Howdy, Stranger!

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

Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » We need to re-think next CON leader betting following Camer

2456

Comments

  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,267

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    I wonder when Mike et al will stop tipping Sajid Javid as next Conservative party leader (which will be a few years yet). The Conservatives are not Labour, they will choose someone who can actually win an election. This will be a white, middle aged Christian man - the only leader of recent decades who didn't fit this stereotype was Thatcher.

    Not quite the only one. Howard was Jewish.
    Still is, isn't he?

    Boris to Northern Ireland...
    Give that teacher a D :smile:

    Would the idea be that they spend so much time laughing at him they haven't time for anything else, or that they finally get to agree on something - how much they hate Boris?
    Could do worse. The story goes that Paisley and Adams looked at each other after meeting Mo Mowlem on her first day in the job, and each said to the other "I know I'm mad and you're madder but, boy, we're just beginners compared to her"...

    And she wanted to be Foreign Secretary. Indeed she got all huffy when Blair very sensibly said no, and walked out.

    Please remember, while arguing about Disraeli's Jewishness, that Judaism is a race as well as a religion. Disraeli famously described himself as a Jew in 1835, while withering Daniel O'Connell: 'When his ancestors were blue with woad, mine were priests in the temples of Solomon.'
  • Options
    RogerRoger Posts: 18,891
    edited April 2016

    Disraeli was a lapsed Jew.

    I think the question is whether such a thing is possible. Rather like a lapsed Scotsman

    Anyway I was just reading that article in the Telegraph when one of those intriguing sidebars came up.......

    http://elpais.com/elpais/2016/04/04/inenglish/1459755721_130146.html?id_externo_promo=ob-externo-english
  • Options
    I agree with Mike OGH.
    Pritti Patel
    Graham Brady
    Andrea Leadsom
  • Options
    TCPoliticalBettingTCPoliticalBetting Posts: 10,819
    edited April 2016
    I do not agree with Mike about Crabb and Truss.
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,987
    Mr. L, only because Miliband was an idiot.

    If ethnic Judaism is sufficient to be first Jewish PM, Disraeli beat him by a century.

    If religious Judaism is necessary, Miliband's not eligible.
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 32,002

    Disraeli was a lapsed Jew.

    His parents converted to Anglicanism. He was ethnically Jewish but not religiously so.

    Not that it matters much. If the Victorians were not that bothered then why should anyone else be?

    Religion plays much less of a place in politics here than across the pond. Thank God!
    I dunno; there are some very unpleasant referrences to Jews in Victorian ..... think Fagin ....and even thirties literatures. I was quite shocked at something about a “typical Jew-boy” I found in an AP Herbert book.
  • Options

    This is going to cause a stir... ICM for Channel 4 documentary, 52% of Muslims surveyed thought homosexuality should be illegal. Well worth reading whole article with Trevor Philips. He's downbeat.

    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/half-of-muslims-say-gays-should-be-outlawed-cb5bcdtcx

    The only surprise here is that it is as low as 52%.
    Maybe the survey only reached the ones who could speak English?
    Certainly from my experience the strongest support of homosexuality from Muslims is that it is "not illegal". There is usually no support from a human rights perspective.
  • Options
    Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    ydoethur said:

    I wonder when Mike et al will stop tipping Sajid Javid as next Conservative party leader (which will be a few years yet). The Conservatives are not Labour, they will choose someone who can actually win an election. This will be a white, middle aged Christian man - the only leader of recent decades who didn't fit this stereotype was Thatcher.

    Not quite the only one. Howard was Jewish.
    Also I'd question what you mean by Middle Aged. I believe that Cameron was 38 while Howard was 61 when elected. Presumably one of them is not Middle Aged.
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,125
    Genuinely surprised the Prime Minister earns so little.Thought he would have had some other nice little earners bubbling away.

    No wonder he wants to get out of Downing Street and onto those Streets Paved With Gold so well trodden by Blair and Brown....
  • Options

    ydoethur said:

    I wonder when Mike et al will stop tipping Sajid Javid as next Conservative party leader (which will be a few years yet). The Conservatives are not Labour, they will choose someone who can actually win an election. This will be a white, middle aged Christian man - the only leader of recent decades who didn't fit this stereotype was Thatcher.

    Not quite the only one. Howard was Jewish.
    Also I'd question what you mean by Middle Aged. I believe that Cameron was 38 while Howard was 61 when elected. Presumably one of them is not Middle Aged.
    Yes - and I explained I meant "leaders" as in PM. Howard doesn't count - either as a PM or as a "leader".
  • Options
    DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    I wonder when Mike et al will stop tipping Sajid Javid as next Conservative party leader (which will be a few years yet). The Conservatives are not Labour, they will choose someone who can actually win an election. This will be a white, middle aged Christian man - the only leader of recent decades who didn't fit this stereotype was Thatcher.

    Not quite the only one. Howard was Jewish.
    Still is, isn't he?

    Boris to Northern Ireland...
    Give that teacher a D :smile:

    Would the idea be that they spend so much time laughing at him they haven't time for anything else, or that they finally get to agree on something - how much they hate Boris?
    Could do worse. The story goes that Paisley and Adams looked at each other after meeting Mo Mowlem on her first day in the job, and each said to the other "I know I'm mad and you're madder but, boy, we're just beginners compared to her"...

    There was a lot of briefing against Mo Mowlam from Blairites (giving the lie to Brownites having a monopoly on smears) and she was replaced by Peter Mandelson. It was said at the time her fate was sealed when conference gave her a bigger ovation that Tony Blair's.
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    Disraeli was a lapsed Jew.

    His parents converted to Anglicanism. He was ethnically Jewish but not religiously so.

    Not that it matters much. If the Victorians were not that bothered then why should anyone else be?

    Religion plays much less of a place in politics here than across the pond. Thank God!
    I dunno; there are some very unpleasant referrences to Jews in Victorian ..... think Fagin ....and even thirties literatures. I was quite shocked at something about a “typical Jew-boy” I found in an AP Herbert book.
    Sure, anti-semitism was present and more blatent then than now. It didn't stop Disraeli reaching the top. Britons have tended to be fairly pragmatic in these things.

    BTW. Bacalau is fairly easy to find in Madeira, as you asked yesterday.
  • Options
    ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 4,980
    Contrary to what we all assumed there is now a way that Labour can win in 2020. It does, however, involve the replacement of Corbyn and McDonnell with the likes of Jarvis and Creasy. Down to Labour: it's there if they want it ...
  • Options
    EPGEPG Posts: 6,013

    This is going to cause a stir... ICM for Channel 4 documentary, 52% of Muslims surveyed thought homosexuality should be illegal. Well worth reading whole article with Trevor Philips. He's downbeat.

    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/half-of-muslims-say-gays-should-be-outlawed-cb5bcdtcx

    Your people thought Section 28 was a good thing until about a decade ago.

    "... shall not promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship"
  • Options
    AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    A further comment on the thread header: Sajid Javid is not someone I'd tip anyway but given that he was an investment banker I would have thought that he is more rather than less likely to have had something unusual in his tax returns. Indeed, questions have already been asked of him about Deutsche Bank's bonus scheme.
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    This is going to cause a stir... ICM for Channel 4 documentary, 52% of Muslims surveyed thought homosexuality should be illegal. Well worth reading whole article with Trevor Philips. He's downbeat.

    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/half-of-muslims-say-gays-should-be-outlawed-cb5bcdtcx

    The only surprise here is that it is as low as 52%.
    Maybe the survey only reached the ones who could speak English?
    Certainly from my experience the strongest support of homosexuality from Muslims is that it is "not illegal". There is usually no support from a human rights perspective.
    I think you may find that TSE differs on that.

    I know plenty of assimilated Muslims quite comfortable with homosexual equality.
  • Options
    Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    ydoethur said:

    I wonder when Mike et al will stop tipping Sajid Javid as next Conservative party leader (which will be a few years yet). The Conservatives are not Labour, they will choose someone who can actually win an election. This will be a white, middle aged Christian man - the only leader of recent decades who didn't fit this stereotype was Thatcher.

    Not quite the only one. Howard was Jewish.
    Also I'd question what you mean by Middle Aged. I believe that Cameron was 38 while Howard was 61 when elected. Presumably one of them is not Middle Aged.
    Yes - and I explained I meant "leaders" as in PM. Howard doesn't count - either as a PM or as a "leader".
    In which case one third of recent Tory leaders don't meet your criteria. Seems an odd definition then.
  • Options
    EPG said:

    This is going to cause a stir... ICM for Channel 4 documentary, 52% of Muslims surveyed thought homosexuality should be illegal. Well worth reading whole article with Trevor Philips. He's downbeat.

    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/half-of-muslims-say-gays-should-be-outlawed-cb5bcdtcx

    Your people thought Section 28 was a good thing until about a decade ago.

    "... shall not promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship"
    There is a world of difference between acceptable and illegal. Smoking around other people is unacceptable but it is not illegal.
  • Options
    ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 4,980
    edited April 2016
    On the Tory leadership betting, I think given that all the leading candidates are flawed in one way or other, looking at the second field is the way to go. I agree with Mike that Truss is a possibility. Dare I also mention the nemesis of our own NPxMP?
  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Jonathan said:

    £200k? All I got was a jumper.

    Hah! I only get loans and at pretty high interest rates. She claims it's an incentive for me to repay her...
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    A further comment on the thread header: Sajid Javid is not someone I'd tip anyway but given that he was an investment banker I would have thought that he is more rather than less likely to have had something unusual in his tax returns. Indeed, questions have already been asked of him about Deutsche Bank's bonus scheme.

    Yes. How people manage their own taxes is more important than what their parents did.

    For example:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9232715/Jeremy-Hunt-avoided-100000-tax-bill-in-deal-just-days-before-rate-rise.html
  • Options
    volcanopetevolcanopete Posts: 2,078
    It's the lack of genuineness that strikes me as the main problem not so much as the wealth factor for any political leader.It's this that's lost Cameron trust,and the Tory party it's most valuable asset.It hit me in spades when he got confused about which football team he supports.You can change your woman but never your football team.Thing was,Dave never really supported a football team.He only really got down and dirty wiv the bruvvas when he was burning £50 notes in front of homeless people.
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 32,002

    Disraeli was a lapsed Jew.

    His parents converted to Anglicanism. He was ethnically Jewish but not religiously so.

    Not that it matters much. If the Victorians were not that bothered then why should anyone else be?

    Religion plays much less of a place in politics here than across the pond. Thank God!
    I dunno; there are some very unpleasant referrences to Jews in Victorian ..... think Fagin ....and even thirties literatures. I was quite shocked at something about a “typical Jew-boy” I found in an AP Herbert book.
    Sure, anti-semitism was present and more blatent then than now. It didn't stop Disraeli reaching the top. Britons have tended to be fairly pragmatic in these things.

    BTW. Bacalau is fairly easy to find in Madeira, as you asked yesterday.
    Agree; I think people tend to accept genuine ability. Agrtee too with your thoughts about religion in politics.

    Thanks for the info about Bacalau; we’re off there for a week on 18th so shall have a look around.
  • Options
    weejonnieweejonnie Posts: 3,820

    This is going to cause a stir... ICM for Channel 4 documentary, 52% of Muslims surveyed thought homosexuality should be illegal. Well worth reading whole article with Trevor Philips. He's downbeat.

    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/half-of-muslims-say-gays-should-be-outlawed-cb5bcdtcx

    The only surprise here is that it is as low as 52%.
    Imagine the reaction if it had been UKIP members. Downbeat would not have been the word.
  • Options
    richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    edited April 2016
    I wouldn't take the nonsense that Cameron has to put up with for that sort of money..I have a friend who has just made $45 million in the States last year... he takes crap from no one..and he is nowhere near as bright as Cameron..
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    It's the lack of genuineness that strikes me as the main problem not so much as the wealth factor for any political leader.It's this that's lost Cameron trust,and the Tory party it's most valuable asset.It hit me in spades when he got confused about which football team he supports.You can change your woman but never your football team.Thing was,Dave never really supported a football team.He only really got down and dirty wiv the bruvvas when he was burning £50 notes in front of homeless people.

    I think that Daves support for Villa comes from a family link. I don't think he was ever an active supporter.

    Its rather like having a favourite colour, everyone is expected to have a team.
  • Options

    This is going to cause a stir... ICM for Channel 4 documentary, 52% of Muslims surveyed thought homosexuality should be illegal. Well worth reading whole article with Trevor Philips. He's downbeat.

    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/half-of-muslims-say-gays-should-be-outlawed-cb5bcdtcx

    The only surprise here is that it is as low as 52%.
    Maybe the survey only reached the ones who could speak English?
    Certainly from my experience the strongest support of homosexuality from Muslims is that it is "not illegal". There is usually no support from a human rights perspective.
    I think you may find that TSE differs on that.

    I know plenty of assimilated Muslims quite comfortable with homosexual equality.
    Then we know different people, and I am sure a minority of Muslims are OK with it. Most of the homosexual Muslims I know have been disowned by their families. That is not the case with non-Muslim families, including other Asian faiths.

    And I don't care what TSE thinks.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,783
    Moses_ said:

    Actually even though Cameron has published the ludicrous headlines out of the Mirror etc will ensure that damage continues. Many of the population don't know the difference between "avoid" and "evade" ........just like a number of posters on this forum.

    That's what his opponents are banking on and it is disingenuous for them to be claiming for him to be open an honest when they themselves are most certainly not being so.

    Quite so. It is a well used tactic, one I'm sure Cameron has used himself, to demand answers and then, even if they are given, act like they haven't or that more questions remain.

    In the ordinary course events maybe to keep at him over thus would be regarded as taken too far, but he lacks the uniform backing to force things to move on I think, he's too weak to fight back effectively because he's hamstrung by a lot of his own party wanting to see the back of him.

    "Rich bloke's family uses legal means to protect and enhance the family fortune" won't sell many papers, though, will it?

    True enough.
  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    JackW said:

    ydoethur said:

    I wonder when Mike et al will stop tipping Sajid Javid as next Conservative party leader (which will be a few years yet). The Conservatives are not Labour, they will choose someone who can actually win an election. This will be a white, middle aged Christian man - the only leader of recent decades who didn't fit this stereotype was Thatcher.

    Not quite the only one. Howard was Jewish.
    I meant Prime Ministers rather than leaders. Has there ever been a Jewish Prime Minister?
    Disraeli.

    Up for debate :

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/10761635/Britains-first-Jewish-PM-does-Disraeli-have-the-title.html
    Not sure it's up for debate?

    He was born Jewish but baptised (at about 17) Anglican.

    So it turns on whether you think "Jewishness" is a function of race or religion
  • Options
    ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 4,980

    EPG said:

    This is going to cause a stir... ICM for Channel 4 documentary, 52% of Muslims surveyed thought homosexuality should be illegal. Well worth reading whole article with Trevor Philips. He's downbeat.

    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/half-of-muslims-say-gays-should-be-outlawed-cb5bcdtcx

    Your people thought Section 28 was a good thing until about a decade ago.

    "... shall not promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship"
    There is a world of difference between acceptable and illegal. Smoking around other people is unacceptable but it is not illegal.
    It was, however, a piece of legislation. And though it never appears to have been enforced, it could, for example, have exposed schools to prosecution for teaching Shakespeare's sonnets.
  • Options
    DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300

    Mr. L, only because Miliband was an idiot.

    If ethnic Judaism is sufficient to be first Jewish PM, Disraeli beat him by a century.

    If religious Judaism is necessary, Miliband's not eligible.

    In these questions, it is probably best to go by self-identification, so Miliband is Jewish.
  • Options
    TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 40,122

    The Sunday Times reporting that Gove will be promoted to Deputy PM post referendum.

    The suggestion that Gove will be promoted will fuel calls for him to stand for the leadership in the event of a vote for Brexit. Some of his friends believe he would be prepared to fight Johnson for the job if he could lead Britain out of the EU.

    One said: “Michael used to want to be prime minister until his popularity collapsed around three years ago. He wanted to take Britain out of the EU. He is in politics to do things. If there is a vote to remain, does he want to be PM? Probably not. But if we do vote to leave, who is going to handle the negotiations — Boris? I don’t think so.”

    Hi you didn't respond to my question yesterday. I wondered which Constituency you were asked to stand in (you mentioned it yesterday)?
    Glasgow North.
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,125
    EPG said:

    This is going to cause a stir... ICM for Channel 4 documentary, 52% of Muslims surveyed thought homosexuality should be illegal. Well worth reading whole article with Trevor Philips. He's downbeat.

    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/half-of-muslims-say-gays-should-be-outlawed-cb5bcdtcx

    Your people thought Section 28 was a good thing until about a decade ago.

    "... shall not promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship"
    "Our people" had the spine to push ahead with gay marriage.

    "Your people" thought Tony Blair was the dog's bollocks until about a decade ago.

    Things change.
  • Options

    EPG said:

    This is going to cause a stir... ICM for Channel 4 documentary, 52% of Muslims surveyed thought homosexuality should be illegal. Well worth reading whole article with Trevor Philips. He's downbeat.

    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/half-of-muslims-say-gays-should-be-outlawed-cb5bcdtcx

    Your people thought Section 28 was a good thing until about a decade ago.

    "... shall not promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship"
    There is a world of difference between acceptable and illegal. Smoking around other people is unacceptable but it is not illegal.
    Yet.

  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,783

    Mr. Boy, doubt that, to be honest. Goldsmith is a wet lettuce.

    I think you would have said that about Cameron and Osborne when they were younger. I don't think he will make it, but he is the best from admittedly a fairly weak list.
    He's only a little younger than Osborne.

  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,267

    Mr. L, only because Miliband was an idiot.

    If ethnic Judaism is sufficient to be first Jewish PM, Disraeli beat him by a century.

    If religious Judaism is necessary, Miliband's not eligible.

    In these questions, it is probably best to go by self-identification, so Miliband is Jewish.
    But by that definition so was Disraeli (see above).
  • Options
    mattmatt Posts: 3,789
    Looking at this in the round, more than anything it's reminded me why I don't buy newspapers (other than an occasional FT) any longer* and in particular why absolutely nothing in the Telegraph or the Mail can be trusted for honesty or accuracy. That's pretty depressing stuff I'm afraid.


    *does picking them up for free in Waitrose count?
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 39,033

    A further comment on the thread header: Sajid Javid is not someone I'd tip anyway but given that he was an investment banker I would have thought that he is more rather than less likely to have had something unusual in his tax returns. Indeed, questions have already been asked of him about Deutsche Bank's bonus scheme.

    Yes. How people manage their own taxes is more important than what their parents did.

    For example:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9232715/Jeremy-Hunt-avoided-100000-tax-bill-in-deal-just-days-before-rate-rise.html
    Your attacks on Hunt are as weak and obvious as your 'defence' of Burnham over Stafford ...
  • Options
    DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300

    It's the lack of genuineness that strikes me as the main problem not so much as the wealth factor for any political leader.It's this that's lost Cameron trust,and the Tory party it's most valuable asset.It hit me in spades when he got confused about which football team he supports.You can change your woman but never your football team.Thing was,Dave never really supported a football team.He only really got down and dirty wiv the bruvvas when he was burning £50 notes in front of homeless people.

    I think that Daves support for Villa comes from a family link. I don't think he was ever an active supporter.

    Its rather like having a favourite colour, everyone is expected to have a team.
    Wherever the Prime Minister's support comes from, he ought to distinguish Aston Villa from West Ham, even if they do sport the same colours (historical trivia: West Ham did literally play in Aston Villa colours, which they'd won in a bet).
  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    ydoethur said:

    I wonder when Mike et al will stop tipping Sajid Javid as next Conservative party leader (which will be a few years yet). The Conservatives are not Labour, they will choose someone who can actually win an election. This will be a white, middle aged Christian man - the only leader of recent decades who didn't fit this stereotype was Thatcher.

    Not quite the only one. Howard was Jewish.
    Also I'd question what you mean by Middle Aged. I believe that Cameron was 38 while Howard was 61 when elected. Presumably one of them is not Middle Aged.
    The definition of middle aged is very simple:

    your current age + 5
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,267

    EPG said:

    This is going to cause a stir... ICM for Channel 4 documentary, 52% of Muslims surveyed thought homosexuality should be illegal. Well worth reading whole article with Trevor Philips. He's downbeat.

    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/half-of-muslims-say-gays-should-be-outlawed-cb5bcdtcx

    Your people thought Section 28 was a good thing until about a decade ago.

    "... shall not promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship"
    There is a world of difference between acceptable and illegal. Smoking around other people is unacceptable but it is not illegal.
    It was, however, a piece of legislation. And though it never appears to have been enforced, it could, for example, have exposed schools to prosecution for teaching Shakespeare's sonnets.
    Only if you interpret them without knowledge of the historical context and with zero knowledge of the English language.

    I know there are 'scholars' that do that, but there's no need to follow the lunatic fringe too far.

    Moreover Shakespeare never talked about the other man as a member of his family, although it seems likely he saw him as a surrogate son after Hamnet's death.
  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @HTScotPol: Corruption report author "surprised" at Scottish Government deal with blacklisted Chinese firm https://t.co/iRJJ0NYJCy
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,125
    And WTF is with that Sunday Tines story? Cameron to comply with tax law? What next - Cameron has the temerity to avoid tax by putting some money in an ISA? The bastard....

    If people on the Left get wound up by people doing legitimate tax planning, then next time they are in power they could try spending less time on their pet virtue-waving projects and spend more time PROPERLY SCRUTINISING THE BUDGET FOR LOOPHOLES.
  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    A further comment on the thread header: Sajid Javid is not someone I'd tip anyway but given that he was an investment banker I would have thought that he is more rather than less likely to have had something unusual in his tax returns. Indeed, questions have already been asked of him about Deutsche Bank's bonus scheme.

    Excuse me!
  • Options

    The Sunday Times reporting that Gove will be promoted to Deputy PM post referendum.

    The suggestion that Gove will be promoted will fuel calls for him to stand for the leadership in the event of a vote for Brexit. Some of his friends believe he would be prepared to fight Johnson for the job if he could lead Britain out of the EU.

    One said: “Michael used to want to be prime minister until his popularity collapsed around three years ago. He wanted to take Britain out of the EU. He is in politics to do things. If there is a vote to remain, does he want to be PM? Probably not. But if we do vote to leave, who is going to handle the negotiations — Boris? I don’t think so.”

    Hi you didn't respond to my question yesterday. I wondered which Constituency you were asked to stand in (you mentioned it yesterday)?
    Glasgow North.
    Not Bootle?
  • Options
    All that Cameron has done is legal and proper - but that's not his problem. It's that he leads a government which has ground people who have little into the dirt (cf Iain Duncan Smith) - and had a "we're all in this together" slogan.

    The politics of this are fairly simple. Man of privilege who benefits from tax avoidance condemns tax avoiders for cheap headlines. Man who has hundreds of thousands of tax avoided money in the bank receives disability benefits which he then takes off people who have nothing in the bank. Man who claims we need to make work pay receives more in tax avoidance from his family than "strivers" can hope to earn in decades.

    Question now is how Cameron thinks he isn't going to be forced out this summer.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,783

    Estobar said:

    The real problem with all this is that it reminds us how privileged Cameron is. We knew it, of course, but went along with his 'Call me Dave' meme. He seemed a decent enough leftist Tory, especially when kept in place by Clegg. (NB, no Josias he didn't win two elections.) What we didn't enquire about we put on the back burner. We knew he was wealthy but lacked details to annoy us.

    200k gifts from Mummy and 300k inheritance from Daddy are a long way from most people's livelihoods. On top of shielding himself from tax, despite having pledged to stop that sort of antic, just makes him even more remote from us ordinary folk.

    Mike's right. The Tories will have to choose a down-to-earth leader or they're back out of power for 20 years.

    I don't think so.

    Politicians are an odd bunch, and are not expected to be like normal people. Cameron was known to be wealthy when he became leader and he brought the party back to government. It doesn't seem to have held him back.

    Similarly Jezzas romantic motorcycle tour of East Germany is just a curious illustration of how different politicians are from ordinary experience.

    I think Cameron will ride this out fine, and it doesn't really weigh much in the balance of who is next Tory leader.

    People who roast babies and kick crutches away from the disabled are not expected to play nice with their monies.
    No, but right now half the other baby eaters are condemning him for everything they can. It's hard to ride things out when you're own side are not helping.

    Like others I'm struck by how the sums are not massive. Far beyond my own meagre resources p, and maybe I say this from ignorance, but I sort if expect most people who go to Etonian to at least draw down a cool million from an inheritance.
  • Options

    EPG said:

    This is going to cause a stir... ICM for Channel 4 documentary, 52% of Muslims surveyed thought homosexuality should be illegal. Well worth reading whole article with Trevor Philips. He's downbeat.

    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/half-of-muslims-say-gays-should-be-outlawed-cb5bcdtcx

    Your people thought Section 28 was a good thing until about a decade ago.

    "... shall not promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship"
    "Our people" had the spine to push ahead with gay marriage.

    "Your people" thought Tony Blair was the dog's bollocks until about a decade ago.

    Things change.
    "Like"
  • Options
    blackburn63blackburn63 Posts: 4,492
    Roger said:

    A crazy decision by Cameron in my opinion. He should know that he's now declared open season on himself and our insatiable press will now crucify him. It could be that he just resigns. Why would someone who is leaving anyway and has done nothing wrong put himself and his family through this?

    Mike says the pressure will now be on others particularly those standing for the Tory leadership. I'm not sure. Our feral press has an agenda. Those who share it like Johnson get a free pass. Those who don't like Osborne and Cameron get the treatmet.

    Altogether a very ugly episode in British politics.

    Its a view, others might say what goes around comes around. You're not a newcomer to this site, you witnessed the attacks on Miliband last year.
  • Options
    perdixperdix Posts: 1,806
    It's quite predictable that the press will choose as a headline a perfectly legal and common inheritance procedure. The press is only interested in prying ( remember phone hacking) and general nosiness. All about selling papers with gossip or a false stick to beat your political opponents.
  • Options
    ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 4,980
    ydoethur said:

    EPG said:

    This is going to cause a stir... ICM for Channel 4 documentary, 52% of Muslims surveyed thought homosexuality should be illegal. Well worth reading whole article with Trevor Philips. He's downbeat.

    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/half-of-muslims-say-gays-should-be-outlawed-cb5bcdtcx

    Your people thought Section 28 was a good thing until about a decade ago.

    "... shall not promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship"
    There is a world of difference between acceptable and illegal. Smoking around other people is unacceptable but it is not illegal.
    It was, however, a piece of legislation. And though it never appears to have been enforced, it could, for example, have exposed schools to prosecution for teaching Shakespeare's sonnets.
    Only if you interpret them without knowledge of the historical context and with zero knowledge of the English language.

    I know there are 'scholars' that do that, but there's no need to follow the lunatic fringe too far.

    Moreover Shakespeare never talked about the other man as a member of his family, although it seems likely he saw him as a surrogate son after Hamnet's death.
    Sonnet 116, 'Let me not to the marriage of true minds admit impediment' was often cited by campaigners for gay marriage.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,783

    But where are the Lib Dems? Please Farron, get your act together ...

    If Lab and Con are throwing mud at each other that feels like an excellent opportunity for the LibDems to STFU.
    Ordinarily I'd agree, but that's a tactic when you expect to pick up support by default as the others throw mud, and it isn't happening. The LDs need publicity, they need to be bold and be noticed, or they'll remain i the doldrums no matter how crap the big two get.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,783

    Roger said:

    A crazy decision by Cameron in my opinion. He should know that he's now declared open season on himself and our insatiable press will now crucify him. It could be that he just resigns. Why would someone who is leaving anyway and has done nothing wrong put himself and his family through this?

    Mike says the pressure will now be on others particularly those standing for the Tory leadership. I'm not sure. Our feral press has an agenda. Those who share it like Johnson get a free pass. Those who don't like Osborne and Cameron get the treatmet.

    Altogether a very ugly episode in British politics.

    Its a view, others might say what goes around comes around. You're not a newcomer to this site, you witnessed the attacks on Miliband last year.
    Unfair then, unfair now.
  • Options
    not_on_firenot_on_fire Posts: 4,341
    DavidL said:

    JackW said:

    Jonathan said:

    £200k? All I got was a jumper.

    If it's a decent jumper next year you might be the lucky winner of the Grand National.
    My daughter had each way bets on first and second yesterday, the winner at 40-1. Only modest sums but she did really well. I will be asking her for tips next year.
    DavidL said:

    Am I alone in being surprised at the relatively modest sums involved here? I thought Cameron was genuinely rich. He clearly isn't, he is very comfortably well off but the multi millionaire image has been reduced to something considerably more modest.

    I am really surprised that he only had £140K of shares to sell when organising himself to become PM. Not much sign of tax planning in that family despite the claims about avoiding IHT. Running 6 years income together to claim someone earned £1m is almost Brownian in its dishonesty, as is adding in his wife's share of the income.

    On that basis I am not entirely sure I agree with the premise of the thread. If moderately successful, pretty comfortable people like this are somehow deemed too prosperous to be our PM we are in trouble.

    Surely most of Cameron's wealth is in property- that Notting Hill house he owns must be worth a mint. Bear in mind he has had free accommodation for the last 6 years too.
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 32,002
    edited April 2016
    I too am surprised at Cameron’s financial statement. His father left £2m or so didn’t he? Presumably much/most of that went to his widow. Cameron’s sisters had a £2m or so house between them, IIRC.
    Eton’s fees are currently just S or £30k pa and both sons went there, plus the girls went somewhere nearly as expensive so either educating his children nearly bankrupted Ian Cameron or there’s a lot more money stashed away somewhere.
  • Options
    RogerRoger Posts: 18,891
    edited April 2016

    A further comment on the thread header: Sajid Javid is not someone I'd tip anyway but given that he was an investment banker I would have thought that he is more rather than less likely to have had something unusual in his tax returns. Indeed, questions have already been asked of him about Deutsche Bank's bonus scheme.

    Yes. How people manage their own taxes is more important than what their parents did.

    For example:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9232715/Jeremy-Hunt-avoided-100000-tax-bill-in-deal-just-days-before-rate-rise.html
    Now that is what journalists should be concentrating on. Not some confected nonsense.

    Incidentally Polly Toynbee is now saying it's not about immorality but about being so rich. Is Camern SO rich? From the figures that have come out so far he'd struggle to send his kids to Eton
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    A further comment on the thread header: Sajid Javid is not someone I'd tip anyway but given that he was an investment banker I would have thought that he is more rather than less likely to have had something unusual in his tax returns. Indeed, questions have already been asked of him about Deutsche Bank's bonus scheme.

    Yes. How people manage their own taxes is more important than what their parents did.

    For example:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9232715/Jeremy-Hunt-avoided-100000-tax-bill-in-deal-just-days-before-rate-rise.html
    Your attacks on Hunt are as weak and obvious as your 'defence' of Burnham over Stafford ...
    Just pointing out how those in the Tory cabinet handle their own finances.

    Hunt is proving to be a disaster. You cannot run a 7 day NHS with 20% or more of front line posts unfilled.

    As a stay at home dad you should be particularly concerned how thin paediatric cover will be in August. The fill rate for posts is at its lowest level ever.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,308

    DavidL said:

    JackW said:

    Jonathan said:

    £200k? All I got was a jumper.

    If it's a decent jumper next year you might be the lucky winner of the Grand National.
    My daughter had each way bets on first and second yesterday, the winner at 40-1. Only modest sums but she did really well. I will be asking her for tips next year.
    DavidL said:

    Am I alone in being surprised at the relatively modest sums involved here? I thought Cameron was genuinely rich. He clearly isn't, he is very comfortably well off but the multi millionaire image has been reduced to something considerably more modest.

    I am really surprised that he only had £140K of shares to sell when organising himself to become PM. Not much sign of tax planning in that family despite the claims about avoiding IHT. Running 6 years income together to claim someone earned £1m is almost Brownian in its dishonesty, as is adding in his wife's share of the income.

    On that basis I am not entirely sure I agree with the premise of the thread. If moderately successful, pretty comfortable people like this are somehow deemed too prosperous to be our PM we are in trouble.

    Surely most of Cameron's wealth is in property- that Notting Hill house he owns must be worth a mint. Bear in mind he has had free accommodation for the last 6 years too.
    Well, he has had accommodation provided by his work, a bit like a janitor. Did you not think he was worth a lot more that that? I honestly expected him to be receiving about £1m a year, not over 6 years.
  • Options
    TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 40,122

    EPG said:

    This is going to cause a stir... ICM for Channel 4 documentary, 52% of Muslims surveyed thought homosexuality should be illegal. Well worth reading whole article with Trevor Philips. He's downbeat.

    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/half-of-muslims-say-gays-should-be-outlawed-cb5bcdtcx

    Your people thought Section 28 was a good thing until about a decade ago.

    "... shall not promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship"
    "Our people" had the spine to push ahead with gay marriage.

    "Your people" thought Tony Blair was the dog's bollocks until about a decade ago.

    Things change.
    A shame a majority of 'your people' voted against gay marriage both in Westminster and Holyrood.

    Things change, but not that quickly.
  • Options
    Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    The big story is Prime Minister still hasn't done anything wrong, in fact he's paid more than he should by not taking £20k PM tax perk.

    And WTF is with that Sunday Tines story? Cameron to comply with tax law? What next - Cameron has the temerity to avoid tax by putting some money in an ISA? The bastard....

    If people on the Left get wound up by people doing legitimate tax planning, then next time they are in power they could try spending less time on their pet virtue-waving projects and spend more time PROPERLY SCRUTINISING THE BUDGET FOR LOOPHOLES.

  • Options
    not_on_firenot_on_fire Posts: 4,341
    edited April 2016
    Isn't it just a reflection of the fact that as PM he has had to say no to many, many opportunities to make far more money than he has now in order to avoid looking corrupt? Something that I suspect will change when he leaves office.


    I do hope this sets a precedent for PMs and other senior ministers releasing their tax returns though. The public have a right to know if their leaders are in hoc to any outside interests.
  • Options
    another_richardanother_richard Posts: 25,101

    And WTF is with that Sunday Tines story? Cameron to comply with tax law? What next - Cameron has the temerity to avoid tax by putting some money in an ISA? The bastard....

    The story is simply 'Take if from them and give it to me'.

    The twentieth century was an "we're all in it together" century - effectively everyone got richer together.

    In the twenty-first people only get richer at the expense of someone else. So there's always going to be resentment against people who do well.

    As an example remember the glee among many PB Tories at the restriction of pension fund allowances.



  • Options
    RogerRoger Posts: 18,891
    edited April 2016

    Roger said:

    A crazy decision by Cameron in my opinion. He should know that he's now declared open season on himself and our insatiable press will now crucify him. It could be that he just resigns. Why would someone who is leaving anyway and has done nothing wrong put himself and his family through this?

    Mike says the pressure will now be on others particularly those standing for the Tory leadership. I'm not sure. Our feral press has an agenda. Those who share it like Johnson get a free pass. Those who don't like Osborne and Cameron get the treatmet.

    Altogether a very ugly episode in British politics.

    Its a view, others might say what goes around comes around. You're not a newcomer to this site, you witnessed the attacks on Miliband last year.
    I agree. That's what happens when you employ an Australian vulgarian to run your election campaign for you. His decision making about personnel has always been suspect.
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,987
    Mr. L, no.

    Self-identification is tosh. You can't eat a bacon sarnie, proclaim yourself an atheist, then say you're (religiously) Jewish.

    If it's ethnicity, then Disraeli was first.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,783
    Roger said:

    A further comment on the thread header: Sajid Javid is not someone I'd tip anyway but given that he was an investment banker I would have thought that he is more rather than less likely to have had something unusual in his tax returns. Indeed, questions have already been asked of him about Deutsche Bank's bonus scheme.

    Yes. How people manage their own taxes is more important than what their parents did.

    For example:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9232715/Jeremy-Hunt-avoided-100000-tax-bill-in-deal-just-days-before-rate-rise.html
    Now that is what journalists should be concentrating on. Not some confected nonsense.

    Incidentally Polly Toynbee is now saying it's not about immorality but about being so rich. Is Camern SO rich? From the figures that have come out so far he'd struggle to send his kids to Eton
    I hope she is being g a bit more subtle than that. I hate it when people are so lazy they imply being rich means someone is unable to understand the issues and have good solutions for the problems of normal people. If they want to say it makes it harder for someone to understand and that this specific rich person doesn't, that's a better argument, but the mere fact of richness or poshness is not a barrier, and when people are lazy they imply it is and that applies to their own side.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,308
    One thing that strikes me as a little odd. The last line of the article says that his personal income last year was £200,307. But his PM salary was £143,462 and my understanding is that he got his MP salary of £74,962 on top (I have a vague recollection he undertook not to take all of that). I am not sure if occupation of Downing Street is treated as a benefit in kind and taxable but I would have thought so.

    Maybe "personal income" means income outwith his employment?
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,783

    EPG said:

    This is going to cause a stir... ICM for Channel 4 documentary, 52% of Muslims surveyed thought homosexuality should be illegal. Well worth reading whole article with Trevor Philips. He's downbeat.

    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/half-of-muslims-say-gays-should-be-outlawed-cb5bcdtcx

    Your people thought Section 28 was a good thing until about a decade ago.

    "... shall not promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship"
    "Our people" had the spine to push ahead with gay marriage.

    "Your people" thought Tony Blair was the dog's bollocks until about a decade ago.

    Things change.
    A shame a majority of 'your people' voted against gay marriage both in Westminster and Holyrood.

    Things change, but not that quickly.
    It'll be interesting to see if, now the change is through, the change picks up pace among them.

    Incidentally that is one issue for which I think Cameron deserves great credit, as it's a fight which he didn't have to pick, his MPs opposed more than they supported, and was of questionable benefit in Improving Tory standing. Whatever his historical position, he did change his view and show spine there,
  • Options
    DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300

    And WTF is with that Sunday Tines story? Cameron to comply with tax law? What next - Cameron has the temerity to avoid tax by putting some money in an ISA? The bastard....

    If people on the Left get wound up by people doing legitimate tax planning, then next time they are in power they could try spending less time on their pet virtue-waving projects and spend more time PROPERLY SCRUTINISING THE BUDGET FOR LOOPHOLES.

    Are the Sunday Times, Telegraph, and Mail on the left now? When did this happen? This was a one-day story tucked away on page 94 until David Cameron's and CCHQ's third-rate PR came into play.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,783
    I see the new statesman did a peace about not writing off goldsmith yet. He's so doomed the left is trying to avoid overconfidence. Ouch.
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    DavidL said:

    One thing that strikes me as a little odd. The last line of the article says that his personal income last year was £200,307. But his PM salary was £143,462 and my understanding is that he got his MP salary of £74,962 on top (I have a vague recollection he undertook not to take all of that). I am not sure if occupation of Downing Street is treated as a benefit in kind and taxable but I would have thought so.

    Maybe "personal income" means income outwith his employment?

    MPs get all sorts of benefits in kind that would be taxable as benefit in kind for other people.
  • Options
    blackburn63blackburn63 Posts: 4,492

    This is going to cause a stir... ICM for Channel 4 documentary, 52% of Muslims surveyed thought homosexuality should be illegal. Well worth reading whole article with Trevor Philips. He's downbeat.

    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/half-of-muslims-say-gays-should-be-outlawed-cb5bcdtcx

    The only surprise here is that it is as low as 52%.
    Maybe the survey only reached the ones who could speak English?
    Certainly from my experience the strongest support of homosexuality from Muslims is that it is "not illegal". There is usually no support from a human rights perspective.
    I think you may find that TSE differs on that.

    I know plenty of assimilated Muslims quite comfortable with homosexual equality.
    Then we know different people, and I am sure a minority of Muslims are OK with it. Most of the homosexual Muslims I know have been disowned by their families. That is not the case with non-Muslim families, including other Asian faiths.

    And I don't care what TSE thinks.
    Out of interest how many homosexual muslims do you know?
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    edited April 2016

    A further comment on the thread header: Sajid Javid is not someone I'd tip anyway but given that he was an investment banker I would have thought that he is more rather than less likely to have had something unusual in his tax returns. Indeed, questions have already been asked of him about Deutsche Bank's bonus scheme.

    Yes. How people manage their own taxes is more important than what their parents did.

    For example:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9232715/Jeremy-Hunt-avoided-100000-tax-bill-in-deal-just-days-before-rate-rise.html
    Your attacks on Hunt are as weak and obvious as your 'defence' of Burnham over Stafford ...
    Just pointing out how those in the Tory cabinet handle their own finances.

    Hunt is proving to be a disaster. You cannot run a 7 day NHS with 20% or more of front line posts unfilled.

    As a stay at home dad you should be particularly concerned how thin paediatric cover will be in August. The fill rate for posts is at its lowest level ever.
    These are last years figures, this years figures will be significantly worse as a direct result of Mr Hunts policies:

    http://www.rcpch.ac.uk/news/children’s-unit-closure-fears-rota-vacancies-pose-threat-patient-safety
  • Options
    Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,462

    I wonder which of his potential successors David Cameron was most trying to handicap by deciding to release his tax returns?

    That's a very interesting question.
  • Options
    RogerRoger Posts: 18,891
    Interesting question about open borders between Northern and Southern Ireland and Southern Ireland and the rest of Europe.

    Something else to be worked out afterwards I guess....
  • Options
    DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    DavidL said:

    One thing that strikes me as a little odd. The last line of the article says that his personal income last year was £200,307. But his PM salary was £143,462 and my understanding is that he got his MP salary of £74,962 on top (I have a vague recollection he undertook not to take all of that). I am not sure if occupation of Downing Street is treated as a benefit in kind and taxable but I would have thought so.

    Maybe "personal income" means income outwith his employment?

    See the graphic here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36007718

    £200k = £140k salary + £10k from the party + £47k rent from his London house +£3k interest
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,308

    DavidL said:

    One thing that strikes me as a little odd. The last line of the article says that his personal income last year was £200,307. But his PM salary was £143,462 and my understanding is that he got his MP salary of £74,962 on top (I have a vague recollection he undertook not to take all of that). I am not sure if occupation of Downing Street is treated as a benefit in kind and taxable but I would have thought so.

    Maybe "personal income" means income outwith his employment?

    MPs get all sorts of benefits in kind that would be taxable as benefit in kind for other people.
    Quite so, which makes me wonder what that "personal income" is. He earned a lot more than that.
  • Options
    IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966

    And WTF is with that Sunday Tines story? Cameron to comply with tax law? What next - Cameron has the temerity to avoid tax by putting some money in an ISA? The bastard....

    If people on the Left get wound up by people doing legitimate tax planning, then next time they are in power they could try spending less time on their pet virtue-waving projects and spend more time PROPERLY SCRUTINISING THE BUDGET FOR LOOPHOLES.

    Are the Sunday Times, Telegraph, and Mail on the left now? When did this happen? This was a one-day story tucked away on page 94 until David Cameron's and CCHQ's third-rate PR came into play.
    Wasn't there a Kissinger maxim along the lines of "ifs it's going to come out at some point, it's better it all comes out today"

    Hopefully someone in CCHQ's PR Team is getting the hairdryer treatment, the handling in this has been a fiasco from beginning to end, deny it, then say it might be true but, then admit it, it almost like they are trying to keep this story in the headlines.

    Perhaps they are trying to dead cat this story ;)

    http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/politics/7055521/EU-blows-British-cash-on-flooding-UK-schools-with-propoganda-to-brainwash-kids.html
    The European Commission mails out slick textbooks – such as daft cartoon adventure “The Mystery of the Golden Stars” – to school teachers free of charge to “educate” children about the EU “in a fun and stimulating way”.

    The naff “book to be handed out to every pupil” is designed to introduce “the EU in a child-friendly way” and is paid for from the EU Commission’s hated £158million taxpayer-funded PR budget.
  • Options
    blackburn63blackburn63 Posts: 4,492
    kle4 said:

    Roger said:

    A crazy decision by Cameron in my opinion. He should know that he's now declared open season on himself and our insatiable press will now crucify him. It could be that he just resigns. Why would someone who is leaving anyway and has done nothing wrong put himself and his family through this?

    Mike says the pressure will now be on others particularly those standing for the Tory leadership. I'm not sure. Our feral press has an agenda. Those who share it like Johnson get a free pass. Those who don't like Osborne and Cameron get the treatmet.

    Altogether a very ugly episode in British politics.

    Its a view, others might say what goes around comes around. You're not a newcomer to this site, you witnessed the attacks on Miliband last year.
    Unfair then, unfair now.
    Of course, two wrongs etc, but those protecting Cameron were sneering when the tories attacked Ed's dad.
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 39,033

    A further comment on the thread header: Sajid Javid is not someone I'd tip anyway but given that he was an investment banker I would have thought that he is more rather than less likely to have had something unusual in his tax returns. Indeed, questions have already been asked of him about Deutsche Bank's bonus scheme.

    Yes. How people manage their own taxes is more important than what their parents did.

    For example:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9232715/Jeremy-Hunt-avoided-100000-tax-bill-in-deal-just-days-before-rate-rise.html
    Your attacks on Hunt are as weak and obvious as your 'defence' of Burnham over Stafford ...
    Just pointing out how those in the Tory cabinet handle their own finances.

    Hunt is proving to be a disaster. You cannot run a 7 day NHS with 20% or more of front line posts unfilled.

    As a stay at home dad you should be particularly concerned how thin paediatric cover will be in August. The fill rate for posts is at its lowest level ever.
    No, you're pathetically playing politics.

    As a 'stay at home dad' I'm concerned about many things. One of them is 'doctors' caring more about politics than patient care, as has been obvious time and time again with your comments on Stafford.
  • Options
    blackburn63blackburn63 Posts: 4,492
    Roger said:

    Roger said:

    A crazy decision by Cameron in my opinion. He should know that he's now declared open season on himself and our insatiable press will now crucify him. It could be that he just resigns. Why would someone who is leaving anyway and has done nothing wrong put himself and his family through this?

    Mike says the pressure will now be on others particularly those standing for the Tory leadership. I'm not sure. Our feral press has an agenda. Those who share it like Johnson get a free pass. Those who don't like Osborne and Cameron get the treatmet.

    Altogether a very ugly episode in British politics.

    Its a view, others might say what goes around comes around. You're not a newcomer to this site, you witnessed the attacks on Miliband last year.
    I agree. That's what happens when you employ an Australian vulgarian to run your election campaign for you. His decision making about personnel has always been suspect.
    Cameron knighted him nonetheless.

    I have zero interest in Cameron's family or money but for people to be surprised at all this is ridiculous. Cameron employed Coulson the phone hacker, he ain't Bambi.
  • Options
    Rexel56Rexel56 Posts: 807
    Quite like Cameron.. so may be biased, but the Sunday Times front page article is incredible... It claims that Cameron receives financial perks available only to the super-rich.. Turns out to be a higher rate of interest for a larger size deposit - what a bastard, taking advantage of interest rates only available to anyone who can type money supermarket.com into a browser... And the amount of interest earned? £3,000 last year.... what an utter bastard earning, er, less than me in interest... Nice to know I am super-rich mind
  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    One thing that strikes me as a little odd. The last line of the article says that his personal income last year was £200,307. But his PM salary was £143,462 and my understanding is that he got his MP salary of £74,962 on top (I have a vague recollection he undertook not to take all of that). I am not sure if occupation of Downing Street is treated as a benefit in kind and taxable but I would have thought so.

    Maybe "personal income" means income outwith his employment?

    MPs get all sorts of benefits in kind that would be taxable as benefit in kind for other people.
    Quite so, which makes me wonder what that "personal income" is. He earned a lot more than that.
    the £145K salary as the PM is the MP's salary of £75K + about £70K as a top up for his ministerial duties
  • Options
    Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,462

    ydoethur said:

    I wonder when Mike et al will stop tipping Sajid Javid as next Conservative party leader (which will be a few years yet). The Conservatives are not Labour, they will choose someone who can actually win an election. This will be a white, middle aged Christian man - the only leader of recent decades who didn't fit this stereotype was Thatcher.

    Not quite the only one. Howard was Jewish.
    I meant Prime Ministers rather than leaders. Has there ever been a Jewish Prime Minister?
    Dear God what are they teaching them these days?
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,267
    Charles said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    One thing that strikes me as a little odd. The last line of the article says that his personal income last year was £200,307. But his PM salary was £143,462 and my understanding is that he got his MP salary of £74,962 on top (I have a vague recollection he undertook not to take all of that). I am not sure if occupation of Downing Street is treated as a benefit in kind and taxable but I would have thought so.

    Maybe "personal income" means income outwith his employment?

    MPs get all sorts of benefits in kind that would be taxable as benefit in kind for other people.
    Quite so, which makes me wonder what that "personal income" is. He earned a lot more than that.
    the £145K salary as the PM is the MP's salary of £75K + about £70K as a top up for his ministerial duties
    I thought the 145 was on top of the MP's salary, not the totality of it?
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,850
    So, the Press has established that Cameron is a fairly rich man who pays all the tax that's morally and legally required to pay.

    In other news, the Pope is a Catholic.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,267
    Rexel56 said:

    Quite like Cameron.. so may be biased, but the Sunday Times front page article is incredible... It claims that Cameron receives financial perks available only to the super-rich.. Turns out to be a higher rate of interest for a larger size deposit - what a bastard, taking advantage of interest rates only available to anyone who can type money supermarket.com into a browser... And the amount of interest earned? £3,000 last year.... what an utter bastard earning, er, less than me in interest... Nice to know I am super-rich mind

    Rupert Murdoch has never been fully objective about Cameron. Mind you, many of us feel the same way about Murdoch!
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,783

    kle4 said:

    Roger said:

    A crazy decision by Cameron in my opinion. He should know that he's now declared open season on himself and our insatiable press will now crucify him. It could be that he just resigns. Why would someone who is leaving anyway and has done nothing wrong put himself and his family through this?

    Mike says the pressure will now be on others particularly those standing for the Tory leadership. I'm not sure. Our feral press has an agenda. Those who share it like Johnson get a free pass. Those who don't like Osborne and Cameron get the treatmet.

    Altogether a very ugly episode in British politics.

    Its a view, others might say what goes around comes around. You're not a newcomer to this site, you witnessed the attacks on Miliband last year.
    Unfair then, unfair now.
    Of course, two wrongs etc, but those protecting Cameron were sneering when the tories attacked Ed's dad.
    Some, no doubt. But the inconsistency of some doesn't make it reasonable, even if Cameron and co themselves can hardly complain.

    I'm against having it as standard practice to release this sort of information, but I'm intrigued by mr Meeks suggestion this could have been done in part to undermine someone in the cabinet specifically. Really on what grounds can any of them or shadow cabinet refuse to not release theirs right now? No one will want to as that could distract from the pressure currently on Cameron, but any cabinet et member coukd become PM, shouldn't they reveal now then? The shadow cabinet say they deserve to do the job, so shouldn't they all do do as well?

    I'm sure Corbyn's finances are squeaky clean, but some on both sides must have similar 'skeletons' as the PM in their closets.
  • Options
    TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 40,122
    kle4 said:

    EPG said:

    This is going to cause a stir... ICM for Channel 4 documentary, 52% of Muslims surveyed thought homosexuality should be illegal. Well worth reading whole article with Trevor Philips. He's downbeat.

    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/half-of-muslims-say-gays-should-be-outlawed-cb5bcdtcx

    Your people thought Section 28 was a good thing until about a decade ago.

    "... shall not promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship"
    "Our people" had the spine to push ahead with gay marriage.

    "Your people" thought Tony Blair was the dog's bollocks until about a decade ago.

    Things change.
    A shame a majority of 'your people' voted against gay marriage both in Westminster and Holyrood.

    Things change, but not that quickly.
    It'll be interesting to see if, now the change is through, the change picks up pace among them.

    Incidentally that is one issue for which I think Cameron deserves great credit, as it's a fight which he didn't have to pick, his MPs opposed more than they supported, and was of questionable benefit in Improving Tory standing. Whatever his historical position, he did change his view and show spine there,
    I think Nicky Morgan has had a Damascene moment, however genuine that may be.
    Cameron does deserve credit, but it doesn't really help with the 'out-of-touch, metropolitan elite trying to herd fruitcake, loony backwoodsmen' thing.
  • Options
    blackburn63blackburn63 Posts: 4,492
    Rexel56 said:

    Quite like Cameron.. so may be biased, but the Sunday Times front page article is incredible... It claims that Cameron receives financial perks available only to the super-rich.. Turns out to be a higher rate of interest for a larger size deposit - what a bastard, taking advantage of interest rates only available to anyone who can type money supermarket.com into a browser... And the amount of interest earned? £3,000 last year.... what an utter bastard earning, er, less than me in interest... Nice to know I am super-rich mind

    I wouldn't put that out in a Conservative broadcast if I were you, £60pw interest is a lot of money to ordinary families. Your post plays nicely into the hands of those saying politicians are out of touch.
  • Options
    MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    Good morning.

    Marr on BBC now. Ho, hum! How did this show get so boring?
  • Options
    TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 40,122
    kle4 said:

    EPG said:

    This is going to cause a stir... ICM for Channel 4 documentary, 52% of Muslims surveyed thought homosexuality should be illegal. Well worth reading whole article with Trevor Philips. He's downbeat.

    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/half-of-muslims-say-gays-should-be-outlawed-cb5bcdtcx

    Your people thought Section 28 was a good thing until about a decade ago.

    "... shall not promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship"
    "Our people" had the spine to push ahead with gay marriage.

    "Your people" thought Tony Blair was the dog's bollocks until about a decade ago.

    Things change.
    A shame a majority of 'your people' voted against gay marriage both in Westminster and Holyrood.

    Things change, but not that quickly.
    It'll be interesting to see if, now the change is through, the change picks up pace among them.

    Incidentally that is one issue for which I think Cameron deserves great credit, as it's a fight which he didn't have to pick, his MPs opposed more than they supported, and was of questionable benefit in Improving Tory standing. Whatever his historical position, he did change his view and show spine there,
    I think Nicky Morgan has had a Damascene moment, however genuine that may be.
    Cameron does deserve credit, but it doesn't really help with the 'out-of-touch, metropolitan elite trying to herd fruitcake, loony backwoodsmen' thing.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,783

    ydoethur said:

    I wonder when Mike et al will stop tipping Sajid Javid as next Conservative party leader (which will be a few years yet). The Conservatives are not Labour, they will choose someone who can actually win an election. This will be a white, middle aged Christian man - the only leader of recent decades who didn't fit this stereotype was Thatcher.

    Not quite the only one. Howard was Jewish.
    I meant Prime Ministers rather than leaders. Has there ever been a Jewish Prime Minister?
    Dear God what are they teaching them these days?
    The only thing I was ever taught about the 19th century was an overview of British foreign policy - you'd think Disraeli would come up as a significant figure of the time, but he never did. And I only learned that much as it as at A level.

    Tudors and nazis, it's all Tudors and nazis.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,308
    Charles said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    One thing that strikes me as a little odd. The last line of the article says that his personal income last year was £200,307. But his PM salary was £143,462 and my understanding is that he got his MP salary of £74,962 on top (I have a vague recollection he undertook not to take all of that). I am not sure if occupation of Downing Street is treated as a benefit in kind and taxable but I would have thought so.

    Maybe "personal income" means income outwith his employment?

    MPs get all sorts of benefits in kind that would be taxable as benefit in kind for other people.
    Quite so, which makes me wonder what that "personal income" is. He earned a lot more than that.
    the £145K salary as the PM is the MP's salary of £75K + about £70K as a top up for his ministerial duties
    No wonder he wants to stand down. How on earth do you pay Eton fees out of that? And he has voluntarily waived/cancelled out a £20K tax benefit as well? And his share of the capital gain on his investment was even below the CGT limit? I simply do not see what the story is here other than very able clever guy takes huge financial sacrifices to run the country.
  • Options
    blackburn63blackburn63 Posts: 4,492
    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    Roger said:

    A crazy decision by Cameron in my opinion. He should know that he's now declared open season on himself and our insatiable press will now crucify him. It could be that he just resigns. Why would someone who is leaving anyway and has done nothing wrong put himself and his family through this?

    Mike says the pressure will now be on others particularly those standing for the Tory leadership. I'm not sure. Our feral press has an agenda. Those who share it like Johnson get a free pass. Those who don't like Osborne and Cameron get the treatmet.

    Altogether a very ugly episode in British politics.

    Its a view, others might say what goes around comes around. You're not a newcomer to this site, you witnessed the attacks on Miliband last year.
    Unfair then, unfair now.
    Of course, two wrongs etc, but those protecting Cameron were sneering when the tories attacked Ed's dad.
    Some, no doubt. But the inconsistency of some doesn't make it reasonable, even if Cameron and co themselves can hardly complain.

    I'm against having it as standard practice to release this sort of information, but I'm intrigued by mr Meeks suggestion this could have been done in part to undermine someone in the cabinet specifically. Really on what grounds can any of them or shadow cabinet refuse to not release theirs right now? No one will want to as that could distract from the pressure currently on Cameron, but any cabinet et member coukd become PM, shouldn't they reveal now then? The shadow cabinet say they deserve to do the job, so shouldn't they all do do as well?

    I'm sure Corbyn's finances are squeaky clean, but some on both sides must have similar 'skeletons' as the PM in their closets.
    I take your points but those reading it are politically engaged. Millions of others are reading that Cameron's mum gave him £200k because his Dad had only left the poor lamb £300k. Meeks and others will look at it tactically but it enforces people's views.

    I'm not in the slightest bit interested, I'm just shaking my head at the tories who think Dave shouldn't be fair game.
  • Options
    Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,462
    edited April 2016
    Snippets of Cameron's speech to the Spring forum were quite amusing:
    -'Don't blame nameless No. 10 advisors, blame me'
    [translation]- 'Blame nameless No. 10 advisors, not me'
    -'My Dad (repeat several times in preference to 'Father')
    [translation] - 'I'm a man of the people guv'nor'
  • Options
    blackburn63blackburn63 Posts: 4,492
    DavidL said:

    Charles said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    One thing that strikes me as a little odd. The last line of the article says that his personal income last year was £200,307. But his PM salary was £143,462 and my understanding is that he got his MP salary of £74,962 on top (I have a vague recollection he undertook not to take all of that). I am not sure if occupation of Downing Street is treated as a benefit in kind and taxable but I would have thought so.

    Maybe "personal income" means income outwith his employment?

    MPs get all sorts of benefits in kind that would be taxable as benefit in kind for other people.
    Quite so, which makes me wonder what that "personal income" is. He earned a lot more than that.
    the £145K salary as the PM is the MP's salary of £75K + about £70K as a top up for his ministerial duties
    No wonder he wants to stand down. How on earth do you pay Eton fees out of that? And he has voluntarily waived/cancelled out a £20K tax benefit as well? And his share of the capital gain on his investment was even below the CGT limit? I simply do not see what the story is here other than very able clever guy takes huge financial sacrifices to run the country.
    Exactly what labour supporters are saying.
  • Options
    JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    DavidL said:

    JackW said:

    Jonathan said:

    £200k? All I got was a jumper.

    If it's a decent jumper next year you might be the lucky winner of the Grand National.
    My daughter had each way bets on first and second yesterday, the winner at 40-1. Only modest sums but she did really well. I will be asking her for tips next year.
    What more could you ask? .. excellent horsey tips from your daughter and outstanding political betting anal-ysis from JackW. Does life on PB get any better? .. :smiley:
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,850

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    Roger said:

    A crazy decision by Cameron in my opinion. He should know that he's now declared open season on himself and our insatiable press will now crucify him. It could be that he just resigns. Why would someone who is leaving anyway and has done nothing wrong put himself and his family through this?

    Mike says the pressure will now be on others particularly those standing for the Tory leadership. I'm not sure. Our feral press has an agenda. Those who share it like Johnson get a free pass. Those who don't like Osborne and Cameron get the treatmet.

    Altogether a very ugly episode in British politics.

    Its a view, others might say what goes around comes around. You're not a newcomer to this site, you witnessed the attacks on Miliband last year.
    Unfair then, unfair now.
    Of course, two wrongs etc, but those protecting Cameron were sneering when the tories attacked Ed's dad.
    Some, no doubt. But the inconsistency of some doesn't make it reasonable, even if Cameron and co themselves can hardly complain.

    I'm against having it as standard practice to release this sort of information, but I'm intrigued by mr Meeks suggestion this could have been done in part to undermine someone in the cabinet specifically. Really on what grounds can any of them or shadow cabinet refuse to not release theirs right now? No one will want to as that could distract from the pressure currently on Cameron, but any cabinet et member coukd become PM, shouldn't they reveal now then? The shadow cabinet say they deserve to do the job, so shouldn't they all do do as well?

    I'm sure Corbyn's finances are squeaky clean, but some on both sides must have similar 'skeletons' as the PM in their closets.
    I take your points but those reading it are politically engaged. Millions of others are reading that Cameron's mum gave him £200k because his Dad had only left the poor lamb £300k. Meeks and others will look at it tactically but it enforces people's views.

    I'm not in the slightest bit interested, I'm just shaking my head at the tories who think Dave shouldn't be fair game.
    Dave should be attacked if he does something morally wrong. There is nothing immoral about his financial arrangements.
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 39,033
    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    Roger said:

    A crazy decision by Cameron in my opinion. He should know that he's now declared open season on himself and our insatiable press will now crucify him. It could be that he just resigns. Why would someone who is leaving anyway and has done nothing wrong put himself and his family through this?

    Mike says the pressure will now be on others particularly those standing for the Tory leadership. I'm not sure. Our feral press has an agenda. Those who share it like Johnson get a free pass. Those who don't like Osborne and Cameron get the treatmet.

    Altogether a very ugly episode in British politics.

    Its a view, others might say what goes around comes around. You're not a newcomer to this site, you witnessed the attacks on Miliband last year.
    Unfair then, unfair now.
    Of course, two wrongs etc, but those protecting Cameron were sneering when the tories attacked Ed's dad.
    (Snip)

    I'm sure Corbyn's finances are squeaky clean, but some on both sides must have similar 'skeletons' as the PM in their closets.
    I wouldn't necessarily be sure of that; releasing information gives the enemy ammunition. Imagine if he received a fee for speaking at a group that had a member who said something disreputable.

    It wouldn't be fair, but neither is the sh*t being thrown against Cameron.

    I'd actually be more bothered if Corbyn is not getting paid for things. That really would be out of touch with the common man.

    (That last paragraph shows why politicians cannot win on this).
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,783
    DavidL said:

    Charles said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    One thing that strikes me as a little odd. The last line of the article says that his personal income last year was £200,307. But his PM salary was £143,462 and my understanding is that he got his MP salary of £74,962 on top (I have a vague recollection he undertook not to take all of that). I am not sure if occupation of Downing Street is treated as a benefit in kind and taxable but I would have thought so.

    Maybe "personal income" means income outwith his employment?

    MPs get all sorts of benefits in kind that would be taxable as benefit in kind for other people.
    Quite so, which makes me wonder what that "personal income" is. He earned a lot more than that.
    the £145K salary as the PM is the MP's salary of £75K + about £70K as a top up for his ministerial duties
    No wonder he wants to stand down. How on earth do you pay Eton fees out of that? And he has voluntarily waived/cancelled out a £20K tax benefit as well? And his share of the capital gain on his investment was even below the CGT limit? I simply do not see what the story is here other than very able clever guy takes huge financial sacrifices to run the country.
    We're one step away from a method in a fantasy novel i read, where a leader is chosen without their consent, then all their possessions sold and put in a fund, to go up or down depending how the national economy goes.

    Can you imagine what will happen if a PM suggests significantly raising their salary?

This discussion has been closed.