The Guardian article does raise some questions, but is also very smeary at the same time. His wife owning less than 1% in a company who in India sells stuff on Amazon calls into question Rishi ability to make calls over how to deal with Amazon in the UK...i mean come on. If that is the standard,. the only person who could be chancellor is somebody whose entire family has no investments in anything ever and do not work in any sort of position of vague responsibility at a private company...by thise standards even Gordon Brown would have had an issue, as his brother had a big positiion in an energy company.
A big position in an energy company who were allowed to take over British Energy when he was Prime Minister, in fact. I don't recall any bleatings from the Guardian at that time.
The end point would be that everyone in the legislature and all their relatives should be forced to use blind trusts. I'm not sure how that works for family businesses though.
So my son decides he wants to be an MP....you say any investments I have must go into a blind trust. I think most family members will turn round and say "sorry no, I am not putting my finances in a blind trust just so you can get a job"
It might result in a few more MPs from backgrounds where parents don't have investments.
One of the best moves Sturgeon made was severely limiting household mixing much earlier on than England. That plus limiting travel between regions are two big steps you can take to limit transmission and spread.
The problem with Welsh approach is they sold this idea you could do a couple of weeks of lockdown (which isn't long enough and there were some absolutely stupid pointless restrictions in some areas of life) and then immediately jumped from that to a national level of much lower restrictions than everywhere else in the UK...despite a) not knowing how much you have actually squashed the levels and b) definitely still having two areas of extremely high levels of infection.
Drakeford is not very bright.
It was no surprise to find the ever tin-eared TSE praising Drakeford's COVID response the other day on pb.com.
The Guardian article does raise some questions, but is also very smeary at the same time. His wife owning less than 1% in a company who in India sells stuff on Amazon calls into question Rishi ability to make calls over how to deal with Amazon in the UK...i mean come on. If that is the standard,. the only person who could be chancellor is somebody whose entire family has no investments in anything ever and do not work in any sort of position of vague responsibility at a private company...by thise standards even Gordon Brown would have had an issue, as his brother had a big positiion in an energy company.
A big position in an energy company who were allowed to take over British Energy when he was Prime Minister, in fact. I don't recall any bleatings from the Guardian at that time.
The end point would be that everyone in the legislature and all their relatives should be forced to use blind trusts. I'm not sure how that works for family businesses though.
So my son decides he wants to be an MP....you say any investments I have must go into a blind trust. I think most family members will turn round and say "sorry no, I am not putting my finances in a blind trust just so you can get a job"
It might result in a few more MPs from backgrounds where parents don't have investments.
I find it quite bizarre that people assume that everyone knows the ins and outs of even close family member's finances to be honest and a little creepy. Most couples I know for example have a joint account for bills and each puts in an agreed amount every month and their own accounts are private.
I like Layla, but she is too erratic for leadership. We made that mistake with Jo Swinson of appointing a younger and female leader, because she was these things and see how that turned out. Personally I think Davey would have managed the wrangling in the hung parliament much better, and would in particular not gone for Revoke, or been quite so open to defectors. Both were mistakes.
"... too erratic for leadership ..." Mmmmm, borderline gender stereotyping, I'd say.
Tbf, similar arguments of stability, experience, reassurance and steadiness were made in favour of SKS, and against Rayner or Nandy.
It is quite clear in Wales that the female candidates who stood in the Labour & Tory leadership elections (Eluned Morgan and Suzy Davies) were way, way, way superior to the male candidates who actually won (Drakeford & Davies).
Still, remember Jacinda. There is a lesson there for all forsaken parties, if they care to learn it.
Indeed. My disappointment at the hapless Drakeford's elevation to First Minister has been somewhat offset by Paul Davies' abject performance as Leader of the Opposition. Although every now and again RT chimes in, making both Drakeford and Paul Davies appear as consumate professionals.
If Boris offered an independence referendum with this electorate:
Those eligible to vote in a Westminster general election in Scotland, ie no under 18s and no non-British, plus Scots living in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Would you accept ?
No.
1. Criterion of birth is Blood and Soil thinking. 2. It is unevenly applied - those incomers living in Scotland are allowed to vote. 3. No existing listing - there is no official Scots nationality ergo no objective documentary criterion ([edit] I do know about FRance and expat French, but when there is an elecvtion in France the French take their passports along).
Letting Scots living in the rest of the UK (and indeed world) is no different to allowing ex-pats to vote. It's understood that they may well return to the UK one day and still have a real stake in its future. The criteria would simply be British citizenship and having been born in Scotland and/or having lived there for some minimum period of time.
I think Nats are against this and in favour of letting children and non-Brits vote not because of any real principle, but because they want to fix the franchise in their favour.
Still impossible to implement without risk of mass fraud.
And if Mr Cameron was happy with the 2014 franchise, which was actually that for residents in Scotland and defined long before indyref 1, why change?
Is your objection to this that it would be hard to implement and risks fraud, or that it would make it harder for Yes to win?
It wouldn't be that hard to implement. There are Council Tax and electoral roll records, I assume, which would be used to determine eligibility to vote for Scots outside Scotland.
As I've said elsewhere, Cameron made an error, but that's no reason to make it again. He probably thought that No was such a shoo-in there was no point arguing about the franchise.
How exactly do you define a Scotch person? Both parents Scotch. One parent Scotch? Born within sight of a highland cow?
It's not really a cock up, they one of the sponsors of the England team.
A mystery why they deleted it then.
Because the average Welsh rugby fan is as nice as a paper cut on the todger.
In terms of sporting opponents I despise the Welsh are top of the league, even worse than Chelsea fans.
I have accidentally flagged this with my fat fingers when trying to press the quote button on my mobile screen. I would like to offer my apologies, but on reading your post once again, the apology is retracted!
If Boris offered an independence referendum with this electorate:
Those eligible to vote in a Westminster general election in Scotland, ie no under 18s and no non-British, plus Scots living in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Would you accept ?
No.
1. Criterion of birth is Blood and Soil thinking. 2. It is unevenly applied - those incomers living in Scotland are allowed to vote. 3. No existing listing - there is no official Scots nationality ergo no objective documentary criterion ([edit] I do know about FRance and expat French, but when there is an elecvtion in France the French take their passports along).
Letting Scots living in the rest of the UK (and indeed world) is no different to allowing ex-pats to vote. It's understood that they may well return to the UK one day and still have a real stake in its future. The criteria would simply be British citizenship and having been born in Scotland and/or having lived there for some minimum period of time.
I think Nats are against this and in favour of letting children and non-Brits vote not because of any real principle, but because they want to fix the franchise in their favour.
Still impossible to implement without risk of mass fraud.
And if Mr Cameron was happy with the 2014 franchise, which was actually that for residents in Scotland and defined long before indyref 1, why change?
Is your objection to this that it would be hard to implement and risks fraud, or that it would make it harder for Yes to win?
It wouldn't be that hard to implement. There are Council Tax and electoral roll records, I assume, which would be used to determine eligibility to vote for Scots outside Scotland.
As I've said elsewhere, Cameron made an error, but that's no reason to make it again. He probably thought that No was such a shoo-in there was no point arguing about the franchise.
How exactly do you define a Scotch person? Both parents Scotch. One parent Scotch? Born within sight of a highland cow?
Well it seems you can play for the Republic of Ireland if you've ever drunk Guinness so I reckon anyone who has drunk whisky qualifies as eligible to vote in any future Indyref2.
If Boris offered an independence referendum with this electorate:
Those eligible to vote in a Westminster general election in Scotland, ie no under 18s and no non-British, plus Scots living in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Would you accept ?
No.
1. Criterion of birth is Blood and Soil thinking. 2. It is unevenly applied - those incomers living in Scotland are allowed to vote. 3. No existing listing - there is no official Scots nationality ergo no objective documentary criterion ([edit] I do know about FRance and expat French, but when there is an elecvtion in France the French take their passports along).
Letting Scots living in the rest of the UK (and indeed world) is no different to allowing ex-pats to vote. It's understood that they may well return to the UK one day and still have a real stake in its future. The criteria would simply be British citizenship and having been born in Scotland and/or having lived there for some minimum period of time.
I think Nats are against this and in favour of letting children and non-Brits vote not because of any real principle, but because they want to fix the franchise in their favour.
Still impossible to implement without risk of mass fraud.
And if Mr Cameron was happy with the 2014 franchise, which was actually that for residents in Scotland and defined long before indyref 1, why change?
Is your objection to this that it would be hard to implement and risks fraud, or that it would make it harder for Yes to win?
It wouldn't be that hard to implement. There are Council Tax and electoral roll records, I assume, which would be used to determine eligibility to vote for Scots outside Scotland.
As I've said elsewhere, Cameron made an error, but that's no reason to make it again. He probably thought that No was such a shoo-in there was no point arguing about the franchise.
How exactly do you define a Scotch person? Both parents Scotch. One parent Scotch? Born within sight of a highland cow?
Well it seems you can play for the Republic of Ireland if you've ever drunk Guinness so I reckon anyone who has drunk whisky qualifies as eligible to vote in any future Indyref2.
It's not really a cock up, they one of the sponsors of the England team.
A mystery why they deleted it then.
Because the average Welsh rugby fan is as nice as a paper cut on the todger.
In terms of sporting opponents I despise the Welsh are top of the league, even worse than Chelsea fans.
Oi! Even if you find our effortless domination annoying there’s no need to be actually abusive.
Chelsea fans, FFS...
It is true.
It has become worse ever since we won the world cup in 2003.
It has brought a nasty vicious side out in the Welsh.
I think the rugby world cups have shattered the Welsh perceived excellence in rugby, the English win it and go to finals, whilst the Welsh go out to Western Samoa.
If Boris offered an independence referendum with this electorate:
Those eligible to vote in a Westminster general election in Scotland, ie no under 18s and no non-British, plus Scots living in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Would you accept ?
No.
1. Criterion of birth is Blood and Soil thinking. 2. It is unevenly applied - those incomers living in Scotland are allowed to vote. 3. No existing listing - there is no official Scots nationality ergo no objective documentary criterion ([edit] I do know about FRance and expat French, but when there is an elecvtion in France the French take their passports along).
Letting Scots living in the rest of the UK (and indeed world) is no different to allowing ex-pats to vote. It's understood that they may well return to the UK one day and still have a real stake in its future. The criteria would simply be British citizenship and having been born in Scotland and/or having lived there for some minimum period of time.
I think Nats are against this and in favour of letting children and non-Brits vote not because of any real principle, but because they want to fix the franchise in their favour.
Still impossible to implement without risk of mass fraud.
And if Mr Cameron was happy with the 2014 franchise, which was actually that for residents in Scotland and defined long before indyref 1, why change?
Is your objection to this that it would be hard to implement and risks fraud, or that it would make it harder for Yes to win?
It wouldn't be that hard to implement. There are Council Tax and electoral roll records, I assume, which would be used to determine eligibility to vote for Scots outside Scotland.
As I've said elsewhere, Cameron made an error, but that's no reason to make it again. He probably thought that No was such a shoo-in there was no point arguing about the franchise.
How exactly do you define a Scotch person? Both parents Scotch. One parent Scotch? Born within sight of a highland cow?
Well it seems you can play for the Republic of Ireland if you've ever drunk Guinness so I reckon anyone who has drunk whisky qualifies as eligible to vote in any future Indyref2.
Surely "Ireland" as it includes NI?
Ah I was talking about the association football team not the rugby football team.
It's not really a cock up, they one of the sponsors of the England team.
A mystery why they deleted it then.
Because the average Welsh rugby fan is as nice as a paper cut on the todger.
In terms of sporting opponents I despise the Welsh are top of the league, even worse than Chelsea fans.
Oi! Even if you find our effortless domination annoying there’s no need to be actually abusive.
Chelsea fans, FFS...
It is true.
It has become worse ever since we won the world cup in 2003.
It has brought a nasty vicious side out in the Welsh.
I think the rugby world cups have shattered the Welsh perceived excellence in rugby, the English win it and go to finals, whilst the Welsh go out to Western Samoa.
...and man alive, have you and your countrymen ever dined out on the 2003 World Cup.
The Guardian article does raise some questions, but is also very smeary at the same time. His wife owning less than 1% in a company who in India sells stuff on Amazon calls into question Rishi ability to make calls over how to deal with Amazon in the UK...i mean come on. If that is the standard,. the only person who could be chancellor is somebody whose entire family has no investments in anything ever and do not work in any sort of position of vague responsibility at a private company...by thise standards even Gordon Brown would have had an issue, as his brother had a big positiion in an energy company.
A big position in an energy company who were allowed to take over British Energy when he was Prime Minister, in fact. I don't recall any bleatings from the Guardian at that time.
The end point would be that everyone in the legislature and all their relatives should be forced to use blind trusts. I'm not sure how that works for family businesses though.
So my son decides he wants to be an MP....you say any investments I have must go into a blind trust. I think most family members will turn round and say "sorry no, I am not putting my finances in a blind trust just so you can get a job"
It might result in a few more MPs from backgrounds where parents don't have investments.
I find it quite bizarre that people assume that everyone knows the ins and outs of even close family member's finances to be honest and a little creepy. Most couples I know for example have a joint account for bills and each puts in an agreed amount every month and their own accounts are private.
I've never really understood this. My wife and I just have a single joint account. Isn't sharing everything the whole point of being married?
The Guardian article does raise some questions, but is also very smeary at the same time. His wife owning less than 1% in a company who in India sells stuff on Amazon calls into question Rishi ability to make calls over how to deal with Amazon in the UK...i mean come on. If that is the standard,. the only person who could be chancellor is somebody whose entire family has no investments in anything ever and do not work in any sort of position of vague responsibility at a private company...by thise standards even Gordon Brown would have had an issue, as his brother had a big positiion in an energy company.
A big position in an energy company who were allowed to take over British Energy when he was Prime Minister, in fact. I don't recall any bleatings from the Guardian at that time.
The end point would be that everyone in the legislature and all their relatives should be forced to use blind trusts. I'm not sure how that works for family businesses though.
So my son decides he wants to be an MP....you say any investments I have must go into a blind trust. I think most family members will turn round and say "sorry no, I am not putting my finances in a blind trust just so you can get a job"
It might result in a few more MPs from backgrounds where parents don't have investments.
I find it quite bizarre that people assume that everyone knows the ins and outs of even close family member's finances to be honest and a little creepy. Most couples I know for example have a joint account for bills and each puts in an agreed amount every month and their own accounts are private.
I've never really understood this. My wife and I just have a single joint account. Isn't sharing everything the whole point of being married?
Fair enough, but two very important practical points -
(a) I find it a great relief that Mrs C and I each have our own, as well as a joint account - with 2 different banks, so if one bank falls over digitally or otherwise we still have some action.
(b) if one of two operators of a joiunt account dies then a joint account can sometimes be frozen (depends very much on the vagaries of the bank not to mention the staff involved at the moment critique). Just what one does not want at such a time.
It's not really a cock up, they one of the sponsors of the England team.
A mystery why they deleted it then.
Because the average Welsh rugby fan is as nice as a paper cut on the todger.
In terms of sporting opponents I despise the Welsh are top of the league, even worse than Chelsea fans.
Oi! Even if you find our effortless domination annoying there’s no need to be actually abusive.
Chelsea fans, FFS...
It is true.
It has become worse ever since we won the world cup in 2003.
It has brought a nasty vicious side out in the Welsh.
I think the rugby world cups have shattered the Welsh perceived excellence in rugby, the English win it and go to finals, whilst the Welsh go out to Western Samoa.
...and man alive, have you and your countrymen ever dined out on the 2003 World Cup.
But it is the Welsh that seem obsessed by it.
I've been to Dublin, Edinburgh, and Paris on Six Nation weekends before and after 2003 and nothing has changed, it's fun, enjoyable, and banterful, but go to Cardiff and the Welsh have a nasty edge to it.
Honestly I would have thought after 2015 it would have allowed the Welsh to heal but no.
It's not really a cock up, they one of the sponsors of the England team.
A mystery why they deleted it then.
Because the average Welsh rugby fan is as nice as a paper cut on the todger.
In terms of sporting opponents I despise the Welsh are top of the league, even worse than Chelsea fans.
Oi! Even if you find our effortless domination annoying there’s no need to be actually abusive.
Chelsea fans, FFS...
It is true.
It has become worse ever since we won the world cup in 2003.
It has brought a nasty vicious side out in the Welsh.
I think the rugby world cups have shattered the Welsh perceived excellence in rugby, the English win it and go to finals, whilst the Welsh go out to Western Samoa.
...and man alive, have you and your countrymen ever dined out on the 2003 World Cup.
But it is the Welsh that seem obsessed by it.
I've been to Dublin, Edinburgh, and Paris on Six Nation weekends before and after 2003 and nothing has changed, it's fun, enjoyable, and banterful, but go to Cardiff and the Welsh have a nasty edge to it.
Honestly I would have thought after 2015 it would have allowed the Welsh to heal but no.
Have you ever seen a rugby related item presented by John Inverdale where the 2003 Rugby World Cup final doesn't get a mention?
The Guardian article does raise some questions, but is also very smeary at the same time. His wife owning less than 1% in a company who in India sells stuff on Amazon calls into question Rishi ability to make calls over how to deal with Amazon in the UK...i mean come on. If that is the standard,. the only person who could be chancellor is somebody whose entire family has no investments in anything ever and do not work in any sort of position of vague responsibility at a private company...by thise standards even Gordon Brown would have had an issue, as his brother had a big positiion in an energy company.
A big position in an energy company who were allowed to take over British Energy when he was Prime Minister, in fact. I don't recall any bleatings from the Guardian at that time.
The end point would be that everyone in the legislature and all their relatives should be forced to use blind trusts. I'm not sure how that works for family businesses though.
So my son decides he wants to be an MP....you say any investments I have must go into a blind trust. I think most family members will turn round and say "sorry no, I am not putting my finances in a blind trust just so you can get a job"
It might result in a few more MPs from backgrounds where parents don't have investments.
I find it quite bizarre that people assume that everyone knows the ins and outs of even close family member's finances to be honest and a little creepy. Most couples I know for example have a joint account for bills and each puts in an agreed amount every month and their own accounts are private.
I've never really understood this. My wife and I just have a single joint account. Isn't sharing everything the whole point of being married?
The point is you have joint money for paying joint things then your own money which you can do with as you wish. It gets rid of all the discussions seen often in couples in your sort of arrangement...
You paid how much for a hairdo...you spent how much on a computer etc.
Her money is her money and I have no right to comment on what she does with it and vice versa. Probably in most cases 70% of monthly incomes are going into the joint account in any case.
Most people I know just prefer being in a situation where they don't have to say to their partner....would you mind if I spent some of the joint money on this which is just for me.
It's not really a cock up, they one of the sponsors of the England team.
A mystery why they deleted it then.
Because the average Welsh rugby fan is as nice as a paper cut on the todger.
In terms of sporting opponents I despise the Welsh are top of the league, even worse than Chelsea fans.
Oi! Even if you find our effortless domination annoying there’s no need to be actually abusive.
Chelsea fans, FFS...
It is true.
It has become worse ever since we won the world cup in 2003.
It has brought a nasty vicious side out in the Welsh.
I think the rugby world cups have shattered the Welsh perceived excellence in rugby, the English win it and go to finals, whilst the Welsh go out to Western Samoa.
...and man alive, have you and your countrymen ever dined out on the 2003 World Cup.
But it is the Welsh that seem obsessed by it.
I've been to Dublin, Edinburgh, and Paris on Six Nation weekends before and after 2003 and nothing has changed, it's fun, enjoyable, and banterful, but go to Cardiff and the Welsh have a nasty edge to it.
Honestly I would have thought after 2015 it would have allowed the Welsh to heal but no.
Have you ever seen a rugby related item presented by John Inverdale where the 2003 Rugby World Cup final doesn't get a mention?
Give it another 15-20 years, if 1966 and the footie are any guide.
It's not really a cock up, they one of the sponsors of the England team.
A mystery why they deleted it then.
Because the average Welsh rugby fan is as nice as a paper cut on the todger.
In terms of sporting opponents I despise the Welsh are top of the league, even worse than Chelsea fans.
Oi! Even if you find our effortless domination annoying there’s no need to be actually abusive.
Chelsea fans, FFS...
It is true.
It has become worse ever since we won the world cup in 2003.
It has brought a nasty vicious side out in the Welsh.
I think the rugby world cups have shattered the Welsh perceived excellence in rugby, the English win it and go to finals, whilst the Welsh go out to Western Samoa.
...and man alive, have you and your countrymen ever dined out on the 2003 World Cup.
But it is the Welsh that seem obsessed by it.
I've been to Dublin, Edinburgh, and Paris on Six Nation weekends before and after 2003 and nothing has changed, it's fun, enjoyable, and banterful, but go to Cardiff and the Welsh have a nasty edge to it.
Honestly I would have thought after 2015 it would have allowed the Welsh to heal but no.
Have you ever seen a rugby related item presented by John Inverdale where the 2003 Rugby World Cup final doesn't get a mention?
What exactly are we supposed to have understood they done wrong? Overly mob handed perhaps, but no sign of brutality, bloke (deliberately? ill? drunk?) falls over whilst being arrested so officers hold him up and restrain.
Should he have been arrested in the first place, how can anyone tell from that clip alone?
Mr R-M doing his best to win hearts and minds. Pretty obvious what he means.
'Rees-Mogg said that he appreciated his fellow Tory’s point, adding: “The last Labour government decided to take a wrecking ball to our constitution and made a bit of a muddle with it.
“Some of their most foolish interventions were their constitutional blunders which were out of step with many centuries of our parliamentary democracy. Blairite constitutional tinkering has weakened our parliament and has helped to divide the United Kingdom.
“I hope that this government finds an effective way of restoring our constitution to its proper form.”'
Memo: Devolution is even more popular in Scotland than independence.
Vote Tory End Devolution! Not quite the resonance of Take Back Control or Get Brexit Done imho.
How about "Vote Tory Screw The Scots"?
Bit like 2015.
The precious union:
It’s a good job they used a man not a woman in that ad...
I'm probably being dim having to work through a tedious TS at the moment, but why should a woman make any difference? IIRC they showed Mr Miliband in Ms Sturgeon's pocket.
You don’t think a photoshopped image of Salmond potentially reaching out to touch a woman’s arse might be a trifle - problematic?
The Guardian article does raise some questions, but is also very smeary at the same time. His wife owning less than 1% in a company who in India sells stuff on Amazon calls into question Rishi ability to make calls over how to deal with Amazon in the UK...i mean come on. If that is the standard,. the only person who could be chancellor is somebody whose entire family has no investments in anything ever and do not work in any sort of position of vague responsibility at a private company...by thise standards even Gordon Brown would have had an issue, as his brother had a big positiion in an energy company.
A big position in an energy company who were allowed to take over British Energy when he was Prime Minister, in fact. I don't recall any bleatings from the Guardian at that time.
The end point would be that everyone in the legislature and all their relatives should be forced to use blind trusts. I'm not sure how that works for family businesses though.
So my son decides he wants to be an MP....you say any investments I have must go into a blind trust. I think most family members will turn round and say "sorry no, I am not putting my finances in a blind trust just so you can get a job"
It might result in a few more MPs from backgrounds where parents don't have investments.
I find it quite bizarre that people assume that everyone knows the ins and outs of even close family member's finances to be honest and a little creepy. Most couples I know for example have a joint account for bills and each puts in an agreed amount every month and their own accounts are private.
I've never really understood this. My wife and I just have a single joint account. Isn't sharing everything the whole point of being married?
The point is you have joint money for paying joint things then your own money which you can do with as you wish. It gets rid of all the discussions seen often in couples in your sort of arrangement...
You paid how much for a hairdo...you spent how much on a computer etc.
Her money is her money and I have no right to comment on what she does with it and vice versa. Probably in most cases 70% of monthly incomes are going into the joint account in any case.
Most people I know just prefer being in a situation where they don't have to say to their partner....would you mind if I spent some of the joint money on this which is just for me.
Yes it probably means that we spend less money in total, which is good. Neither of us are big spenders anyway, I rarely buy anything at all apart from the weekly food shop, and I trust her to spend wisely on things she needs. Our incomes are very different too and in part that reflects career sacrifices she has made because of children so it wouldn't make sense to talk about her money or my money, it is all our money.
The Guardian article does raise some questions, but is also very smeary at the same time. His wife owning less than 1% in a company who in India sells stuff on Amazon calls into question Rishi ability to make calls over how to deal with Amazon in the UK...i mean come on. If that is the standard,. the only person who could be chancellor is somebody whose entire family has no investments in anything ever and do not work in any sort of position of vague responsibility at a private company...by thise standards even Gordon Brown would have had an issue, as his brother had a big positiion in an energy company.
A big position in an energy company who were allowed to take over British Energy when he was Prime Minister, in fact. I don't recall any bleatings from the Guardian at that time.
The end point would be that everyone in the legislature and all their relatives should be forced to use blind trusts. I'm not sure how that works for family businesses though.
So my son decides he wants to be an MP....you say any investments I have must go into a blind trust. I think most family members will turn round and say "sorry no, I am not putting my finances in a blind trust just so you can get a job"
It might result in a few more MPs from backgrounds where parents don't have investments.
I find it quite bizarre that people assume that everyone knows the ins and outs of even close family member's finances to be honest and a little creepy. Most couples I know for example have a joint account for bills and each puts in an agreed amount every month and their own accounts are private.
I've never really understood this. My wife and I just have a single joint account. Isn't sharing everything the whole point of being married?
Fair enough, but two very important practical points -
(a) I find it a great relief that Mrs C and I each have our own, as well as a joint account - with 2 different banks, so if one bank falls over digitally or otherwise we still have some action.
(b) if one of two operators of a joiunt account dies then a joint account can sometimes be frozen (depends very much on the vagaries of the bank not to mention the staff involved at the moment critique). Just what one does not want at such a time.
Both good points, but of course you can have as many current accounts as you want, and many banks will pay/incentivise you to open them. I have ended up with too many! But 1 is not enough imo.
The Guardian article does raise some questions, but is also very smeary at the same time. His wife owning less than 1% in a company who in India sells stuff on Amazon calls into question Rishi ability to make calls over how to deal with Amazon in the UK...i mean come on. If that is the standard,. the only person who could be chancellor is somebody whose entire family has no investments in anything ever and do not work in any sort of position of vague responsibility at a private company...by thise standards even Gordon Brown would have had an issue, as his brother had a big positiion in an energy company.
A big position in an energy company who were allowed to take over British Energy when he was Prime Minister, in fact. I don't recall any bleatings from the Guardian at that time.
The end point would be that everyone in the legislature and all their relatives should be forced to use blind trusts. I'm not sure how that works for family businesses though.
So my son decides he wants to be an MP....you say any investments I have must go into a blind trust. I think most family members will turn round and say "sorry no, I am not putting my finances in a blind trust just so you can get a job"
It might result in a few more MPs from backgrounds where parents don't have investments.
I find it quite bizarre that people assume that everyone knows the ins and outs of even close family member's finances to be honest and a little creepy. Most couples I know for example have a joint account for bills and each puts in an agreed amount every month and their own accounts are private.
I've never really understood this. My wife and I just have a single joint account. Isn't sharing everything the whole point of being married?
Fair enough, but two very important practical points -
(a) I find it a great relief that Mrs C and I each have our own, as well as a joint account - with 2 different banks, so if one bank falls over digitally or otherwise we still have some action.
(b) if one of two operators of a joiunt account dies then a joint account can sometimes be frozen (depends very much on the vagaries of the bank not to mention the staff involved at the moment critique). Just what one does not want at such a time.
(b) seems kind of mad, what could possibly be the justification?
Mr R-M doing his best to win hearts and minds. Pretty obvious what he means.
'Rees-Mogg said that he appreciated his fellow Tory’s point, adding: “The last Labour government decided to take a wrecking ball to our constitution and made a bit of a muddle with it.
“Some of their most foolish interventions were their constitutional blunders which were out of step with many centuries of our parliamentary democracy. Blairite constitutional tinkering has weakened our parliament and has helped to divide the United Kingdom.
“I hope that this government finds an effective way of restoring our constitution to its proper form.”'
Memo: Devolution is even more popular in Scotland than independence.
Vote Tory End Devolution! Not quite the resonance of Take Back Control or Get Brexit Done imho.
How about "Vote Tory Screw The Scots"?
Bit like 2015.
The precious union:
It’s a good job they used a man not a woman in that ad...
I'm probably being dim having to work through a tedious TS at the moment, but why should a woman make any difference? IIRC they showed Mr Miliband in Ms Sturgeon's pocket.
You don’t think a photoshopped image of Salmond potentially reaching out to touch a woman’s arse might be a trifle - problematic?
Ah, I thought you meant a woman doing the stealing! The alternative had never occurred to me, partly because the dosh was so obvious, and partly because that ad antedated recent events.
The Guardian article does raise some questions, but is also very smeary at the same time. His wife owning less than 1% in a company who in India sells stuff on Amazon calls into question Rishi ability to make calls over how to deal with Amazon in the UK...i mean come on. If that is the standard,. the only person who could be chancellor is somebody whose entire family has no investments in anything ever and do not work in any sort of position of vague responsibility at a private company...by thise standards even Gordon Brown would have had an issue, as his brother had a big positiion in an energy company.
A big position in an energy company who were allowed to take over British Energy when he was Prime Minister, in fact. I don't recall any bleatings from the Guardian at that time.
The end point would be that everyone in the legislature and all their relatives should be forced to use blind trusts. I'm not sure how that works for family businesses though.
So my son decides he wants to be an MP....you say any investments I have must go into a blind trust. I think most family members will turn round and say "sorry no, I am not putting my finances in a blind trust just so you can get a job"
It might result in a few more MPs from backgrounds where parents don't have investments.
I find it quite bizarre that people assume that everyone knows the ins and outs of even close family member's finances to be honest and a little creepy. Most couples I know for example have a joint account for bills and each puts in an agreed amount every month and their own accounts are private.
I've never really understood this. My wife and I just have a single joint account. Isn't sharing everything the whole point of being married?
Fair enough, but two very important practical points -
(a) I find it a great relief that Mrs C and I each have our own, as well as a joint account - with 2 different banks, so if one bank falls over digitally or otherwise we still have some action.
(b) if one of two operators of a joiunt account dies then a joint account can sometimes be frozen (depends very much on the vagaries of the bank not to mention the staff involved at the moment critique). Just what one does not want at such a time.
Both good points, but of course you can have as many current accounts as you want, and many banks will pay/incentivise you to open them. I have ended up with too many! But 1 is not enough imo.
Really? I've had the same current account for thirty years and never had a problem with it.
The Guardian article does raise some questions, but is also very smeary at the same time. His wife owning less than 1% in a company who in India sells stuff on Amazon calls into question Rishi ability to make calls over how to deal with Amazon in the UK...i mean come on. If that is the standard,. the only person who could be chancellor is somebody whose entire family has no investments in anything ever and do not work in any sort of position of vague responsibility at a private company...by thise standards even Gordon Brown would have had an issue, as his brother had a big positiion in an energy company.
A big position in an energy company who were allowed to take over British Energy when he was Prime Minister, in fact. I don't recall any bleatings from the Guardian at that time.
The end point would be that everyone in the legislature and all their relatives should be forced to use blind trusts. I'm not sure how that works for family businesses though.
So my son decides he wants to be an MP....you say any investments I have must go into a blind trust. I think most family members will turn round and say "sorry no, I am not putting my finances in a blind trust just so you can get a job"
It might result in a few more MPs from backgrounds where parents don't have investments.
I find it quite bizarre that people assume that everyone knows the ins and outs of even close family member's finances to be honest and a little creepy. Most couples I know for example have a joint account for bills and each puts in an agreed amount every month and their own accounts are private.
I've never really understood this. My wife and I just have a single joint account. Isn't sharing everything the whole point of being married?
The point is you have joint money for paying joint things then your own money which you can do with as you wish. It gets rid of all the discussions seen often in couples in your sort of arrangement...
You paid how much for a hairdo...you spent how much on a computer etc.
Her money is her money and I have no right to comment on what she does with it and vice versa. Probably in most cases 70% of monthly incomes are going into the joint account in any case.
Most people I know just prefer being in a situation where they don't have to say to their partner....would you mind if I spent some of the joint money on this which is just for me.
Yes it probably means that we spend less money in total, which is good. Neither of us are big spenders anyway, I rarely buy anything at all apart from the weekly food shop, and I trust her to spend wisely on things she needs. Our incomes are very different too and in part that reflects career sacrifices she has made because of children so it wouldn't make sense to talk about her money or my money, it is all our money.
The split on how much you each put in doesnt have to be 50:50. The way I have done it in the past is you add both monthly incomes subtract the budget then each put in an amount that leaves you the same amount each month for personal money. Don't forget most aren't high earners.
Now imagine after budget is spent you have about 200 left over a month between you. If you keep that joint when is someone ever going to feel its ok to spend 500 on something they really wanted? One of my exes did on a handbag...yes I don't understand it and if that 500 had come out of joint money I would probably have said hey hang on...and she would have felt guilty spending it. As it was her private money she got to buy guilt free and have something you really wanted. She wasn't much of a big spender either it was just something you really desired.
The Guardian article does raise some questions, but is also very smeary at the same time. His wife owning less than 1% in a company who in India sells stuff on Amazon calls into question Rishi ability to make calls over how to deal with Amazon in the UK...i mean come on. If that is the standard,. the only person who could be chancellor is somebody whose entire family has no investments in anything ever and do not work in any sort of position of vague responsibility at a private company...by thise standards even Gordon Brown would have had an issue, as his brother had a big positiion in an energy company.
A big position in an energy company who were allowed to take over British Energy when he was Prime Minister, in fact. I don't recall any bleatings from the Guardian at that time.
The end point would be that everyone in the legislature and all their relatives should be forced to use blind trusts. I'm not sure how that works for family businesses though.
So my son decides he wants to be an MP....you say any investments I have must go into a blind trust. I think most family members will turn round and say "sorry no, I am not putting my finances in a blind trust just so you can get a job"
It might result in a few more MPs from backgrounds where parents don't have investments.
I find it quite bizarre that people assume that everyone knows the ins and outs of even close family member's finances to be honest and a little creepy. Most couples I know for example have a joint account for bills and each puts in an agreed amount every month and their own accounts are private.
I've never really understood this. My wife and I just have a single joint account. Isn't sharing everything the whole point of being married?
Fair enough, but two very important practical points -
(a) I find it a great relief that Mrs C and I each have our own, as well as a joint account - with 2 different banks, so if one bank falls over digitally or otherwise we still have some action.
(b) if one of two operators of a joiunt account dies then a joint account can sometimes be frozen (depends very much on the vagaries of the bank not to mention the staff involved at the moment critique). Just what one does not want at such a time.
(b) seems kind of mad, what could possibly be the justification?
I know - but there are vasrious criteria and various staff interpretations (as I know from experience when older relatives died). Which say "Under Scottish law, a deceased’s share doesn’t pass automatically by survivorship to the remaining owner, but the bank may allow them to continue to operate it." So it may be a Scots Law issue.
The Guardian article does raise some questions, but is also very smeary at the same time. His wife owning less than 1% in a company who in India sells stuff on Amazon calls into question Rishi ability to make calls over how to deal with Amazon in the UK...i mean come on. If that is the standard,. the only person who could be chancellor is somebody whose entire family has no investments in anything ever and do not work in any sort of position of vague responsibility at a private company...by thise standards even Gordon Brown would have had an issue, as his brother had a big positiion in an energy company.
A big position in an energy company who were allowed to take over British Energy when he was Prime Minister, in fact. I don't recall any bleatings from the Guardian at that time.
The end point would be that everyone in the legislature and all their relatives should be forced to use blind trusts. I'm not sure how that works for family businesses though.
So my son decides he wants to be an MP....you say any investments I have must go into a blind trust. I think most family members will turn round and say "sorry no, I am not putting my finances in a blind trust just so you can get a job"
It might result in a few more MPs from backgrounds where parents don't have investments.
I find it quite bizarre that people assume that everyone knows the ins and outs of even close family member's finances to be honest and a little creepy. Most couples I know for example have a joint account for bills and each puts in an agreed amount every month and their own accounts are private.
I've never really understood this. My wife and I just have a single joint account. Isn't sharing everything the whole point of being married?
Fair enough, but two very important practical points -
(a) I find it a great relief that Mrs C and I each have our own, as well as a joint account - with 2 different banks, so if one bank falls over digitally or otherwise we still have some action.
(b) if one of two operators of a joiunt account dies then a joint account can sometimes be frozen (depends very much on the vagaries of the bank not to mention the staff involved at the moment critique). Just what one does not want at such a time.
(b) seems kind of mad, what could possibly be the justification?
You have to understand the context, there's a lot of shits out there, who try and commit fraud when they realise someone has died, and try and empty out a bank account that doesn't belong to them.
When I was married we had a joint account which used to be one of single accounts which I added my wife to but my wife couldn't answer some basic questions like 'When did you open this account/where did you open it?' when she had some issues later on.
So it can be a mixture of banks being extra careful and simple verification not being passed, so the account is frozen until you go into a branch and prove a few things.
On the paragraph about the growth of media, I'll just throw out that Scottish Broadsheet journalism is largely of very low quality. There's nowhere really to go if you want to read what's happening in Scotland from a non-partisan source.
On the paragraph about the growth of media, I'll just throw out that Scottish Broadsheet journalism is largely of very low quality. There's nowhere really to go if you want to read what's happening in Scotland from a non-partisan source.
Absolutely right. I really, really miss the Scotsman from before Mr Neil took over.
The Guardian article does raise some questions, but is also very smeary at the same time. His wife owning less than 1% in a company who in India sells stuff on Amazon calls into question Rishi ability to make calls over how to deal with Amazon in the UK...i mean come on. If that is the standard,. the only person who could be chancellor is somebody whose entire family has no investments in anything ever and do not work in any sort of position of vague responsibility at a private company...by thise standards even Gordon Brown would have had an issue, as his brother had a big positiion in an energy company.
A big position in an energy company who were allowed to take over British Energy when he was Prime Minister, in fact. I don't recall any bleatings from the Guardian at that time.
The end point would be that everyone in the legislature and all their relatives should be forced to use blind trusts. I'm not sure how that works for family businesses though.
So my son decides he wants to be an MP....you say any investments I have must go into a blind trust. I think most family members will turn round and say "sorry no, I am not putting my finances in a blind trust just so you can get a job"
It might result in a few more MPs from backgrounds where parents don't have investments.
I find it quite bizarre that people assume that everyone knows the ins and outs of even close family member's finances to be honest and a little creepy. Most couples I know for example have a joint account for bills and each puts in an agreed amount every month and their own accounts are private.
I've never really understood this. My wife and I just have a single joint account. Isn't sharing everything the whole point of being married?
Fair enough, but two very important practical points -
(a) I find it a great relief that Mrs C and I each have our own, as well as a joint account - with 2 different banks, so if one bank falls over digitally or otherwise we still have some action.
(b) if one of two operators of a joiunt account dies then a joint account can sometimes be frozen (depends very much on the vagaries of the bank not to mention the staff involved at the moment critique). Just what one does not want at such a time.
Both good points, but of course you can have as many current accounts as you want, and many banks will pay/incentivise you to open them. I have ended up with too many! But 1 is not enough imo.
Really? I've had the same current account for thirty years and never had a problem with it.
If they ever suspect your account of money laundering you might not have access to it for weeks or months and wont communicate with you or even your lawyer. Its obviously a slim chance it happens for most people, but when you get paid to take out the insurance of additional current accounts why not?
What's your issue with his capabilities? Didn't he cofound YouGov and have a big job in the oil industry? Have i missed some massive project disaster he was personally responsible?
He had some questionable dealings with Jeffrey Archer in the past.
The Guardian article does raise some questions, but is also very smeary at the same time. His wife owning less than 1% in a company who in India sells stuff on Amazon calls into question Rishi ability to make calls over how to deal with Amazon in the UK...i mean come on. If that is the standard,. the only person who could be chancellor is somebody whose entire family has no investments in anything ever and do not work in any sort of position of vague responsibility at a private company...by thise standards even Gordon Brown would have had an issue, as his brother had a big positiion in an energy company.
A big position in an energy company who were allowed to take over British Energy when he was Prime Minister, in fact. I don't recall any bleatings from the Guardian at that time.
The end point would be that everyone in the legislature and all their relatives should be forced to use blind trusts. I'm not sure how that works for family businesses though.
So my son decides he wants to be an MP....you say any investments I have must go into a blind trust. I think most family members will turn round and say "sorry no, I am not putting my finances in a blind trust just so you can get a job"
It might result in a few more MPs from backgrounds where parents don't have investments.
I find it quite bizarre that people assume that everyone knows the ins and outs of even close family member's finances to be honest and a little creepy. Most couples I know for example have a joint account for bills and each puts in an agreed amount every month and their own accounts are private.
I've never really understood this. My wife and I just have a single joint account. Isn't sharing everything the whole point of being married?
The point is you have joint money for paying joint things then your own money which you can do with as you wish. It gets rid of all the discussions seen often in couples in your sort of arrangement...
You paid how much for a hairdo...you spent how much on a computer etc.
Her money is her money and I have no right to comment on what she does with it and vice versa. Probably in most cases 70% of monthly incomes are going into the joint account in any case.
Most people I know just prefer being in a situation where they don't have to say to their partner....would you mind if I spent some of the joint money on this which is just for me.
Yes it probably means that we spend less money in total, which is good. Neither of us are big spenders anyway, I rarely buy anything at all apart from the weekly food shop, and I trust her to spend wisely on things she needs. Our incomes are very different too and in part that reflects career sacrifices she has made because of children so it wouldn't make sense to talk about her money or my money, it is all our money.
The split on how much you each put in doesnt have to be 50:50. The way I have done it in the past is you add both monthly incomes subtract the budget then each put in an amount that leaves you the same amount each month for personal money. Don't forget most aren't high earners.
Now imagine after budget is spent you have about 200 left over a month between you. If you keep that joint when is someone ever going to feel its ok to spend 500 on something they really wanted? One of my exes did on a handbag...yes I don't understand it and if that 500 had come out of joint money I would probably have said hey hang on...and she would have felt guilty spending it. As it was her private money she got to buy guilt free and have something you really wanted. She wasn't much of a big spender either it was just something you really desired.
It all sounds quite complicated! I suppose every couple has to find what works for them. Pooling our resources has always seemed to work out pretty well for us, money has never been a source of arguments, either when we were young and skint or now when we are better off. I think in general that relationships work better when you spend less time thinking about what is mine vs yours, be that money, chores or whatever, but that is perhaps an old fashioned view and a lot of people seem to prefer a more transactional approach.
Mr R-M doing his best to win hearts and minds. Pretty obvious what he means.
'Rees-Mogg said that he appreciated his fellow Tory’s point, adding: “The last Labour government decided to take a wrecking ball to our constitution and made a bit of a muddle with it.
“Some of their most foolish interventions were their constitutional blunders which were out of step with many centuries of our parliamentary democracy. Blairite constitutional tinkering has weakened our parliament and has helped to divide the United Kingdom.
“I hope that this government finds an effective way of restoring our constitution to its proper form.”'
Memo: Devolution is even more popular in Scotland than independence.
Vote Tory End Devolution! Not quite the resonance of Take Back Control or Get Brexit Done imho.
How about "Vote Tory Screw The Scots"?
Bit like 2015.
The precious union:
It’s a good job they used a man not a woman in that ad...
I'm probably being dim having to work through a tedious TS at the moment, but why should a woman make any difference? IIRC they showed Mr Miliband in Ms Sturgeon's pocket.
You don’t think a photoshopped image of Salmond potentially reaching out to touch a woman’s arse might be a trifle - problematic?
Ah, I thought you meant a woman doing the stealing! The alternative had never occurred to me, partly because the dosh was so obvious, and partly because that ad antedated recent events.
Ummmm...there had been rumours for a fair time, although they weren’t necessarily circulated among the general public. https://youtu.be/Y3kqYyezeTY
The Guardian article does raise some questions, but is also very smeary at the same time. His wife owning less than 1% in a company who in India sells stuff on Amazon calls into question Rishi ability to make calls over how to deal with Amazon in the UK...i mean come on. If that is the standard,. the only person who could be chancellor is somebody whose entire family has no investments in anything ever and do not work in any sort of position of vague responsibility at a private company...by thise standards even Gordon Brown would have had an issue, as his brother had a big positiion in an energy company.
A big position in an energy company who were allowed to take over British Energy when he was Prime Minister, in fact. I don't recall any bleatings from the Guardian at that time.
The end point would be that everyone in the legislature and all their relatives should be forced to use blind trusts. I'm not sure how that works for family businesses though.
So my son decides he wants to be an MP....you say any investments I have must go into a blind trust. I think most family members will turn round and say "sorry no, I am not putting my finances in a blind trust just so you can get a job"
It might result in a few more MPs from backgrounds where parents don't have investments.
I find it quite bizarre that people assume that everyone knows the ins and outs of even close family member's finances to be honest and a little creepy. Most couples I know for example have a joint account for bills and each puts in an agreed amount every month and their own accounts are private.
I've never really understood this. My wife and I just have a single joint account. Isn't sharing everything the whole point of being married?
Fair enough, but two very important practical points -
(a) I find it a great relief that Mrs C and I each have our own, as well as a joint account - with 2 different banks, so if one bank falls over digitally or otherwise we still have some action.
(b) if one of two operators of a joiunt account dies then a joint account can sometimes be frozen (depends very much on the vagaries of the bank not to mention the staff involved at the moment critique). Just what one does not want at such a time.
Both good points, but of course you can have as many current accounts as you want, and many banks will pay/incentivise you to open them. I have ended up with too many! But 1 is not enough imo.
Really? I've had the same current account for thirty years and never had a problem with it.
If they ever suspect your account of money laundering you might not have access to it for weeks or months and wont communicate with you or even your lawyer. Its obviously a slim chance it happens for most people, but when you get paid to take out the insurance of additional current accounts why not?
I wonder whether operating multiple accounts might be a red flag for money laundering probes though!
The Guardian article does raise some questions, but is also very smeary at the same time. His wife owning less than 1% in a company who in India sells stuff on Amazon calls into question Rishi ability to make calls over how to deal with Amazon in the UK...i mean come on. If that is the standard,. the only person who could be chancellor is somebody whose entire family has no investments in anything ever and do not work in any sort of position of vague responsibility at a private company...by thise standards even Gordon Brown would have had an issue, as his brother had a big positiion in an energy company.
A big position in an energy company who were allowed to take over British Energy when he was Prime Minister, in fact. I don't recall any bleatings from the Guardian at that time.
The end point would be that everyone in the legislature and all their relatives should be forced to use blind trusts. I'm not sure how that works for family businesses though.
So my son decides he wants to be an MP....you say any investments I have must go into a blind trust. I think most family members will turn round and say "sorry no, I am not putting my finances in a blind trust just so you can get a job"
It might result in a few more MPs from backgrounds where parents don't have investments.
I find it quite bizarre that people assume that everyone knows the ins and outs of even close family member's finances to be honest and a little creepy. Most couples I know for example have a joint account for bills and each puts in an agreed amount every month and their own accounts are private.
I've never really understood this. My wife and I just have a single joint account. Isn't sharing everything the whole point of being married?
Fair enough, but two very important practical points -
(a) I find it a great relief that Mrs C and I each have our own, as well as a joint account - with 2 different banks, so if one bank falls over digitally or otherwise we still have some action.
(b) if one of two operators of a joiunt account dies then a joint account can sometimes be frozen (depends very much on the vagaries of the bank not to mention the staff involved at the moment critique). Just what one does not want at such a time.
Both good points, but of course you can have as many current accounts as you want, and many banks will pay/incentivise you to open them. I have ended up with too many! But 1 is not enough imo.
Really? I've had the same current account for thirty years and never had a problem with it.
If they ever suspect your account of money laundering you might not have access to it for weeks or months and wont communicate with you or even your lawyer. Its obviously a slim chance it happens for most people, but when you get paid to take out the insurance of additional current accounts why not?
I wonder whether operating multiple accounts might be a red flag for money laundering probes though!
Yes and no.
They won't look at if you've got around £85k in multiple accounts with different banks.
The Guardian article does raise some questions, but is also very smeary at the same time. His wife owning less than 1% in a company who in India sells stuff on Amazon calls into question Rishi ability to make calls over how to deal with Amazon in the UK...i mean come on. If that is the standard,. the only person who could be chancellor is somebody whose entire family has no investments in anything ever and do not work in any sort of position of vague responsibility at a private company...by thise standards even Gordon Brown would have had an issue, as his brother had a big positiion in an energy company.
A big position in an energy company who were allowed to take over British Energy when he was Prime Minister, in fact. I don't recall any bleatings from the Guardian at that time.
The end point would be that everyone in the legislature and all their relatives should be forced to use blind trusts. I'm not sure how that works for family businesses though.
So my son decides he wants to be an MP....you say any investments I have must go into a blind trust. I think most family members will turn round and say "sorry no, I am not putting my finances in a blind trust just so you can get a job"
It might result in a few more MPs from backgrounds where parents don't have investments.
I find it quite bizarre that people assume that everyone knows the ins and outs of even close family member's finances to be honest and a little creepy. Most couples I know for example have a joint account for bills and each puts in an agreed amount every month and their own accounts are private.
I've never really understood this. My wife and I just have a single joint account. Isn't sharing everything the whole point of being married?
Fair enough, but two very important practical points -
(a) I find it a great relief that Mrs C and I each have our own, as well as a joint account - with 2 different banks, so if one bank falls over digitally or otherwise we still have some action.
(b) if one of two operators of a joiunt account dies then a joint account can sometimes be frozen (depends very much on the vagaries of the bank not to mention the staff involved at the moment critique). Just what one does not want at such a time.
Both good points, but of course you can have as many current accounts as you want, and many banks will pay/incentivise you to open them. I have ended up with too many! But 1 is not enough imo.
Really? I've had the same current account for thirty years and never had a problem with it.
If they ever suspect your account of money laundering you might not have access to it for weeks or months and wont communicate with you or even your lawyer. Its obviously a slim chance it happens for most people, but when you get paid to take out the insurance of additional current accounts why not?
I wonder whether operating multiple accounts might be a red flag for money laundering probes though!
I had two current accounts for a couple of years - one being a shadow account where the SLC could pay money in, as I wouldn’t give them the details to my main account - and it didn’t trip any flags.
The Guardian article does raise some questions, but is also very smeary at the same time. His wife owning less than 1% in a company who in India sells stuff on Amazon calls into question Rishi ability to make calls over how to deal with Amazon in the UK...i mean come on. If that is the standard,. the only person who could be chancellor is somebody whose entire family has no investments in anything ever and do not work in any sort of position of vague responsibility at a private company...by thise standards even Gordon Brown would have had an issue, as his brother had a big positiion in an energy company.
A big position in an energy company who were allowed to take over British Energy when he was Prime Minister, in fact. I don't recall any bleatings from the Guardian at that time.
The end point would be that everyone in the legislature and all their relatives should be forced to use blind trusts. I'm not sure how that works for family businesses though.
So my son decides he wants to be an MP....you say any investments I have must go into a blind trust. I think most family members will turn round and say "sorry no, I am not putting my finances in a blind trust just so you can get a job"
It might result in a few more MPs from backgrounds where parents don't have investments.
I find it quite bizarre that people assume that everyone knows the ins and outs of even close family member's finances to be honest and a little creepy. Most couples I know for example have a joint account for bills and each puts in an agreed amount every month and their own accounts are private.
I've never really understood this. My wife and I just have a single joint account. Isn't sharing everything the whole point of being married?
Fair enough, but two very important practical points -
(a) I find it a great relief that Mrs C and I each have our own, as well as a joint account - with 2 different banks, so if one bank falls over digitally or otherwise we still have some action.
(b) if one of two operators of a joiunt account dies then a joint account can sometimes be frozen (depends very much on the vagaries of the bank not to mention the staff involved at the moment critique). Just what one does not want at such a time.
Both good points, but of course you can have as many current accounts as you want, and many banks will pay/incentivise you to open them. I have ended up with too many! But 1 is not enough imo.
Really? I've had the same current account for thirty years and never had a problem with it.
If they ever suspect your account of money laundering you might not have access to it for weeks or months and wont communicate with you or even your lawyer. Its obviously a slim chance it happens for most people, but when you get paid to take out the insurance of additional current accounts why not?
I wonder whether operating multiple accounts might be a red flag for money laundering probes though!
Yes and no.
They won't look at if you've got around £85k in multiple accounts with different banks.
Its more common to have a card blocked temporarily by a banks fraud team if they suspect its be cloned etc, then a second account also comes in useful so you have a second card you can use till its sorted.
The Guardian article does raise some questions, but is also very smeary at the same time. His wife owning less than 1% in a company who in India sells stuff on Amazon calls into question Rishi ability to make calls over how to deal with Amazon in the UK...i mean come on. If that is the standard,. the only person who could be chancellor is somebody whose entire family has no investments in anything ever and do not work in any sort of position of vague responsibility at a private company...by thise standards even Gordon Brown would have had an issue, as his brother had a big positiion in an energy company.
A big position in an energy company who were allowed to take over British Energy when he was Prime Minister, in fact. I don't recall any bleatings from the Guardian at that time.
The end point would be that everyone in the legislature and all their relatives should be forced to use blind trusts. I'm not sure how that works for family businesses though.
So my son decides he wants to be an MP....you say any investments I have must go into a blind trust. I think most family members will turn round and say "sorry no, I am not putting my finances in a blind trust just so you can get a job"
It might result in a few more MPs from backgrounds where parents don't have investments.
I find it quite bizarre that people assume that everyone knows the ins and outs of even close family member's finances to be honest and a little creepy. Most couples I know for example have a joint account for bills and each puts in an agreed amount every month and their own accounts are private.
I've never really understood this. My wife and I just have a single joint account. Isn't sharing everything the whole point of being married?
Fair enough, but two very important practical points -
(a) I find it a great relief that Mrs C and I each have our own, as well as a joint account - with 2 different banks, so if one bank falls over digitally or otherwise we still have some action.
(b) if one of two operators of a joiunt account dies then a joint account can sometimes be frozen (depends very much on the vagaries of the bank not to mention the staff involved at the moment critique). Just what one does not want at such a time.
Both good points, but of course you can have as many current accounts as you want, and many banks will pay/incentivise you to open them. I have ended up with too many! But 1 is not enough imo.
Really? I've had the same current account for thirty years and never had a problem with it.
If they ever suspect your account of money laundering you might not have access to it for weeks or months and wont communicate with you or even your lawyer. Its obviously a slim chance it happens for most people, but when you get paid to take out the insurance of additional current accounts why not?
I wonder whether operating multiple accounts might be a red flag for money laundering probes though!
I had two current accounts for a couple of years - one being a shadow account where the SLC could pay money in, as I wouldn’t give them the details to my main account - and it didn’t trip any flags.
It is completely mainstream and sensible to have multiple current accounts.
Mr R-M doing his best to win hearts and minds. Pretty obvious what he means.
'Rees-Mogg said that he appreciated his fellow Tory’s point, adding: “The last Labour government decided to take a wrecking ball to our constitution and made a bit of a muddle with it.
“Some of their most foolish interventions were their constitutional blunders which were out of step with many centuries of our parliamentary democracy. Blairite constitutional tinkering has weakened our parliament and has helped to divide the United Kingdom.
“I hope that this government finds an effective way of restoring our constitution to its proper form.”'
Memo: Devolution is even more popular in Scotland than independence.
Vote Tory End Devolution! Not quite the resonance of Take Back Control or Get Brexit Done imho.
How about "Vote Tory Screw The Scots"?
Bit like 2015.
The precious union:
It’s a good job they used a man not a woman in that ad...
I'm probably being dim having to work through a tedious TS at the moment, but why should a woman make any difference? IIRC they showed Mr Miliband in Ms Sturgeon's pocket.
You don’t think a photoshopped image of Salmond potentially reaching out to touch a woman’s arse might be a trifle - problematic?
Ah, I thought you meant a woman doing the stealing! The alternative had never occurred to me, partly because the dosh was so obvious, and partly because that ad antedated recent events.
Ummmm...there had been rumours for a fair time, although they weren’t necessarily circulated among the general public. https://youtu.be/Y3kqYyezeTY
Is that Ruth Davidson? I wouldn't [edit] have trusted anything she said, after the "burly men" allegations she came up with about intimidation at polling stations.
Welsh data in the last few days not looking good. If they really don't lock down again until Friday, the rise in reported numbers will continue until mid December, with the resulting spike in deaths around New Year. Cases/week/100,000 currently around 220. It looks likely they'll surpass the previous peek at 300.
The Guardian article does raise some questions, but is also very smeary at the same time. His wife owning less than 1% in a company who in India sells stuff on Amazon calls into question Rishi ability to make calls over how to deal with Amazon in the UK...i mean come on. If that is the standard,. the only person who could be chancellor is somebody whose entire family has no investments in anything ever and do not work in any sort of position of vague responsibility at a private company...by thise standards even Gordon Brown would have had an issue, as his brother had a big positiion in an energy company.
A big position in an energy company who were allowed to take over British Energy when he was Prime Minister, in fact. I don't recall any bleatings from the Guardian at that time.
The end point would be that everyone in the legislature and all their relatives should be forced to use blind trusts. I'm not sure how that works for family businesses though.
So my son decides he wants to be an MP....you say any investments I have must go into a blind trust. I think most family members will turn round and say "sorry no, I am not putting my finances in a blind trust just so you can get a job"
It might result in a few more MPs from backgrounds where parents don't have investments.
I find it quite bizarre that people assume that everyone knows the ins and outs of even close family member's finances to be honest and a little creepy. Most couples I know for example have a joint account for bills and each puts in an agreed amount every month and their own accounts are private.
I've never really understood this. My wife and I just have a single joint account. Isn't sharing everything the whole point of being married?
Fair enough, but two very important practical points -
(a) I find it a great relief that Mrs C and I each have our own, as well as a joint account - with 2 different banks, so if one bank falls over digitally or otherwise we still have some action.
(b) if one of two operators of a joiunt account dies then a joint account can sometimes be frozen (depends very much on the vagaries of the bank not to mention the staff involved at the moment critique). Just what one does not want at such a time.
Both good points, but of course you can have as many current accounts as you want, and many banks will pay/incentivise you to open them. I have ended up with too many! But 1 is not enough imo.
Really? I've had the same current account for thirty years and never had a problem with it.
If they ever suspect your account of money laundering you might not have access to it for weeks or months and wont communicate with you or even your lawyer. Its obviously a slim chance it happens for most people, but when you get paid to take out the insurance of additional current accounts why not?
I wonder whether operating multiple accounts might be a red flag for money laundering probes though!
I had two current accounts for a couple of years - one being a shadow account where the SLC could pay money in, as I wouldn’t give them the details to my main account - and it didn’t trip any flags.
It is completely mainstream and sensible to have multiple current accounts.
The Guardian article does raise some questions, but is also very smeary at the same time. His wife owning less than 1% in a company who in India sells stuff on Amazon calls into question Rishi ability to make calls over how to deal with Amazon in the UK...i mean come on. If that is the standard,. the only person who could be chancellor is somebody whose entire family has no investments in anything ever and do not work in any sort of position of vague responsibility at a private company...by thise standards even Gordon Brown would have had an issue, as his brother had a big positiion in an energy company.
A big position in an energy company who were allowed to take over British Energy when he was Prime Minister, in fact. I don't recall any bleatings from the Guardian at that time.
The end point would be that everyone in the legislature and all their relatives should be forced to use blind trusts. I'm not sure how that works for family businesses though.
So my son decides he wants to be an MP....you say any investments I have must go into a blind trust. I think most family members will turn round and say "sorry no, I am not putting my finances in a blind trust just so you can get a job"
It might result in a few more MPs from backgrounds where parents don't have investments.
I find it quite bizarre that people assume that everyone knows the ins and outs of even close family member's finances to be honest and a little creepy. Most couples I know for example have a joint account for bills and each puts in an agreed amount every month and their own accounts are private.
I've never really understood this. My wife and I just have a single joint account. Isn't sharing everything the whole point of being married?
Fair enough, but two very important practical points -
(a) I find it a great relief that Mrs C and I each have our own, as well as a joint account - with 2 different banks, so if one bank falls over digitally or otherwise we still have some action.
(b) if one of two operators of a joiunt account dies then a joint account can sometimes be frozen (depends very much on the vagaries of the bank not to mention the staff involved at the moment critique). Just what one does not want at such a time.
Both good points, but of course you can have as many current accounts as you want, and many banks will pay/incentivise you to open them. I have ended up with too many! But 1 is not enough imo.
Really? I've had the same current account for thirty years and never had a problem with it.
If they ever suspect your account of money laundering you might not have access to it for weeks or months and wont communicate with you or even your lawyer. Its obviously a slim chance it happens for most people, but when you get paid to take out the insurance of additional current accounts why not?
I wonder whether operating multiple accounts might be a red flag for money laundering probes though!
I had two current accounts for a couple of years - one being a shadow account where the SLC could pay money in, as I wouldn’t give them the details to my main account - and it didn’t trip any flags.
It is completely mainstream and sensible to have multiple current accounts.
I do find multiple accounts comforting in the same (perhaps illogical) way I like accumulating different pots of hard cash ie in the car (for parking and emergencies) , in my parkrun barcode wallet (so dont cart a bigger wallet round with me when i run) , in the kitchen (for petty cash) and of course a wad in my wallet.
As for joint accounts with partners i find it best not to be too anal (as that can cause arguments and resentment) but have some individual freedom and money so to not feel guilt about indulgent spending /punting
So when does the oven-ready deal that we were promised by the clown and his friends come out of the oven?
"The deal was ready for the oven but the Brussels bureaucrats refused to bake it. That's why we have to leave with No Deal, so we can make our own ovens to our own standards!"
Mr R-M doing his best to win hearts and minds. Pretty obvious what he means.
'Rees-Mogg said that he appreciated his fellow Tory’s point, adding: “The last Labour government decided to take a wrecking ball to our constitution and made a bit of a muddle with it.
“Some of their most foolish interventions were their constitutional blunders which were out of step with many centuries of our parliamentary democracy. Blairite constitutional tinkering has weakened our parliament and has helped to divide the United Kingdom.
“I hope that this government finds an effective way of restoring our constitution to its proper form.”'
Memo: Devolution is even more popular in Scotland than independence.
Vote Tory End Devolution! Not quite the resonance of Take Back Control or Get Brexit Done imho.
How about "Vote Tory Screw The Scots"?
Bit like 2015.
The precious union:
It’s a good job they used a man not a woman in that ad...
I'm probably being dim having to work through a tedious TS at the moment, but why should a woman make any difference? IIRC they showed Mr Miliband in Ms Sturgeon's pocket.
You don’t think a photoshopped image of Salmond potentially reaching out to touch a woman’s arse might be a trifle - problematic?
Ah, I thought you meant a woman doing the stealing! The alternative had never occurred to me, partly because the dosh was so obvious, and partly because that ad antedated recent events.
Ummmm...there had been rumours for a fair time, although they weren’t necessarily circulated among the general public. https://youtu.be/Y3kqYyezeTY
Is that Ruth Davidson? I wouldn't [edit] have trusted anything she said, after the "burly men" allegations she came up with about intimidation at polling stations.
It’s Ian Hislop’s face that’s significant. He had heard there was something funny going on but was far too careful to say it.
Mr R-M doing his best to win hearts and minds. Pretty obvious what he means.
'Rees-Mogg said that he appreciated his fellow Tory’s point, adding: “The last Labour government decided to take a wrecking ball to our constitution and made a bit of a muddle with it.
“Some of their most foolish interventions were their constitutional blunders which were out of step with many centuries of our parliamentary democracy. Blairite constitutional tinkering has weakened our parliament and has helped to divide the United Kingdom.
“I hope that this government finds an effective way of restoring our constitution to its proper form.”'
Memo: Devolution is even more popular in Scotland than independence.
Vote Tory End Devolution! Not quite the resonance of Take Back Control or Get Brexit Done imho.
How about "Vote Tory Screw The Scots"?
Bit like 2015.
The precious union:
It’s a good job they used a man not a woman in that ad...
I'm probably being dim having to work through a tedious TS at the moment, but why should a woman make any difference? IIRC they showed Mr Miliband in Ms Sturgeon's pocket.
You don’t think a photoshopped image of Salmond potentially reaching out to touch a woman’s arse might be a trifle - problematic?
Ah, I thought you meant a woman doing the stealing! The alternative had never occurred to me, partly because the dosh was so obvious, and partly because that ad antedated recent events.
Ummmm...there had been rumours for a fair time, although they weren’t necessarily circulated among the general public. https://youtu.be/Y3kqYyezeTY
Is that Ruth Davidson? I wouldn't [edit] have trusted anything she said, after the "burly men" allegations she came up with about intimidation at polling stations.
It’s Ian Hislop’s face that’s significant. He had heard there was something funny going on but was far too careful to say it.
Mr R-M doing his best to win hearts and minds. Pretty obvious what he means.
'Rees-Mogg said that he appreciated his fellow Tory’s point, adding: “The last Labour government decided to take a wrecking ball to our constitution and made a bit of a muddle with it.
“Some of their most foolish interventions were their constitutional blunders which were out of step with many centuries of our parliamentary democracy. Blairite constitutional tinkering has weakened our parliament and has helped to divide the United Kingdom.
“I hope that this government finds an effective way of restoring our constitution to its proper form.”'
Memo: Devolution is even more popular in Scotland than independence.
Vote Tory End Devolution! Not quite the resonance of Take Back Control or Get Brexit Done imho.
How about "Vote Tory Screw The Scots"?
Bit like 2015.
The precious union:
It’s a good job they used a man not a woman in that ad...
I'm probably being dim having to work through a tedious TS at the moment, but why should a woman make any difference? IIRC they showed Mr Miliband in Ms Sturgeon's pocket.
You don’t think a photoshopped image of Salmond potentially reaching out to touch a woman’s arse might be a trifle - problematic?
Ah, I thought you meant a woman doing the stealing! The alternative had never occurred to me, partly because the dosh was so obvious, and partly because that ad antedated recent events.
Ummmm...there had been rumours for a fair time, although they weren’t necessarily circulated among the general public. https://youtu.be/Y3kqYyezeTY
Is that Ruth Davidson? I wouldn't [edit] have trusted anything she said, after the "burly men" allegations she came up with about intimidation at polling stations.
It’s Ian Hislop’s face that’s significant. He had heard there was something funny going on but was far too careful to say it.
Mr R-M doing his best to win hearts and minds. Pretty obvious what he means.
'Rees-Mogg said that he appreciated his fellow Tory’s point, adding: “The last Labour government decided to take a wrecking ball to our constitution and made a bit of a muddle with it.
“Some of their most foolish interventions were their constitutional blunders which were out of step with many centuries of our parliamentary democracy. Blairite constitutional tinkering has weakened our parliament and has helped to divide the United Kingdom.
“I hope that this government finds an effective way of restoring our constitution to its proper form.”'
Memo: Devolution is even more popular in Scotland than independence.
Vote Tory End Devolution! Not quite the resonance of Take Back Control or Get Brexit Done imho.
How about "Vote Tory Screw The Scots"?
Bit like 2015.
The precious union:
It’s a good job they used a man not a woman in that ad...
I'm probably being dim having to work through a tedious TS at the moment, but why should a woman make any difference? IIRC they showed Mr Miliband in Ms Sturgeon's pocket.
You don’t think a photoshopped image of Salmond potentially reaching out to touch a woman’s arse might be a trifle - problematic?
Ah, I thought you meant a woman doing the stealing! The alternative had never occurred to me, partly because the dosh was so obvious, and partly because that ad antedated recent events.
Ummmm...there had been rumours for a fair time, although they weren’t necessarily circulated among the general public. https://youtu.be/Y3kqYyezeTY
Is that Ruth Davidson? I wouldn't [edit] have trusted anything she said, after the "burly men" allegations she came up with about intimidation at polling stations.
It’s Ian Hislop’s face that’s significant. He had heard there was something funny going on but was far too careful to say it.
If Boris offered an independence referendum with this electorate:
Those eligible to vote in a Westminster general election in Scotland, ie no under 18s and no non-British, plus Scots living in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Would you accept ?
No.
1. Criterion of birth is Blood and Soil thinking. 2. It is unevenly applied - those incomers living in Scotland are allowed to vote. 3. No existing listing - there is no official Scots nationality ergo no objective documentary criterion ([edit] I do know about FRance and expat French, but when there is an elecvtion in France the French take their passports along).
Letting Scots living in the rest of the UK (and indeed world) is no different to allowing ex-pats to vote. It's understood that they may well return to the UK one day and still have a real stake in its future. The criteria would simply be British citizenship and having been born in Scotland and/or having lived there for some minimum period of time.
I think Nats are against this and in favour of letting children and non-Brits vote not because of any real principle, but because they want to fix the franchise in their favour.
Still impossible to implement without risk of mass fraud.
And if Mr Cameron was happy with the 2014 franchise, which was actually that for residents in Scotland and defined long before indyref 1, why change?
Is your objection to this that it would be hard to implement and risks fraud, or that it would make it harder for Yes to win?
It wouldn't be that hard to implement. There are Council Tax and electoral roll records, I assume, which would be used to determine eligibility to vote for Scots outside Scotland.
As I've said elsewhere, Cameron made an error, but that's no reason to make it again. He probably thought that No was such a shoo-in there was no point arguing about the franchise.
How exactly do you define a Scotch person? Both parents Scotch. One parent Scotch? Born within sight of a highland cow?
Exactly , what a bunch of tossers, only missing the dead counting as against independence. They want to F*** right off and leave it to the people of Scotland to decide what they want. Whinging arseholes never stop slagging us off but are desperate to hang on to us as prisoners.
Comments
It was no surprise to find the ever tin-eared TSE praising Drakeford's COVID response the other day on pb.com.
Which is good as a lot of the Christmas presents for this family are Baby Yoda related.
Chelsea fans, FFS...
https://twitter.com/toadmeister/status/1332700653316083712?s=21
It has become worse ever since we won the world cup in 2003.
It has brought a nasty vicious side out in the Welsh.
I think the rugby world cups have shattered the Welsh perceived excellence in rugby, the English win it and go to finals, whilst the Welsh go out to Western Samoa.
(a) I find it a great relief that Mrs C and I each have our own, as well as a joint account - with 2 different banks, so if one bank falls over digitally or otherwise we still have some action.
(b) if one of two operators of a joiunt account dies then a joint account can sometimes be frozen (depends very much on the vagaries of the bank not to mention the staff involved at the moment critique). Just what one does not want at such a time.
I've been to Dublin, Edinburgh, and Paris on Six Nation weekends before and after 2003 and nothing has changed, it's fun, enjoyable, and banterful, but go to Cardiff and the Welsh have a nasty edge to it.
Honestly I would have thought after 2015 it would have allowed the Welsh to heal but no.
You paid how much for a hairdo...you spent how much on a computer etc.
Her money is her money and I have no right to comment on what she does with it and vice versa. Probably in most cases 70% of monthly incomes are going into the joint account in any case.
Most people I know just prefer being in a situation where they don't have to say to their partner....would you mind if I spent some of the joint money on this which is just for me.
Should he have been arrested in the first place, how can anyone tell from that clip alone?
This is their world cup final.
Now imagine after budget is spent you have about 200 left over a month between you. If you keep that joint when is someone ever going to feel its ok to spend 500 on something they really wanted? One of my exes did on a handbag...yes I don't understand it and if that 500 had come out of joint money I would probably have said hey hang on...and she would have felt guilty spending it. As it was her private money she got to buy guilt free and have something you really wanted. She wasn't much of a big spender either it was just something you really desired.
When I was married we had a joint account which used to be one of single accounts which I added my wife to but my wife couldn't answer some basic questions like 'When did you open this account/where did you open it?' when she had some issues later on.
So it can be a mixture of banks being extra careful and simple verification not being passed, so the account is frozen until you go into a branch and prove a few things.
On the paragraph about the growth of media, I'll just throw out that Scottish Broadsheet journalism is largely of very low quality. There's nowhere really to go if you want to read what's happening in Scotland from a non-partisan source.
https://youtu.be/Y3kqYyezeTY
They won't look at if you've got around £85k in multiple accounts with different banks.
https://twitter.com/Rob_Merrick/status/1332729181365481479
Other major trigger is when the bank thinks you're using a personal account for business purposes.
https://www.ii.co.uk/analysis-commentary/7-reasons-you-should-have-more-one-current-account-ii512664
Welsh data in the last few days not looking good. If they really don't lock down again until Friday, the rise in reported numbers will continue until mid December, with the resulting spike in deaths around New Year. Cases/week/100,000 currently around 220. It looks likely they'll surpass the previous peek at 300.
As for joint accounts with partners i find it best not to be too anal (as that can cause arguments and resentment) but have some individual freedom and money so to not feel guilt about indulgent spending /punting
What's hers is hers.
What's mine is hers too.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55116475
Edit - actually, October 2015, so not ‘early.’
From case data
From hospitalisation data
https://twitter.com/CNEWS/status/1332729038872449025
https://www.dw.com/en/france-police-officers-accused-of-beating-black-music-producer-arrested/a-55751710