politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » We need to re-think next CON leader betting following Camer
Comments
-
And she wanted to be Foreign Secretary. Indeed she got all huffy when Blair very sensibly said no, and walked out.Innocent_Abroad said:
Could do worse. The story goes that Paisley and Adams looked at each other after meeting Mo Mowlem on her first day in the job, and each said to the other "I know I'm mad and you're madder but, boy, we're just beginners compared to her"...ydoethur said:
Give that teacher a DCarlottaVance said:
Still is, isn't he?ydoethur said:
Not quite the only one. Howard was Jewish.Conservative_Boy said:I wonder when Mike et al will stop tipping Sajid Javid as next Conservative party leader (which will be a few years yet). The Conservatives are not Labour, they will choose someone who can actually win an election. This will be a white, middle aged Christian man - the only leader of recent decades who didn't fit this stereotype was Thatcher.
Boris to Northern Ireland...
Would the idea be that they spend so much time laughing at him they haven't time for anything else, or that they finally get to agree on something - how much they hate Boris?
Please remember, while arguing about Disraeli's Jewishness, that Judaism is a race as well as a religion. Disraeli famously described himself as a Jew in 1835, while withering Daniel O'Connell: 'When his ancestors were blue with woad, mine were priests in the temples of Solomon.'
0 -
I think the question is whether such a thing is possible. Rather like a lapsed ScotsmanInnocent_Abroad said:Disraeli was a lapsed Jew.
Anyway I was just reading that article in the Telegraph when one of those intriguing sidebars came up.......
http://elpais.com/elpais/2016/04/04/inenglish/1459755721_130146.html?id_externo_promo=ob-externo-english0 -
I agree with Mike OGH.
Pritti Patel
Graham Brady
Andrea Leadsom
0 -
I do not agree with Mike about Crabb and Truss.0
-
Mr. L, only because Miliband was an idiot.
If ethnic Judaism is sufficient to be first Jewish PM, Disraeli beat him by a century.
If religious Judaism is necessary, Miliband's not eligible.0 -
I dunno; there are some very unpleasant referrences to Jews in Victorian ..... think Fagin ....and even thirties literatures. I was quite shocked at something about a “typical Jew-boy” I found in an AP Herbert book.foxinsoxuk said:
His parents converted to Anglicanism. He was ethnically Jewish but not religiously so.Innocent_Abroad said:Disraeli was a lapsed Jew.
Not that it matters much. If the Victorians were not that bothered then why should anyone else be?
Religion plays much less of a place in politics here than across the pond. Thank God!0 -
Certainly from my experience the strongest support of homosexuality from Muslims is that it is "not illegal". There is usually no support from a human rights perspective.MarqueeMark said:
Maybe the survey only reached the ones who could speak English?Conservative_Boy said:
The only surprise here is that it is as low as 52%.Plato_Says said:This is going to cause a stir... ICM for Channel 4 documentary, 52% of Muslims surveyed thought homosexuality should be illegal. Well worth reading whole article with Trevor Philips. He's downbeat.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/half-of-muslims-say-gays-should-be-outlawed-cb5bcdtcx0 -
Also I'd question what you mean by Middle Aged. I believe that Cameron was 38 while Howard was 61 when elected. Presumably one of them is not Middle Aged.ydoethur said:
Not quite the only one. Howard was Jewish.Conservative_Boy said:I wonder when Mike et al will stop tipping Sajid Javid as next Conservative party leader (which will be a few years yet). The Conservatives are not Labour, they will choose someone who can actually win an election. This will be a white, middle aged Christian man - the only leader of recent decades who didn't fit this stereotype was Thatcher.
0 -
Genuinely surprised the Prime Minister earns so little.Thought he would have had some other nice little earners bubbling away.
No wonder he wants to get out of Downing Street and onto those Streets Paved With Gold so well trodden by Blair and Brown....0 -
Yes - and I explained I meant "leaders" as in PM. Howard doesn't count - either as a PM or as a "leader".Philip_Thompson said:
Also I'd question what you mean by Middle Aged. I believe that Cameron was 38 while Howard was 61 when elected. Presumably one of them is not Middle Aged.ydoethur said:
Not quite the only one. Howard was Jewish.Conservative_Boy said:I wonder when Mike et al will stop tipping Sajid Javid as next Conservative party leader (which will be a few years yet). The Conservatives are not Labour, they will choose someone who can actually win an election. This will be a white, middle aged Christian man - the only leader of recent decades who didn't fit this stereotype was Thatcher.
0 -
There was a lot of briefing against Mo Mowlam from Blairites (giving the lie to Brownites having a monopoly on smears) and she was replaced by Peter Mandelson. It was said at the time her fate was sealed when conference gave her a bigger ovation that Tony Blair's.Innocent_Abroad said:
Could do worse. The story goes that Paisley and Adams looked at each other after meeting Mo Mowlem on her first day in the job, and each said to the other "I know I'm mad and you're madder but, boy, we're just beginners compared to her"...ydoethur said:
Give that teacher a DCarlottaVance said:
Still is, isn't he?ydoethur said:
Not quite the only one. Howard was Jewish.Conservative_Boy said:I wonder when Mike et al will stop tipping Sajid Javid as next Conservative party leader (which will be a few years yet). The Conservatives are not Labour, they will choose someone who can actually win an election. This will be a white, middle aged Christian man - the only leader of recent decades who didn't fit this stereotype was Thatcher.
Boris to Northern Ireland...
Would the idea be that they spend so much time laughing at him they haven't time for anything else, or that they finally get to agree on something - how much they hate Boris?0 -
Sure, anti-semitism was present and more blatent then than now. It didn't stop Disraeli reaching the top. Britons have tended to be fairly pragmatic in these things.OldKingCole said:
I dunno; there are some very unpleasant referrences to Jews in Victorian ..... think Fagin ....and even thirties literatures. I was quite shocked at something about a “typical Jew-boy” I found in an AP Herbert book.foxinsoxuk said:
His parents converted to Anglicanism. He was ethnically Jewish but not religiously so.Innocent_Abroad said:Disraeli was a lapsed Jew.
Not that it matters much. If the Victorians were not that bothered then why should anyone else be?
Religion plays much less of a place in politics here than across the pond. Thank God!
BTW. Bacalau is fairly easy to find in Madeira, as you asked yesterday.0 -
Contrary to what we all assumed there is now a way that Labour can win in 2020. It does, however, involve the replacement of Corbyn and McDonnell with the likes of Jarvis and Creasy. Down to Labour: it's there if they want it ...0
-
Your people thought Section 28 was a good thing until about a decade ago.Plato_Says said:This is going to cause a stir... ICM for Channel 4 documentary, 52% of Muslims surveyed thought homosexuality should be illegal. Well worth reading whole article with Trevor Philips. He's downbeat.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/half-of-muslims-say-gays-should-be-outlawed-cb5bcdtcx
"... shall not promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship"0 -
A further comment on the thread header: Sajid Javid is not someone I'd tip anyway but given that he was an investment banker I would have thought that he is more rather than less likely to have had something unusual in his tax returns. Indeed, questions have already been asked of him about Deutsche Bank's bonus scheme.0
-
I think you may find that TSE differs on that.Conservative_Boy said:
Certainly from my experience the strongest support of homosexuality from Muslims is that it is "not illegal". There is usually no support from a human rights perspective.MarqueeMark said:
Maybe the survey only reached the ones who could speak English?Conservative_Boy said:
The only surprise here is that it is as low as 52%.Plato_Says said:This is going to cause a stir... ICM for Channel 4 documentary, 52% of Muslims surveyed thought homosexuality should be illegal. Well worth reading whole article with Trevor Philips. He's downbeat.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/half-of-muslims-say-gays-should-be-outlawed-cb5bcdtcx
I know plenty of assimilated Muslims quite comfortable with homosexual equality.0 -
In which case one third of recent Tory leaders don't meet your criteria. Seems an odd definition then.Conservative_Boy said:
Yes - and I explained I meant "leaders" as in PM. Howard doesn't count - either as a PM or as a "leader".Philip_Thompson said:
Also I'd question what you mean by Middle Aged. I believe that Cameron was 38 while Howard was 61 when elected. Presumably one of them is not Middle Aged.ydoethur said:
Not quite the only one. Howard was Jewish.Conservative_Boy said:I wonder when Mike et al will stop tipping Sajid Javid as next Conservative party leader (which will be a few years yet). The Conservatives are not Labour, they will choose someone who can actually win an election. This will be a white, middle aged Christian man - the only leader of recent decades who didn't fit this stereotype was Thatcher.
0 -
There is a world of difference between acceptable and illegal. Smoking around other people is unacceptable but it is not illegal.EPG said:
Your people thought Section 28 was a good thing until about a decade ago.Plato_Says said:This is going to cause a stir... ICM for Channel 4 documentary, 52% of Muslims surveyed thought homosexuality should be illegal. Well worth reading whole article with Trevor Philips. He's downbeat.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/half-of-muslims-say-gays-should-be-outlawed-cb5bcdtcx
"... shall not promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship"0 -
On the Tory leadership betting, I think given that all the leading candidates are flawed in one way or other, looking at the second field is the way to go. I agree with Mike that Truss is a possibility. Dare I also mention the nemesis of our own NPxMP?0
-
Yes. How people manage their own taxes is more important than what their parents did.AlastairMeeks said:A further comment on the thread header: Sajid Javid is not someone I'd tip anyway but given that he was an investment banker I would have thought that he is more rather than less likely to have had something unusual in his tax returns. Indeed, questions have already been asked of him about Deutsche Bank's bonus scheme.
For example:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9232715/Jeremy-Hunt-avoided-100000-tax-bill-in-deal-just-days-before-rate-rise.html0 -
It's the lack of genuineness that strikes me as the main problem not so much as the wealth factor for any political leader.It's this that's lost Cameron trust,and the Tory party it's most valuable asset.It hit me in spades when he got confused about which football team he supports.You can change your woman but never your football team.Thing was,Dave never really supported a football team.He only really got down and dirty wiv the bruvvas when he was burning £50 notes in front of homeless people.0
-
Agree; I think people tend to accept genuine ability. Agrtee too with your thoughts about religion in politics.foxinsoxuk said:
Sure, anti-semitism was present and more blatent then than now. It didn't stop Disraeli reaching the top. Britons have tended to be fairly pragmatic in these things.OldKingCole said:
I dunno; there are some very unpleasant referrences to Jews in Victorian ..... think Fagin ....and even thirties literatures. I was quite shocked at something about a “typical Jew-boy” I found in an AP Herbert book.foxinsoxuk said:
His parents converted to Anglicanism. He was ethnically Jewish but not religiously so.Innocent_Abroad said:Disraeli was a lapsed Jew.
Not that it matters much. If the Victorians were not that bothered then why should anyone else be?
Religion plays much less of a place in politics here than across the pond. Thank God!
BTW. Bacalau is fairly easy to find in Madeira, as you asked yesterday.
Thanks for the info about Bacalau; we’re off there for a week on 18th so shall have a look around.0 -
Imagine the reaction if it had been UKIP members. Downbeat would not have been the word.Conservative_Boy said:
The only surprise here is that it is as low as 52%.Plato_Says said:This is going to cause a stir... ICM for Channel 4 documentary, 52% of Muslims surveyed thought homosexuality should be illegal. Well worth reading whole article with Trevor Philips. He's downbeat.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/half-of-muslims-say-gays-should-be-outlawed-cb5bcdtcx0 -
I wouldn't take the nonsense that Cameron has to put up with for that sort of money..I have a friend who has just made $45 million in the States last year... he takes crap from no one..and he is nowhere near as bright as Cameron..0
-
I think that Daves support for Villa comes from a family link. I don't think he was ever an active supporter.volcanopete said:It's the lack of genuineness that strikes me as the main problem not so much as the wealth factor for any political leader.It's this that's lost Cameron trust,and the Tory party it's most valuable asset.It hit me in spades when he got confused about which football team he supports.You can change your woman but never your football team.Thing was,Dave never really supported a football team.He only really got down and dirty wiv the bruvvas when he was burning £50 notes in front of homeless people.
Its rather like having a favourite colour, everyone is expected to have a team.0 -
Then we know different people, and I am sure a minority of Muslims are OK with it. Most of the homosexual Muslims I know have been disowned by their families. That is not the case with non-Muslim families, including other Asian faiths.foxinsoxuk said:
I think you may find that TSE differs on that.Conservative_Boy said:
Certainly from my experience the strongest support of homosexuality from Muslims is that it is "not illegal". There is usually no support from a human rights perspective.MarqueeMark said:
Maybe the survey only reached the ones who could speak English?Conservative_Boy said:
The only surprise here is that it is as low as 52%.Plato_Says said:This is going to cause a stir... ICM for Channel 4 documentary, 52% of Muslims surveyed thought homosexuality should be illegal. Well worth reading whole article with Trevor Philips. He's downbeat.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/half-of-muslims-say-gays-should-be-outlawed-cb5bcdtcx
I know plenty of assimilated Muslims quite comfortable with homosexual equality.
And I don't care what TSE thinks.0 -
Quite so. It is a well used tactic, one I'm sure Cameron has used himself, to demand answers and then, even if they are given, act like they haven't or that more questions remain.Moses_ said:Actually even though Cameron has published the ludicrous headlines out of the Mirror etc will ensure that damage continues. Many of the population don't know the difference between "avoid" and "evade" ........just like a number of posters on this forum.
That's what his opponents are banking on and it is disingenuous for them to be claiming for him to be open an honest when they themselves are most certainly not being so.
In the ordinary course events maybe to keep at him over thus would be regarded as taken too far, but he lacks the uniform backing to force things to move on I think, he's too weak to fight back effectively because he's hamstrung by a lot of his own party wanting to see the back of him.
True enough.TwistedFireStopper said:"Rich bloke's family uses legal means to protect and enhance the family fortune" won't sell many papers, though, will it?
0 -
Not sure it's up for debate?JackW said:
Disraeli.Conservative_Boy said:
I meant Prime Ministers rather than leaders. Has there ever been a Jewish Prime Minister?ydoethur said:
Not quite the only one. Howard was Jewish.Conservative_Boy said:I wonder when Mike et al will stop tipping Sajid Javid as next Conservative party leader (which will be a few years yet). The Conservatives are not Labour, they will choose someone who can actually win an election. This will be a white, middle aged Christian man - the only leader of recent decades who didn't fit this stereotype was Thatcher.
Up for debate :
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/10761635/Britains-first-Jewish-PM-does-Disraeli-have-the-title.html
He was born Jewish but baptised (at about 17) Anglican.
So it turns on whether you think "Jewishness" is a function of race or religion0 -
It was, however, a piece of legislation. And though it never appears to have been enforced, it could, for example, have exposed schools to prosecution for teaching Shakespeare's sonnets.Conservative_Boy said:
There is a world of difference between acceptable and illegal. Smoking around other people is unacceptable but it is not illegal.EPG said:
Your people thought Section 28 was a good thing until about a decade ago.Plato_Says said:This is going to cause a stir... ICM for Channel 4 documentary, 52% of Muslims surveyed thought homosexuality should be illegal. Well worth reading whole article with Trevor Philips. He's downbeat.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/half-of-muslims-say-gays-should-be-outlawed-cb5bcdtcx
"... shall not promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship"0 -
In these questions, it is probably best to go by self-identification, so Miliband is Jewish.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. L, only because Miliband was an idiot.
If ethnic Judaism is sufficient to be first Jewish PM, Disraeli beat him by a century.
If religious Judaism is necessary, Miliband's not eligible.0 -
Glasgow North.Conservative_Boy said:
Hi you didn't respond to my question yesterday. I wondered which Constituency you were asked to stand in (you mentioned it yesterday)?TheScreamingEagles said:The Sunday Times reporting that Gove will be promoted to Deputy PM post referendum.
The suggestion that Gove will be promoted will fuel calls for him to stand for the leadership in the event of a vote for Brexit. Some of his friends believe he would be prepared to fight Johnson for the job if he could lead Britain out of the EU.
One said: “Michael used to want to be prime minister until his popularity collapsed around three years ago. He wanted to take Britain out of the EU. He is in politics to do things. If there is a vote to remain, does he want to be PM? Probably not. But if we do vote to leave, who is going to handle the negotiations — Boris? I don’t think so.”0 -
"Our people" had the spine to push ahead with gay marriage.EPG said:
Your people thought Section 28 was a good thing until about a decade ago.Plato_Says said:This is going to cause a stir... ICM for Channel 4 documentary, 52% of Muslims surveyed thought homosexuality should be illegal. Well worth reading whole article with Trevor Philips. He's downbeat.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/half-of-muslims-say-gays-should-be-outlawed-cb5bcdtcx
"... shall not promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship"
"Your people" thought Tony Blair was the dog's bollocks until about a decade ago.
Things change.0 -
Yet.Conservative_Boy said:
There is a world of difference between acceptable and illegal. Smoking around other people is unacceptable but it is not illegal.EPG said:
Your people thought Section 28 was a good thing until about a decade ago.Plato_Says said:This is going to cause a stir... ICM for Channel 4 documentary, 52% of Muslims surveyed thought homosexuality should be illegal. Well worth reading whole article with Trevor Philips. He's downbeat.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/half-of-muslims-say-gays-should-be-outlawed-cb5bcdtcx
"... shall not promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship"
0 -
He's only a little younger than Osborne.Conservative_Boy said:
I think you would have said that about Cameron and Osborne when they were younger. I don't think he will make it, but he is the best from admittedly a fairly weak list.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Boy, doubt that, to be honest. Goldsmith is a wet lettuce.
0 -
But by that definition so was Disraeli (see above).DecrepitJohnL said:
In these questions, it is probably best to go by self-identification, so Miliband is Jewish.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. L, only because Miliband was an idiot.
If ethnic Judaism is sufficient to be first Jewish PM, Disraeli beat him by a century.
If religious Judaism is necessary, Miliband's not eligible.0 -
Looking at this in the round, more than anything it's reminded me why I don't buy newspapers (other than an occasional FT) any longer* and in particular why absolutely nothing in the Telegraph or the Mail can be trusted for honesty or accuracy. That's pretty depressing stuff I'm afraid.
*does picking them up for free in Waitrose count?0 -
Your attacks on Hunt are as weak and obvious as your 'defence' of Burnham over Stafford ...foxinsoxuk said:
Yes. How people manage their own taxes is more important than what their parents did.AlastairMeeks said:A further comment on the thread header: Sajid Javid is not someone I'd tip anyway but given that he was an investment banker I would have thought that he is more rather than less likely to have had something unusual in his tax returns. Indeed, questions have already been asked of him about Deutsche Bank's bonus scheme.
For example:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9232715/Jeremy-Hunt-avoided-100000-tax-bill-in-deal-just-days-before-rate-rise.html0 -
Wherever the Prime Minister's support comes from, he ought to distinguish Aston Villa from West Ham, even if they do sport the same colours (historical trivia: West Ham did literally play in Aston Villa colours, which they'd won in a bet).foxinsoxuk said:
I think that Daves support for Villa comes from a family link. I don't think he was ever an active supporter.volcanopete said:It's the lack of genuineness that strikes me as the main problem not so much as the wealth factor for any political leader.It's this that's lost Cameron trust,and the Tory party it's most valuable asset.It hit me in spades when he got confused about which football team he supports.You can change your woman but never your football team.Thing was,Dave never really supported a football team.He only really got down and dirty wiv the bruvvas when he was burning £50 notes in front of homeless people.
Its rather like having a favourite colour, everyone is expected to have a team.0 -
The definition of middle aged is very simple:Philip_Thompson said:
Also I'd question what you mean by Middle Aged. I believe that Cameron was 38 while Howard was 61 when elected. Presumably one of them is not Middle Aged.ydoethur said:
Not quite the only one. Howard was Jewish.Conservative_Boy said:I wonder when Mike et al will stop tipping Sajid Javid as next Conservative party leader (which will be a few years yet). The Conservatives are not Labour, they will choose someone who can actually win an election. This will be a white, middle aged Christian man - the only leader of recent decades who didn't fit this stereotype was Thatcher.
your current age + 50 -
Only if you interpret them without knowledge of the historical context and with zero knowledge of the English language.ThomasNashe said:
It was, however, a piece of legislation. And though it never appears to have been enforced, it could, for example, have exposed schools to prosecution for teaching Shakespeare's sonnets.Conservative_Boy said:
There is a world of difference between acceptable and illegal. Smoking around other people is unacceptable but it is not illegal.EPG said:
Your people thought Section 28 was a good thing until about a decade ago.Plato_Says said:This is going to cause a stir... ICM for Channel 4 documentary, 52% of Muslims surveyed thought homosexuality should be illegal. Well worth reading whole article with Trevor Philips. He's downbeat.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/half-of-muslims-say-gays-should-be-outlawed-cb5bcdtcx
"... shall not promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship"
I know there are 'scholars' that do that, but there's no need to follow the lunatic fringe too far.
Moreover Shakespeare never talked about the other man as a member of his family, although it seems likely he saw him as a surrogate son after Hamnet's death.0 -
@HTScotPol: Corruption report author "surprised" at Scottish Government deal with blacklisted Chinese firm https://t.co/iRJJ0NYJCy0
-
And WTF is with that Sunday Tines story? Cameron to comply with tax law? What next - Cameron has the temerity to avoid tax by putting some money in an ISA? The bastard....
If people on the Left get wound up by people doing legitimate tax planning, then next time they are in power they could try spending less time on their pet virtue-waving projects and spend more time PROPERLY SCRUTINISING THE BUDGET FOR LOOPHOLES.0 -
Excuse me!AlastairMeeks said:A further comment on the thread header: Sajid Javid is not someone I'd tip anyway but given that he was an investment banker I would have thought that he is more rather than less likely to have had something unusual in his tax returns. Indeed, questions have already been asked of him about Deutsche Bank's bonus scheme.
0 -
Not Bootle?Theuniondivvie said:
Glasgow North.Conservative_Boy said:
Hi you didn't respond to my question yesterday. I wondered which Constituency you were asked to stand in (you mentioned it yesterday)?TheScreamingEagles said:The Sunday Times reporting that Gove will be promoted to Deputy PM post referendum.
The suggestion that Gove will be promoted will fuel calls for him to stand for the leadership in the event of a vote for Brexit. Some of his friends believe he would be prepared to fight Johnson for the job if he could lead Britain out of the EU.
One said: “Michael used to want to be prime minister until his popularity collapsed around three years ago. He wanted to take Britain out of the EU. He is in politics to do things. If there is a vote to remain, does he want to be PM? Probably not. But if we do vote to leave, who is going to handle the negotiations — Boris? I don’t think so.”0 -
All that Cameron has done is legal and proper - but that's not his problem. It's that he leads a government which has ground people who have little into the dirt (cf Iain Duncan Smith) - and had a "we're all in this together" slogan.
The politics of this are fairly simple. Man of privilege who benefits from tax avoidance condemns tax avoiders for cheap headlines. Man who has hundreds of thousands of tax avoided money in the bank receives disability benefits which he then takes off people who have nothing in the bank. Man who claims we need to make work pay receives more in tax avoidance from his family than "strivers" can hope to earn in decades.
Question now is how Cameron thinks he isn't going to be forced out this summer.0 -
No, but right now half the other baby eaters are condemning him for everything they can. It's hard to ride things out when you're own side are not helping.foxinsoxuk said:
I don't think so.Estobar said:The real problem with all this is that it reminds us how privileged Cameron is. We knew it, of course, but went along with his 'Call me Dave' meme. He seemed a decent enough leftist Tory, especially when kept in place by Clegg. (NB, no Josias he didn't win two elections.) What we didn't enquire about we put on the back burner. We knew he was wealthy but lacked details to annoy us.
200k gifts from Mummy and 300k inheritance from Daddy are a long way from most people's livelihoods. On top of shielding himself from tax, despite having pledged to stop that sort of antic, just makes him even more remote from us ordinary folk.
Mike's right. The Tories will have to choose a down-to-earth leader or they're back out of power for 20 years.
Politicians are an odd bunch, and are not expected to be like normal people. Cameron was known to be wealthy when he became leader and he brought the party back to government. It doesn't seem to have held him back.
Similarly Jezzas romantic motorcycle tour of East Germany is just a curious illustration of how different politicians are from ordinary experience.
I think Cameron will ride this out fine, and it doesn't really weigh much in the balance of who is next Tory leader.
People who roast babies and kick crutches away from the disabled are not expected to play nice with their monies.
Like others I'm struck by how the sums are not massive. Far beyond my own meagre resources p, and maybe I say this from ignorance, but I sort if expect most people who go to Etonian to at least draw down a cool million from an inheritance.0 -
"Like"MarqueeMark said:
"Our people" had the spine to push ahead with gay marriage.EPG said:
Your people thought Section 28 was a good thing until about a decade ago.Plato_Says said:This is going to cause a stir... ICM for Channel 4 documentary, 52% of Muslims surveyed thought homosexuality should be illegal. Well worth reading whole article with Trevor Philips. He's downbeat.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/half-of-muslims-say-gays-should-be-outlawed-cb5bcdtcx
"... shall not promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship"
"Your people" thought Tony Blair was the dog's bollocks until about a decade ago.
Things change.0 -
Its a view, others might say what goes around comes around. You're not a newcomer to this site, you witnessed the attacks on Miliband last year.Roger said:A crazy decision by Cameron in my opinion. He should know that he's now declared open season on himself and our insatiable press will now crucify him. It could be that he just resigns. Why would someone who is leaving anyway and has done nothing wrong put himself and his family through this?
Mike says the pressure will now be on others particularly those standing for the Tory leadership. I'm not sure. Our feral press has an agenda. Those who share it like Johnson get a free pass. Those who don't like Osborne and Cameron get the treatmet.
Altogether a very ugly episode in British politics.0 -
It's quite predictable that the press will choose as a headline a perfectly legal and common inheritance procedure. The press is only interested in prying ( remember phone hacking) and general nosiness. All about selling papers with gossip or a false stick to beat your political opponents.0
-
Sonnet 116, 'Let me not to the marriage of true minds admit impediment' was often cited by campaigners for gay marriage.ydoethur said:
Only if you interpret them without knowledge of the historical context and with zero knowledge of the English language.ThomasNashe said:
It was, however, a piece of legislation. And though it never appears to have been enforced, it could, for example, have exposed schools to prosecution for teaching Shakespeare's sonnets.Conservative_Boy said:
There is a world of difference between acceptable and illegal. Smoking around other people is unacceptable but it is not illegal.EPG said:
Your people thought Section 28 was a good thing until about a decade ago.Plato_Says said:This is going to cause a stir... ICM for Channel 4 documentary, 52% of Muslims surveyed thought homosexuality should be illegal. Well worth reading whole article with Trevor Philips. He's downbeat.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/half-of-muslims-say-gays-should-be-outlawed-cb5bcdtcx
"... shall not promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship"
I know there are 'scholars' that do that, but there's no need to follow the lunatic fringe too far.
Moreover Shakespeare never talked about the other man as a member of his family, although it seems likely he saw him as a surrogate son after Hamnet's death.0 -
Ordinarily I'd agree, but that's a tactic when you expect to pick up support by default as the others throw mud, and it isn't happening. The LDs need publicity, they need to be bold and be noticed, or they'll remain i the doldrums no matter how crap the big two get.edmundintokyo said:
If Lab and Con are throwing mud at each other that feels like an excellent opportunity for the LibDems to STFU.JosiasJessop said:But where are the Lib Dems? Please Farron, get your act together ...
0 -
Unfair then, unfair now.blackburn63 said:
Its a view, others might say what goes around comes around. You're not a newcomer to this site, you witnessed the attacks on Miliband last year.Roger said:A crazy decision by Cameron in my opinion. He should know that he's now declared open season on himself and our insatiable press will now crucify him. It could be that he just resigns. Why would someone who is leaving anyway and has done nothing wrong put himself and his family through this?
Mike says the pressure will now be on others particularly those standing for the Tory leadership. I'm not sure. Our feral press has an agenda. Those who share it like Johnson get a free pass. Those who don't like Osborne and Cameron get the treatmet.
Altogether a very ugly episode in British politics.
0 -
DavidL said:
My daughter had each way bets on first and second yesterday, the winner at 40-1. Only modest sums but she did really well. I will be asking her for tips next year.JackW said:
If it's a decent jumper next year you might be the lucky winner of the Grand National.Jonathan said:£200k? All I got was a jumper.
Surely most of Cameron's wealth is in property- that Notting Hill house he owns must be worth a mint. Bear in mind he has had free accommodation for the last 6 years too.DavidL said:Am I alone in being surprised at the relatively modest sums involved here? I thought Cameron was genuinely rich. He clearly isn't, he is very comfortably well off but the multi millionaire image has been reduced to something considerably more modest.
I am really surprised that he only had £140K of shares to sell when organising himself to become PM. Not much sign of tax planning in that family despite the claims about avoiding IHT. Running 6 years income together to claim someone earned £1m is almost Brownian in its dishonesty, as is adding in his wife's share of the income.
On that basis I am not entirely sure I agree with the premise of the thread. If moderately successful, pretty comfortable people like this are somehow deemed too prosperous to be our PM we are in trouble.0 -
I too am surprised at Cameron’s financial statement. His father left £2m or so didn’t he? Presumably much/most of that went to his widow. Cameron’s sisters had a £2m or so house between them, IIRC.
Eton’s fees are currently just S or £30k pa and both sons went there, plus the girls went somewhere nearly as expensive so either educating his children nearly bankrupted Ian Cameron or there’s a lot more money stashed away somewhere.0 -
Now that is what journalists should be concentrating on. Not some confected nonsense.foxinsoxuk said:
Yes. How people manage their own taxes is more important than what their parents did.AlastairMeeks said:A further comment on the thread header: Sajid Javid is not someone I'd tip anyway but given that he was an investment banker I would have thought that he is more rather than less likely to have had something unusual in his tax returns. Indeed, questions have already been asked of him about Deutsche Bank's bonus scheme.
For example:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9232715/Jeremy-Hunt-avoided-100000-tax-bill-in-deal-just-days-before-rate-rise.html
Incidentally Polly Toynbee is now saying it's not about immorality but about being so rich. Is Camern SO rich? From the figures that have come out so far he'd struggle to send his kids to Eton0 -
Just pointing out how those in the Tory cabinet handle their own finances.JosiasJessop said:
Your attacks on Hunt are as weak and obvious as your 'defence' of Burnham over Stafford ...foxinsoxuk said:
Yes. How people manage their own taxes is more important than what their parents did.AlastairMeeks said:A further comment on the thread header: Sajid Javid is not someone I'd tip anyway but given that he was an investment banker I would have thought that he is more rather than less likely to have had something unusual in his tax returns. Indeed, questions have already been asked of him about Deutsche Bank's bonus scheme.
For example:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9232715/Jeremy-Hunt-avoided-100000-tax-bill-in-deal-just-days-before-rate-rise.html
Hunt is proving to be a disaster. You cannot run a 7 day NHS with 20% or more of front line posts unfilled.
As a stay at home dad you should be particularly concerned how thin paediatric cover will be in August. The fill rate for posts is at its lowest level ever.0 -
Well, he has had accommodation provided by his work, a bit like a janitor. Did you not think he was worth a lot more that that? I honestly expected him to be receiving about £1m a year, not over 6 years.not_on_fire said:DavidL said:
My daughter had each way bets on first and second yesterday, the winner at 40-1. Only modest sums but she did really well. I will be asking her for tips next year.JackW said:
If it's a decent jumper next year you might be the lucky winner of the Grand National.Jonathan said:£200k? All I got was a jumper.
Surely most of Cameron's wealth is in property- that Notting Hill house he owns must be worth a mint. Bear in mind he has had free accommodation for the last 6 years too.DavidL said:Am I alone in being surprised at the relatively modest sums involved here? I thought Cameron was genuinely rich. He clearly isn't, he is very comfortably well off but the multi millionaire image has been reduced to something considerably more modest.
I am really surprised that he only had £140K of shares to sell when organising himself to become PM. Not much sign of tax planning in that family despite the claims about avoiding IHT. Running 6 years income together to claim someone earned £1m is almost Brownian in its dishonesty, as is adding in his wife's share of the income.
On that basis I am not entirely sure I agree with the premise of the thread. If moderately successful, pretty comfortable people like this are somehow deemed too prosperous to be our PM we are in trouble.0 -
A shame a majority of 'your people' voted against gay marriage both in Westminster and Holyrood.MarqueeMark said:
"Our people" had the spine to push ahead with gay marriage.EPG said:
Your people thought Section 28 was a good thing until about a decade ago.Plato_Says said:This is going to cause a stir... ICM for Channel 4 documentary, 52% of Muslims surveyed thought homosexuality should be illegal. Well worth reading whole article with Trevor Philips. He's downbeat.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/half-of-muslims-say-gays-should-be-outlawed-cb5bcdtcx
"... shall not promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship"
"Your people" thought Tony Blair was the dog's bollocks until about a decade ago.
Things change.
Things change, but not that quickly.0 -
The big story is Prime Minister still hasn't done anything wrong, in fact he's paid more than he should by not taking £20k PM tax perk.MarqueeMark said:
And WTF is with that Sunday Tines story? Cameron to comply with tax law? What next - Cameron has the temerity to avoid tax by putting some money in an ISA? The bastard....
If people on the Left get wound up by people doing legitimate tax planning, then next time they are in power they could try spending less time on their pet virtue-waving projects and spend more time PROPERLY SCRUTINISING THE BUDGET FOR LOOPHOLES.0 -
Isn't it just a reflection of the fact that as PM he has had to say no to many, many opportunities to make far more money than he has now in order to avoid looking corrupt? Something that I suspect will change when he leaves office.
I do hope this sets a precedent for PMs and other senior ministers releasing their tax returns though. The public have a right to know if their leaders are in hoc to any outside interests.0 -
The story is simply 'Take if from them and give it to me'.MarqueeMark said:And WTF is with that Sunday Tines story? Cameron to comply with tax law? What next - Cameron has the temerity to avoid tax by putting some money in an ISA? The bastard....
The twentieth century was an "we're all in it together" century - effectively everyone got richer together.
In the twenty-first people only get richer at the expense of someone else. So there's always going to be resentment against people who do well.
As an example remember the glee among many PB Tories at the restriction of pension fund allowances.
0 -
I agree. That's what happens when you employ an Australian vulgarian to run your election campaign for you. His decision making about personnel has always been suspect.blackburn63 said:
Its a view, others might say what goes around comes around. You're not a newcomer to this site, you witnessed the attacks on Miliband last year.Roger said:A crazy decision by Cameron in my opinion. He should know that he's now declared open season on himself and our insatiable press will now crucify him. It could be that he just resigns. Why would someone who is leaving anyway and has done nothing wrong put himself and his family through this?
Mike says the pressure will now be on others particularly those standing for the Tory leadership. I'm not sure. Our feral press has an agenda. Those who share it like Johnson get a free pass. Those who don't like Osborne and Cameron get the treatmet.
Altogether a very ugly episode in British politics.
0 -
Mr. L, no.
Self-identification is tosh. You can't eat a bacon sarnie, proclaim yourself an atheist, then say you're (religiously) Jewish.
If it's ethnicity, then Disraeli was first.0 -
I hope she is being g a bit more subtle than that. I hate it when people are so lazy they imply being rich means someone is unable to understand the issues and have good solutions for the problems of normal people. If they want to say it makes it harder for someone to understand and that this specific rich person doesn't, that's a better argument, but the mere fact of richness or poshness is not a barrier, and when people are lazy they imply it is and that applies to their own side.Roger said:
Now that is what journalists should be concentrating on. Not some confected nonsense.foxinsoxuk said:
Yes. How people manage their own taxes is more important than what their parents did.AlastairMeeks said:A further comment on the thread header: Sajid Javid is not someone I'd tip anyway but given that he was an investment banker I would have thought that he is more rather than less likely to have had something unusual in his tax returns. Indeed, questions have already been asked of him about Deutsche Bank's bonus scheme.
For example:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9232715/Jeremy-Hunt-avoided-100000-tax-bill-in-deal-just-days-before-rate-rise.html
Incidentally Polly Toynbee is now saying it's not about immorality but about being so rich. Is Camern SO rich? From the figures that have come out so far he'd struggle to send his kids to Eton0 -
One thing that strikes me as a little odd. The last line of the article says that his personal income last year was £200,307. But his PM salary was £143,462 and my understanding is that he got his MP salary of £74,962 on top (I have a vague recollection he undertook not to take all of that). I am not sure if occupation of Downing Street is treated as a benefit in kind and taxable but I would have thought so.
Maybe "personal income" means income outwith his employment?0 -
It'll be interesting to see if, now the change is through, the change picks up pace among them.Theuniondivvie said:
A shame a majority of 'your people' voted against gay marriage both in Westminster and Holyrood.MarqueeMark said:
"Our people" had the spine to push ahead with gay marriage.EPG said:
Your people thought Section 28 was a good thing until about a decade ago.Plato_Says said:This is going to cause a stir... ICM for Channel 4 documentary, 52% of Muslims surveyed thought homosexuality should be illegal. Well worth reading whole article with Trevor Philips. He's downbeat.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/half-of-muslims-say-gays-should-be-outlawed-cb5bcdtcx
"... shall not promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship"
"Your people" thought Tony Blair was the dog's bollocks until about a decade ago.
Things change.
Things change, but not that quickly.
Incidentally that is one issue for which I think Cameron deserves great credit, as it's a fight which he didn't have to pick, his MPs opposed more than they supported, and was of questionable benefit in Improving Tory standing. Whatever his historical position, he did change his view and show spine there,0 -
Are the Sunday Times, Telegraph, and Mail on the left now? When did this happen? This was a one-day story tucked away on page 94 until David Cameron's and CCHQ's third-rate PR came into play.MarqueeMark said:And WTF is with that Sunday Tines story? Cameron to comply with tax law? What next - Cameron has the temerity to avoid tax by putting some money in an ISA? The bastard....
If people on the Left get wound up by people doing legitimate tax planning, then next time they are in power they could try spending less time on their pet virtue-waving projects and spend more time PROPERLY SCRUTINISING THE BUDGET FOR LOOPHOLES.0 -
I see the new statesman did a peace about not writing off goldsmith yet. He's so doomed the left is trying to avoid overconfidence. Ouch.0
-
MPs get all sorts of benefits in kind that would be taxable as benefit in kind for other people.DavidL said:One thing that strikes me as a little odd. The last line of the article says that his personal income last year was £200,307. But his PM salary was £143,462 and my understanding is that he got his MP salary of £74,962 on top (I have a vague recollection he undertook not to take all of that). I am not sure if occupation of Downing Street is treated as a benefit in kind and taxable but I would have thought so.
Maybe "personal income" means income outwith his employment?0 -
Out of interest how many homosexual muslims do you know?Conservative_Boy said:
Then we know different people, and I am sure a minority of Muslims are OK with it. Most of the homosexual Muslims I know have been disowned by their families. That is not the case with non-Muslim families, including other Asian faiths.foxinsoxuk said:
I think you may find that TSE differs on that.Conservative_Boy said:
Certainly from my experience the strongest support of homosexuality from Muslims is that it is "not illegal". There is usually no support from a human rights perspective.MarqueeMark said:
Maybe the survey only reached the ones who could speak English?Conservative_Boy said:
The only surprise here is that it is as low as 52%.Plato_Says said:This is going to cause a stir... ICM for Channel 4 documentary, 52% of Muslims surveyed thought homosexuality should be illegal. Well worth reading whole article with Trevor Philips. He's downbeat.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/half-of-muslims-say-gays-should-be-outlawed-cb5bcdtcx
I know plenty of assimilated Muslims quite comfortable with homosexual equality.
And I don't care what TSE thinks.0 -
These are last years figures, this years figures will be significantly worse as a direct result of Mr Hunts policies:foxinsoxuk said:
Just pointing out how those in the Tory cabinet handle their own finances.JosiasJessop said:
Your attacks on Hunt are as weak and obvious as your 'defence' of Burnham over Stafford ...foxinsoxuk said:
Yes. How people manage their own taxes is more important than what their parents did.AlastairMeeks said:A further comment on the thread header: Sajid Javid is not someone I'd tip anyway but given that he was an investment banker I would have thought that he is more rather than less likely to have had something unusual in his tax returns. Indeed, questions have already been asked of him about Deutsche Bank's bonus scheme.
For example:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9232715/Jeremy-Hunt-avoided-100000-tax-bill-in-deal-just-days-before-rate-rise.html
Hunt is proving to be a disaster. You cannot run a 7 day NHS with 20% or more of front line posts unfilled.
As a stay at home dad you should be particularly concerned how thin paediatric cover will be in August. The fill rate for posts is at its lowest level ever.
http://www.rcpch.ac.uk/news/children’s-unit-closure-fears-rota-vacancies-pose-threat-patient-safety0 -
That's a very interesting question.AlastairMeeks said:I wonder which of his potential successors David Cameron was most trying to handicap by deciding to release his tax returns?
0 -
Interesting question about open borders between Northern and Southern Ireland and Southern Ireland and the rest of Europe.
Something else to be worked out afterwards I guess....0 -
See the graphic here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36007718DavidL said:One thing that strikes me as a little odd. The last line of the article says that his personal income last year was £200,307. But his PM salary was £143,462 and my understanding is that he got his MP salary of £74,962 on top (I have a vague recollection he undertook not to take all of that). I am not sure if occupation of Downing Street is treated as a benefit in kind and taxable but I would have thought so.
Maybe "personal income" means income outwith his employment?
£200k = £140k salary + £10k from the party + £47k rent from his London house +£3k interest0 -
Quite so, which makes me wonder what that "personal income" is. He earned a lot more than that.foxinsoxuk said:
MPs get all sorts of benefits in kind that would be taxable as benefit in kind for other people.DavidL said:One thing that strikes me as a little odd. The last line of the article says that his personal income last year was £200,307. But his PM salary was £143,462 and my understanding is that he got his MP salary of £74,962 on top (I have a vague recollection he undertook not to take all of that). I am not sure if occupation of Downing Street is treated as a benefit in kind and taxable but I would have thought so.
Maybe "personal income" means income outwith his employment?0 -
Wasn't there a Kissinger maxim along the lines of "ifs it's going to come out at some point, it's better it all comes out today"DecrepitJohnL said:
Are the Sunday Times, Telegraph, and Mail on the left now? When did this happen? This was a one-day story tucked away on page 94 until David Cameron's and CCHQ's third-rate PR came into play.MarqueeMark said:And WTF is with that Sunday Tines story? Cameron to comply with tax law? What next - Cameron has the temerity to avoid tax by putting some money in an ISA? The bastard....
If people on the Left get wound up by people doing legitimate tax planning, then next time they are in power they could try spending less time on their pet virtue-waving projects and spend more time PROPERLY SCRUTINISING THE BUDGET FOR LOOPHOLES.
Hopefully someone in CCHQ's PR Team is getting the hairdryer treatment, the handling in this has been a fiasco from beginning to end, deny it, then say it might be true but, then admit it, it almost like they are trying to keep this story in the headlines.
Perhaps they are trying to dead cat this story
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/politics/7055521/EU-blows-British-cash-on-flooding-UK-schools-with-propoganda-to-brainwash-kids.htmlThe European Commission mails out slick textbooks – such as daft cartoon adventure “The Mystery of the Golden Stars” – to school teachers free of charge to “educate” children about the EU “in a fun and stimulating way”.
The naff “book to be handed out to every pupil” is designed to introduce “the EU in a child-friendly way” and is paid for from the EU Commission’s hated £158million taxpayer-funded PR budget.0 -
Of course, two wrongs etc, but those protecting Cameron were sneering when the tories attacked Ed's dad.kle4 said:
Unfair then, unfair now.blackburn63 said:
Its a view, others might say what goes around comes around. You're not a newcomer to this site, you witnessed the attacks on Miliband last year.Roger said:A crazy decision by Cameron in my opinion. He should know that he's now declared open season on himself and our insatiable press will now crucify him. It could be that he just resigns. Why would someone who is leaving anyway and has done nothing wrong put himself and his family through this?
Mike says the pressure will now be on others particularly those standing for the Tory leadership. I'm not sure. Our feral press has an agenda. Those who share it like Johnson get a free pass. Those who don't like Osborne and Cameron get the treatmet.
Altogether a very ugly episode in British politics.0 -
No, you're pathetically playing politics.foxinsoxuk said:
Just pointing out how those in the Tory cabinet handle their own finances.JosiasJessop said:
Your attacks on Hunt are as weak and obvious as your 'defence' of Burnham over Stafford ...foxinsoxuk said:
Yes. How people manage their own taxes is more important than what their parents did.AlastairMeeks said:A further comment on the thread header: Sajid Javid is not someone I'd tip anyway but given that he was an investment banker I would have thought that he is more rather than less likely to have had something unusual in his tax returns. Indeed, questions have already been asked of him about Deutsche Bank's bonus scheme.
For example:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9232715/Jeremy-Hunt-avoided-100000-tax-bill-in-deal-just-days-before-rate-rise.html
Hunt is proving to be a disaster. You cannot run a 7 day NHS with 20% or more of front line posts unfilled.
As a stay at home dad you should be particularly concerned how thin paediatric cover will be in August. The fill rate for posts is at its lowest level ever.
As a 'stay at home dad' I'm concerned about many things. One of them is 'doctors' caring more about politics than patient care, as has been obvious time and time again with your comments on Stafford.0 -
Cameron knighted him nonetheless.Roger said:
I agree. That's what happens when you employ an Australian vulgarian to run your election campaign for you. His decision making about personnel has always been suspect.blackburn63 said:
Its a view, others might say what goes around comes around. You're not a newcomer to this site, you witnessed the attacks on Miliband last year.Roger said:A crazy decision by Cameron in my opinion. He should know that he's now declared open season on himself and our insatiable press will now crucify him. It could be that he just resigns. Why would someone who is leaving anyway and has done nothing wrong put himself and his family through this?
Mike says the pressure will now be on others particularly those standing for the Tory leadership. I'm not sure. Our feral press has an agenda. Those who share it like Johnson get a free pass. Those who don't like Osborne and Cameron get the treatmet.
Altogether a very ugly episode in British politics.
I have zero interest in Cameron's family or money but for people to be surprised at all this is ridiculous. Cameron employed Coulson the phone hacker, he ain't Bambi.0 -
Quite like Cameron.. so may be biased, but the Sunday Times front page article is incredible... It claims that Cameron receives financial perks available only to the super-rich.. Turns out to be a higher rate of interest for a larger size deposit - what a bastard, taking advantage of interest rates only available to anyone who can type money supermarket.com into a browser... And the amount of interest earned? £3,000 last year.... what an utter bastard earning, er, less than me in interest... Nice to know I am super-rich mind0
-
the £145K salary as the PM is the MP's salary of £75K + about £70K as a top up for his ministerial dutiesDavidL said:
Quite so, which makes me wonder what that "personal income" is. He earned a lot more than that.foxinsoxuk said:
MPs get all sorts of benefits in kind that would be taxable as benefit in kind for other people.DavidL said:One thing that strikes me as a little odd. The last line of the article says that his personal income last year was £200,307. But his PM salary was £143,462 and my understanding is that he got his MP salary of £74,962 on top (I have a vague recollection he undertook not to take all of that). I am not sure if occupation of Downing Street is treated as a benefit in kind and taxable but I would have thought so.
Maybe "personal income" means income outwith his employment?0 -
Dear God what are they teaching them these days?Conservative_Boy said:
I meant Prime Ministers rather than leaders. Has there ever been a Jewish Prime Minister?ydoethur said:
Not quite the only one. Howard was Jewish.Conservative_Boy said:I wonder when Mike et al will stop tipping Sajid Javid as next Conservative party leader (which will be a few years yet). The Conservatives are not Labour, they will choose someone who can actually win an election. This will be a white, middle aged Christian man - the only leader of recent decades who didn't fit this stereotype was Thatcher.
0 -
I thought the 145 was on top of the MP's salary, not the totality of it?Charles said:
the £145K salary as the PM is the MP's salary of £75K + about £70K as a top up for his ministerial dutiesDavidL said:
Quite so, which makes me wonder what that "personal income" is. He earned a lot more than that.foxinsoxuk said:
MPs get all sorts of benefits in kind that would be taxable as benefit in kind for other people.DavidL said:One thing that strikes me as a little odd. The last line of the article says that his personal income last year was £200,307. But his PM salary was £143,462 and my understanding is that he got his MP salary of £74,962 on top (I have a vague recollection he undertook not to take all of that). I am not sure if occupation of Downing Street is treated as a benefit in kind and taxable but I would have thought so.
Maybe "personal income" means income outwith his employment?0 -
So, the Press has established that Cameron is a fairly rich man who pays all the tax that's morally and legally required to pay.
In other news, the Pope is a Catholic.0 -
Rupert Murdoch has never been fully objective about Cameron. Mind you, many of us feel the same way about Murdoch!Rexel56 said:Quite like Cameron.. so may be biased, but the Sunday Times front page article is incredible... It claims that Cameron receives financial perks available only to the super-rich.. Turns out to be a higher rate of interest for a larger size deposit - what a bastard, taking advantage of interest rates only available to anyone who can type money supermarket.com into a browser... And the amount of interest earned? £3,000 last year.... what an utter bastard earning, er, less than me in interest... Nice to know I am super-rich mind
0 -
Some, no doubt. But the inconsistency of some doesn't make it reasonable, even if Cameron and co themselves can hardly complain.blackburn63 said:
Of course, two wrongs etc, but those protecting Cameron were sneering when the tories attacked Ed's dad.kle4 said:
Unfair then, unfair now.blackburn63 said:
Its a view, others might say what goes around comes around. You're not a newcomer to this site, you witnessed the attacks on Miliband last year.Roger said:A crazy decision by Cameron in my opinion. He should know that he's now declared open season on himself and our insatiable press will now crucify him. It could be that he just resigns. Why would someone who is leaving anyway and has done nothing wrong put himself and his family through this?
Mike says the pressure will now be on others particularly those standing for the Tory leadership. I'm not sure. Our feral press has an agenda. Those who share it like Johnson get a free pass. Those who don't like Osborne and Cameron get the treatmet.
Altogether a very ugly episode in British politics.
I'm against having it as standard practice to release this sort of information, but I'm intrigued by mr Meeks suggestion this could have been done in part to undermine someone in the cabinet specifically. Really on what grounds can any of them or shadow cabinet refuse to not release theirs right now? No one will want to as that could distract from the pressure currently on Cameron, but any cabinet et member coukd become PM, shouldn't they reveal now then? The shadow cabinet say they deserve to do the job, so shouldn't they all do do as well?
I'm sure Corbyn's finances are squeaky clean, but some on both sides must have similar 'skeletons' as the PM in their closets.
0 -
I think Nicky Morgan has had a Damascene moment, however genuine that may be.kle4 said:
It'll be interesting to see if, now the change is through, the change picks up pace among them.Theuniondivvie said:
A shame a majority of 'your people' voted against gay marriage both in Westminster and Holyrood.MarqueeMark said:
"Our people" had the spine to push ahead with gay marriage.EPG said:
Your people thought Section 28 was a good thing until about a decade ago.Plato_Says said:This is going to cause a stir... ICM for Channel 4 documentary, 52% of Muslims surveyed thought homosexuality should be illegal. Well worth reading whole article with Trevor Philips. He's downbeat.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/half-of-muslims-say-gays-should-be-outlawed-cb5bcdtcx
"... shall not promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship"
"Your people" thought Tony Blair was the dog's bollocks until about a decade ago.
Things change.
Things change, but not that quickly.
Incidentally that is one issue for which I think Cameron deserves great credit, as it's a fight which he didn't have to pick, his MPs opposed more than they supported, and was of questionable benefit in Improving Tory standing. Whatever his historical position, he did change his view and show spine there,
Cameron does deserve credit, but it doesn't really help with the 'out-of-touch, metropolitan elite trying to herd fruitcake, loony backwoodsmen' thing.0 -
I wouldn't put that out in a Conservative broadcast if I were you, £60pw interest is a lot of money to ordinary families. Your post plays nicely into the hands of those saying politicians are out of touch.Rexel56 said:Quite like Cameron.. so may be biased, but the Sunday Times front page article is incredible... It claims that Cameron receives financial perks available only to the super-rich.. Turns out to be a higher rate of interest for a larger size deposit - what a bastard, taking advantage of interest rates only available to anyone who can type money supermarket.com into a browser... And the amount of interest earned? £3,000 last year.... what an utter bastard earning, er, less than me in interest... Nice to know I am super-rich mind
0 -
Good morning.
Marr on BBC now. Ho, hum! How did this show get so boring?0 -
I think Nicky Morgan has had a Damascene moment, however genuine that may be.kle4 said:
It'll be interesting to see if, now the change is through, the change picks up pace among them.Theuniondivvie said:
A shame a majority of 'your people' voted against gay marriage both in Westminster and Holyrood.MarqueeMark said:
"Our people" had the spine to push ahead with gay marriage.EPG said:
Your people thought Section 28 was a good thing until about a decade ago.Plato_Says said:This is going to cause a stir... ICM for Channel 4 documentary, 52% of Muslims surveyed thought homosexuality should be illegal. Well worth reading whole article with Trevor Philips. He's downbeat.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/half-of-muslims-say-gays-should-be-outlawed-cb5bcdtcx
"... shall not promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship"
"Your people" thought Tony Blair was the dog's bollocks until about a decade ago.
Things change.
Things change, but not that quickly.
Incidentally that is one issue for which I think Cameron deserves great credit, as it's a fight which he didn't have to pick, his MPs opposed more than they supported, and was of questionable benefit in Improving Tory standing. Whatever his historical position, he did change his view and show spine there,
Cameron does deserve credit, but it doesn't really help with the 'out-of-touch, metropolitan elite trying to herd fruitcake, loony backwoodsmen' thing.0 -
The only thing I was ever taught about the 19th century was an overview of British foreign policy - you'd think Disraeli would come up as a significant figure of the time, but he never did. And I only learned that much as it as at A level.Luckyguy1983 said:
Dear God what are they teaching them these days?Conservative_Boy said:
I meant Prime Ministers rather than leaders. Has there ever been a Jewish Prime Minister?ydoethur said:
Not quite the only one. Howard was Jewish.Conservative_Boy said:I wonder when Mike et al will stop tipping Sajid Javid as next Conservative party leader (which will be a few years yet). The Conservatives are not Labour, they will choose someone who can actually win an election. This will be a white, middle aged Christian man - the only leader of recent decades who didn't fit this stereotype was Thatcher.
Tudors and nazis, it's all Tudors and nazis.
0 -
No wonder he wants to stand down. How on earth do you pay Eton fees out of that? And he has voluntarily waived/cancelled out a £20K tax benefit as well? And his share of the capital gain on his investment was even below the CGT limit? I simply do not see what the story is here other than very able clever guy takes huge financial sacrifices to run the country.Charles said:
the £145K salary as the PM is the MP's salary of £75K + about £70K as a top up for his ministerial dutiesDavidL said:
Quite so, which makes me wonder what that "personal income" is. He earned a lot more than that.foxinsoxuk said:
MPs get all sorts of benefits in kind that would be taxable as benefit in kind for other people.DavidL said:One thing that strikes me as a little odd. The last line of the article says that his personal income last year was £200,307. But his PM salary was £143,462 and my understanding is that he got his MP salary of £74,962 on top (I have a vague recollection he undertook not to take all of that). I am not sure if occupation of Downing Street is treated as a benefit in kind and taxable but I would have thought so.
Maybe "personal income" means income outwith his employment?0 -
I take your points but those reading it are politically engaged. Millions of others are reading that Cameron's mum gave him £200k because his Dad had only left the poor lamb £300k. Meeks and others will look at it tactically but it enforces people's views.kle4 said:
Some, no doubt. But the inconsistency of some doesn't make it reasonable, even if Cameron and co themselves can hardly complain.blackburn63 said:
Of course, two wrongs etc, but those protecting Cameron were sneering when the tories attacked Ed's dad.kle4 said:
Unfair then, unfair now.blackburn63 said:
Its a view, others might say what goes around comes around. You're not a newcomer to this site, you witnessed the attacks on Miliband last year.Roger said:A crazy decision by Cameron in my opinion. He should know that he's now declared open season on himself and our insatiable press will now crucify him. It could be that he just resigns. Why would someone who is leaving anyway and has done nothing wrong put himself and his family through this?
Mike says the pressure will now be on others particularly those standing for the Tory leadership. I'm not sure. Our feral press has an agenda. Those who share it like Johnson get a free pass. Those who don't like Osborne and Cameron get the treatmet.
Altogether a very ugly episode in British politics.
I'm against having it as standard practice to release this sort of information, but I'm intrigued by mr Meeks suggestion this could have been done in part to undermine someone in the cabinet specifically. Really on what grounds can any of them or shadow cabinet refuse to not release theirs right now? No one will want to as that could distract from the pressure currently on Cameron, but any cabinet et member coukd become PM, shouldn't they reveal now then? The shadow cabinet say they deserve to do the job, so shouldn't they all do do as well?
I'm sure Corbyn's finances are squeaky clean, but some on both sides must have similar 'skeletons' as the PM in their closets.
I'm not in the slightest bit interested, I'm just shaking my head at the tories who think Dave shouldn't be fair game.0 -
Snippets of Cameron's speech to the Spring forum were quite amusing:
-'Don't blame nameless No. 10 advisors, blame me'
[translation]- 'Blame nameless No. 10 advisors, not me'
-'My Dad (repeat several times in preference to 'Father')
[translation] - 'I'm a man of the people guv'nor'0 -
Exactly what labour supporters are saying.DavidL said:
No wonder he wants to stand down. How on earth do you pay Eton fees out of that? And he has voluntarily waived/cancelled out a £20K tax benefit as well? And his share of the capital gain on his investment was even below the CGT limit? I simply do not see what the story is here other than very able clever guy takes huge financial sacrifices to run the country.Charles said:
the £145K salary as the PM is the MP's salary of £75K + about £70K as a top up for his ministerial dutiesDavidL said:
Quite so, which makes me wonder what that "personal income" is. He earned a lot more than that.foxinsoxuk said:
MPs get all sorts of benefits in kind that would be taxable as benefit in kind for other people.DavidL said:One thing that strikes me as a little odd. The last line of the article says that his personal income last year was £200,307. But his PM salary was £143,462 and my understanding is that he got his MP salary of £74,962 on top (I have a vague recollection he undertook not to take all of that). I am not sure if occupation of Downing Street is treated as a benefit in kind and taxable but I would have thought so.
Maybe "personal income" means income outwith his employment?0 -
What more could you ask? .. excellent horsey tips from your daughter and outstanding political betting anal-ysis from JackW. Does life on PB get any better? ..DavidL said:
My daughter had each way bets on first and second yesterday, the winner at 40-1. Only modest sums but she did really well. I will be asking her for tips next year.JackW said:
If it's a decent jumper next year you might be the lucky winner of the Grand National.Jonathan said:£200k? All I got was a jumper.
0 -
Dave should be attacked if he does something morally wrong. There is nothing immoral about his financial arrangements.blackburn63 said:
I take your points but those reading it are politically engaged. Millions of others are reading that Cameron's mum gave him £200k because his Dad had only left the poor lamb £300k. Meeks and others will look at it tactically but it enforces people's views.kle4 said:
Some, no doubt. But the inconsistency of some doesn't make it reasonable, even if Cameron and co themselves can hardly complain.blackburn63 said:
Of course, two wrongs etc, but those protecting Cameron were sneering when the tories attacked Ed's dad.kle4 said:
Unfair then, unfair now.blackburn63 said:
Its a view, others might say what goes around comes around. You're not a newcomer to this site, you witnessed the attacks on Miliband last year.Roger said:A crazy decision by Cameron in my opinion. He should know that he's now declared open season on himself and our insatiable press will now crucify him. It could be that he just resigns. Why would someone who is leaving anyway and has done nothing wrong put himself and his family through this?
Mike says the pressure will now be on others particularly those standing for the Tory leadership. I'm not sure. Our feral press has an agenda. Those who share it like Johnson get a free pass. Those who don't like Osborne and Cameron get the treatmet.
Altogether a very ugly episode in British politics.
I'm against having it as standard practice to release this sort of information, but I'm intrigued by mr Meeks suggestion this could have been done in part to undermine someone in the cabinet specifically. Really on what grounds can any of them or shadow cabinet refuse to not release theirs right now? No one will want to as that could distract from the pressure currently on Cameron, but any cabinet et member coukd become PM, shouldn't they reveal now then? The shadow cabinet say they deserve to do the job, so shouldn't they all do do as well?
I'm sure Corbyn's finances are squeaky clean, but some on both sides must have similar 'skeletons' as the PM in their closets.
I'm not in the slightest bit interested, I'm just shaking my head at the tories who think Dave shouldn't be fair game.0 -
I wouldn't necessarily be sure of that; releasing information gives the enemy ammunition. Imagine if he received a fee for speaking at a group that had a member who said something disreputable.kle4 said:
(Snip)blackburn63 said:
Of course, two wrongs etc, but those protecting Cameron were sneering when the tories attacked Ed's dad.kle4 said:
Unfair then, unfair now.blackburn63 said:
Its a view, others might say what goes around comes around. You're not a newcomer to this site, you witnessed the attacks on Miliband last year.Roger said:A crazy decision by Cameron in my opinion. He should know that he's now declared open season on himself and our insatiable press will now crucify him. It could be that he just resigns. Why would someone who is leaving anyway and has done nothing wrong put himself and his family through this?
Mike says the pressure will now be on others particularly those standing for the Tory leadership. I'm not sure. Our feral press has an agenda. Those who share it like Johnson get a free pass. Those who don't like Osborne and Cameron get the treatmet.
Altogether a very ugly episode in British politics.
I'm sure Corbyn's finances are squeaky clean, but some on both sides must have similar 'skeletons' as the PM in their closets.
It wouldn't be fair, but neither is the sh*t being thrown against Cameron.
I'd actually be more bothered if Corbyn is not getting paid for things. That really would be out of touch with the common man.
(That last paragraph shows why politicians cannot win on this).0 -
We're one step away from a method in a fantasy novel i read, where a leader is chosen without their consent, then all their possessions sold and put in a fund, to go up or down depending how the national economy goes.DavidL said:
No wonder he wants to stand down. How on earth do you pay Eton fees out of that? And he has voluntarily waived/cancelled out a £20K tax benefit as well? And his share of the capital gain on his investment was even below the CGT limit? I simply do not see what the story is here other than very able clever guy takes huge financial sacrifices to run the country.Charles said:
the £145K salary as the PM is the MP's salary of £75K + about £70K as a top up for his ministerial dutiesDavidL said:
Quite so, which makes me wonder what that "personal income" is. He earned a lot more than that.foxinsoxuk said:
MPs get all sorts of benefits in kind that would be taxable as benefit in kind for other people.DavidL said:One thing that strikes me as a little odd. The last line of the article says that his personal income last year was £200,307. But his PM salary was £143,462 and my understanding is that he got his MP salary of £74,962 on top (I have a vague recollection he undertook not to take all of that). I am not sure if occupation of Downing Street is treated as a benefit in kind and taxable but I would have thought so.
Maybe "personal income" means income outwith his employment?
Can you imagine what will happen if a PM suggests significantly raising their salary?
0
