Boris Johnson’s destruction of the key shibboleth of the Conservative Party – politicalbetting.com

rottenborough said:

Sandpit said:

IshmaelZ said:

Sandpit said:

noneoftheabove said:

Sandpit said:

FPT

CarlottaVance said:

Some significant COP26 news: President Biden is coming to Glasgow. A big relief for the PM, who invited him months ago. A needy shot in the arm for the summit too, which is in trouble after talks for a deal with China + others stalled.

https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1436014231896444935?s=20

Because having dozens of jets turn up at a climate change summit, is giving exactly the right message about how we all need to change our behaviours.

If the last 18 months has shown the world anyting, it’s that the vast majority of meetings can be done remotely when the chips are down.

Is this actually THE BIG F***ING EMERGENCY they want us to believe it is?

I’m still amazed that Cisco didn’t offer $10m to sponsor doing the whole thing on WebEx.

I don't really get this objection. It is such a completely irrelevant percentage of the impact of planes on climate change.

If they can do even 0.01% better in person than they can remotely it will have a positive pay off.

It’s the optics.

“We” are flying a hundred private planes to the summmit in Glasgow, so that “we” can have our conference, the output of which is that “we” expect “you” to do less flying, to buy expensive electric cars, pay extra taxes, and attend fewer conferences - while “we” appear totally exempt from what “we” impose on “you”.

Fuck optics. Either you are a software construct (or a sociopath), or you realise that face to face outweighs zoom to an extent that the private jets pay for themselves.

Yeah I’m in IT.

If there’s a MASSIVE CLIMATE EMERGENCY, then no, the private jets don’t pay for themselves, they’re the most selfish possible use of the scarce resources left on this planet.

Flying is about 2% of carbon emissions. Most of that is leisure, not business.

If they can all jet in and do something about coal burning in China then it will be well worth the flights.

If they *REALLY, ACTUALLY* do something about coal burning in China, then I will concede the point.

rcs1000 said:

Sandpit said:

rcs1000 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

I am not sure we are going to see either of the main party espousing low taxation for many years to come....the reality is, huge bills have been rung up, aging population is incredibly expensive, and the first mention of cutting back the state, gets you Back to Wigan Pier stuff day in day out.

You have to be a very unique kind of politician to stand up and say no I am ideologically opposed to a big state. Its always easier just to at very least just keep it as is.

I think we're going through a 60s/70s type scenario right now, where everybody is a tax-and-spender, and everybody loves big government.

The only real difference between the Conservative and Labour parties right now seems to be that the Conservatives are seeking to somewhat shield their voters (who trend older) from the taxes required to pay for this.

My guess is that politicians will blanche at the scale of the required tax increases (or spending cuts) and will therefore choose to borrow and to print money. After all, it hasn't caused problems so far.

However... I think this will all end in tears. Under whose watch, I do not know.

It’s proved utterly astonishing, how much QE has gone almost unnoticed by the markets, simply because everyone’s doing it.

There has to be a serious worry that Western governments see continual devaluation as their only way out, but if everyone’s doing it there’s no relative loss…

Bingo: ultimately if everyone is trying to devalue their currency vs everyone else's currency... then the end result has to be the devaluation of all currency vs real things.

Which is why markets for *things* are red hot at the moment.

Property, art, classic cars, all gone totally insane in the last couple of years.

Cookie said:

Omnium said:

Carnyx said:

Sandpit said:

noneoftheabove said:

Sandpit said:

FPT

CarlottaVance said:

Some significant COP26 news: President Biden is coming to Glasgow. A big relief for the PM, who invited him months ago. A needy shot in the arm for the summit too, which is in trouble after talks for a deal with China + others stalled.

https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1436014231896444935?s=20

Because having dozens of jets turn up at a climate change summit, is giving exactly the right message about how we all need to change our behaviours.

If the last 18 months has shown the world anyting, it’s that the vast majority of meetings can be done remotely when the chips are down.

Is this actually THE BIG F***ING EMERGENCY they want us to believe it is?

I’m still amazed that Cisco didn’t offer $10m to sponsor doing the whole thing on WebEx.

I don't really get this objection. It is such a completely irrelevant percentage of the impact of planes on climate change.

If they can do even 0.01% better in person than they can remotely it will have a positive pay off.

It’s the optics.

“We” are flying a hundred private planes to the summmit in Glasgow, so that “we” can have our conference, the output of which is that “we” expect “you” to do less flying, to buy expensive electric cars, pay extra taxes, and attend fewer conferences - while “we” appear totally exempt from what “we” impose on “you”.

At least one can simply walk across the river from her house.

The world is truly fucked up if she's invited.

She walks on water now?

Ooh, 4000th post! 4,000 since Vanilla, anyway.

Sandpit said:

rottenborough said:

Sandpit said:

IshmaelZ said:

Sandpit said:

noneoftheabove said:

Sandpit said:

FPT

CarlottaVance said:

Some significant COP26 news: President Biden is coming to Glasgow. A big relief for the PM, who invited him months ago. A needy shot in the arm for the summit too, which is in trouble after talks for a deal with China + others stalled.

https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1436014231896444935?s=20

Because having dozens of jets turn up at a climate change summit, is giving exactly the right message about how we all need to change our behaviours.

If the last 18 months has shown the world anyting, it’s that the vast majority of meetings can be done remotely when the chips are down.

Is this actually THE BIG F***ING EMERGENCY they want us to believe it is?

I’m still amazed that Cisco didn’t offer $10m to sponsor doing the whole thing on WebEx.

I don't really get this objection. It is such a completely irrelevant percentage of the impact of planes on climate change.

If they can do even 0.01% better in person than they can remotely it will have a positive pay off.

It’s the optics.

“We” are flying a hundred private planes to the summmit in Glasgow, so that “we” can have our conference, the output of which is that “we” expect “you” to do less flying, to buy expensive electric cars, pay extra taxes, and attend fewer conferences - while “we” appear totally exempt from what “we” impose on “you”.

Fuck optics. Either you are a software construct (or a sociopath), or you realise that face to face outweighs zoom to an extent that the private jets pay for themselves.

Yeah I’m in IT.

If there’s a MASSIVE CLIMATE EMERGENCY, then no, the private jets don’t pay for themselves, they’re the most selfish possible use of the scarce resources left on this planet.

Flying is about 2% of carbon emissions. Most of that is leisure, not business.

If they can all jet in and do something about coal burning in China then it will be well worth the flights.

If they *REALLY, ACTUALLY* do something about coal burning in China, then I will concede the point.

🤷🏻‍♀️
I know...

Sandpit said:

FPT

CarlottaVance said:

Some significant COP26 news: President Biden is coming to Glasgow. A big relief for the PM, who invited him months ago. A needy shot in the arm for the summit too, which is in trouble after talks for a deal with China + others stalled.

https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1436014231896444935?s=20

Because having dozens of jets turn up at a climate change summit, is giving exactly the right message about how we all need to change our behaviours.

If the last 18 months has shown the world anyting, it’s that the vast majority of meetings can be done remotely when the chips are down.

Is this actually THE BIG F***ING EMERGENCY they want us to believe it is?

I’m still amazed that Cisco didn’t offer $10m to sponsor doing the whole thing on WebEx.

Because they didn’t want the world to see just how shit WebEx is?

Leon said:

I have just ordered roast hare.

Lucerne, this is your big test

Today I had THE WORST SALAD OF MY LIFE on top of beautiful Mount Pilatus.

They have a lot of ground to make up

Did you try to wade across the lake?

Charles said:

Leon said:

I have just ordered roast hare.

Lucerne, this is your big test

Today I had THE WORST SALAD OF MY LIFE on top of beautiful Mount Pilatus.

They have a lot of ground to make up

Did you try to wade across the lake?

Another bottle of Ticinese merlot and I’m ready

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Mexicanpete said:

On topic

Just saw Starmer's "Rosie" speech in the HoC from yesterday. £1000 a year reduced UC plus the NI increase to a working mum. Starmer was actually very good and he played the Tory laughter very well.

Fortunately for Johnson nothing to interest the BBC. They are fully focused on the tax rise that is necessary to fully fund the NHS and social care for once and for all.

And the point I made earlier, if that had been a young Tony Blair Boris would have been demolished but for labour Starmer is no Tony Blair

From the bit of what I saw, surprisingly Starmer confidently and comprehensively had the better of Johnson. Blair wouldn't have done any better.

FrancisUrquhart said:

kinabalu said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

One question I always have about wealth taxes...if you aren't a normie, i.e. regular 9-5 job, semi-detached new build house, with the 2.5 kids and the dog, it quickly becomes incredibly difficult to assess.

Also, what about all these schemes that the ultra wealthy use where they transfer their shares into a company, which then trades them to a financial institution, who in return provides lifetime loans at very low interest rates. Do they still have that wealth?

Even trying to assess the value of your home is tricky. It is why the Lib Dem idea of tax on the exact house value didn't fly, because it was quickly realised that you have to keep reassessing even normal homes, as Bob gets a conservatory, Fred gets a lovely garden make-over etc.

Self assessment with very stiff penalties - jail time - for materially understating it. Fear works wonders.

The point is that the likes of Jezz Bezos isn't understating by the letter of the law....he does nothing illegal.

That's not the point. We haven't got this wealth tax yet. Once we do - which we won't - we can enforce it via fear of the penalties for cheating.

Mexicanpete said:

kinabalu said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

One question I always have about wealth taxes...if you aren't a normie, i.e. regular 9-5 job, semi-detached new build house, with the 2.5 kids and the dog, it quickly becomes incredibly difficult to assess.

Also, what about all these schemes that the ultra wealthy use where they transfer their shares into a company, which then trades them to a financial institution, who in return provides lifetime loans at very low interest rates. Do they still have that wealth?

Even trying to assess the value of your home is tricky. It is why the Lib Dem idea of tax on the exact house value didn't fly, because it was quickly realised that you have to keep reassessing even normal homes, as Bob gets a conservatory, Fred gets a lovely garden make-over etc.

Self assessment with very stiff penalties - jail time - for materially understating it. Fear works wonders.

Ooh, you've gone all authoritarian Priti Patel this evening.

Totally right! All this "Wealth tax is unenforceable" business - absolute bollox.

On my way home from Manchester.

Met a couple of colleagues for the first time and others for the first time in 18 months.

Then our boss got the beers in.

Best day at work since March 2020.

On topic, the Conservative Party is there to take care of the wealthy. Nothing else. They create sufficient false consciousness to win elections and then shaft the useful idiots who vote for them. Sadly, some PBers fall into that category.

Why not just reform VAT and if you want to catch the rich, stick a load of extra tax of high end things?

FPT:

NickPalmer said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Self-confessed 'Privileged, white middle class' XR protester, 60, who lives in a £900,000 farmhouse says she was 'exercising her human rights' while blocking roads outside Parliament, court hears

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9973761/Privileged-white-middle-class-XR-activist-60-tells-court-human-right-protest.html

I am coming around to the idea of a massive wealth tax on property......the (eco) marxists all seem to own massive houses or make their money from flipping property, buy to lets, etc.

Not against a wealth tax on property, but not clear why her house is relevant to the case. I'm not class warrior enough to feel that rich people shouldn't have an opinion on the environment...

Good job she can afford to pay for the £35k (?) of damage deliberately inflicted, then.

And perhaps a £250k contribution to the policing costs caused, and the extra crime that happened because all those police were diverted from normal police work.

Are at least the first of these costs able to be awarded, plus those imposed on JP Morgan, under current law?

One of the holiday properties she rents out in Derbyshire is called Knob End, in Knob Lane - which seems appropriate.

FF43 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

rcs1000 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

One question I always have about wealth taxes...if you aren't a normie, i.e. regular 9-5 job, semi-detached new build house, with the 2.5 kids and the dog, it quickly becomes incredibly difficult to assess.

Also, what about all these schemes that the ultra wealthy use where they transfer their shares into a company, which then trades them to a financial institution, who in return provides lifetime loans at very low interest rates. Do they still have that wealth?

Even trying to assess the value of your home is tricky. It is why the Lib Dem idea of tax on the exact house value didn't fly, because it was quickly realised that you have to keep reassessing even normal homes, as Bob gets a conservatory, Fred gets a lovely garden make-over etc.

In France, they have a simple solution. You self declare - but the state has the right to buy your house at a c. 20% premium to your self declared value. And every year they sweep up the most egregious cheaters and purchase their homes for less than they're worth and sell them.

It keeps cheating to a minimum.

Surely there must be loads of financial vehicles whereby assets are transferred into businesses and clever accounting is used, or as I stated with what we know about the uber uber wealthy, all those stakes in their own companies, large chunks of that has been swapped for very long term low interest loans.

Its a bit like the old Labour donation swerve, you don't donate, you make a loan, but never ask for the money back and thus you don't have to be named.

You will still lose your home under the scheme @rcs1000 mentions, I suppose. That's the beauty of it. You or whatever vehicle you use declares a property worth €200 000. The tax authorities think, that's undervalued, we will put it on the market and suppose they get an offer of €300 000. So they go back to you and say, you can continue to stay if you pay us the difference of €100 000. They don't care who lives there, pays the original wealth tax or who gets the €200 000 because they can sell the property at a profit of €100 000 if it's undervalued.

You could apply the same idea to assets that are more liquid than property. Wealth tax applies to the asset, not the owner, so asset managers pay a percentage of the assets to the government as tax. If owners have a justifiable reason for a rebate, they will need to apply for it with justification.

Mexicanpete said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Mexicanpete said:

On topic

Just saw Starmer's "Rosie" speech in the HoC from yesterday. £1000 a year reduced UC plus the NI increase to a working mum. Starmer was actually very good and he played the Tory laughter very well.

Fortunately for Johnson nothing to interest the BBC. They are fully focused on the tax rise that is necessary to fully fund the NHS and social care for once and for all.

And the point I made earlier, if that had been a young Tony Blair Boris would have been demolished but for labour Starmer is no Tony Blair

From the bit of what I saw, surprisingly Starmer confidently and comprehensively had the better of Johnson. Blair wouldn't have done any better.

I was referring to the Sky interview tonight

Leon said:

Charles said:

Leon said:

I have just ordered roast hare.

Lucerne, this is your big test

Today I had THE WORST SALAD OF MY LIFE on top of beautiful Mount Pilatus.

They have a lot of ground to make up

Did you try to wade across the lake?

Another bottle of Ticinese merlot and I’m ready

The lake on Pilatus. Legend is that Pontius doesn’t like being disturbed and it causes a storm down in the valley

Be careful dining al fresco in LA.

https://twitter.com/abc7leanne/status/1435819170944274434

Required reading by the excellent Jennifer Williams for those who think that it's only the Met which has problems.

https://twitter.com/jenwilliamsmen/status/1436029384390029320?s=21

This time it's Greater Manchester Police, which seems to be in just as big a mess.

Note in particular the reference to the useless new IT system and to the fact that safeguarding reports logged in it are lost. That means that future Oldhams, future grooming scandals, future child abuse scandals, future ill-treatment of the vulnerable scandals are happening right now and not being properly noticed - let alone investigated - right now,

To me this feels like a much more serious issue than what has occupied this forum endlessly for days now.

We finally have some regional polling to digest in Germany.

In Bavaria, Infratest Dimap have the CSU on 28% (-11 from 2017) but the loss is being spread round so the Greens are up six, the SPD are up three and the Free Voters are up four. How this will translate in constituency terms isn't clear - to be fair, the CSU have huge majorities in rural Bavaria but may be in real trouble in Munich and Nuremburg and might lose one or two suburban seats to the Greens.

In Mecklenbutg-Vorpommern, Infratest has the following:

Changes from 2017 election (constituency vote):

Social Democrats: 31% (+16)
Alternative for Germany: 18% (-1)
CDU: 16% (-17)
LINKE: 11% (-7)
Free Democrats: 9% (+3)
Greens: 8% (+4)

That's a devastating 16.5% swing from the CDU to the SPD - there are just six constituency seats in the region. The CDU won them all last time - on the above figures, they will lose all bar Griefswald.

The regional poll numbers for the same day look even worse for the CDU by the way.

We also have Rhineland-Palatinate. Last time, the CDU won this region by 12 points. The current figures are:

SPD: 30% (+6)
CDU: 23% (-13)
Greens: 13% (+5.5)
FDP: 11% (+0.5)
Alternative for Germany: 10% (-1)
Linke: 4% (-3)
Free Voters: 4% (+2.5)

The region has 15 constituencies - in 2017, the CDU won 14. On a 9.5% swing the SPD will win 14 leaving the CDU with the stronghold of Bitburg.

It's looking like a complete disaster for the Union - the SPD is running riot in northern and eastern Germany with the CDU/CSU being pushed back to a few strongholds in the south and west. They could end up losing over 100 seats and could be down 130 on worst case scenario.

stodge said:

We finally have some regional polling to digest in Germany.

In Bavaria, Infratest Dimap have the CSU on 28% (-11 from 2017) but the loss is being spread round so the Greens are up six, the SPD are up three and the Free Voters are up four. How this will translate in constituency terms isn't clear - to be fair, the CSU have huge majorities in rural Bavaria but may be in real trouble in Munich and Nuremburg and might lose one or two suburban seats to the Greens.

In Mecklenbutg-Vorpommern, Infratest has the following:

Changes from 2017 election (constituency vote):

Social Democrats: 31% (+16)
Alternative for Germany: 18% (-1)
CDU: 16% (-17)
LINKE: 11% (-7)
Free Democrats: 9% (+3)
Greens: 8% (+4)

That's a devastating 16.5% swing from the CDU to the SPD - there are just six constituency seats in the region. The CDU won them all last time - on the above figures, they will lose all bar Griefswald.

The regional poll numbers for the same day look even worse for the CDU by the way.

We also have Rhineland-Palatinate. Last time, the CDU won this region by 12 points. The current figures are:

SPD: 30% (+6)
CDU: 23% (-13)
Greens: 13% (+5.5)
FDP: 11% (+0.5)
Alternative for Germany: 10% (-1)
Linke: 4% (-3)
Free Voters: 4% (+2.5)

The region has 15 constituencies - in 2017, the CDU won 14. On a 9.5% swing the SPD will win 14 leaving the CDU with the stronghold of Bitburg.

It's looking like a complete disaster for the Union - the SPD is running riot in northern and eastern Germany with the CDU/CSU being pushed back to a few strongholds in the south and west. They could end up losing over 100 seats and could be down 130 on worst case scenario.

A shellacking if it proves true. Even with the SPD chap playing the role of continuity Merkel apparently I bet they cannot believe their fortune.

noneoftheabove said:

MattW said:

kinabalu said:

Mexicanpete said:

kinabalu said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

One question I always have about wealth taxes...if you aren't a normie, i.e. regular 9-5 job, semi-detached new build house, with the 2.5 kids and the dog, it quickly becomes incredibly difficult to assess.

Also, what about all these schemes that the ultra wealthy use where they transfer their shares into a company, which then trades them to a financial institution, who in return provides lifetime loans at very low interest rates. Do they still have that wealth?

Even trying to assess the value of your home is tricky. It is why the Lib Dem idea of tax on the exact house value didn't fly, because it was quickly realised that you have to keep reassessing even normal homes, as Bob gets a conservatory, Fred gets a lovely garden make-over etc.

Self assessment with very stiff penalties - jail time - for materially understating it. Fear works wonders.

Ooh, you've gone all authoritarian Priti Patel this evening.

Totally right! All this "Wealth tax is unenforceable" business - absolute bollox.

Ask Mons. Hollande.

Doable, but difficult.

What would happen to the employees rich people who's wealth is in a single (say) chain of shops, or manufacturing business, if they required to give 5% or more to the Govt a short period?

Why would it be 5%? Around 1% feels about right. Even if it was 5% of course they could borrow 5% of their wealth trivially.

It depends on the proposals. I think there was a suggestion of a 10% one-off above?

The report linked earlier explores various options thoroughly.

FF43 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

FF43 said:

FF43 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

rcs1000 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

One question I always have about wealth taxes...if you aren't a normie, i.e. regular 9-5 job, semi-detached new build house, with the 2.5 kids and the dog, it quickly becomes incredibly difficult to assess.

Also, what about all these schemes that the ultra wealthy use where they transfer their shares into a company, which then trades them to a financial institution, who in return provides lifetime loans at very low interest rates. Do they still have that wealth?

Even trying to assess the value of your home is tricky. It is why the Lib Dem idea of tax on the exact house value didn't fly, because it was quickly realised that you have to keep reassessing even normal homes, as Bob gets a conservatory, Fred gets a lovely garden make-over etc.

In France, they have a simple solution. You self declare - but the state has the right to buy your house at a c. 20% premium to your self declared value. And every year they sweep up the most egregious cheaters and purchase their homes for less than they're worth and sell them.

It keeps cheating to a minimum.

Surely there must be loads of financial vehicles whereby assets are transferred into businesses and clever accounting is used, or as I stated with what we know about the uber uber wealthy, all those stakes in their own companies, large chunks of that has been swapped for very long term low interest loans.

Its a bit like the old Labour donation swerve, you don't donate, you make a loan, but never ask for the money back and thus you don't have to be named.

You will still lose your home under the scheme @rcs1000 mentions, I suppose. That's the beauty of it. You or whatever vehicle you use declares a property worth €200 000. The tax authorities think, that's undervalued, we will put it on the market and suppose they get an offer of €300 000. So they go back to you and say, you can continue to stay if you pay us the difference of €100 000. They don't care who lives there, pays the original wealth tax or who gets the €200 000 because they can sell the property at a profit of €100 000 if it's undervalued.

You could apply the same idea to assets that are more liquid than property. Wealth tax applies to the asset, not the owner, so asset managers pay a percentage of the assets to the government as tax. If owners have a justifiable reason for a rebate, they will need to apply for it with justification.

Instance way to kill the city of London as a financial centre.

A hypothesis that is never tested from first principles because of special pleading.

Taxes discourage the activities they tax, at the margins. Income-related tax discourages work; wealth taxes discourage wealth creation. The question is whether that particular tax in the form it is implemented discourages that particular activity to the extent it becomes counterproductive and you are better shifting the burden to something else.

Taxing things like houses works, because its a pain in the ass to sell your house and move. And a lot of people want to live in certain locations, and willing to pay that bit of extra tax in order to do so e.g. London.

Where foreign individuals and what markets companies decide to invest when there are lots of global options and it is trivial to do so in any of them, there is low to no friction to doing so.

Adding a load of red tape, where tax money is withheld by the asset manager and then individuals have to claim it back is just going to have big investors move where they want to put their money.

If Brexit was a pain in the ass enough in terms of EU financial services, adding this massive extra layer would be terrible.

*Sobs*

Mastercard has agreed to acquire blockchain analytics start-up CipherTrace, in the latest sign of how major companies are warming to cryptocurrencies.

The payments giant said Thursday it entered into an agreement to buy CipherTrace for an undisclosed amount. Based in Menlo Park, California, CipherTrace develops tools that help businesses and law enforcement root out illicit digital currency transactions. The company’s competitors include New York-based Chainalysis and London start-up Elliptic.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/09/09/mastercard-to-buy-blockchain-analytics-start-up-ciphertrace.html

I picked the wrong day to not work.

British regulators have warned the country’s top banks that they must improve oversight of their trade finance businesses, after a spate of scandals that caused hundreds of millions in losses and allowed criminals to abuse the financial system.

An unusually blunt “dear CEO” letter, sent on Thursday by both the Financial Conduct Authority and Prudential Regulation Authority, ordered recipients to conduct a full financial crime risk assessment of their processes to detect money laundering, sanctions evasion, terrorist financing and fraud among their clients. 

“During the past 18 months there have been several high-profile failures of commodity and trade finance firms with significant financial loss,” the FCA and PRA said. “Assessments of individual firms have highlighted several significant issues relating to both credit risk analysis and financial crime controls.”

The regulators said they may ask to see the assessments and any follow-up action taken.

In recent years the commodity trading industry has been rocked by a series of scandals that have left lenders, including HSBC and Credit Suisse, with significant losses.

The incidents highlighted broader issues with trade finance — where banks provide credit to firms that buy and sell commodities around the world — such as aggressive lending practices and archaic paper-based systems that are vulnerable to abuse and forgery.

In April 2020, Hin Leong Trading, the oil trader owned by one of Singapore’s richest men, collapsed owing more than $3bn to 20 lenders. The founder admitted to hiding losses from trading in futures markets, selling off oil inventories that had been pledged as collateral for loans.

https://www.ft.com/content/6a08659d-623f-49ad-abb5-057b7defc152

TheScreamingEagles said:

*Sobs*

Mastercard has agreed to acquire blockchain analytics start-up CipherTrace, in the latest sign of how major companies are warming to cryptocurrencies.

The payments giant said Thursday it entered into an agreement to buy CipherTrace for an undisclosed amount. Based in Menlo Park, California, CipherTrace develops tools that help businesses and law enforcement root out illicit digital currency transactions. The company’s competitors include New York-based Chainalysis and London start-up Elliptic.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/09/09/mastercard-to-buy-blockchain-analytics-start-up-ciphertrace.html

Isn't that purchase trying to stop crypto trade, through getting banks to impose stricter KYC, rather than encourage it?

kinabalu said:

Mexicanpete said:

kinabalu said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

One question I always have about wealth taxes...if you aren't a normie, i.e. regular 9-5 job, semi-detached new build house, with the 2.5 kids and the dog, it quickly becomes incredibly difficult to assess.

Also, what about all these schemes that the ultra wealthy use where they transfer their shares into a company, which then trades them to a financial institution, who in return provides lifetime loans at very low interest rates. Do they still have that wealth?

Even trying to assess the value of your home is tricky. It is why the Lib Dem idea of tax on the exact house value didn't fly, because it was quickly realised that you have to keep reassessing even normal homes, as Bob gets a conservatory, Fred gets a lovely garden make-over etc.

Self assessment with very stiff penalties - jail time - for materially understating it. Fear works wonders.

Ooh, you've gone all authoritarian Priti Patel this evening.

Totally right! All this "Wealth tax is unenforceable" business - absolute bollox.

Hang on for a minute while I set up an inheritance trust for my children.

I am not very left wing on this, and I will tell you why. I have worked my nuts off and lived a frugal lifestyle to achieve what I have. I would like to have blown it all on booze, woman and fast cars like George Best, but I did not. George chose to party like it was 1999, I have chosen to look after my children post my passing. Also, having paid my taxes first time round, why should I pay them again on my death to fund the self- inflicted liver damaged social care costs of the George Bests of this world.

We should be chasing Amazon and their ilk,, we should be closing offshore loopholes. We should be taxing unearned incomes, hedge funds, non-inherited (to an extent) windfalls, and revisit charitable status scams. It seems to me there is an awful lot that could be done before we look at inheritance tax and/ or NI.

On the other hand we could also be less profligate as a nation with NHS PPE contracts, Royal yachts, Garden Bridges, aircraft paintjobs. and Liverpool council vanity projects.

noneoftheabove said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

*Sobs*

Mastercard has agreed to acquire blockchain analytics start-up CipherTrace, in the latest sign of how major companies are warming to cryptocurrencies.

The payments giant said Thursday it entered into an agreement to buy CipherTrace for an undisclosed amount. Based in Menlo Park, California, CipherTrace develops tools that help businesses and law enforcement root out illicit digital currency transactions. The company’s competitors include New York-based Chainalysis and London start-up Elliptic.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/09/09/mastercard-to-buy-blockchain-analytics-start-up-ciphertrace.html

Isn't that purchase trying to stop crypto trade, through getting banks to impose stricter KYC, rather than encourage it?

The press release I read was they just want a cut of the transactions.

The Biden administration on Thursday sued Texas, seeking to block enforcement of a new law almost entirely banning abortion in the state, as Democrats fear the right to abortion established 50 years ago may be at risk.

The U.S. Supreme Court last week let stand the Texas law banning abortion after about six weeks of pregnancy, before many woman realize they are pregnant. The decision represented a major victory for social conservatives who have been trying to ban the procedure since the court's 1973 Roe v. Wade decision established the constitutional right to abortion.

President Joe Biden has warned the law would cause "unconstitutional chaos" because it relies on private citizens to enforce it by filing civil lawsuits against people who help a woman obtain an abortion after six weeks, whether it be a doctor who performs the procedure or a cabbie who drives a woman to a clinic.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-justice-dept-announce-civil-rights-case-after-texas-abortion-ban-takes-effect-2021-09-09/

kle4 said:

Mexicanpete said:

Leon said:

IshmaelZ said:

Leon said:

Omnium said:

Leon said:

I have just ordered roast hare.

Lucerne, this is your big test

Today I had THE WORST SALAD OF MY LIFE on top of beautiful Mount Pilatus.

They have a lot of ground to make up

Your clear error was ordering a salad. It's that sort of thing that give Brits abroad a bad name.

You what? A salad Nicoise in the riviera sun. A salad caprese.. anywhere

My salad has fried lake fish (frozen, even tho we were right by the lake) with frisée, beetroot, black lentils, tomato, a tin of sweet corn, pickles, a hunk of stale bread and a dollop of tartare sauce

It was like a salad piled on a plate at a Garfunkel’s buffet by a cognitively deficient Russian in about 1983

That's the way the girls are in Texas. I'm just surprised there weren't gherkins in it.

Roast hare = this could be heaven and this could be hell. My signature dish is jugged hare. I'd think roast would be very dry.

I forgot to mention the two slices of melon in the salad AS WELL

I think Lucerne is right on the culinary border between shit Germanic food, and great Italian food, and complex could-go-either-way French food

I am relieved to report that the hare is delicious. Slow roast leg on the bone. Tender and succulent

Oh no! I've accidentally logged on to a European dining and travel blog. Sorry!

The key to blog survival is diversification. It also moonlights as cricket commentary.

There is a betting element to that mind.

TheScreamingEagles said:

I picked the wrong day to not work.

British regulators have warned the country’s top banks that they must improve oversight of their trade finance businesses, after a spate of scandals that caused hundreds of millions in losses and allowed criminals to abuse the financial system.

An unusually blunt “dear CEO” letter, sent on Thursday by both the Financial Conduct Authority and Prudential Regulation Authority, ordered recipients to conduct a full financial crime risk assessment of their processes to detect money laundering, sanctions evasion, terrorist financing and fraud among their clients. 

“During the past 18 months there have been several high-profile failures of commodity and trade finance firms with significant financial loss,” the FCA and PRA said. “Assessments of individual firms have highlighted several significant issues relating to both credit risk analysis and financial crime controls.”

The regulators said they may ask to see the assessments and any follow-up action taken.

In recent years the commodity trading industry has been rocked by a series of scandals that have left lenders, including HSBC and Credit Suisse, with significant losses.

The incidents highlighted broader issues with trade finance — where banks provide credit to firms that buy and sell commodities around the world — such as aggressive lending practices and archaic paper-based systems that are vulnerable to abuse and forgery.

In April 2020, Hin Leong Trading, the oil trader owned by one of Singapore’s richest men, collapsed owing more than $3bn to 20 lenders. The founder admitted to hiding losses from trading in futures markets, selling off oil inventories that had been pledged as collateral for loans.

https://www.ft.com/content/6a08659d-623f-49ad-abb5-057b7defc152

TSE, would making directors criminally responsible for their institutions enabling financial crime achieve anything?

Northern_Al said:

On taxation. Of course Labour thinks that wealth/the wealthy will need to be taxed more, much more, to achieve their aims in government. The tax burden on the low and average paid is enough, if not too much, as it is - where else will it come from but those with the "broadest shoulders"?

But Starmer knows full well that as soon as he says this openly, the Tories and their mates in the printed press will be joyful. Those of us who've been around a while could wheel out the headlines: Labour tax bombshell; your home at risk (as if); entrepreneurs, the brightest and the best, all relocating to wherever, Labour kills aspiration, Premier League football at risk from Labour's tax plans; and so on, You get the drift.

So, politically, he needs to keep it under wraps. In fact, some of the tax plans should not be revealed until/unless Labour wins power. Just like the Tories. Their tax hikes, their detailed Brexit plan, their cuts to overseas aid, weren't in their manifesto. All Starmer needs to do for now is what he's doing: say that in principle, those with the broadest shoulders should contribute more. Those looking for a detailed plan can whistle. He doesn't need one. He's smarter than some think - one step ahead. Why give the Tories and the tabloids what they want?

Tories have shifted the political landscape from left v right to retirees vs workers. Retirees know the Tories are on their side. Workers dont think either party is on their side. Labour need to change that and can do, but they need to demonstrate it. Taxes on wealth and reducing taxes on income should be their key policy imo.

BlancheLivermore said:

Don't know why anyone's getting upset about the NI "increase".

If you round it up to the nearest 10%, it's basically a zero percent rise.

And that's as good as a tax decrease.

You mean, round down ...

MightyAlex said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I picked the wrong day to not work.

British regulators have warned the country’s top banks that they must improve oversight of their trade finance businesses, after a spate of scandals that caused hundreds of millions in losses and allowed criminals to abuse the financial system.

An unusually blunt “dear CEO” letter, sent on Thursday by both the Financial Conduct Authority and Prudential Regulation Authority, ordered recipients to conduct a full financial crime risk assessment of their processes to detect money laundering, sanctions evasion, terrorist financing and fraud among their clients. 

“During the past 18 months there have been several high-profile failures of commodity and trade finance firms with significant financial loss,” the FCA and PRA said. “Assessments of individual firms have highlighted several significant issues relating to both credit risk analysis and financial crime controls.”

The regulators said they may ask to see the assessments and any follow-up action taken.

In recent years the commodity trading industry has been rocked by a series of scandals that have left lenders, including HSBC and Credit Suisse, with significant losses.

The incidents highlighted broader issues with trade finance — where banks provide credit to firms that buy and sell commodities around the world — such as aggressive lending practices and archaic paper-based systems that are vulnerable to abuse and forgery.

In April 2020, Hin Leong Trading, the oil trader owned by one of Singapore’s richest men, collapsed owing more than $3bn to 20 lenders. The founder admitted to hiding losses from trading in futures markets, selling off oil inventories that had been pledged as collateral for loans.

https://www.ft.com/content/6a08659d-623f-49ad-abb5-057b7defc152

TSE, would making directors criminally responsible for their institutions enabling financial crime achieve anything?

Is already the law of the land.

Where it gets messy, say UK bank helped a foreign company, that bank gives credit/finance etc based on reports from a reputable global auditor, a reputable legal firm, and a reputable bank in another country.

When all of those auditors, banks, and solicitors have been honest and something has gone horribly wrong (say Enron style) it's not really the UK bank's fault.

Although HSBC deserve everything they get.

Carnyx said:

BlancheLivermore said:

Don't know why anyone's getting upset about the NI "increase".

If you round it up to the nearest 10%, it's basically a zero percent rise.

And that's as good as a tax decrease.

You mean, round down ...

I think he was using mathematical roundings as practised by Mr Hyufd.

TheScreamingEagles said:

MightyAlex said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I picked the wrong day to not work.

British regulators have warned the country’s top banks that they must improve oversight of their trade finance businesses, after a spate of scandals that caused hundreds of millions in losses and allowed criminals to abuse the financial system.

An unusually blunt “dear CEO” letter, sent on Thursday by both the Financial Conduct Authority and Prudential Regulation Authority, ordered recipients to conduct a full financial crime risk assessment of their processes to detect money laundering, sanctions evasion, terrorist financing and fraud among their clients. 

“During the past 18 months there have been several high-profile failures of commodity and trade finance firms with significant financial loss,” the FCA and PRA said. “Assessments of individual firms have highlighted several significant issues relating to both credit risk analysis and financial crime controls.”

The regulators said they may ask to see the assessments and any follow-up action taken.

In recent years the commodity trading industry has been rocked by a series of scandals that have left lenders, including HSBC and Credit Suisse, with significant losses.

The incidents highlighted broader issues with trade finance — where banks provide credit to firms that buy and sell commodities around the world — such as aggressive lending practices and archaic paper-based systems that are vulnerable to abuse and forgery.

In April 2020, Hin Leong Trading, the oil trader owned by one of Singapore’s richest men, collapsed owing more than $3bn to 20 lenders. The founder admitted to hiding losses from trading in futures markets, selling off oil inventories that had been pledged as collateral for loans.

https://www.ft.com/content/6a08659d-623f-49ad-abb5-057b7defc152

TSE, would making directors criminally responsible for their institutions enabling financial crime achieve anything?

Is already the law of the land.

Where it gets messy, say UK bank helped a foreign company, that bank gives credit/finance etc based on reports from a reputable global auditor, a reputable legal firm, and a reputable bank in another country.

When all of those auditors, banks, and solicitors have been honest and something has gone horribly wrong (say Enron style) it's not really the UK bank's fault.

Although HSBC deserve everything they get.

Could it be said that sometimes financiers are willing to take figures on trust from foreign companies when perhaps they should be looking a little deeper?

Mexicanpete said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Mexicanpete said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Mexicanpete said:

On topic

Just saw Starmer's "Rosie" speech in the HoC from yesterday. £1000 a year reduced UC plus the NI increase to a working mum. Starmer was actually very good and he played the Tory laughter very well.

Fortunately for Johnson nothing to interest the BBC. They are fully focused on the tax rise that is necessary to fully fund the NHS and social care for once and for all.

And the point I made earlier, if that had been a young Tony Blair Boris would have been demolished but for labour Starmer is no Tony Blair

From the bit of what I saw, surprisingly Starmer confidently and comprehensively had the better of Johnson. Blair wouldn't have done any better.

I was referring to the Sky interview tonight

Didn't see it.

https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1436004573798350849?s=19

rottenborough said:

Sandpit said:

IshmaelZ said:

Sandpit said:

noneoftheabove said:

Sandpit said:

FPT

CarlottaVance said:

Some significant COP26 news: President Biden is coming to Glasgow. A big relief for the PM, who invited him months ago. A needy shot in the arm for the summit too, which is in trouble after talks for a deal with China + others stalled.

https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1436014231896444935?s=20

Because having dozens of jets turn up at a climate change summit, is giving exactly the right message about how we all need to change our behaviours.

If the last 18 months has shown the world anyting, it’s that the vast majority of meetings can be done remotely when the chips are down.

Is this actually THE BIG F***ING EMERGENCY they want us to believe it is?

I’m still amazed that Cisco didn’t offer $10m to sponsor doing the whole thing on WebEx.

I don't really get this objection. It is such a completely irrelevant percentage of the impact of planes on climate change.

If they can do even 0.01% better in person than they can remotely it will have a positive pay off.

It’s the optics.

“We” are flying a hundred private planes to the summmit in Glasgow, so that “we” can have our conference, the output of which is that “we” expect “you” to do less flying, to buy expensive electric cars, pay extra taxes, and attend fewer conferences - while “we” appear totally exempt from what “we” impose on “you”.

Fuck optics. Either you are a software construct (or a sociopath), or you realise that face to face outweighs zoom to an extent that the private jets pay for themselves.

Yeah I’m in IT.

If there’s a MASSIVE CLIMATE EMERGENCY, then no, the private jets don’t pay for themselves, they’re the most selfish possible use of the scarce resources left on this planet.

Flying is about 2% of carbon emissions. Most of that is leisure, not business.

If they can all jet in and do something about coal burning in China then it will be well worth the flights.

That activity X involves only Y% of global carbon emissions is not an argument for anything. You may as well say that as the UK is only 1.1% that it need do nothing but imitate the owners of private jets and carry on regardless.

Also, the use of private jets by elites says to everyone else that opinion formers and exemplars for young impressionable people do not believe a single word of their own rhetoric.

Northern_Al said:

On taxation. Of course Labour thinks that wealth/the wealthy will need to be taxed more, much more, to achieve their aims in government. The tax burden on the low and average paid is enough, if not too much, as it is - where else will it come from but those with the "broadest shoulders"?

But Starmer knows full well that as soon as he says this openly, the Tories and their mates in the printed press will be joyful. Those of us who've been around a while could wheel out the headlines: Labour tax bombshell; your home at risk (as if); entrepreneurs, the brightest and the best, all relocating to wherever; Labour kills aspiration; Premier League football at risk from Labour's tax plans; and so on. You get the drift.

So, politically, he needs to keep it under wraps. In fact, some of the tax plans should not be revealed until/unless Labour wins power. Just like the Tories. Their tax hikes, their detailed Brexit plan, their cuts to overseas aid, weren't in their manifesto. All Starmer needs to do for now is what he's doing: say that in principle, those with the broadest shoulders should contribute more. Those looking for a detailed plan can whistle. He doesn't need one. He's smarter than some think - one step ahead. Why give the Tories and the tabloids what they want?

The problem is that he has a wishy washy, indecisive image - people frequently say they don’t know what he stands for. To combat that, he has proposed to outline his vision ‘in primary colours’, which doesn’t really fit with someone refusing to answer what he would do differently

noneoftheabove said:

NickPalmer said:

noneoftheabove said:

Tories have shifted the political landscape from left v right to retirees vs workers. Retirees know the Tories are on their side. Workers dont think either party is on their side. Labour need to change that and can do, but they need to demonstrate it. Taxes on wealth and reducing taxes on income should be their key policy imo.

I agree. But it's important to put the horse before the cart. You don't start by saying "We want a wealth tax". You start by saying "We want to reduce the tax burden on people at work." How? Then you talk about wealth taxes. The mistake we often make on the left is to talk about a wealth tax as virtuous in itself, which reinforces the idea that Labour loves to tax you.

Agreed and that is why I am surprised that they did not come out for a wealth tax this week.

It should have been:

"The Tory plan does not raise enough and is unfair on workers yet again, so we would have a wealth tax instead to raise enough money to actually fund social care now, without hitting most peoples hard work and jobs"

Instead we heard:

"We are against this proposal but not providing any better alternative ourselves."

Ipsos Mori polling on a wealth tax.

69% oppose a tax on pensions, 58% oppose a tax on the main home minus mortgage, 64% oppose a tax on savings.

However voters support a tax on financial investment by 43% to 29% and 59% support a tax on all net property minus the main home

https://twitter.com/APHanrahan/status/1436032157001166850?s=20

J K Rowling is trending on twitter....i presume its the now seemingly monthly pile on due to her saying something vaguely controversial at some point some where.

She gets more abuse on twitter than you average premier league footballer.

FrancisUrquhart said:

J K Rowling is trending on twitter....i presume its the now monthly pile on due to her saying something vaguely controversial at some point some where.

No

An awful lot of people QTing this apology determined to find out if there is indeed safety in numbers. Well, chaps, there might be for most of you. But the weak ones at the back of the flock are going to be picked off one by one...
https://twitter.com/no1guncle/status/1435952913638215684

Northern_Al said:

NickPalmer said:

noneoftheabove said:

Tories have shifted the political landscape from left v right to retirees vs workers. Retirees know the Tories are on their side. Workers dont think either party is on their side. Labour need to change that and can do, but they need to demonstrate it. Taxes on wealth and reducing taxes on income should be their key policy imo.

I agree. But it's important to put the horse before the cart. You don't start by saying "We want a wealth tax". You start by saying "We want to reduce the tax burden on people at work." How? Then you talk about wealth taxes. The mistake we often make on the left is to talk about a wealth tax as virtuous in itself, which reinforces the idea that Labour loves to tax you.

I agree, but think Labour can afford to be a bit braver as we enter post-Covid times. Back in the 1980s. the "greed is good" mantra was largely unchallenged.

But now, the level of corporate, and individual, greed is so vast that I think challenging it could be popular. The grotesque differences in income between the average and the top 1-5% are stupendously large, with people (including PL footballers) earning salaries that are just ridiculous. Similarly, the greed that some of the most wealthy corporations exhibit - paying their workers a pittance while directors and shareholders are lining their pockets - should be challenged. Of course we'll get the "you'll just drive investment abroad" mantra. But if Britain really wants to be great for business, Labour should he arguing for less grotesque differentials of income and wealth. For a more equitable and happy form of capitalism, if you like.

I think I completely agree - I find it hard to see how someone can think all that and also think FOM was a good thing though. It was a magnificent enabler of the basic principle you are criticising

Scott_xP said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

J K Rowling is trending on twitter....i presume its the now monthly pile on due to her saying something vaguely controversial at some point some where.

No

An awful lot of people QTing this apology determined to find out if there is indeed safety in numbers. Well, chaps, there might be for most of you. But the weak ones at the back of the flock are going to be picked off one by one...
https://twitter.com/no1guncle/status/1435952913638215684

It has started the pile on ....latest tweet . .

"On the 10th September 2021 I will call JK Rowling a fucking transphobic howler monkey with the talent of a syphilitic horse and the decency of Savile on a hospital ward. I reserve any apology in advance of this statement."

https://twitter.com/Easy_As_He_Him/status/1436057973328171009?s=19

Absolutely disgraceful the abuse she gets on social media.

isam said:

Northern_Al said:

On taxation. Of course Labour thinks that wealth/the wealthy will need to be taxed more, much more, to achieve their aims in government. The tax burden on the low and average paid is enough, if not too much, as it is - where else will it come from but those with the "broadest shoulders"?

But Starmer knows full well that as soon as he says this openly, the Tories and their mates in the printed press will be joyful. Those of us who've been around a while could wheel out the headlines: Labour tax bombshell; your home at risk (as if); entrepreneurs, the brightest and the best, all relocating to wherever; Labour kills aspiration; Premier League football at risk from Labour's tax plans; and so on. You get the drift.

So, politically, he needs to keep it under wraps. In fact, some of the tax plans should not be revealed until/unless Labour wins power. Just like the Tories. Their tax hikes, their detailed Brexit plan, their cuts to overseas aid, weren't in their manifesto. All Starmer needs to do for now is what he's doing: say that in principle, those with the broadest shoulders should contribute more. Those looking for a detailed plan can whistle. He doesn't need one. He's smarter than some think - one step ahead. Why give the Tories and the tabloids what they want?

The problem is that he has a wishy washy, indecisive image - people frequently say they don’t know what he stands for. To combat that, he has proposed to outline his vision ‘in primary colours’, which doesn’t really fit with someone refusing to answer what he would do differently

I don't disagree. But I would argue that he could set out a vision in 'primary colours' without going into precise detail. Blair, Clinton and Obama set out 'visions' that generally included little detail, for example (I'm not arguing Starmer is charismatic like them). In fact, the 'vision' thing - what the future of the country should be - can get completely lost if there's too much (lawyerly) detail.

Thoughts and prayers for the antiwoke monarchists.

The Queen and the royal family are supporters of the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement, one of Her Majesty’s representatives has said.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/queen-black-lives-matter-london-buckingham-palace-archie-b954590.html

IshmaelZ said:

ydoethur said:

Carnyx said:

BlancheLivermore said:

Don't know why anyone's getting upset about the NI "increase".

If you round it up to the nearest 10%, it's basically a zero percent rise.

And that's as good as a tax decrease.

You mean, round down ...

I think he was using mathematical roundings as practised by Mr Hyufd.

It's hard, though. Rounding up, you go up; rounding down, you go down. Counterintuitive.

Not to mention rounding to the nearest integer. Divisive. Or perhaps not.

Carnyx said:

IshmaelZ said:

ydoethur said:

Carnyx said:

BlancheLivermore said:

Don't know why anyone's getting upset about the NI "increase".

If you round it up to the nearest 10%, it's basically a zero percent rise.

And that's as good as a tax decrease.

You mean, round down ...

I think he was using mathematical roundings as practised by Mr Hyufd.

It's hard, though. Rounding up, you go up; rounding down, you go down. Counterintuitive.

Not to mention rounding to the nearest integer. Divisive. Or perhaps not.

Reminds me of how 2+2 = 5.

2.49 + 2.49 = 5 (well 4.98, but that's rounded up to 5.)

But rounded down that's 2+2 = 5.

FrancisUrquhart said:

Scott_xP said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

J K Rowling is trending on twitter....i presume its the now monthly pile on due to her saying something vaguely controversial at some point some where.

No

An awful lot of people QTing this apology determined to find out if there is indeed safety in numbers. Well, chaps, there might be for most of you. But the weak ones at the back of the flock are going to be picked off one by one...
https://twitter.com/no1guncle/status/1435952913638215684

It has started the pile on ....latest tweet . .

"On the 10th September 2021 I will call JK Rowling a fucking transphobic howler monkey with the talent of a syphilitic horse and the decency of Savile on a hospital ward. I reserve any apology in advance of this statement."

https://twitter.com/Easy_As_He_Him/status/1436057973328171009?s=19

Absolutely disgraceful the abuse she gets on social media.

Is there any research into how many bedroom bound incels hate Harry Potter?