in-the-Attic kids. If he decides he's had enough and taps out then we are down to Queen Eugenie and her influencer husband. Fuck me.
Spectacularly bad ruling by the European Court of Human Rights here, which is playing right into the hands of those who would want to quit it (not least because its overreach is on a subject where its opponents also tend to hold opposite views).
Obviously a lot of that Courts role is policing the boundaries of legitimate political policy so there's inevitably continual intrusion into the political sphere. Even so, telling democratically-elected and -accountable governments what they can and can't (or worse, as here, must) do is something it should exercise considerable caution on when it comes to current divisive political debate. To do otherwise risks its credibility and turns it into a direct political player - as the US Supreme Court is. Except that whereas the US Court is clearly a contested political playing field, as as such, has some kind of legitimacy (and the US constitution can, in theory, also be amended by politicians), the European court is insulated on both points.
If courts insist on intervening in politics then politicians will inevitably respond by intervening in courts.
Do we have the detail for this part of the story ? ...The court dismissed two other cases brought by six Portuguese young people and a former French mayor. Both argued that European governments had failed to tackle climate change quickly enough, violating their rights.
On procedural grounds. The Court didn't get as far as considering the legal case (or what it considers would pass for one).
This conversation leads me to an interesting question:
If the 2016 referendum had been Cameron's renegotiation versus Johnson's deal, would leave still have won?
Would anyone on here have voted differently?
Given Johnson's deal replaced Cameron's negotiation and most people think it was a mistake, in principle the vote should have been different.
If it had been known in 2016 that we would have a trade deal with zero-tariffs and quotas, it would have neutralised project fear and Leave would have won by a bigger margin.
Thank you Frank Carson. It is indeed the way you tell 'em.
It's true though. If you look predictions about Brexit that predate the referendum, it was quite common for people to talk about how long it took for the EU to negotiate a trade deal with Canada and suggest that we would be on WTO terms for about 7 years in the interim. That was the position in the OECD's paper from April 2016.
This conversation leads me to an interesting question:
If the 2016 referendum had been Cameron's renegotiation versus Johnson's deal, would leave still have won?
Would anyone on here have voted differently?
Given Johnson's deal replaced Cameron's negotiation and most people think it was a mistake, in principle the vote should have been different.
If it had been known in 2016 that we would have a trade deal with zero-tariffs and quotas, it would have neutralised project fear and Leave would have won by a bigger margin.
If it had been known in 2016 that immigration under Brexit was going to sky-rocket, it would have neutralised project immigration fear and Remain would have won by a big margin.
"The Remain campaign should have been more racist"
This conversation leads me to an interesting question:
If the 2016 referendum had been Cameron's renegotiation versus Johnson's deal, would leave still have won?
Would anyone on here have voted differently?
Given Johnson's deal replaced Cameron's negotiation and most people think it was a mistake, in principle the vote should have been different.
If it had been known in 2016 that we would have a trade deal with zero-tariffs and quotas, it would have neutralised project fear and Leave would have won by a bigger margin.
If it had been known in 2016 that immigration under Brexit was going to sky-rocket, it would have neutralised project immigration fear and Remain would have won by a big margin.
"The Remain campaign should have been more racist"
Many people think it’s time for LIZ TRUSS to gracefully return to the helm.
She was hugely popular with many PB Tories of course, and with the wider world at large.
Perhaps this time she will stage a comeback based on a greater degree of ideological purity.
It seems inevitable.
TRUSS.
I do wish you wouldn't do that. I see the word and think 'oh good, something interesting on the Baltimore bridge collapse or something'. Instead of something that's chronologically stem-high to a lettuce.
Providing Truss's recollection is correct, how immensely wise once again from HMQ.
I am still livid with her doctors for allowing her to be taken from us.
It's amazing how quickly the royal famz has gone from too big to too small. This time next year, both King Prince Charles and Everybody's Second Favourite Princess of Wales could be brown bread. Leaving us with semi-bonkers King Cueball and the Flowers-in-the-Attic kids. If he decides he's had enough and taps out then we are down to Queen Eugenie and her influencer husband. Fuck me.
The Buckingham Palace menu always had an abundance of eggs in it. I give that a lot of credit in the Queen and Duke of Edinburgh's long, useful lives. Charles was always a plant botherer, so I am wondering if he joined your lot and has been subsisting on mung beans.
Spectacularly bad ruling by the European Court of Human Rights here, which is playing right into the hands of those who would want to quit it (not least because its overreach is on a subject where its opponents also tend to hold opposite views).
Obviously a lot of that Courts role is policing the boundaries of legitimate political policy so there's inevitably continual intrusion into the political sphere. Even so, telling democratically-elected and -accountable governments what they can and can't (or worse, as here, must) do is something it should exercise considerable caution on when it comes to current divisive political debate. To do otherwise risks its credibility and turns it into a direct political player - as the US Supreme Court is. Except that whereas the US Court is clearly a contested political playing field, as as such, has some kind of legitimacy (and the US constitution can, in theory, also be amended by politicians), the European court is insulated on both points.
If courts insist on intervening in politics then politicians will inevitably respond by intervening in courts.
Do we have the detail for this part of the story ? ...The court dismissed two other cases brought by six Portuguese young people and a former French mayor. Both argued that European governments had failed to tackle climate change quickly enough, violating their rights.
On procedural grounds. The Court didn't get as far as considering the legal case (or what it considers would pass for one).
This conversation leads me to an interesting question:
If the 2016 referendum had been Cameron's renegotiation versus Johnson's deal, would leave still have won?
Would anyone on here have voted differently?
Given Johnson's deal replaced Cameron's negotiation and most people think it was a mistake, in principle the vote should have been different.
If it had been known in 2016 that we would have a trade deal with zero-tariffs and quotas, it would have neutralised project fear and Leave would have won by a bigger margin.
Thank you Frank Carson. It is indeed the way you tell 'em.
It's true though. If you look predictions about Brexit that predate the referendum, it was quite common for people to talk about how long it took for the EU to negotiate a trade deal with Canada and suggest that we would be on WTO terms for about 7 years in the interim. That was the position in the OECD's paper from April 2016.
I doubt anyone voted Brexit because they were in love with the idea of a Canada-style trade agreement with the EU. It was all the other goodies they were keen on - Global Britain, bonfire of red tape, immigration slashed, sovereignty returned so that UK politicians took responsibility etc. - none of which has so far materialized.
Whilst it is easy to see Boris’ party problems as being a factor, indeed they certainly undermined the Conservative position, I personally don’t think it was irreversible. The fatal error was made by Conservative members who chose the wrong replacement for Boris. It was clear to anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear that Truss was an utterly abysmal candidate who didn’t have the first clue. That her brief premiership was an ocean going clusterfuck was predictable and fairly well predicted. After that calling up the Archangel Gabriel wasn’t going to help the Conservative Party.
Once the inevitable election defeat occurs then clearly new leadership will be necessary, but any candidate who doesn’t tell the membership the truths they need to hear isn’t going to be worth bothering with. We now have object lessons from either side of the political divide in the dangers of allowing members too much say in the choice of leader. If you look at the experience of both parties since giving members their head in leadership elections it’s a succession of absolute duds with the very occasional half decent choice.
I get your point on members choosing duds, but it was MPs that gave them the choice between Truss and Sunak. Similarly it was MPs that added Corbyn to the shortlist.
Corbyn and the popcons are all cut from the same eu hating boomer cloth. 30p Lee.was campaigning for corbyn just a few years ago. The boomer working class vote went all the way out on the left and came out all the way on the right (the political spectrum went full circle) and now the tories and reform have their own unpragmatic ideological headache to work with
I'm not wasting time on the rest, but living in Ashfield I can say that this is BS.
Anderson was office manager for the Ashfield MP Gloria de Piero, who was one of the many who stood apart from Corbyn's lunacy.
He was hung out to dry by the Corbynite wing of Ashfield Labour, who managed to reduce the local party from a big majority with 22 Councillors in Ashfield in 2015 at District level to ONE Councillor now.
I don't think that anyone else on PB would spin such a line.
I note that one feature of Plato's Cleitophon is that the authenticity is disputed. Are you our latest Russian?
This conversation leads me to an interesting question:
If the 2016 referendum had been Cameron's renegotiation versus Johnson's deal, would leave still have won?
Would anyone on here have voted differently?
Given Johnson's deal replaced Cameron's negotiation and most people think it was a mistake, in principle the vote should have been different.
If it had been known in 2016 that we would have a trade deal with zero-tariffs and quotas, it would have neutralised project fear and Leave would have won by a bigger margin.
If it had been known in 2016 that immigration under Brexit was going to sky-rocket, it would have neutralised project immigration fear and Remain would have won by a big margin.
"The Remain campaign should have been more racist"
I'm not saying the Remain campaign should have said anything. You're the one talking about the magic of hindsight.
Spectacularly bad ruling by the European Court of Human Rights here, which is playing right into the hands of those who would want to quit it (not least because its overreach is on a subject where its opponents also tend to hold opposite views).
Obviously a lot of that Courts role is policing the boundaries of legitimate political policy so there's inevitably continual intrusion into the political sphere. Even so, telling democratically-elected and -accountable governments what they can and can't (or worse, as here, must) do is something it should exercise considerable caution on when it comes to current divisive political debate. To do otherwise risks its credibility and turns it into a direct political player - as the US Supreme Court is. Except that whereas the US Court is clearly a contested political playing field, as as such, has some kind of legitimacy (and the US constitution can, in theory, also be amended by politicians), the European court is insulated on both points.
If courts insist on intervening in politics then politicians will inevitably respond by intervening in courts.
I think the actual implications of the Court ruling are pretty weak, however. I'm not clear, but I think it's in the territory of governments will have a duty to show they have some policies. This isn't comparable to the sorts of things the US Supreme Court does.
This conversation leads me to an interesting question:
If the 2016 referendum had been Cameron's renegotiation versus Johnson's deal, would leave still have won?
Would anyone on here have voted differently?
Given Johnson's deal replaced Cameron's negotiation and most people think it was a mistake, in principle the vote should have been different.
If it had been known in 2016 that we would have a trade deal with zero-tariffs and quotas, it would have neutralised project fear and Leave would have won by a bigger margin.
If it had been known in 2016 that immigration under Brexit was going to sky-rocket, it would have neutralised project immigration fear and Remain would have won by a big margin.
Alternative side of a bus?
"The EU sends us 3.5 thousand migrants a week Let's get them from Africa instead"
(Not sure whether we're really getting migrants from Africa instead, but why let facts get in the way of a good bus slogan? Neither do I have a particularly strong opinion on where we should source migrants from, if they have skills we need.)
This conversation leads me to an interesting question:
If the 2016 referendum had been Cameron's renegotiation versus Johnson's deal, would leave still have won?
Would anyone on here have voted differently?
Given Johnson's deal replaced Cameron's negotiation and most people think it was a mistake, in principle the vote should have been different.
If it had been known in 2016 that we would have a trade deal with zero-tariffs and quotas, it would have neutralised project fear and Leave would have won by a bigger margin.
Zero-tariffs and quotas, but lots of regulation and paperwork. There are more barriers to trade than the Leave campaign promised (not to mention the complications around Northern Ireland that the Leave campaign repeatedly promised would never happen).
"A History of British Elections with Iain Dale" To explore the history of British elections, we will be joined for this live webinar by Iain Dale, Tim Bale, Jennifer Davey and Robert Saunders.
Of course, it's to promote the launch of Iain Dale’s new book, "British General Election Campaigns, 1830-2019". But then, the book might also be of interest.
This conversation leads me to an interesting question:
If the 2016 referendum had been Cameron's renegotiation versus Johnson's deal, would leave still have won?
Would anyone on here have voted differently?
Given Johnson's deal replaced Cameron's negotiation and most people think it was a mistake, in principle the vote should have been different.
If it had been known in 2016 that we would have a trade deal with zero-tariffs and quotas, it would have neutralised project fear and Leave would have won by a bigger margin.
Thank you Frank Carson. It is indeed the way you tell 'em.
It's true though. If you look predictions about Brexit that predate the referendum, it was quite common for people to talk about how long it took for the EU to negotiate a trade deal with Canada and suggest that we would be on WTO terms for about 7 years in the interim. That was the position in the OECD's paper from April 2016.
I doubt anyone voted Brexit because they were in love with the idea of a Canada-style trade agreement with the EU. It was all the other goodies they were keen on - Global Britain, bonfire of red tape, immigration slashed, sovereignty returned so that UK politicians took responsibility etc. - none of which has so far materialized.
They did however succeed in kicking the government in the goolies, which was I suspect another big driver of the Leave vote.
Spectacularly bad ruling by the European Court of Human Rights here, which is playing right into the hands of those who would want to quit it (not least because its overreach is on a subject where its opponents also tend to hold opposite views).
Obviously a lot of that Courts role is policing the boundaries of legitimate political policy so there's inevitably continual intrusion into the political sphere. Even so, telling democratically-elected and -accountable governments what they can and can't (or worse, as here, must) do is something it should exercise considerable caution on when it comes to current divisive political debate. To do otherwise risks its credibility and turns it into a direct political player - as the US Supreme Court is. Except that whereas the US Court is clearly a contested political playing field, as as such, has some kind of legitimacy (and the US constitution can, in theory, also be amended by politicians), the European court is insulated on both points.
If courts insist on intervening in politics then politicians will inevitably respond by intervening in courts.
Do we have the detail for this part of the story ? ...The court dismissed two other cases brought by six Portuguese young people and a former French mayor. Both argued that European governments had failed to tackle climate change quickly enough, violating their rights.
On procedural grounds. The Court didn't get as far as considering the legal case (or what it considers would pass for one).
We shouldn't have too much to worry about with this ruling, we're a country mile below Switzerland in emissions per capita.
Edit: I err think - though one source is giving me 4.0 Tons CO2 per person from Switzerland, which surely can't be commensurate with this ruling...
We should be worried that the ECtHR is making these kind of rulings at all. That Britain isn't caught within that net (this time) because of the policies it's chosen isn't really the point.
Lord Cameron meets Trump in Florida for talks on Ukraine and the Middle East before meeting US Secretary of State Blinken in DC to discuss foreign policy too "David Cameron meets Donald Trump in Florida ahead of Blinken talks - BBC News" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68767194
One of Sunak’s very few unquestionionably good decisions, was persuading Dave to come back as the top UK diplomat. He seems happy to meet with anyone, and more importantly anyone will take the meeting with the former PM.
I’ll never forgive Cameron for calling the referendum and for his part in the woeful Remain campaign . But I do accept that’s so far he’s been a decent Foreign Secretary.
I disagreed with him as PM for different reasons, but he’s definitely doing well as foreign sec. That he can meet on consecutive days with Trump and Blinken, is very good for the UK in getting our aims and views heard across the Pond - especially on Ukraine, where the US political conversation is very different to what it is in Europe.
He has studiously avoided a visit to Rwanda so far, though.
They should at least send Phil & Kirsty (both very much Dave's kind of people) over to check out the housing market.
Maybe Kirsty could make some Blue Peter style decorations to ensure the experience is more positive for the refugees.
I wonder if Kirsty still lurks here? She used to post, early days.
"A History of British Elections with Iain Dale" To explore the history of British elections, we will be joined for this live webinar by Iain Dale, Tim Bale, Jennifer Davey and Robert Saunders.
Of course, it's to promote the launch of Iain Dale’s new book, "British General Election Campaigns, 1830-2019". But then, the book might also be of interest.
Oooh! Oooh! Definitely! I've just finished his "The Presidents"! Thank you, most kind!
Spectacularly bad ruling by the European Court of Human Rights here, which is playing right into the hands of those who would want to quit it (not least because its overreach is on a subject where its opponents also tend to hold opposite views).
Obviously a lot of that Courts role is policing the boundaries of legitimate political policy so there's inevitably continual intrusion into the political sphere. Even so, telling democratically-elected and -accountable governments what they can and can't (or worse, as here, must) do is something it should exercise considerable caution on when it comes to current divisive political debate. To do otherwise risks its credibility and turns it into a direct political player - as the US Supreme Court is. Except that whereas the US Court is clearly a contested political playing field, as as such, has some kind of legitimacy (and the US constitution can, in theory, also be amended by politicians), the European court is insulated on both points.
If courts insist on intervening in politics then politicians will inevitably respond by intervening in courts.
Do we have the detail for this part of the story ? ...The court dismissed two other cases brought by six Portuguese young people and a former French mayor. Both argued that European governments had failed to tackle climate change quickly enough, violating their rights.
On procedural grounds. The Court didn't get as far as considering the legal case (or what it considers would pass for one).
We shouldn't have too much to worry about with this ruling, we're a country mile below Switzerland in emissions per capita.
Edit: I err think - though one source is giving me 4.0 Tons CO2 per person from Switzerland, which surely can't be commensurate with this ruling...
We should be worried that the ECtHR is making these kind of rulings at all. That Britain isn't caught within that net (this time) because of the policies it's chosen isn't really the point.
I do not support leaving the ECHR but if they continue in this vein then I would review my support for them
This conversation leads me to an interesting question:
If the 2016 referendum had been Cameron's renegotiation versus Johnson's deal, would leave still have won?
Would anyone on here have voted differently?
Given Johnson's deal replaced Cameron's negotiation and most people think it was a mistake, in principle the vote should have been different.
If it had been known in 2016 that we would have a trade deal with zero-tariffs and quotas, it would have neutralised project fear and Leave would have won by a bigger margin.
Thank you Frank Carson. It is indeed the way you tell 'em.
It's true though. If you look predictions about Brexit that predate the referendum, it was quite common for people to talk about how long it took for the EU to negotiate a trade deal with Canada and suggest that we would be on WTO terms for about 7 years in the interim. That was the position in the OECD's paper from April 2016.
I doubt anyone voted Brexit because they were in love with the idea of a Canada-style trade agreement with the EU. It was all the other goodies they were keen on - Global Britain, bonfire of red tape, immigration slashed, sovereignty returned so that UK politicians took responsibility etc. - none of which has so far materialized.
Are you not enthused by the programme on offer from Keir Starmer? Having formulated his approach to government entirely without the shackles of EU membership, he will be the first true Brexit Prime Minister.
This conversation leads me to an interesting question:
If the 2016 referendum had been Cameron's renegotiation versus Johnson's deal, would leave still have won?
Would anyone on here have voted differently?
Given Johnson's deal replaced Cameron's negotiation and most people think it was a mistake, in principle the vote should have been different.
However if the ultimate driver for Leave voters was foreigners, I am not so sure.
Except for Rochdale, most PB Leavers seem rather comfortable with their decision in 2016.
Most people think it was a mistake now but a minority thought so at the time. The vote wouldn't have been different in 2016 because most people didn't realise just how crap Brexit would be. Johnson's deal versus Cameron's is irrelevant.
This conversation leads me to an interesting question:
If the 2016 referendum had been Cameron's renegotiation versus Johnson's deal, would leave still have won?
Would anyone on here have voted differently?
Given Johnson's deal replaced Cameron's negotiation and most people think it was a mistake, in principle the vote should have been different.
If it had been known in 2016 that we would have a trade deal with zero-tariffs and quotas, it would have neutralised project fear and Leave would have won by a bigger margin.
If it had been known in 2016 that immigration under Brexit was going to sky-rocket, it would have neutralised project immigration fear and Remain would have won by a big margin.
"The Remain campaign should have been more racist"
@williamglenn you made a powerful and, may I say, compelling case yesterday for LIZ TRUSS to return to the bridge, as captain of the good ship Britannia. I am sure many millions, both at home and abroad, will just rejoice at that news.
How do you see the process, by which our queen over the water might return to her throne? Presumably, a package of pureplay pro-growth measures, coupled with the zeal of the neobrexiteer, which you so perfectly epitomise, will be a winning strategy, not just for 2024, but for the years and decades to come?
Many people think it’s time for LIZ TRUSS to gracefully return to the helm.
She was hugely popular with many PB Tories of course, and with the wider world at large.
Perhaps this time she will stage a comeback based on a greater degree of ideological purity.
It seems inevitable.
TRUSS.
I do wish you wouldn't do that. I see the word and think 'oh good, something interesting on the Baltimore bridge collapse or something'. Instead of something that's chronologically stem-high to a lettuce.
Providing Truss's recollection is correct, how immensely wise once again from HMQ.
I am still livid with her doctors for allowing her to be taken from us.
It's amazing how quickly the royal famz has gone from too big to too small. This time next year, both King Prince Charles and Everybody's Second Favourite Princess of Wales could be brown bread. Leaving us with semi-bonkers King Cueball and the Flowers-in-the-Attic kids. If he decides he's had enough and taps out then we are down to Queen Eugenie and her influencer husband. Fuck me.
No, if One Pint Willy checks out it's George VII, with Prince Edward as Regent. If OPW takes the family on a dodgy helicopter ride, then it's King Henry IX and Queen Meghan.
This conversation leads me to an interesting question:
If the 2016 referendum had been Cameron's renegotiation versus Johnson's deal, would leave still have won?
Would anyone on here have voted differently?
Given Johnson's deal replaced Cameron's negotiation and most people think it was a mistake, in principle the vote should have been different.
If it had been known in 2016 that we would have a trade deal with zero-tariffs and quotas, it would have neutralised project fear and Leave would have won by a bigger margin.
If it had been known in 2016 that immigration under Brexit was going to sky-rocket, it would have neutralised project immigration fear and Remain would have won by a big margin.
Alternative side of a bus?
"The EU sends us 3.5 thousand migrants a week Let's get them from Africa instead"
(Not sure whether we're really getting migrants from Africa instead, but why let facts get in the way of a good bus slogan? Neither do I have a particularly strong opinion on where we should source migrants from, if they have skills we need.)
Some are from Africa. From the ONS:
"In the YE June 2023, the top five non-EU nationalities for immigration flows into the UK were: Indian (253,000), Nigerian (141,000), Chinese (89,000), Pakistani (55,000) and Ukrainian (35,000)."
The Ukrainians and some of the Chinese will be on the specific Ukraine and Hong Kong schemes. A lot of that immigration flow is students, who are mostly Chinese, but some Indian, Pakistani, Nigerian etc. So, in terms of people coming to work, who can be said to be replacing those who used to come from the EU for work, it's mainly south Asia and Africa.
Spectacularly bad ruling by the European Court of Human Rights here, which is playing right into the hands of those who would want to quit it (not least because its overreach is on a subject where its opponents also tend to hold opposite views).
Obviously a lot of that Courts role is policing the boundaries of legitimate political policy so there's inevitably continual intrusion into the political sphere. Even so, telling democratically-elected and -accountable governments what they can and can't (or worse, as here, must) do is something it should exercise considerable caution on when it comes to current divisive political debate. To do otherwise risks its credibility and turns it into a direct political player - as the US Supreme Court is. Except that whereas the US Court is clearly a contested political playing field, as as such, has some kind of legitimacy (and the US constitution can, in theory, also be amended by politicians), the European court is insulated on both points.
If courts insist on intervening in politics then politicians will inevitably respond by intervening in courts.
Do we have the detail for this part of the story ? ...The court dismissed two other cases brought by six Portuguese young people and a former French mayor. Both argued that European governments had failed to tackle climate change quickly enough, violating their rights.
On procedural grounds. The Court didn't get as far as considering the legal case (or what it considers would pass for one).
We shouldn't have too much to worry about with this ruling, we're a country mile below Switzerland in emissions per capita.
Edit: I err think - though one source is giving me 4.0 Tons CO2 per person from Switzerland, which surely can't be commensurate with this ruling...
We should be worried that the ECtHR is making these kind of rulings at all. That Britain isn't caught within that net (this time) because of the policies it's chosen isn't really the point.
IANAL so I welcome your expertise - has the court not found that Switzerland is failing to keep to commitments it has made? So it's not a blanket ruling that Switzerland is infringing human rights by not dong enough on climate change (ECHR dictating policy) but that it is failing to uphold (legally binding?) commitments it has made (ECHR ruling on a point of law).
The first I see obvious issues with. The second is surely its job? But given my IANALness and relying only on the not very enlightening BBC report I may well be missing something.
It's conceivable that Boris could have made some kind of recovery. His misdemeanours were mainly scandals, which tend to fade from the collective memory. I remember when Andy Coulson absolutely dominated PB and the wider media, but who even remembers much of that now? Truss is another matter - wreck people's pensions and mortgages and that will never be forgiven. The Tory Party realized that, hence the speed and efficiency of the cull.
Leave only won the referendum because of Boris, so the kind of reason you show here is forbidden I’m afraid
Spectacularly bad ruling by the European Court of Human Rights here, which is playing right into the hands of those who would want to quit it (not least because its overreach is on a subject where its opponents also tend to hold opposite views).
Obviously a lot of that Courts role is policing the boundaries of legitimate political policy so there's inevitably continual intrusion into the political sphere. Even so, telling democratically-elected and -accountable governments what they can and can't (or worse, as here, must) do is something it should exercise considerable caution on when it comes to current divisive political debate. To do otherwise risks its credibility and turns it into a direct political player - as the US Supreme Court is. Except that whereas the US Court is clearly a contested political playing field, as as such, has some kind of legitimacy (and the US constitution can, in theory, also be amended by politicians), the European court is insulated on both points.
If courts insist on intervening in politics then politicians will inevitably respond by intervening in courts.
Do we have the detail for this part of the story ? ...The court dismissed two other cases brought by six Portuguese young people and a former French mayor. Both argued that European governments had failed to tackle climate change quickly enough, violating their rights.
On procedural grounds. The Court didn't get as far as considering the legal case (or what it considers would pass for one).
We shouldn't have too much to worry about with this ruling, we're a country mile below Switzerland in emissions per capita.
Edit: I err think - though one source is giving me 4.0 Tons CO2 per person from Switzerland, which surely can't be commensurate with this ruling...
We should be worried that the ECtHR is making these kind of rulings at all. That Britain isn't caught within that net (this time) because of the policies it's chosen isn't really the point.
I do not support leaving the ECHR but if they continue in this vein then I would review my support for them
What do you think they are actually requiring be done? I think you need to consider the implications of the ruling before rushing to judgement.
So, how real is the tax gap and can “clamping down on tax dodgers” reduce it? I think it can, if targeted properly.
There are broadly 3 types of “tax dodging”:
- Hard avoidance (deliberate use of abusive, but legal, schemes to reduce or avoid tax) - Hard evasion: everything from paying staff cash in hand to international money laundering - Soft evasion: taxpayers taking shortcuts, not bothering to declare gains, over claiming reliefs or credits, either wilfully or through ignorance
Most big ticket hard avoidance has been successfully countered by HMRC in the last 2 decades through targeted and general anti avoidance rules, especially at the large corporate end of the spectrum. But some of it remains in the SME world alongside unscrupulous promoters. There is some scope there with greater HMRC resources, mainly through greater compliance enforcement.
Hard evasion will always exist and tackling it requires manpower and technology. But I’m not sure how big a tax gap is left there.
Soft evasion is pretty common and I’d say that’s where the most opportunity lies. The more effort and resources HMRC put in, the greater the yield.
There’s another thing altogether which gets conflated with “cracking down on tax dodgers” and that’s “closing loopholes”. That’s not cracking down on dodgers, it’s changing the law to broaden the tax base. In many cases the so called loophole is a deliberate policy position - to encourage investment say, or ensure fairness of proportionality. Nothing wrong with changing tax law but that counts as a tax rise, not closing the tax gap.
One of the fascinating things about how much the rich really pay is the significant variation in the rates, as you say based on the very wide range of allowances and differential tax rates.
"one in ten people with total remuneration over £1 million paid a lower EATR than someone earning just £15,000. This proportion rises to one in four of those with total remuneration between £5 million and £10 million."
"An Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) that required everyone earning more than £100,000 to pay at least a 35% tax rate on their taxable income and gains could raise around £11 billion. This is equivalent to the static effect of increasing the basic rate of Income Tax by 2p, or both the higher and additional rates by 5p. However, an AMT would raise the money from those among the rich who are paying the lowest shares, while limiting the scope for avoidance"
Around the period 2006-2009, I was fortunate enough to be earning enough to fall in the 40% income tax band. And I remember, on this site, people moaning about a certain variety of CGT being raised from 8% to 18%, and they expected me to sympathise!
As I’ve commented in previous threads, my effective tax rate on all income is comfortably north of 50%. I don’t know what the opposite of tax dodging is, but that’s what it looks like.
Without wishing to delve into you personal finances, how do you get close to that figure?
Are you including VAT on your spend, Council Tax, etc.?
The state aims to collect £800 billion + in taxes. Let us say that there are 40 million of us who do significant and more than trivial tax paying (so leave out children, many students, the poorer OAPs, the submerged tenth/benefits junkies). That's £20K per head, per year. And though BP, Tesco etc do their bit, ultimately it is people who, even if indirectly, do all the paying. Although it is often invisible and indirect, it is an unavoidable conclusion that a lot of better off people are really paying 50%+ in tax; there is no other way of doing the arithmentic. Also obvious that large scale, very wealthy, evaders/avoiders are a drain on the rest of us.
Spectacularly bad ruling by the European Court of Human Rights here, which is playing right into the hands of those who would want to quit it (not least because its overreach is on a subject where its opponents also tend to hold opposite views).
Obviously a lot of that Courts role is policing the boundaries of legitimate political policy so there's inevitably continual intrusion into the political sphere. Even so, telling democratically-elected and -accountable governments what they can and can't (or worse, as here, must) do is something it should exercise considerable caution on when it comes to current divisive political debate. To do otherwise risks its credibility and turns it into a direct political player - as the US Supreme Court is. Except that whereas the US Court is clearly a contested political playing field, as as such, has some kind of legitimacy (and the US constitution can, in theory, also be amended by politicians), the European court is insulated on both points.
If courts insist on intervening in politics then politicians will inevitably respond by intervening in courts.
Do we have the detail for this part of the story ? ...The court dismissed two other cases brought by six Portuguese young people and a former French mayor. Both argued that European governments had failed to tackle climate change quickly enough, violating their rights.
On procedural grounds. The Court didn't get as far as considering the legal case (or what it considers would pass for one).
We shouldn't have too much to worry about with this ruling, we're a country mile below Switzerland in emissions per capita.
Edit: I err think - though one source is giving me 4.0 Tons CO2 per person from Switzerland, which surely can't be commensurate with this ruling...
We should be worried that the ECtHR is making these kind of rulings at all. That Britain isn't caught within that net (this time) because of the policies it's chosen isn't really the point.
"Can't go outside because it's hot"
It's a low bar for the ECHR to get involved with. Are we sure this story isn't eight days late.
Many people think it’s time for LIZ TRUSS to gracefully return to the helm.
She was hugely popular with many PB Tories of course, and with the wider world at large.
Perhaps this time she will stage a comeback based on a greater degree of ideological purity.
It seems inevitable.
TRUSS.
I do wish you wouldn't do that. I see the word and think 'oh good, something interesting on the Baltimore bridge collapse or something'. Instead of something that's chronologically stem-high to a lettuce.
Providing Truss's recollection is correct, how immensely wise once again from HMQ.
I am still livid with her doctors for allowing her to be taken from us.
It's amazing how quickly the royal famz has gone from too big to too small. This time next year, both King Prince Charles and Everybody's Second Favourite Princess of Wales could be brown bread. Leaving us with semi-bonkers King Cueball and the Flowers-in-the-Attic kids. If he decides he's had enough and taps out then we are down to Queen Eugenie and her influencer husband. Fuck me.
No, if One Pint Willy checks out it's George VII, with Prince Edward as Regent. If OPW takes the family on a dodgy helicopter ride, then it's King Henry IX and Queen Meghan.
This conversation leads me to an interesting question:
If the 2016 referendum had been Cameron's renegotiation versus Johnson's deal, would leave still have won?
Would anyone on here have voted differently?
Given Johnson's deal replaced Cameron's negotiation and most people think it was a mistake, in principle the vote should have been different.
If it had been known in 2016 that we would have a trade deal with zero-tariffs and quotas, it would have neutralised project fear and Leave would have won by a bigger margin.
If it had been known in 2016 that immigration under Brexit was going to sky-rocket, it would have neutralised project immigration fear and Remain would have won by a big margin.
A huge increase in immigration wasn’t what Leave voters wanted, but at least the immigration has been mainly of students paying over the odds to attend British universities, and highly paid skilled workers rather than a conveyer belt of Eastern Europeans ready to undercut British workers who were already on low wages
Those who want to rejoin have the perfect candidate, who is almost certain to be our next PM. He wanted a second referendum as a matter of principle, and would have campaigned for Remain. He also stood to be Labour leader on a pledge to fight for FOM. So, it’s over to you Sir Keir
This conversation leads me to an interesting question:
If the 2016 referendum had been Cameron's renegotiation versus Johnson's deal, would leave still have won?
Would anyone on here have voted differently?
Given Johnson's deal replaced Cameron's negotiation and most people think it was a mistake, in principle the vote should have been different.
If it had been known in 2016 that we would have a trade deal with zero-tariffs and quotas, it would have neutralised project fear and Leave would have won by a bigger margin.
If it had been known in 2016 that immigration under Brexit was going to sky-rocket, it would have neutralised project immigration fear and Remain would have won by a big margin.
"The Remain campaign should have been more racist"
@williamglenn you made a powerful and, may I say, compelling case yesterday for LIZ TRUSS to return to the bridge, as captain of the good ship Britannia. I am sure many millions, both at home and abroad, will just rejoice at that news.
How do you see the process, by which our queen over the water might return to her throne? Presumably, a package of pureplay pro-growth measures, coupled with the zeal of the neobrexiteer, which you so perfectly epitomise, will be a winning strategy, not just for 2024, but for the years and decades to come?
TRUSS.
I was reflecting today on how Truss managed to achieve such incredible cut-through. While she was Prime Minister, everywhere you went, her name was on people's lips and there were enthusiastic debates about the issues of the day in the least likely places.
That level of engagement with politics is what we need so badly now. Perhaps it's time for a counter-coup against the deep state and for Truss to make a triumphant return before the election.
"A History of British Elections with Iain Dale" To explore the history of British elections, we will be joined for this live webinar by Iain Dale, Tim Bale, Jennifer Davey and Robert Saunders.
Of course, it's to promote the launch of Iain Dale’s new book, "British General Election Campaigns, 1830-2019". But then, the book might also be of interest.
This conversation leads me to an interesting question:
If the 2016 referendum had been Cameron's renegotiation versus Johnson's deal, would leave still have won?
Would anyone on here have voted differently?
Given Johnson's deal replaced Cameron's negotiation and most people think it was a mistake, in principle the vote should have been different.
If it had been known in 2016 that we would have a trade deal with zero-tariffs and quotas, it would have neutralised project fear and Leave would have won by a bigger margin.
Thank you Frank Carson. It is indeed the way you tell 'em.
It's true though. If you look predictions about Brexit that predate the referendum, it was quite common for people to talk about how long it took for the EU to negotiate a trade deal with Canada and suggest that we would be on WTO terms for about 7 years in the interim. That was the position in the OECD's paper from April 2016.
I doubt anyone voted Brexit because they were in love with the idea of a Canada-style trade agreement with the EU. It was all the other goodies they were keen on - Global Britain, bonfire of red tape, immigration slashed, sovereignty returned so that UK politicians took responsibility etc. - none of which has so far materialized.
Sovereignty has been returned so that is materialised.
If you're not happy with our current government you can elect one which will change the rules.
This conversation leads me to an interesting question:
If the 2016 referendum had been Cameron's renegotiation versus Johnson's deal, would leave still have won?
Would anyone on here have voted differently?
Given Johnson's deal replaced Cameron's negotiation and most people think it was a mistake, in principle the vote should have been different.
If it had been known in 2016 that we would have a trade deal with zero-tariffs and quotas, it would have neutralised project fear and Leave would have won by a bigger margin.
If it had been known in 2016 that immigration under Brexit was going to sky-rocket, it would have neutralised project immigration fear and Remain would have won by a big margin.
A huge increase in immigration wasn’t what Leave voters wanted, but at least the immigration has been mainly of students paying over the odds to attend British universities, and highly paid skilled workers rather than a conveyer belt of Eastern Europeans ready to undercut British workers who were already on low wages
Yes. Leave voters absolutely voted for a tripling in immigration. Yes sirree. They were taking to the streets to demand it and hence Dave had to give them a vote so that they could achieve it. Oh yes.
This conversation leads me to an interesting question:
If the 2016 referendum had been Cameron's renegotiation versus Johnson's deal, would leave still have won?
Would anyone on here have voted differently?
Given Johnson's deal replaced Cameron's negotiation and most people think it was a mistake, in principle the vote should have been different.
If it had been known in 2016 that we would have a trade deal with zero-tariffs and quotas, it would have neutralised project fear and Leave would have won by a bigger margin.
Thank you Frank Carson. It is indeed the way you tell 'em.
It's true though. If you look predictions about Brexit that predate the referendum, it was quite common for people to talk about how long it took for the EU to negotiate a trade deal with Canada and suggest that we would be on WTO terms for about 7 years in the interim. That was the position in the OECD's paper from April 2016.
I doubt anyone voted Brexit because they were in love with the idea of a Canada-style trade agreement with the EU. It was all the other goodies they were keen on - Global Britain, bonfire of red tape, immigration slashed, sovereignty returned so that UK politicians took responsibility etc. - none of which has so far materialized.
Sovereignty has been returned so that is materialised.
If you're not happy with our current government you can elect one which will change the rules.
That wasn't possible under EU rules.
Wait. We couldn't elect a different government of the UK while we were in the EU? Just as well we left.
Many people think it’s time for LIZ TRUSS to gracefully return to the helm.
She was hugely popular with many PB Tories of course, and with the wider world at large.
Perhaps this time she will stage a comeback based on a greater degree of ideological purity.
It seems inevitable.
TRUSS.
I do wish you wouldn't do that. I see the word and think 'oh good, something interesting on the Baltimore bridge collapse or something'. Instead of something that's chronologically stem-high to a lettuce.
Providing Truss's recollection is correct, how immensely wise once again from HMQ.
I am still livid with her doctors for allowing her to be taken from us.
It's amazing how quickly the royal famz has gone from too big to too small. This time next year, both King Prince Charles and Everybody's Second Favourite Princess of Wales could be brown bread. Leaving us with semi-bonkers King Cueball and the Flowers-in-the-Attic kids. If he decides he's had enough and taps out then we are down to Queen Eugenie and her influencer husband. Fuck me.
No, if One Pint Willy checks out it's George VII, with Prince Edward as Regent. If OPW takes the family on a dodgy helicopter ride, then it's King Henry IX and Queen Meghan.
The line of succession is probably quite different from how one imagines it. With Lilibet 7th but Anne only 17th, and well below people no-one has heard of like August Brooksbank and Sienna Mozzi (no idea either). It goes:
1 The Prince of Wales 2. Prince George of Wales 3. Princess Charlotte of Wales 4. Prince Louis of Wales 5. The Duke of Sussex 6. Prince Archie of Sussex 7. Princess Lilibet of Sussex 8. The Duke of York 9. Princess Beatrice, Mrs. Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi 10. Miss Sienna Mapelli Mozzi 11. Princess Eugenie, Mrs. Jack Brooksbank 12. Master August Brooksbank 13. Master Ernest Brooksbank 14. The Duke of Edinburgh 15. Earl of Wessex 16. The Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor 17. The Princess Royal 18. Mr. Peter Phillips 19. Miss Savannah Phillips 20. Miss Isla Phillips 21. Mrs. Michael Tindall 22. Miss Mia Tindall 23. Miss Lena Tindall 24. Master Lucas Tindall
This conversation leads me to an interesting question:
If the 2016 referendum had been Cameron's renegotiation versus Johnson's deal, would leave still have won?
Would anyone on here have voted differently?
Given Johnson's deal replaced Cameron's negotiation and most people think it was a mistake, in principle the vote should have been different.
If it had been known in 2016 that we would have a trade deal with zero-tariffs and quotas, it would have neutralised project fear and Leave would have won by a bigger margin.
If it had been known in 2016 that immigration under Brexit was going to sky-rocket, it would have neutralised project immigration fear and Remain would have won by a big margin.
A huge increase in immigration wasn’t what Leave voters wanted, but at least the immigration has been mainly of students paying over the odds to attend British universities, and highly paid skilled workers rather than a conveyer belt of Eastern Europeans ready to undercut British workers who were already on low wages
Yes. Leave voters absolutely voted for a tripling in immigration. Yes sirree. They were taking to the streets to demand it and hence Dave had to give them a vote so that they could achieve it. Oh yes.
Have you gone stark raving mad? I said it wasn’t what Leave voters wanted
It's a jungle out there. Wait till Kev hears about Sadiq's pay per mile shenanigans.
The instances of theft in particular "gadget theft" on the streets of London has skyrocketed. To the point that TfL now advises to "watch your gadgets". It is not at all stupid to watch out for/protect your own personal safety.
Not that I'm entirely sure what Sadiq Khan has to do with it all.
This conversation leads me to an interesting question:
If the 2016 referendum had been Cameron's renegotiation versus Johnson's deal, would leave still have won?
Would anyone on here have voted differently?
Given Johnson's deal replaced Cameron's negotiation and most people think it was a mistake, in principle the vote should have been different.
If it had been known in 2016 that we would have a trade deal with zero-tariffs and quotas, it would have neutralised project fear and Leave would have won by a bigger margin.
Thank you Frank Carson. It is indeed the way you tell 'em.
It's true though. If you look predictions about Brexit that predate the referendum, it was quite common for people to talk about how long it took for the EU to negotiate a trade deal with Canada and suggest that we would be on WTO terms for about 7 years in the interim. That was the position in the OECD's paper from April 2016.
I doubt anyone voted Brexit because they were in love with the idea of a Canada-style trade agreement with the EU. It was all the other goodies they were keen on - Global Britain, bonfire of red tape, immigration slashed, sovereignty returned so that UK politicians took responsibility etc. - none of which has so far materialized.
Sovereignty has been returned so that is materialised.
If you're not happy with our current government you can elect one which will change the rules.
That wasn't possible under EU rules.
Wait. We couldn't elect a different government of the UK while we were in the EU? Just as well we left.
The UK Government didn't set EU rules, so no we couldn't elect a different UK Government to change the rules set on a European basis.
Now we can.
Sovereignty.
Yes it's a good job we left. Now we just need to decide democratically what we want to do with our sovereignty.
So, how real is the tax gap and can “clamping down on tax dodgers” reduce it? I think it can, if targeted properly.
There are broadly 3 types of “tax dodging”:
- Hard avoidance (deliberate use of abusive, but legal, schemes to reduce or avoid tax) - Hard evasion: everything from paying staff cash in hand to international money laundering - Soft evasion: taxpayers taking shortcuts, not bothering to declare gains, over claiming reliefs or credits, either wilfully or through ignorance
Most big ticket hard avoidance has been successfully countered by HMRC in the last 2 decades through targeted and general anti avoidance rules, especially at the large corporate end of the spectrum. But some of it remains in the SME world alongside unscrupulous promoters. There is some scope there with greater HMRC resources, mainly through greater compliance enforcement.
Hard evasion will always exist and tackling it requires manpower and technology. But I’m not sure how big a tax gap is left there.
Soft evasion is pretty common and I’d say that’s where the most opportunity lies. The more effort and resources HMRC put in, the greater the yield.
There’s another thing altogether which gets conflated with “cracking down on tax dodgers” and that’s “closing loopholes”. That’s not cracking down on dodgers, it’s changing the law to broaden the tax base. In many cases the so called loophole is a deliberate policy position - to encourage investment say, or ensure fairness of proportionality. Nothing wrong with changing tax law but that counts as a tax rise, not closing the tax gap.
One of the fascinating things about how much the rich really pay is the significant variation in the rates, as you say based on the very wide range of allowances and differential tax rates.
"one in ten people with total remuneration over £1 million paid a lower EATR than someone earning just £15,000. This proportion rises to one in four of those with total remuneration between £5 million and £10 million."
"An Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) that required everyone earning more than £100,000 to pay at least a 35% tax rate on their taxable income and gains could raise around £11 billion. This is equivalent to the static effect of increasing the basic rate of Income Tax by 2p, or both the higher and additional rates by 5p. However, an AMT would raise the money from those among the rich who are paying the lowest shares, while limiting the scope for avoidance"
Around the period 2006-2009, I was fortunate enough to be earning enough to fall in the 40% income tax band. And I remember, on this site, people moaning about a certain variety of CGT being raised from 8% to 18%, and they expected me to sympathise!
As I’ve commented in previous threads, my effective tax rate on all income is comfortably north of 50%. I don’t know what the opposite of tax dodging is, but that’s what it looks like.
Without wishing to delve into you personal finances, how do you get close to that figure?
Are you including VAT on your spend, Council Tax, etc.?
The state aims to collect £800 billion + in taxes. Let us say that there are 40 million of us who do significant and more than trivial tax paying (so leave out children, many students, the poorer OAPs, the submerged tenth/benefits junkies). That's £20K per head, per year. And though BP, Tesco etc do their bit, ultimately it is people who, even if indirectly, do all the paying. Although it is often invisible and indirect, it is an unavoidable conclusion that a lot of better off people are really paying 50%+ in tax; there is no other way of doing the arithmentic. Also obvious that large scale, very wealthy, evaders/avoiders are a drain on the rest of us.
I certainly understand that if the total tax take is 36% of GDP then some will be contributing more than 50% overall but that includes their share of a lot of corporate taxes including corporation tax of course but also employer NICs, oil and gas revenues, the banking levy, betting & gaming duties, etc. etc.
Is it fair to include all those non-personal taxes when assessing your personal tax rate as north of 50%? I don't think so.
Many people think it’s time for LIZ TRUSS to gracefully return to the helm.
She was hugely popular with many PB Tories of course, and with the wider world at large.
Perhaps this time she will stage a comeback based on a greater degree of ideological purity.
It seems inevitable.
TRUSS.
I do wish you wouldn't do that. I see the word and think 'oh good, something interesting on the Baltimore bridge collapse or something'. Instead of something that's chronologically stem-high to a lettuce.
Providing Truss's recollection is correct, how immensely wise once again from HMQ.
I am still livid with her doctors for allowing her to be taken from us.
It's amazing how quickly the royal famz has gone from too big to too small. This time next year, both King Prince Charles and Everybody's Second Favourite Princess of Wales could be brown bread. Leaving us with semi-bonkers King Cueball and the Flowers-in-the-Attic kids. If he decides he's had enough and taps out then we are down to Queen Eugenie and her influencer husband. Fuck me.
No, if One Pint Willy checks out it's George VII, with Prince Edward as Regent. If OPW takes the family on a dodgy helicopter ride, then it's King Henry IX and Queen Meghan.
The line of succession is probably quite different from how one imagines it. With Lilibet 7th but Anne only 17th, and well below people no-one has heard of like August Brooksbank and Sienna Mozzi (no idea either). It goes:
1 The Prince of Wales 2. Prince George of Wales 3. Princess Charlotte of Wales 4. Prince Louis of Wales 5. The Duke of Sussex 6. Prince Archie of Sussex 7. Princess Lilibet of Sussex 8. The Duke of York 9. Princess Beatrice, Mrs. Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi 10. Miss Sienna Mapelli Mozzi 11. Princess Eugenie, Mrs. Jack Brooksbank 12. Master August Brooksbank 13. Master Ernest Brooksbank 14. The Duke of Edinburgh 15. Earl of Wessex 16. The Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor 17. The Princess Royal 18. Mr. Peter Phillips 19. Miss Savannah Phillips 20. Miss Isla Phillips 21. Mrs. Michael Tindall 22. Miss Mia Tindall 23. Miss Lena Tindall 24. Master Lucas Tindall
Queen Sienna Mapelli Mozzi is clearly the one to go for.
So, how real is the tax gap and can “clamping down on tax dodgers” reduce it? I think it can, if targeted properly.
There are broadly 3 types of “tax dodging”:
- Hard avoidance (deliberate use of abusive, but legal, schemes to reduce or avoid tax) - Hard evasion: everything from paying staff cash in hand to international money laundering - Soft evasion: taxpayers taking shortcuts, not bothering to declare gains, over claiming reliefs or credits, either wilfully or through ignorance
Most big ticket hard avoidance has been successfully countered by HMRC in the last 2 decades through targeted and general anti avoidance rules, especially at the large corporate end of the spectrum. But some of it remains in the SME world alongside unscrupulous promoters. There is some scope there with greater HMRC resources, mainly through greater compliance enforcement.
Hard evasion will always exist and tackling it requires manpower and technology. But I’m not sure how big a tax gap is left there.
Soft evasion is pretty common and I’d say that’s where the most opportunity lies. The more effort and resources HMRC put in, the greater the yield.
There’s another thing altogether which gets conflated with “cracking down on tax dodgers” and that’s “closing loopholes”. That’s not cracking down on dodgers, it’s changing the law to broaden the tax base. In many cases the so called loophole is a deliberate policy position - to encourage investment say, or ensure fairness of proportionality. Nothing wrong with changing tax law but that counts as a tax rise, not closing the tax gap.
One of the fascinating things about how much the rich really pay is the significant variation in the rates, as you say based on the very wide range of allowances and differential tax rates.
"one in ten people with total remuneration over £1 million paid a lower EATR than someone earning just £15,000. This proportion rises to one in four of those with total remuneration between £5 million and £10 million."
"An Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) that required everyone earning more than £100,000 to pay at least a 35% tax rate on their taxable income and gains could raise around £11 billion. This is equivalent to the static effect of increasing the basic rate of Income Tax by 2p, or both the higher and additional rates by 5p. However, an AMT would raise the money from those among the rich who are paying the lowest shares, while limiting the scope for avoidance"
Around the period 2006-2009, I was fortunate enough to be earning enough to fall in the 40% income tax band. And I remember, on this site, people moaning about a certain variety of CGT being raised from 8% to 18%, and they expected me to sympathise!
As I’ve commented in previous threads, my effective tax rate on all income is comfortably north of 50%. I don’t know what the opposite of tax dodging is, but that’s what it looks like.
Without wishing to delve into you personal finances, how do you get close to that figure?
Are you including VAT on your spend, Council Tax, etc.?
The state aims to collect £800 billion + in taxes. Let us say that there are 40 million of us who do significant and more than trivial tax paying (so leave out children, many students, the poorer OAPs, the submerged tenth/benefits junkies). That's £20K per head, per year. And though BP, Tesco etc do their bit, ultimately it is people who, even if indirectly, do all the paying. Although it is often invisible and indirect, it is an unavoidable conclusion that a lot of better off people are really paying 50%+ in tax; there is no other way of doing the arithmentic. Also obvious that large scale, very wealthy, evaders/avoiders are a drain on the rest of us.
I certainly understand that if the total tax take is 36% of GDP then some will be contributing more than 50% overall but that includes their share of a lot of corporate taxes including corporation tax of course but also employer NICs, oil and gas revenues, the banking levy, betting & gaming duties, etc. etc.
Is it fair to include all those non-personal taxes when assessing your personal tax rate as north of 50%? I don't think so.
Employer NIC is a tax on their own wages so of course it should be counted as personal taxation.
Sir Paul Fox, a true BBC legend from a time when the corporation was something to value and venerate, has sadly gone to join nana and the angles at the ripe old age of 98.
This conversation leads me to an interesting question:
If the 2016 referendum had been Cameron's renegotiation versus Johnson's deal, would leave still have won?
Would anyone on here have voted differently?
Given Johnson's deal replaced Cameron's negotiation and most people think it was a mistake, in principle the vote should have been different.
If it had been known in 2016 that we would have a trade deal with zero-tariffs and quotas, it would have neutralised project fear and Leave would have won by a bigger margin.
Thank you Frank Carson. It is indeed the way you tell 'em.
It's true though. If you look predictions about Brexit that predate the referendum, it was quite common for people to talk about how long it took for the EU to negotiate a trade deal with Canada and suggest that we would be on WTO terms for about 7 years in the interim. That was the position in the OECD's paper from April 2016.
I doubt anyone voted Brexit because they were in love with the idea of a Canada-style trade agreement with the EU. It was all the other goodies they were keen on - Global Britain, bonfire of red tape, immigration slashed, sovereignty returned so that UK politicians took responsibility etc. - none of which has so far materialized.
Sovereignty has been returned so that is materialised.
If you're not happy with our current government you can elect one which will change the rules.
That wasn't possible under EU rules.
Wait. We couldn't elect a different government of the UK while we were in the EU? Just as well we left.
The UK Government didn't set EU rules, so no we couldn't elect a different UK Government to change the rules set on a European basis.
Now we can.
Sovereignty.
Yes it's a good job we left. Now we just need to decide democratically what we want to do with our sovereignty.
The polls suggest that what we'd like to do with sovereignty is pool it with the EU
This conversation leads me to an interesting question:
If the 2016 referendum had been Cameron's renegotiation versus Johnson's deal, would leave still have won?
Would anyone on here have voted differently?
Given Johnson's deal replaced Cameron's negotiation and most people think it was a mistake, in principle the vote should have been different.
However if the ultimate driver for Leave voters was foreigners, I am not so sure.
Except for Rochdale, most PB Leavers seem rather comfortable with their decision in 2016.
Couple of others have also changed their minds. Eg kle4. Then there will be those (a greater number) who have but aren't yet ready to 'come out' about it. I can think of at least half a dozen in this category.
This conversation leads me to an interesting question:
If the 2016 referendum had been Cameron's renegotiation versus Johnson's deal, would leave still have won?
Would anyone on here have voted differently?
Given Johnson's deal replaced Cameron's negotiation and most people think it was a mistake, in principle the vote should have been different.
If it had been known in 2016 that we would have a trade deal with zero-tariffs and quotas, it would have neutralised project fear and Leave would have won by a bigger margin.
Thank you Frank Carson. It is indeed the way you tell 'em.
It's true though. If you look predictions about Brexit that predate the referendum, it was quite common for people to talk about how long it took for the EU to negotiate a trade deal with Canada and suggest that we would be on WTO terms for about 7 years in the interim. That was the position in the OECD's paper from April 2016.
I doubt anyone voted Brexit because they were in love with the idea of a Canada-style trade agreement with the EU. It was all the other goodies they were keen on - Global Britain, bonfire of red tape, immigration slashed, sovereignty returned so that UK politicians took responsibility etc. - none of which has so far materialized.
Sovereignty has been returned so that is materialised.
If you're not happy with our current government you can elect one which will change the rules.
That wasn't possible under EU rules.
Wait. We couldn't elect a different government of the UK while we were in the EU? Just as well we left.
The UK Government didn't set EU rules, so no we couldn't elect a different UK Government to change the rules set on a European basis.
Now we can.
Sovereignty.
Yes it's a good job we left. Now we just need to decide democratically what we want to do with our sovereignty.
The polls suggest that what we'd like to do with sovereignty is pool it with the EU
And if we vote to do that, then that will be democratic. No Parliament can bind its successor.
So, how real is the tax gap and can “clamping down on tax dodgers” reduce it? I think it can, if targeted properly.
There are broadly 3 types of “tax dodging”:
- Hard avoidance (deliberate use of abusive, but legal, schemes to reduce or avoid tax) - Hard evasion: everything from paying staff cash in hand to international money laundering - Soft evasion: taxpayers taking shortcuts, not bothering to declare gains, over claiming reliefs or credits, either wilfully or through ignorance
Most big ticket hard avoidance has been successfully countered by HMRC in the last 2 decades through targeted and general anti avoidance rules, especially at the large corporate end of the spectrum. But some of it remains in the SME world alongside unscrupulous promoters. There is some scope there with greater HMRC resources, mainly through greater compliance enforcement.
Hard evasion will always exist and tackling it requires manpower and technology. But I’m not sure how big a tax gap is left there.
Soft evasion is pretty common and I’d say that’s where the most opportunity lies. The more effort and resources HMRC put in, the greater the yield.
There’s another thing altogether which gets conflated with “cracking down on tax dodgers” and that’s “closing loopholes”. That’s not cracking down on dodgers, it’s changing the law to broaden the tax base. In many cases the so called loophole is a deliberate policy position - to encourage investment say, or ensure fairness of proportionality. Nothing wrong with changing tax law but that counts as a tax rise, not closing the tax gap.
One of the fascinating things about how much the rich really pay is the significant variation in the rates, as you say based on the very wide range of allowances and differential tax rates.
"one in ten people with total remuneration over £1 million paid a lower EATR than someone earning just £15,000. This proportion rises to one in four of those with total remuneration between £5 million and £10 million."
"An Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) that required everyone earning more than £100,000 to pay at least a 35% tax rate on their taxable income and gains could raise around £11 billion. This is equivalent to the static effect of increasing the basic rate of Income Tax by 2p, or both the higher and additional rates by 5p. However, an AMT would raise the money from those among the rich who are paying the lowest shares, while limiting the scope for avoidance"
Around the period 2006-2009, I was fortunate enough to be earning enough to fall in the 40% income tax band. And I remember, on this site, people moaning about a certain variety of CGT being raised from 8% to 18%, and they expected me to sympathise!
As I’ve commented in previous threads, my effective tax rate on all income is comfortably north of 50%. I don’t know what the opposite of tax dodging is, but that’s what it looks like.
Without wishing to delve into you personal finances, how do you get close to that figure?
Are you including VAT on your spend, Council Tax, etc.?
The state aims to collect £800 billion + in taxes. Let us say that there are 40 million of us who do significant and more than trivial tax paying (so leave out children, many students, the poorer OAPs, the submerged tenth/benefits junkies). That's £20K per head, per year. And though BP, Tesco etc do their bit, ultimately it is people who, even if indirectly, do all the paying. Although it is often invisible and indirect, it is an unavoidable conclusion that a lot of better off people are really paying 50%+ in tax; there is no other way of doing the arithmentic. Also obvious that large scale, very wealthy, evaders/avoiders are a drain on the rest of us.
I certainly understand that if the total tax take is 36% of GDP then some will be contributing more than 50% overall but that includes their share of a lot of corporate taxes including corporation tax of course but also employer NICs, oil and gas revenues, the banking levy, betting & gaming duties, etc. etc.
Is it fair to include all those non-personal taxes to assess your tax rate as north of 50%? I don't think so.
Fair point. The one I am making is that there is no-one around to actually bear the weight of state managed expenditure except people, and that the maths is inescapable. How to describe it is, to say the least, moot.
As is, for example, the way in which bits of the state pay tax to other bits of the state. Public buildings pay council tax. State employees are paid £X by the state out of taxation, only for the state to pay large chuck of it directly back to itself. Etc.
Many people think it’s time for LIZ TRUSS to gracefully return to the helm.
She was hugely popular with many PB Tories of course, and with the wider world at large.
Perhaps this time she will stage a comeback based on a greater degree of ideological purity.
It seems inevitable.
TRUSS.
I do wish you wouldn't do that. I see the word and think 'oh good, something interesting on the Baltimore bridge collapse or something'. Instead of something that's chronologically stem-high to a lettuce.
Providing Truss's recollection is correct, how immensely wise once again from HMQ.
I am still livid with her doctors for allowing her to be taken from us.
It's amazing how quickly the royal famz has gone from too big to too small. This time next year, both King Prince Charles and Everybody's Second Favourite Princess of Wales could be brown bread. Leaving us with semi-bonkers King Cueball and the Flowers-in-the-Attic kids. If he decides he's had enough and taps out then we are down to Queen Eugenie and her influencer husband. Fuck me.
No, if One Pint Willy checks out it's George VII, with Prince Edward as Regent. If OPW takes the family on a dodgy helicopter ride, then it's King Henry IX and Queen Meghan.
The line of succession is probably quite different from how one imagines it. With Lilibet 7th but Anne only 17th, and well below people no-one has heard of like August Brooksbank and Sienna Mozzi (no idea either). It goes:
1 The Prince of Wales 2. Prince George of Wales 3. Princess Charlotte of Wales 4. Prince Louis of Wales 5. The Duke of Sussex 6. Prince Archie of Sussex 7. Princess Lilibet of Sussex 8. The Duke of York 9. Princess Beatrice, Mrs. Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi 10. Miss Sienna Mapelli Mozzi 11. Princess Eugenie, Mrs. Jack Brooksbank 12. Master August Brooksbank 13. Master Ernest Brooksbank 14. The Duke of Edinburgh 15. Earl of Wessex 16. The Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor 17. The Princess Royal 18. Mr. Peter Phillips 19. Miss Savannah Phillips 20. Miss Isla Phillips 21. Mrs. Michael Tindall 22. Miss Mia Tindall 23. Miss Lena Tindall 24. Master Lucas Tindall
Queen Sienna Mapelli Mozzi is clearly the one to go for.
The longer you look at the list, the better the idea becomes.
This conversation leads me to an interesting question:
If the 2016 referendum had been Cameron's renegotiation versus Johnson's deal, would leave still have won?
Would anyone on here have voted differently?
Given Johnson's deal replaced Cameron's negotiation and most people think it was a mistake, in principle the vote should have been different.
If it had been known in 2016 that we would have a trade deal with zero-tariffs and quotas, it would have neutralised project fear and Leave would have won by a bigger margin.
Thank you Frank Carson. It is indeed the way you tell 'em.
It's true though. If you look predictions about Brexit that predate the referendum, it was quite common for people to talk about how long it took for the EU to negotiate a trade deal with Canada and suggest that we would be on WTO terms for about 7 years in the interim. That was the position in the OECD's paper from April 2016.
I doubt anyone voted Brexit because they were in love with the idea of a Canada-style trade agreement with the EU. It was all the other goodies they were keen on - Global Britain, bonfire of red tape, immigration slashed, sovereignty returned so that UK politicians took responsibility etc. - none of which has so far materialized.
Sovereignty has been returned so that is materialised.
If you're not happy with our current government you can elect one which will change the rules.
That wasn't possible under EU rules.
Wait. We couldn't elect a different government of the UK while we were in the EU? Just as well we left.
The UK Government didn't set EU rules, so no we couldn't elect a different UK Government to change the rules set on a European basis.
Now we can.
Sovereignty.
Yes it's a good job we left. Now we just need to decide democratically what we want to do with our sovereignty.
We could elect a government to set rules on a UK basis which I imagine is what is the key issue here. And we always could.
We were sovereign in the EU and sovereign outside the EU but I'm not going here again today so go for it with the la la land response take it as a win.
This conversation leads me to an interesting question:
If the 2016 referendum had been Cameron's renegotiation versus Johnson's deal, would leave still have won?
Would anyone on here have voted differently?
Given Johnson's deal replaced Cameron's negotiation and most people think it was a mistake, in principle the vote should have been different.
If it had been known in 2016 that we would have a trade deal with zero-tariffs and quotas, it would have neutralised project fear and Leave would have won by a bigger margin.
Thank you Frank Carson. It is indeed the way you tell 'em.
It's true though. If you look predictions about Brexit that predate the referendum, it was quite common for people to talk about how long it took for the EU to negotiate a trade deal with Canada and suggest that we would be on WTO terms for about 7 years in the interim. That was the position in the OECD's paper from April 2016.
I doubt anyone voted Brexit because they were in love with the idea of a Canada-style trade agreement with the EU. It was all the other goodies they were keen on - Global Britain, bonfire of red tape, immigration slashed, sovereignty returned so that UK politicians took responsibility etc. - none of which has so far materialized.
Sovereignty has been returned so that is materialised.
If you're not happy with our current government you can elect one which will change the rules.
That wasn't possible under EU rules.
Wait. We couldn't elect a different government of the UK while we were in the EU? Just as well we left.
The UK Government didn't set EU rules, so no we couldn't elect a different UK Government to change the rules set on a European basis.
Now we can.
Sovereignty.
Yes it's a good job we left. Now we just need to decide democratically what we want to do with our sovereignty.
The polls suggest that what we'd like to do with sovereignty is pool it with the EU
Fortunately we are not governed by the contemporary whims of opinion polls
Many people think it’s time for LIZ TRUSS to gracefully return to the helm.
She was hugely popular with many PB Tories of course, and with the wider world at large.
Perhaps this time she will stage a comeback based on a greater degree of ideological purity.
It seems inevitable.
TRUSS.
I do wish you wouldn't do that. I see the word and think 'oh good, something interesting on the Baltimore bridge collapse or something'. Instead of something that's chronologically stem-high to a lettuce.
Providing Truss's recollection is correct, how immensely wise once again from HMQ.
I am still livid with her doctors for allowing her to be taken from us.
It's amazing how quickly the royal famz has gone from too big to too small. This time next year, both King Prince Charles and Everybody's Second Favourite Princess of Wales could be brown bread. Leaving us with semi-bonkers King Cueball and the Flowers-in-the-Attic kids. If he decides he's had enough and taps out then we are down to Queen Eugenie and her influencer husband. Fuck me.
No, if One Pint Willy checks out it's George VII, with Prince Edward as Regent. If OPW takes the family on a dodgy helicopter ride, then it's King Henry IX and Queen Meghan.
The line of succession is probably quite different from how one imagines it. With Lilibet 7th but Anne only 17th, and well below people no-one has heard of like August Brooksbank and Sienna Mozzi (no idea either). It goes:
1 The Prince of Wales 2. Prince George of Wales 3. Princess Charlotte of Wales 4. Prince Louis of Wales 5. The Duke of Sussex 6. Prince Archie of Sussex 7. Princess Lilibet of Sussex 8. The Duke of York 9. Princess Beatrice, Mrs. Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi 10. Miss Sienna Mapelli Mozzi 11. Princess Eugenie, Mrs. Jack Brooksbank 12. Master August Brooksbank 13. Master Ernest Brooksbank 14. The Duke of Edinburgh 15. Earl of Wessex 16. The Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor 17. The Princess Royal 18. Mr. Peter Phillips 19. Miss Savannah Phillips 20. Miss Isla Phillips 21. Mrs. Michael Tindall 22. Miss Mia Tindall 23. Miss Lena Tindall 24. Master Lucas Tindall
Many people think it’s time for LIZ TRUSS to gracefully return to the helm.
She was hugely popular with many PB Tories of course, and with the wider world at large.
Perhaps this time she will stage a comeback based on a greater degree of ideological purity.
It seems inevitable.
TRUSS.
I do wish you wouldn't do that. I see the word and think 'oh good, something interesting on the Baltimore bridge collapse or something'. Instead of something that's chronologically stem-high to a lettuce.
Providing Truss's recollection is correct, how immensely wise once again from HMQ.
I am still livid with her doctors for allowing her to be taken from us.
It's amazing how quickly the royal famz has gone from too big to too small. This time next year, both King Prince Charles and Everybody's Second Favourite Princess of Wales could be brown bread. Leaving us with semi-bonkers King Cueball and the Flowers-in-the-Attic kids. If he decides he's had enough and taps out then we are down to Queen Eugenie and her influencer husband. Fuck me.
No, if One Pint Willy checks out it's George VII, with Prince Edward as Regent. If OPW takes the family on a dodgy helicopter ride, then it's King Henry IX and Queen Meghan.
The line of succession is probably quite different from how one imagines it. With Lilibet 7th but Anne only 17th, and well below people no-one has heard of like August Brooksbank and Sienna Mozzi (no idea either). It goes:
1 The Prince of Wales 2. Prince George of Wales 3. Princess Charlotte of Wales 4. Prince Louis of Wales 5. The Duke of Sussex 6. Prince Archie of Sussex 7. Princess Lilibet of Sussex 8. The Duke of York 9. Princess Beatrice, Mrs. Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi 10. Miss Sienna Mapelli Mozzi 11. Princess Eugenie, Mrs. Jack Brooksbank 12. Master August Brooksbank 13. Master Ernest Brooksbank 14. The Duke of Edinburgh 15. Earl of Wessex 16. The Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor 17. The Princess Royal 18. Mr. Peter Phillips 19. Miss Savannah Phillips 20. Miss Isla Phillips 21. Mrs. Michael Tindall 22. Miss Mia Tindall 23. Miss Lena Tindall 24. Master Lucas Tindall
So Harry is still fifth in line. What would his Dad say.
This conversation leads me to an interesting question:
If the 2016 referendum had been Cameron's renegotiation versus Johnson's deal, would leave still have won?
Would anyone on here have voted differently?
Given Johnson's deal replaced Cameron's negotiation and most people think it was a mistake, in principle the vote should have been different.
If it had been known in 2016 that we would have a trade deal with zero-tariffs and quotas, it would have neutralised project fear and Leave would have won by a bigger margin.
Thank you Frank Carson. It is indeed the way you tell 'em.
It's true though. If you look predictions about Brexit that predate the referendum, it was quite common for people to talk about how long it took for the EU to negotiate a trade deal with Canada and suggest that we would be on WTO terms for about 7 years in the interim. That was the position in the OECD's paper from April 2016.
I doubt anyone voted Brexit because they were in love with the idea of a Canada-style trade agreement with the EU. It was all the other goodies they were keen on - Global Britain, bonfire of red tape, immigration slashed, sovereignty returned so that UK politicians took responsibility etc. - none of which has so far materialized.
Sovereignty has been returned so that is materialised.
If you're not happy with our current government you can elect one which will change the rules.
That wasn't possible under EU rules.
Wait. We couldn't elect a different government of the UK while we were in the EU? Just as well we left.
The UK Government didn't set EU rules, so no we couldn't elect a different UK Government to change the rules set on a European basis.
Now we can.
Sovereignty.
Yes it's a good job we left. Now we just need to decide democratically what we want to do with our sovereignty.
We could elect a government to set rules on a UK basis which I imagine is what is the key issue here. And we always could.
We were sovereign in the EU and sovereign outside the EU but I'm not going here again today so go for it with the la la land response take it as a win.
No the onlu key issue with the EU was rules set on an EU basis.
Outright disinformation from the BBC. Habibur Masum is not 'from Oldham'. He is a Bangladeshi national who entered the UK on a student visa a couple of years ago.
Sunak's legacy will be remembered by how he performed against Russia. When historians decades hence look back on the 2020s, they will judge whether the aggressive, expansionist dictatorship was contained or embolded, as Germany was in the 1930s.
Zelensky explictly describes what will happen if Ukraine doesn't get more aid: Ukraine will lose.
And if that happens, Putin will start looking at other countries: the Baltics, Poland, Finland. Which will inevitably pull NATO countries into a full blown war.
So what will Sunak do while the US is screwing about in its latest flirting with isolationism? Will he be someone that kept his head down with just a peer average amount of aid? Or will he stand out from the shadows and pass major aid to Ukraine to cover the shortfall? He is a man of small height, but has the opportunity to one of giant stature if he decides to do something big here. What does he want his premiership remembered for?
Many people think it’s time for LIZ TRUSS to gracefully return to the helm.
She was hugely popular with many PB Tories of course, and with the wider world at large.
Perhaps this time she will stage a comeback based on a greater degree of ideological purity.
It seems inevitable.
TRUSS.
I do wish you wouldn't do that. I see the word and think 'oh good, something interesting on the Baltimore bridge collapse or something'. Instead of something that's chronologically stem-high to a lettuce.
Providing Truss's recollection is correct, how immensely wise once again from HMQ.
I am still livid with her doctors for allowing her to be taken from us.
It's amazing how quickly the royal famz has gone from too big to too small. This time next year, both King Prince Charles and Everybody's Second Favourite Princess of Wales could be brown bread. Leaving us with semi-bonkers King Cueball and the Flowers-in-the-Attic kids. If he decides he's had enough and taps out then we are down to Queen Eugenie and her influencer husband. Fuck me.
No, if One Pint Willy checks out it's George VII, with Prince Edward as Regent. If OPW takes the family on a dodgy helicopter ride, then it's King Henry IX and Queen Meghan.
The line of succession is probably quite different from how one imagines it. With Lilibet 7th but Anne only 17th, and well below people no-one has heard of like August Brooksbank and Sienna Mozzi (no idea either). It goes:
1 The Prince of Wales 2. Prince George of Wales 3. Princess Charlotte of Wales 4. Prince Louis of Wales 5. The Duke of Sussex 6. Prince Archie of Sussex 7. Princess Lilibet of Sussex 8. The Duke of York 9. Princess Beatrice, Mrs. Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi 10. Miss Sienna Mapelli Mozzi 11. Princess Eugenie, Mrs. Jack Brooksbank 12. Master August Brooksbank 13. Master Ernest Brooksbank 14. The Duke of Edinburgh 15. Earl of Wessex 16. The Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor 17. The Princess Royal 18. Mr. Peter Phillips 19. Miss Savannah Phillips 20. Miss Isla Phillips 21. Mrs. Michael Tindall 22. Miss Mia Tindall 23. Miss Lena Tindall 24. Master Lucas Tindall
So Harry is still fifth in line. What would his Dad say.
Surely he should be removed from the line of succession, seeing that he officially renounced his intention to undertake royal duties.
Outright disinformation from the BBC. Habibur Masum is not 'from Oldham'. He is a Bangladeshi national who entered the UK on a student visa a couple of years ago.
Many people think it’s time for LIZ TRUSS to gracefully return to the helm.
She was hugely popular with many PB Tories of course, and with the wider world at large.
Perhaps this time she will stage a comeback based on a greater degree of ideological purity.
It seems inevitable.
TRUSS.
I do wish you wouldn't do that. I see the word and think 'oh good, something interesting on the Baltimore bridge collapse or something'. Instead of something that's chronologically stem-high to a lettuce.
Providing Truss's recollection is correct, how immensely wise once again from HMQ.
I am still livid with her doctors for allowing her to be taken from us.
It's amazing how quickly the royal famz has gone from too big to too small. This time next year, both King Prince Charles and Everybody's Second Favourite Princess of Wales could be brown bread. Leaving us with semi-bonkers King Cueball and the Flowers-in-the-Attic kids. If he decides he's had enough and taps out then we are down to Queen Eugenie and her influencer husband. Fuck me.
No, if One Pint Willy checks out it's George VII, with Prince Edward as Regent. If OPW takes the family on a dodgy helicopter ride, then it's King Henry IX and Queen Meghan.
The line of succession is probably quite different from how one imagines it. With Lilibet 7th but Anne only 17th, and well below people no-one has heard of like August Brooksbank and Sienna Mozzi (no idea either). It goes:
1 The Prince of Wales 2. Prince George of Wales 3. Princess Charlotte of Wales 4. Prince Louis of Wales 5. The Duke of Sussex 6. Prince Archie of Sussex 7. Princess Lilibet of Sussex 8. The Duke of York 9. Princess Beatrice, Mrs. Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi 10. Miss Sienna Mapelli Mozzi 11. Princess Eugenie, Mrs. Jack Brooksbank 12. Master August Brooksbank 13. Master Ernest Brooksbank 14. The Duke of Edinburgh 15. Earl of Wessex 16. The Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor 17. The Princess Royal 18. Mr. Peter Phillips 19. Miss Savannah Phillips 20. Miss Isla Phillips 21. Mrs. Michael Tindall 22. Miss Mia Tindall 23. Miss Lena Tindall 24. Master Lucas Tindall
So Harry is still fifth in line. What would his Dad say.
Surely he should be removed from the line of succession, seeing that he officially renounced his intention to undertake royal duties.
I would have thought so too, but that cannot happen I guess.
Outright disinformation from the BBC. Habibur Masum is not 'from Oldham'. He is a Bangladeshi national who entered the UK on a student visa a couple of years ago.
Many people think it’s time for LIZ TRUSS to gracefully return to the helm.
She was hugely popular with many PB Tories of course, and with the wider world at large.
Perhaps this time she will stage a comeback based on a greater degree of ideological purity.
It seems inevitable.
TRUSS.
I do wish you wouldn't do that. I see the word and think 'oh good, something interesting on the Baltimore bridge collapse or something'. Instead of something that's chronologically stem-high to a lettuce.
Providing Truss's recollection is correct, how immensely wise once again from HMQ.
I am still livid with her doctors for allowing her to be taken from us.
It's amazing how quickly the royal famz has gone from too big to too small. This time next year, both King Prince Charles and Everybody's Second Favourite Princess of Wales could be brown bread. Leaving us with semi-bonkers King Cueball and the Flowers-in-the-Attic kids. If he decides he's had enough and taps out then we are down to Queen Eugenie and her influencer husband. Fuck me.
No, if One Pint Willy checks out it's George VII, with Prince Edward as Regent. If OPW takes the family on a dodgy helicopter ride, then it's King Henry IX and Queen Meghan.
The line of succession is probably quite different from how one imagines it. With Lilibet 7th but Anne only 17th, and well below people no-one has heard of like August Brooksbank and Sienna Mozzi (no idea either). It goes:
1 The Prince of Wales 2. Prince George of Wales 3. Princess Charlotte of Wales 4. Prince Louis of Wales 5. The Duke of Sussex 6. Prince Archie of Sussex 7. Princess Lilibet of Sussex 8. The Duke of York 9. Princess Beatrice, Mrs. Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi 10. Miss Sienna Mapelli Mozzi 11. Princess Eugenie, Mrs. Jack Brooksbank 12. Master August Brooksbank 13. Master Ernest Brooksbank 14. The Duke of Edinburgh 15. Earl of Wessex 16. The Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor 17. The Princess Royal 18. Mr. Peter Phillips 19. Miss Savannah Phillips 20. Miss Isla Phillips 21. Mrs. Michael Tindall 22. Miss Mia Tindall 23. Miss Lena Tindall 24. Master Lucas Tindall
So Harry is still fifth in line. What would his Dad say.
Surely he should be removed from the line of succession, seeing that he officially renounced his intention to undertake royal duties.
What are the problems with an alternative minimum tax? If you earn over £100k you have to pay at least 35% of that in taxes, basically the equivalent of Betfair's premium charge.
What are the problems with an alternative minimum tax? If you earn over £100k you have to pay at least 35% of that in taxes, basically the equivalent of Betfair's premium charge.
All income should be taxed at the same rate, regardless of how it is earned.
35% is less than someone on PAYE is paying, so its too low.
Nobody should be paying a lower tax rate than someone on PAYE.
The more important inverse being that nobody on PAYE should be paying a higher rate that someone off it.
It'll be interesting to compare Caroline Henry and "Every political job in Nottinghamshire" Ben Bradley's votes. Not sure if he'll win (East Mids Mayor is a larger electorate than just Notts) but my guess is he'll perform considerably better than Henry (Police Commissioner) in the Nottinghamshire area. Personally I'd be staggered if she gets back in, and frankly I'm amazed the Conservatives have put her up as the candidate again.
Outright disinformation from the BBC. Habibur Masum is not 'from Oldham'. He is a Bangladeshi national who entered the UK on a student visa a couple of years ago.
Ed Davey role in Post Office scandal now being discussed by Alan Bates and enquiry team live on Sky
Surely not.
We were told here even mentioning him in regard to the Post Office Scandal was a disgraceful Tory smear.
Indeed it is really cutting through in the opinion polling where the LD share has dipped from an impressive 9% to a devastating 9% since the news of Daveygate broke.
This conversation leads me to an interesting question:
If the 2016 referendum had been Cameron's renegotiation versus Johnson's deal, would leave still have won?
Would anyone on here have voted differently?
Given Johnson's deal replaced Cameron's negotiation and most people think it was a mistake, in principle the vote should have been different.
If it had been known in 2016 that we would have a trade deal with zero-tariffs and quotas, it would have neutralised project fear and Leave would have won by a bigger margin.
Thank you Frank Carson. It is indeed the way you tell 'em.
It's true though. If you look predictions about Brexit that predate the referendum, it was quite common for people to talk about how long it took for the EU to negotiate a trade deal with Canada and suggest that we would be on WTO terms for about 7 years in the interim. That was the position in the OECD's paper from April 2016.
I doubt anyone voted Brexit because they were in love with the idea of a Canada-style trade agreement with the EU. It was all the other goodies they were keen on - Global Britain, bonfire of red tape, immigration slashed, sovereignty returned so that UK politicians took responsibility etc. - none of which has so far materialized.
Sovereignty has been returned so that is materialised.
If you're not happy with our current government you can elect one which will change the rules.
That wasn't possible under EU rules.
Wait. We couldn't elect a different government of the UK while we were in the EU? Just as well we left.
Pointless though because the real power lay with the eurocrats of Brussels. Surprising that anybody bothered voting in our GEs when you think about it.
What are the problems with an alternative minimum tax? If you earn over £100k you have to pay at least 35% of that in taxes, basically the equivalent of Betfair's premium charge.
All income should be taxed at the same rate, regardless of how it is earned.
35% is less than someone on PAYE is paying, so its too low.
Nobody should be paying a lower tax rate than someone on PAYE.
The more important inverse being that nobody on PAYE should be paying a higher rate that someone off it.
Well there are lots of people earning £1m+ paying <15% now.
Forgetting your ideal scenario, for the highest earners wouldn't it make sense to add in a floor on tax on earnings that cannot be reduced by allowances and tax loopholes?
It'll be interesting to compare Caroline Henry and "Every political job in Nottinghamshire" Ben Bradley's votes. Not sure if he'll win (East Mids Mayor is a larger electorate than just Notts) but my guess is he'll perform considerably better than Henry (Police Commissioner) in the Nottinghamshire area. Personally I'd be staggered if she gets back in, and frankly I'm amazed the Conservatives have put her up as the candidate again.
Given that she won over Labour by 139k to 131k last time it's a bit of a one-way bet.
Outright disinformation from the BBC. Habibur Masum is not 'from Oldham'. He is a Bangladeshi national who entered the UK on a student visa a couple of years ago.
Quality News from the quality state broadcaster, as always
I remember when I complained to the BBC when they repeatedly described the EU as "the world's largest free trade area" during the Brexit campaign. I linked to the data showing clearly that NAFTA was 20% larger.
In their email response they cited a sentence (without data!) from the European Commission's website. They then claimed that it was a matter of interpretation which was larger. I asked what measure the EU was bigger on, and they said they wouldn't respond to any more emails.
It was at that point that I realised the BBC's mechanisms for feedback on the impartiality was just a PR exercise. Not something they would ever use to change their multiculturalist agenda.
What are the problems with an alternative minimum tax? If you earn over £100k you have to pay at least 35% of that in taxes, basically the equivalent of Betfair's premium charge.
All income should be taxed at the same rate, regardless of how it is earned.
35% is less than someone on PAYE is paying, so its too low.
Nobody should be paying a lower tax rate than someone on PAYE.
The more important inverse being that nobody on PAYE should be paying a higher rate that someone off it.
Well there are lots of people earning £1m+ paying less than 15% now.
Forgetting your ideal scenario, for the highest earners wouldn't it make sense to add in a floor on tax on earnings that cannot be reduced by allowances and tax loopholes?
How?
And if you can, why not set the floor at the same rate as PAYE?
Outright disinformation from the BBC. Habibur Masum is not 'from Oldham'. He is a Bangladeshi national who entered the UK on a student visa a couple of years ago.
It's just a false statement. It's obviously not true that everyone is "from" where they currently live. (I'm certainly not, for example.) The BBC is just dishing out Enoch dust. Other parts of the Tory gutter press do the same.
Outright disinformation from the BBC. Habibur Masum is not 'from Oldham'. He is a Bangladeshi national who entered the UK on a student visa a couple of years ago.
It's just a false statement. It's obviously not true that everyone is "from" where they currently live. The BBC is just dishing out Enoch dust. Other parts of the Tory gutter press do the same.
Everyone is from where they live.
When I go to work, or go to the shops, I go from my home.
This conversation leads me to an interesting question:
If the 2016 referendum had been Cameron's renegotiation versus Johnson's deal, would leave still have won?
Would anyone on here have voted differently?
Given Johnson's deal replaced Cameron's negotiation and most people think it was a mistake, in principle the vote should have been different.
If it had been known in 2016 that we would have a trade deal with zero-tariffs and quotas, it would have neutralised project fear and Leave would have won by a bigger margin.
Thank you Frank Carson. It is indeed the way you tell 'em.
It's true though. If you look predictions about Brexit that predate the referendum, it was quite common for people to talk about how long it took for the EU to negotiate a trade deal with Canada and suggest that we would be on WTO terms for about 7 years in the interim. That was the position in the OECD's paper from April 2016.
I doubt anyone voted Brexit because they were in love with the idea of a Canada-style trade agreement with the EU. It was all the other goodies they were keen on - Global Britain, bonfire of red tape, immigration slashed, sovereignty returned so that UK politicians took responsibility etc. - none of which has so far materialized.
Sovereignty has been returned so that is materialised.
If you're not happy with our current government you can elect one which will change the rules.
That wasn't possible under EU rules.
Wait. We couldn't elect a different government of the UK while we were in the EU? Just as well we left.
Pointless though because the real power lay with the eurocrats of Brussels. Surprising that anybody bothered voting in our GEs when you think about it.
The reality is that EU law had primacy over UK law. That made it clear where sovereignty lied.
As for immigration - the new rules come in place this month. It took a long time, but democracy often does. Finally we have clamped down on unskilled immigration, whether EU or non-EU.
Outright disinformation from the BBC. Habibur Masum is not 'from Oldham'. He is a Bangladeshi national who entered the UK on a student visa a couple of years ago.
Quality News from the quality state broadcaster, as always
I remember when I complained to the BBC when they repeatedly described the EU as "the world's largest free trade area" during the Brexit campaign. I linked to the data showing clearly that NAFTA was 20% larger.
In their email response they cited a sentence (without data!) from the European Commission's website. They then claimed that it was a matter of interpretation which was larger. I asked what measure the EU was bigger on, and they said they wouldn't respond to any more emails.
It was at that point that I realised the BBC's mechanisms for feedback on the impartiality was just a PR exercise. Not something they would ever use to change their multiculturalist agenda.
I suppose you should be grateful they bothered to reply to you although they shouldn't have bothered.
This conversation leads me to an interesting question:
If the 2016 referendum had been Cameron's renegotiation versus Johnson's deal, would leave still have won?
Would anyone on here have voted differently?
Given Johnson's deal replaced Cameron's negotiation and most people think it was a mistake, in principle the vote should have been different.
If it had been known in 2016 that we would have a trade deal with zero-tariffs and quotas, it would have neutralised project fear and Leave would have won by a bigger margin.
If it had been known in 2016 that immigration under Brexit was going to sky-rocket, it would have neutralised project immigration fear and Remain would have won by a big margin.
"The Remain campaign should have been more racist"
@williamglenn you made a powerful and, may I say, compelling case yesterday for LIZ TRUSS to return to the bridge, as captain of the good ship Britannia. I am sure many millions, both at home and abroad, will just rejoice at that news.
How do you see the process, by which our queen over the water might return to her throne? Presumably, a package of pureplay pro-growth measures, coupled with the zeal of the neobrexiteer, which you so perfectly epitomise, will be a winning strategy, not just for 2024, but for the years and decades to come?
TRUSS.
I was reflecting today on how Truss managed to achieve such incredible cut-through. While she was Prime Minister, everywhere you went, her name was on people's lips and there were enthusiastic debates about the issues of the day in the least likely places.
That level of engagement with politics is what we need so badly now. Perhaps it's time for a counter-coup against the deep state and for Truss to make a triumphant return before the election.
Eh, we were in peak dead Queenie queue hysteria and then she blew up the economy and wandered around Parliament high as a kite for a few days until Jeremy Hunt kindly put her out of her misery.
What are the problems with an alternative minimum tax? If you earn over £100k you have to pay at least 35% of that in taxes, basically the equivalent of Betfair's premium charge.
All income should be taxed at the same rate, regardless of how it is earned.
35% is less than someone on PAYE is paying, so its too low.
Nobody should be paying a lower tax rate than someone on PAYE.
The more important inverse being that nobody on PAYE should be paying a higher rate that someone off it.
Well there are lots of people earning £1m+ paying less than 15% now.
Forgetting your ideal scenario, for the highest earners wouldn't it make sense to add in a floor on tax on earnings that cannot be reduced by allowances and tax loopholes?
How?
And if you can, why not set the floor at the same rate as PAYE?
The effective tax rate of people on PAYE will also vary a bit depending on their circumstances and use of allowances and pension savings, it seems fair to allow the rich some flexibility in arranging their finances too. But paying 15% on £1m is taxing the piss and should be stopped. Anything from 25-40% sounds a sensible-ish range for a minimum to me.
Comments
When Tesla entered China, it helped Chinese firm LK Group develop the world’s largest casting machines to make Tesla parts. Later, LK sold similar casting machines to 6 Chinese firms, likely automakers.
This is what I mean by using foreign firms to turbocharge your own industry.
https://twitter.com/kyleichan/status/1773166646552560045
Musk established a source of low cost production in China; but he also helped enable his significantly lower cost competitors there.
https://www.euronews.com/green/2024/04/09/top-european-human-rights-court-could-rule-that-governments-have-to-protect-people-from-cl
https://www.globalplayer.com/podcasts/episodes/7DriAWi/
Edit: I err think - though one source is giving me 4.0 Tons CO2 per person from Switzerland, which surely can't be commensurate with this ruling...
Anderson was office manager for the Ashfield MP Gloria de Piero, who was one of the many who stood apart from Corbyn's lunacy.
He was hung out to dry by the Corbynite wing of Ashfield Labour, who managed to reduce the local party from a big majority with 22 Councillors in Ashfield in 2015 at District level to ONE Councillor now.
I don't think that anyone else on PB would spin such a line.
I note that one feature of Plato's Cleitophon is that the authenticity is disputed. Are you our latest Russian?
https://www.youtube.com/live/mHTbrd8wyik?si=4wXT54GMurwraB5C
"The EU sends us 3.5 thousand migrants a week
Let's get them from Africa instead"
(Not sure whether we're really getting migrants from Africa instead, but why let facts get in the way of a good bus slogan? Neither do I have a particularly strong opinion on where we should source migrants from, if they have skills we need.)
"A History of British Elections with Iain Dale"
To explore the history of British elections, we will be joined for this live webinar by Iain Dale, Tim Bale, Jennifer Davey and Robert Saunders.
Of course, it's to promote the launch of Iain Dale’s new book, "British General Election Campaigns, 1830-2019". But then, the book might also be of interest.
How do you see the process, by which our queen over the water might return to her throne? Presumably, a package of pureplay pro-growth measures, coupled with the zeal of the neobrexiteer, which you so perfectly epitomise, will be a winning strategy, not just for 2024, but for the years and decades to come?
TRUSS.
"In the YE June 2023, the top five non-EU nationalities for immigration flows into the UK were: Indian (253,000), Nigerian (141,000), Chinese (89,000), Pakistani (55,000) and Ukrainian (35,000)."
The Ukrainians and some of the Chinese will be on the specific Ukraine and Hong Kong schemes. A lot of that immigration flow is students, who are mostly Chinese, but some Indian, Pakistani, Nigerian etc. So, in terms of people coming to work, who can be said to be replacing those who used to come from the EU for work, it's mainly south Asia and Africa.
The first I see obvious issues with. The second is surely its job? But given my IANALness and relying only on the not very enlightening BBC report I may well be missing something.
It's a low bar for the ECHR to get involved with. Are we sure this story isn't eight days late.
Leave voters wanted, but at least the immigration has been mainly of students paying over the odds to attend British universities, and highly paid skilled workers rather than a conveyer belt of Eastern Europeans ready to undercut British workers who were already on low wages
Those who want to rejoin have the perfect candidate, who is almost certain to be our next PM. He wanted a second referendum as a matter of principle, and would have campaigned for Remain. He also stood to be Labour leader on a pledge to fight for FOM. So, it’s over to you Sir Keir
That level of engagement with politics is what we need so badly now. Perhaps it's time for a counter-coup against the deep state and for Truss to make a triumphant return before the election.
Wait till Kev hears about Sadiq's pay per mile shenanigans.
If you're not happy with our current government you can elect one which will change the rules.
That wasn't possible under EU rules.
1 The Prince of Wales
2. Prince George of Wales
3. Princess Charlotte of Wales
4. Prince Louis of Wales
5. The Duke of Sussex
6. Prince Archie of Sussex
7. Princess Lilibet of Sussex
8. The Duke of York
9. Princess Beatrice, Mrs. Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi
10. Miss Sienna Mapelli Mozzi
11. Princess Eugenie, Mrs. Jack Brooksbank
12. Master August Brooksbank
13. Master Ernest Brooksbank
14. The Duke of Edinburgh
15. Earl of Wessex
16. The Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor
17. The Princess Royal
18. Mr. Peter Phillips
19. Miss Savannah Phillips
20. Miss Isla Phillips
21. Mrs. Michael Tindall
22. Miss Mia Tindall
23. Miss Lena Tindall
24. Master Lucas Tindall
Not that I'm entirely sure what Sadiq Khan has to do with it all.
Now we can.
Sovereignty.
Yes it's a good job we left. Now we just need to decide democratically what we want to do with our sovereignty.
Is it fair to include all those non-personal taxes when assessing your personal tax rate as north of 50%? I don't think so.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/bbc-legend-behind-dad-s-army-and-the-two-ronnies-dies-with-tributes-to-his-towering-career-pour-in/ar-BB1ljRm3?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=ee5d6e189b4a4b9da6f80af0958d089a&ei=14
I'm sceptical though.
As is, for example, the way in which bits of the state pay tax to other bits of the state. Public buildings pay council tax. State employees are paid £X by the state out of taxation, only for the state to pay large chuck of it directly back to itself. Etc.
We were sovereign in the EU and sovereign outside the EU but I'm not going here again today so go for it with the la la land response take it as a win.
https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1777375182904021405
Rules set on a UK basis is entirely moot.
(Which would depress the Tories)
Outright disinformation from the BBC. Habibur Masum is not 'from Oldham'. He is a Bangladeshi national who entered the UK on a student visa a couple of years ago.
https://x.com/jfwduffield/status/1777616080870973756?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
Zelensky explictly describes what will happen if Ukraine doesn't get more aid: Ukraine will lose.
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/04/08/europe/ukraine-lose-war-us-congress-zelensky-intl
And if that happens, Putin will start looking at other countries: the Baltics, Poland, Finland. Which will inevitably pull NATO countries into a full blown war.
So what will Sunak do while the US is screwing about in its latest flirting with isolationism? Will he be someone that kept his head down with just a peer average amount of aid? Or will he stand out from the shadows and pass major aid to Ukraine to cover the shortfall? He is a man of small height, but has the opportunity to one of giant stature if he decides to do something big here. What does he want his premiership remembered for?
That's not disinformation.
We were told here even mentioning him in regard to the Post Office Scandal was a disgraceful Tory smear.
35% is less than someone on PAYE is paying, so its too low.
Nobody should be paying a lower tax rate than someone on PAYE.
The more important inverse being that nobody on PAYE should be paying a higher rate that someone off it.
Forgetting your ideal scenario, for the highest earners wouldn't it make sense to add in a floor on tax on earnings that cannot be reduced by allowances and tax loopholes?
In their email response they cited a sentence (without data!) from the European Commission's website. They then claimed that it was a matter of interpretation which was larger. I asked what measure the EU was bigger on, and they said they wouldn't respond to any more emails.
It was at that point that I realised the BBC's mechanisms for feedback on the impartiality was just a PR exercise. Not something they would ever use to change their multiculturalist agenda.
And if you can, why not set the floor at the same rate as PAYE?
When I go to work, or go to the shops, I go from my home.
I don't go from my birthplace.
As for immigration - the new rules come in place this month. It took a long time, but democracy often does. Finally we have clamped down on unskilled immigration, whether EU or non-EU.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_minimum_tax
The effective tax rate of people on PAYE will also vary a bit depending on their circumstances and use of allowances and pension savings, it seems fair to allow the rich some flexibility in arranging their finances too. But paying 15% on £1m is taxing the piss and should be stopped. Anything from 25-40% sounds a sensible-ish range for a minimum to me.
These bloody people.