By extension it is though. The argument is that he is rich and has comprehension of the common man. I’d also wonder about @Gardenwalker’s own tax arrangements, as he now lives in the states and earns profits in th3 U.K. on his properties.
It’s not at all what I said, you berk.
I don’t mind especially that Rishi is insanely rich, although it does raise questions about his relatability to the taxpayer.
What I cannot accept is that his wife (and by extension him) is availing herself of various tax schemes available to a global rentier class, and claiming that one of them “has no firm plans to stay in the UK” so they can continue to take the piss.
As for me,
1. I’m not a billionaire. 2. I neither inherited or married into money. 3. I’m not seeking elected office. 4. I’m not a cunt.
She benefits from dual nationality, as I believe do you. That’s your right, and hers. As long as she pays the tax she owes in the U.K. and he does what’s the problem? Should she impoverish India by NOT paying the due tax there? Or pay twice to keep people happy? Isn’t this really just because she is rich? She’s not even the elected mp. Are we saying spouses and other family are fair game now?
If you cannot see the issue with the Chancellor of the Exchequer levying taxes (or scrapping welfare) on the poorest in society, while taking advantage of tax dodges only available to those who must claim they don’t have any real commitment the UK, then I’m afraid you are a moral pygmy.
It’s breathtakingly awful.
So what would be the moral thing to do? Give up her Indian nationality? Only pay taxes in the U.K. on earning made elsewhere? Do the taxes paid in Indian not go to the Indian state? If the claim was that the chancellor was changing the laws to enable her to dodge tax, then I’d get the anger. He isn’t. She is following the law. Don’t like it? Vote the Tories out, elect a government to change it. It’s a personal question so feel free to ignore, but you surely in a limited way have to answer the question of where you should pay tax on U.K. earnings. Small beer compared to a billionaire for sure.
The correct thing to do would be to get these affairs sorted BEFORE Rishi sought high office.
As to how, without knowing Ms Murty’s precise situation I can’t say, but I do think she should not LIE about having “no firm plans to stay in the UK” despite her husband being CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER.
You opt for non dom status on a year by year basis. So she elected to do this while her spouse was cote.
Parisian restaurants are overall poor: mediocre and expensive food. But you can eat really well in small town France. The trick is to find the restaurant that everyone goes to for Sunday lunch. Else the smart place next to the town hall. That's where the mayor goes for his lunch and it will be good.
Another place for good food (it seems) are schools. Each primary and secondary school publishes the menu for the week on their website. Some of these menus look delicious.
If he got this bang on, then his prediction of a Le Pen victory carries a lot more weight
I'm no expert but I've used it.
OK cool. So what did he predict?!
GitHub just stores the code. We'd have to pull it down, feed it his data source and run it to see his graphs (it runs a loess regression and outputs a bunch of histograms, at a quick glance)
(Ah - it scrapes the FT's brexit polling so it should be runnable by anyone with R skills)
Yup, FT data, loess fit, put into a shiny app with a graph. No rocket science here.
Yes yes, but what did he predict?!
If he aced it, then his French predix carry more weight
Alright, it's been a while since I've used R and I don't have it installed on this machine, so I'll see if I can spin up a machine in Google Cloud and run it. Only because it's you.
If the code is buggy, I'll stop. I'm not going to debug someone else's 6 year old code. Give me a few minutes.
You’re a star. Also that all sounds highly impressive
Oh god I wish I hadn't started this. He's got a hot mess of dependencies in there. One of them is called "kirkegaard", which seems to be his own dump of random code bits. And there's a reference to another packages called "psychometric" which I don't even know what that is. It's not on CRAN and it's not in his personal Github, so fuck knows what that's about. That code is officially NOT in a working order.
So basically, bullshit. But @Leon’s hope is palpable.
The PB Tory’s onanistic fantasy of a Le Pen win seems to come around more and more frequently. Perhaps I am just getting old.
Does @HYUFD still maintain Le Pen actually won the last election, pending final returns from Kerguelen?
Does anyone actually want her to win? Other than hope of a more excisting contest, pretty sure most people on both sides think Macron is far and away the best choice the French have.
A Le Pen win is one of those secret desires held by the PB Tory / Brexit tribe.
See Telegraph/Spectator articles and various PB Tory comments passim.
It’s a bit like the Japanese fetish for vending machines that sell schoolgirls’ knickers. Inexplicable to outsiders.
Is it inexplicable? How different is Le Pen's platform from that of someone like Priti Patel?
If he got this bang on, then his prediction of a Le Pen victory carries a lot more weight
I'm no expert but I've used it.
OK cool. So what did he predict?!
GitHub just stores the code. We'd have to pull it down, feed it his data source and run it to see his graphs (it runs a loess regression and outputs a bunch of histograms, at a quick glance)
(Ah - it scrapes the FT's brexit polling so it should be runnable by anyone with R skills)
Yup, FT data, loess fit, put into a shiny app with a graph. No rocket science here.
Yes yes, but what did he predict?!
If he aced it, then his French predix carry more weight
Alright, it's been a while since I've used R and I don't have it installed on this machine, so I'll see if I can spin up a machine in Google Cloud and run it. Only because it's you.
If the code is buggy, I'll stop. I'm not going to debug someone else's 6 year old code. Give me a few minutes.
You’re a star. Also that all sounds highly impressive
Oh god I wish I hadn't started this. He's got a hot mess of dependencies in there. One of them is called "kirkegaard", which seems to be his own dump of random code bits. And there's a reference to another packages called "psychometric" which I don't even know what that is. It's not on CRAN and it's not in his personal Github, so fuck knows what that's about. That code is officially NOT in a working order.
So basically, bullshit. But @Leon’s hope is palpable.
The PB Tory’s onanistic fantasy of a Le Pen win seems to come around more and more frequently. Perhaps I am just getting old.
Does @HYUFD still maintain Le Pen actually won the last election, pending final returns from Kerguelen?
Does anyone actually want her to win? Other than hope of a more excisting contest, pretty sure most people on both sides think Macron is far and away the best choice the French have.
A Le Pen win is one of those secret desires held by the PB Tory / Brexit tribe.
See Telegraph/Spectator articles and various PB Tory comments passim.
It’s a bit like the Japanese fetish for vending machines that sell schoolgirls’ knickers. Inexplicable to outsiders.
Is it inexplicable? How different is Le Pen's platform from that of someone like Priti Patel?
A bit more overt and extreme, I think ( Priti Patel is certainly a threat to democracy, though). "National preference" for housing and services, in Putin's pocket for foreign policy.
If Patel had her own party, I could see such a policy. Even Brown had British jobs for British workers.
Its daft how much insulting daftness heads her way.
I will happily defend her.
I dont like her brand of politics, even if it is not her fathers anymore, but think it would be better if those who approve of her winning, would just say so and that they quite like most of what she stands for, rather than give it the standard "it would be funny and great if she won, but I really don't want her to" line.
I don’t believe there is anyone on here who actively wants her to win. There are a lot of people who enjoy political drama - most of us? - and what was a tedious one horse race is now much more exciting. That’s fun
Also seeing Macron frightened is a pleasure. He is a twat. And an anglophobe
As for myself, I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Despite the twatness, I’d vote for Macron. He’s done OK. he’s the best of a fairly feeble bunch.
I don’t think Le Pen would a fascist catastrophe. She’s not Mussolini. But her victory would encourage Putin, and that alone is reason enough to want her to lose
How can there possibly not be anyone here who wants her to win? There are hundreds of regular posters, maybe thousands including casuals, from a wide spectrum of views and experiences and she is getting high polling numbers. Are we really to believe none of the UKIPers or Brexiteer wing of the Tories agree with her more than they disagree?
Er, because no one has expressed that sentiment? You can only go by what people say
Except that you seek to look into pb-ers souls where you are sure they are secretly pro Le Pen, because you just KNOW
Whatever
It would be quite extraordinary to have many posters who are quite keen on authoritarian nationalism and protectionism, but none of them favour an authoritarian nationalist protectionist.
I can think of exactly one poster who might describe himself as keen on authoritarianism/nationalism/protectionism - and even he might express some reservations about Le Pen. Many of us think Macron's a dick. Possibly even relish his discomfort a little. That absolutely doesn't equate to wanting Le Pen to win.
Here’s an interesting thought experiment. Take away Macron, who would you vote for, of the leading candidates
For me, it probably would be Le Pen
Melenchon is Corbyn: no way Pecresse seems totally feeble Zemmour is almost a Nazi, and mad Hidalgo is a woke joke and terrible mayor of Paris
Who is going to stand up for France, is also sane, and a patriot, and would make an interesting change?
Hold your nose: Le Pen? And pray she really has detoxed
So @noneoftheabove makes a valid point, in a sense. There are circs where she gets support
Edit to add: this is a mind game where Putin has NOT invaded Ukraine
“I don’t like Le Pen, but what if…”
Play it again, Sam.
So fucking tedious
I’m trying to get inside the minds of 50.3% French people who are apparently willing to vote for Le Pen, on the latest poll
Do you think more than half the French are Fascists?
No. Nor do I
So why are they apparently voting for her?
The loathe Macron They want real change They are praying she has detoxed They detest the Parisian elite They are worried by migration They are worried about inflation and security They are willing to thrust Ukraine from their minds They look at all the other alternatives and despair
Put it all together and it is extremely similar to Brexit
So what you are saying is that Brexit and fascism are kindred spirits?
Interesting.
I don’t believe Le Pen is a fascist. Not judging by her policies and statements in the last decade.
Could she be a secret fascist? Yes. But you could make such claims - he secretly believes this! - of many politicians
She’s an ethnocentric populist nationalist. A left wing Farage perhaps, although british and French traditions are so different maybe there is no good comparison
One of the things I can’t get my head around is that while Brexit is the preserve of the old and middle-aged, Le Penisme (fascist or no) is more of a youth movement.
So while the two phenoms look so similar on the surface, I wonder if they are motivated by quite different things, albeit appealing against the same time-honoured folk devils.
It's been remarked upon that Macron's campaign has been missing the youth element that was apparent in 2017, so that could be another bad omen for him.
If the Sunak-Murtys have “no firm plans” to stay in Britain, will Sunak please resign and just fuck off?
He has no moral right to impose taxation on the British people, let alone the very poorest, whom he seems to have chosen to punish.
Can only a poor person govern now? Have we come to this?
I still can't see the traction in this given that he is a tory - this is what they do, and people still vote for them anyway. The scheme is lawful, and organised by the government.
And, as far as I can tell, Labour don't want to get rid of non dom status.
I should bloody well hope not. That really would be cutting off our noses to spite our feet.
Most of the commentary about non-dom status has been extremely ill-informed, but in the particular case of Mrs Sunak that is irrelevant, it's politically a non-starter to have someone in Rishi's position as party leader.
OR as Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Yes, that too.
There's no way Sunak is getting the sack because of his wife.
If the Sunak-Murtys have “no firm plans” to stay in Britain, will Sunak please resign and just fuck off?
He has no moral right to impose taxation on the British people, let alone the very poorest, whom he seems to have chosen to punish.
Can only a poor person govern now? Have we come to this?
I still can't see the traction in this given that he is a tory - this is what they do, and people still vote for them anyway. The scheme is lawful, and organised by the government.
And, as far as I can tell, Labour don't want to get rid of non dom status.
I should bloody well hope not. That really would be cutting off our noses to spite our feet.
Most of the commentary about non-dom status has been extremely ill-informed, but in the particular case of Mrs Sunak that is irrelevant, it's politically a non-starter to have someone in Rishi's position as party leader.
OR as Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The question I'm not musing on is how far up the greasy pole someone in Sunak's position can ascend without it looking awful.
Before the just passing through comment, I suspect Cabinet-but-not-to-do-with-money. Skin in the game and all that.
But if Mr S is tied to Mrs S (and I hope so) and Mrs S sees herself tied to India more than Britain, then sorry Rishi, you don't get to run the country, because of the likelihood of you going somewhere else. It's not a major deprivation; lots of people who want to be MPs and ministers don't get the chance either.
Someone must have known the facts of this all along. And the political consequences are obvious. What the hell were the Conservatives thinking?
This Rishi thing, frankly, is just as bad as the O-Patz saga.
Ordinary people may not know what a non-dom is, but they’ll not be happy to find out that the CotE is a “tax dodger” who tries to put up taxes on the little folk.
If the Sunak-Murtys have “no firm plans” to stay in Britain, will Sunak please resign and just fuck off?
He has no moral right to impose taxation on the British people, let alone the very poorest, whom he seems to have chosen to punish.
Can only a poor person govern now? Have we come to this?
I still can't see the traction in this given that he is a tory - this is what they do, and people still vote for them anyway. The scheme is lawful, and organised by the government.
And, as far as I can tell, Labour don't want to get rid of non dom status.
I should bloody well hope not. That really would be cutting off our noses to spite our feet.
Most of the commentary about non-dom status has been extremely ill-informed, but in the particular case of Mrs Sunak that is irrelevant, it's politically a non-starter to have someone in Rishi's position as party leader.
OR as Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The question I'm not musing on is how far up the greasy pole someone in Sunak's position can ascend without it looking awful.
Before the just passing through comment, I suspect Cabinet-but-not-to-do-with-money. Skin in the game and all that.
But if Mr S is tied to Mrs S (and I hope so) and Mrs S sees herself tied to India more than Britain, then sorry Rishi, you don't get to run the country, because of the likelihood of you going somewhere else. It's not a major deprivation; lots of people who want to be MPs and ministers don't get the chance either.
Someone must have known the facts of this all along. And the political consequences are obvious. What the hell were the Conservatives thinking?
That they can get away with it. Because fan boys will always find obscure reasons, like critics are being racist, or sexist, or trying to steal Indian taxes.
Dipped into PB for a few minutes and what do I find? ...@Leon wants to vote for Le Pen.
Shocked I am, truly shocked! Never saw that coming, no not at all.
I love how, in his thought experiment, he wrote off Hidalgo as a “failed mayor”.
Admittedly her campaign for president was a complete non-starter, but she’s been a very successful mayor.
She’s trashed the city and she’s polling at 1% for president. Lol
Trashed the city?
She’s made the “15-minute city” concept globally famous. Paris is considered the world leader for urban innovation, in a way Boris the biker only dreamt of.
She may be woke, I don’t know, but she’s won twice, already, even if Paris mayor (which has a lot more power than London mayor) is the summit of her achievement.
Paris is a pain as regards transport in my one recent visit. (Admittedly there was some sort of a strike on one day of the three I was there)
London is better.
Do tell.
Well in London you generally get where you want to relatively swiftly and other than some time in the morning you'll not be a sardine.
In Paris the metro was often over-crowded, and quite slow - just a function of the density of stations. It really shows its age.
25 years ago it would have been the reverse. Back then the tube was pretty awful, and the metro pretty great.
I think the last time I was in Paris was late 2018, a while ago. What I do know is there’s been quite significant expansion into the suburbs as part of the Grand Paris Express project - twice as large as Crossrail.
And yet most Parisian suburbs are a mixture of hellholes and shitholes.
I have no idea why you seem to like Paris, it's a dump with not very good food. France has got so much to offer, Paris isn't even close to the top of their list.
Yes, Paris is known far and wide as a “dump with not very good food”.
Do you think you might be over-egging the omelette?
The perception and reality are somewhat disconnected, but they are aligning. Its reputation has been sliding for years and there's no sign of improvement.
My main issue with Paris is that it’s become globally gentrified in the twenty years since I’ve known it, and the centre is ever more a kind of cleaned-up disneyfied ghetto for the very rich.
That’s true of a lot of places, though.
I dunno if Paris’s reputation has been sliding. I think it lost ground against London for many years as the “place to be” in Europe, but like I said the stuff Hidalgo has been pioneering is considered a testing ground for urban innovation.
Certainly its food reputation - once stellar - is sliding. No way it is the global capital of cuisine, that hasn’t been true for decades, and no one really believes it any more
Has the decline stopped? We won’t know til the fogs of war and plague disperse
@MaxPB also has a point that the romantic image of Paris is sadly let down by the reality. This psychological shock even has a name - Paris Syndrome - when Japanese women brought up on Ratatouille and Emily in Paris actually go there and find some Algerian guy trying to grope them and some Slovak trying to rob them and some posh British stag-nighter trying not to puke in front of them, and lots and lots of litter and graffiti
“Paris syndrome (French: syndrome de Paris, Japanese: パリ症候群, Pari shōkōgun) is a sense of disappointment exhibited by some individuals when visiting Paris, who feel that the city was not what they had expected. The condition is commonly viewed as a severe form of culture shock.
The syndrome is characterized by a number of psychiatric symptoms such as acute delusional states, hallucinations, feelings of persecution (perceptions of being a victim of prejudice, aggression, and hostility from others),[1] derealization, depersonalization, anxiety, and also psychosomatic manifestations such as dizziness, tachycardia, sweating, and others, such as vomiting.[2]”
Paris remains the most beautiful city of its size on earth. That will never change, even if it becomes ever more preserved in aspic.
You’ve made me think about the food. It’s possible that one reason for the decline in food quality is that it’s just too posh now.
Very rich people have banal, insipid taste in all things, including food. Which is why there are no destination restaurants in Hampstead or Richmond.
I agree it is the most beautiful large city on earth. Of all cities, I would put Venice first.
The most beautiful small city is Cambridge (and it really is). Yay, go UK
i disagree on your diagnosis of the food problems. The issue is Paris is too popular. The restaurants don’t have to try, they can rake it in, so they don’t try, and they rake it in. See Venice again for an even worse situation. The food in Venice is famously appalling and overpriced. Fifty quid for fucking terrible risottos. But people will pay it because its in Venice and if they wont pay then there are 3 billion Chinese and Indians newly flush with money and passports who are DESPERATE to see Venice and they WILL pay it, so fuck the Brits and French and Germans they can eat pizza by the train station
London now has better food than Paris for this same reason. London is not entirely swamped with tourists and has to cater for a huge, diverse, affluent and notably sophisticated LOCAL dining crowd, so the pressure is to get better and better; if your food is crap someone else will take over your slot very quickly
Of course this is all pre Covid wisdom but my guess is it still applies, and will apply as we exit (please God) the recent horrors
The most wonderful place in the universe is clearly Cambridge on a long afternoon at a garden party in a college garden. Even today if I walk through the courts of the Cambridge colleges it sort of sends a shiver up my spine. Oxford is close sometimes, but Cambridge is the real deal.
Cambridge is spell-blindingly beautiful. I believe we overlook it because it is ours. And perhaps because we are used to our cities being a bit tatty and ruined?
Cambridge is peerless for its size. No other small city on earth matches, no, not even Siena
Because Cambridge has all the history and setting and architecture and the discovery-of-DNA (up there with the Renaissance) but is also has the University, still one of the very best on earth
The equivalent would be Siena still being home to some of the best painters and sculptors, working away, making amazing new things. Siena is not doing this. It is selling overpriced pizza to Americans and is merely a tourist playground, however charming
Cambridge is great. The campus at 77 Mass Avenue is beautiful, as is the view over the Charles River to BackBay. And -- best of all -- it is free from poseurs in the Humanities going to wanky garden parties.
But, DNA was not discovered there. Photo 51 was taken in another country, off the Strand in London.
If the Sunak-Murtys have “no firm plans” to stay in Britain, will Sunak please resign and just fuck off?
He has no moral right to impose taxation on the British people, let alone the very poorest, whom he seems to have chosen to punish.
Can only a poor person govern now? Have we come to this?
I still can't see the traction in this given that he is a tory - this is what they do, and people still vote for them anyway. The scheme is lawful, and organised by the government.
And, as far as I can tell, Labour don't want to get rid of non dom status.
I should bloody well hope not. That really would be cutting off our noses to spite our feet.
Most of the commentary about non-dom status has been extremely ill-informed, but in the particular case of Mrs Sunak that is irrelevant, it's politically a non-starter to have someone in Rishi's position as party leader.
OR as Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The question I'm not musing on is how far up the greasy pole someone in Sunak's position can ascend without it looking awful.
Before the just passing through comment, I suspect Cabinet-but-not-to-do-with-money. Skin in the game and all that.
But if Mr S is tied to Mrs S (and I hope so) and Mrs S sees herself tied to India more than Britain, then sorry Rishi, you don't get to run the country, because of the likelihood of you going somewhere else. It's not a major deprivation; lots of people who want to be MPs and ministers don't get the chance either.
Someone must have known the facts of this all along. And the political consequences are obvious. What the hell were the Conservatives thinking?
I think once you get into a Treasury post, it’s unsustainable. This has been unacceptable for an awful long time.
That being said, waiting for entry into Waterloo I did see some bloke piss out of the window of a slam door train. They were standing on the seats poking their bits out of a small gap.
On a Southern third rail system that’s a bold move.
There are no longer any slam-door trains on the lines into Waterloo.
If the Sunak-Murtys have “no firm plans” to stay in Britain, will Sunak please resign and just fuck off?
He has no moral right to impose taxation on the British people, let alone the very poorest, whom he seems to have chosen to punish.
Can only a poor person govern now? Have we come to this?
I still can't see the traction in this given that he is a tory - this is what they do, and people still vote for them anyway. The scheme is lawful, and organised by the government.
And, as far as I can tell, Labour don't want to get rid of non dom status.
I should bloody well hope not. That really would be cutting off our noses to spite our feet.
Most of the commentary about non-dom status has been extremely ill-informed, but in the particular case of Mrs Sunak that is irrelevant, it's politically a non-starter to have someone in Rishi's position as party leader.
OR as Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The question I'm not musing on is how far up the greasy pole someone in Sunak's position can ascend without it looking awful.
Before the just passing through comment, I suspect Cabinet-but-not-to-do-with-money. Skin in the game and all that.
But if Mr S is tied to Mrs S (and I hope so) and Mrs S sees herself tied to India more than Britain, then sorry Rishi, you don't get to run the country, because of the likelihood of you going somewhere else. It's not a major deprivation; lots of people who want to be MPs and ministers don't get the chance either.
Someone must have known the facts of this all along. And the political consequences are obvious. What the hell were the Conservatives thinking?
That they can get away with it. Because fan boys will always find obscure reasons, like critics are being racist, or sexist, or trying to steal Indian taxes.
Trying to steal Indian taxes is a great one.
Once you see that, you realise that the poster is basically a malevolent idiot.
By extension it is though. The argument is that he is rich and has comprehension of the common man. I’d also wonder about @Gardenwalker’s own tax arrangements, as he now lives in the states and earns profits in th3 U.K. on his properties.
It’s not at all what I said, you berk.
I don’t mind especially that Rishi is insanely rich, although it does raise questions about his relatability to the taxpayer.
What I cannot accept is that his wife (and by extension him) is availing herself of various tax schemes available to a global rentier class, and claiming that one of them “has no firm plans to stay in the UK” so they can continue to take the piss.
As for me,
1. I’m not a billionaire. 2. I neither inherited or married into money. 3. I’m not seeking elected office. 4. I’m not a cunt.
She benefits from dual nationality, as I believe do you. That’s your right, and hers. As long as she pays the tax she owes in the U.K. and he does what’s the problem? Should she impoverish India by NOT paying the due tax there? Or pay twice to keep people happy? Isn’t this really just because she is rich? She’s not even the elected mp. Are we saying spouses and other family are fair game now?
If you cannot see the issue with the Chancellor of the Exchequer levying taxes (or scrapping welfare) on the poorest in society, while taking advantage of tax dodges only available to those who must claim they don’t have any real commitment the UK, then I’m afraid you are a moral pygmy.
It’s breathtakingly awful.
So what would be the moral thing to do? Give up her Indian nationality? Only pay taxes in the U.K. on earning made elsewhere? Do the taxes paid in Indian not go to the Indian state?
In 2019, out of 764,000 Indian millionaires, only 319,000 declared more than the equivalent of $75,000 on their (Indian) tax returns.
Cookie. Sorry I just replied to myself. I was answering your post on Paris 20 years ago. For some reason Paris is attracting huge numbers of continuous posts. Must be the French connection...
That being said, waiting for entry into Waterloo I did see some bloke piss out of the window of a slam door train. They were standing on the seats poking their bits out of a small gap.
On a Southern third rail system that’s a bold move.
There are no longer any slam-door trains on the lines into Waterloo.
This was some time ago. Desperate times. You used to have to wait an age occasionally to get a platform. This poor chap had nowhere to go.
Cookie. Sorry I just replied to myself. I was answering your post on Paris 20 years ago. For some reason Paris is attracting huge numbers of continuous posts. Must be the French connection...
Dipped into PB for a few minutes and what do I find? ...@Leon wants to vote for Le Pen.
Shocked I am, truly shocked! Never saw that coming, no not at all.
I love how, in his thought experiment, he wrote off Hidalgo as a “failed mayor”.
Admittedly her campaign for president was a complete non-starter, but she’s been a very successful mayor.
She’s trashed the city and she’s polling at 1% for president. Lol
Trashed the city?
She’s made the “15-minute city” concept globally famous. Paris is considered the world leader for urban innovation, in a way Boris the biker only dreamt of.
She may be woke, I don’t know, but she’s won twice, already, even if Paris mayor (which has a lot more power than London mayor) is the summit of her achievement.
Paris is a pain as regards transport in my one recent visit. (Admittedly there was some sort of a strike on one day of the three I was there)
London is better.
I haven't been to Paris for 20 years, so my views may be out of date. But I thought the metro was shit. 1) It didn't go anywhere directly. Each line meanders all over the place. From a transport planning point of view, not great. 2) Full of nutters and flashers and other neer-do-wells. 3) most of the trains ran on rubber tyres. What's that all about? 4) dirty and unkempt. Made London look like Singapore.
It is odd that there is so much wrong with France yet they manage to attract the most visitors in the world by quite a considerable distance.
Presumably all the Brexiters are too busy holidaying in Cleethorpes to worry about “dumps with not very good food”.
That’s fine. I’ve no urgent need to share Paris (or France) with the sort of people who complain about “shit-ache” mushrooms.
HYUFD was quite lyrical on PB recently about the potential for holidays in places such as Skegness post_Brexit, interestingly. (Though I am rather fond of Whitby and Scarborough myself.)
Well Max was pointing out the other day that the UK’s tourism receipts have collapsed, so Skegness needs you more than ever.
Not sure that it was a major destination for, say, the average Parisian or Chinese visitor (as opposed, in the case of the latter, to Banbury shopping village - quite an eye opener to be on a Sunday morning train from Maryelobone to Oxford a few years back along the Princes Risborough line btw). So not sure how Skegness is doing even worse than it was.
This Rishi thing, frankly, is just as bad as the O-Patz saga.
Ordinary people may not know what a non-dom is, but they’ll not be happy to find out that the CotE is a “tax dodger” who tries to put up taxes on the little folk.
That being said, waiting for entry into Waterloo I did see some bloke piss out of the window of a slam door train. They were standing on the seats poking their bits out of a small gap.
On a Southern third rail system that’s a bold move.
There are no longer any slam-door trains on the lines into Waterloo.
This was some time ago. Desperate times. You used to have to wait an age occasionally to get a platform. This poor chap had nowhere to go.
What did the Victorians do when they needed to go halfway thru a train journey.
Dipped into PB for a few minutes and what do I find? ...@Leon wants to vote for Le Pen.
Shocked I am, truly shocked! Never saw that coming, no not at all.
I love how, in his thought experiment, he wrote off Hidalgo as a “failed mayor”.
Admittedly her campaign for president was a complete non-starter, but she’s been a very successful mayor.
She’s trashed the city and she’s polling at 1% for president. Lol
Trashed the city?
She’s made the “15-minute city” concept globally famous. Paris is considered the world leader for urban innovation, in a way Boris the biker only dreamt of.
She may be woke, I don’t know, but she’s won twice, already, even if Paris mayor (which has a lot more power than London mayor) is the summit of her achievement.
Paris is a pain as regards transport in my one recent visit. (Admittedly there was some sort of a strike on one day of the three I was there)
London is better.
Do tell.
Well in London you generally get where you want to relatively swiftly and other than some time in the morning you'll not be a sardine.
In Paris the metro was often over-crowded, and quite slow - just a function of the density of stations. It really shows its age.
25 years ago it would have been the reverse. Back then the tube was pretty awful, and the metro pretty great.
I think the last time I was in Paris was late 2018, a while ago. What I do know is there’s been quite significant expansion into the suburbs as part of the Grand Paris Express project - twice as large as Crossrail.
And yet most Parisian suburbs are a mixture of hellholes and shitholes.
I have no idea why you seem to like Paris, it's a dump with not very good food. France has got so much to offer, Paris isn't even close to the top of their list.
Yes, Paris is known far and wide as a “dump with not very good food”.
Do you think you might be over-egging the omelette?
The perception and reality are somewhat disconnected, but they are aligning. Its reputation has been sliding for years and there's no sign of improvement.
My main issue with Paris is that it’s become globally gentrified in the twenty years since I’ve known it, and the centre is ever more a kind of cleaned-up disneyfied ghetto for the very rich.
That’s true of a lot of places, though.
I dunno if Paris’s reputation has been sliding. I think it lost ground against London for many years as the “place to be” in Europe, but like I said the stuff Hidalgo has been pioneering is considered a testing ground for urban innovation.
Certainly its food reputation - once stellar - is sliding. No way it is the global capital of cuisine, that hasn’t been true for decades, and no one really believes it any more
Has the decline stopped? We won’t know til the fogs of war and plague disperse
@MaxPB also has a point that the romantic image of Paris is sadly let down by the reality. This psychological shock even has a name - Paris Syndrome - when Japanese women brought up on Ratatouille and Emily in Paris actually go there and find some Algerian guy trying to grope them and some Slovak trying to rob them and some posh British stag-nighter trying not to puke in front of them, and lots and lots of litter and graffiti
“Paris syndrome (French: syndrome de Paris, Japanese: パリ症候群, Pari shōkōgun) is a sense of disappointment exhibited by some individuals when visiting Paris, who feel that the city was not what they had expected. The condition is commonly viewed as a severe form of culture shock.
The syndrome is characterized by a number of psychiatric symptoms such as acute delusional states, hallucinations, feelings of persecution (perceptions of being a victim of prejudice, aggression, and hostility from others),[1] derealization, depersonalization, anxiety, and also psychosomatic manifestations such as dizziness, tachycardia, sweating, and others, such as vomiting.[2]”
Paris remains the most beautiful city of its size on earth. That will never change, even if it becomes ever more preserved in aspic.
You’ve made me think about the food. It’s possible that one reason for the decline in food quality is that it’s just too posh now.
Very rich people have banal, insipid taste in all things, including food. Which is why there are no destination restaurants in Hampstead or Richmond.
I agree it is the most beautiful large city on earth. Of all cities, I would put Venice first.
The most beautiful small city is Cambridge (and it really is). Yay, go UK
i disagree on your diagnosis of the food problems. The issue is Paris is too popular. The restaurants don’t have to try, they can rake it in, so they don’t try, and they rake it in. See Venice again for an even worse situation. The food in Venice is famously appalling and overpriced. Fifty quid for fucking terrible risottos. But people will pay it because its in Venice and if they wont pay then there are 3 billion Chinese and Indians newly flush with money and passports who are DESPERATE to see Venice and they WILL pay it, so fuck the Brits and French and Germans they can eat pizza by the train station
London now has better food than Paris for this same reason. London is not entirely swamped with tourists and has to cater for a huge, diverse, affluent and notably sophisticated LOCAL dining crowd, so the pressure is to get better and better; if your food is crap someone else will take over your slot very quickly
Of course this is all pre Covid wisdom but my guess is it still applies, and will apply as we exit (please God) the recent horrors
The most wonderful place in the universe is clearly Cambridge on a long afternoon at a garden party in a college garden. Even today if I walk through the courts of the Cambridge colleges it sort of sends a shiver up my spine. Oxford is close sometimes, but Cambridge is the real deal.
Cambridge is spell-blindingly beautiful. I believe we overlook it because it is ours. And perhaps because we are used to our cities being a bit tatty and ruined?
Cambridge is peerless for its size. No other small city on earth matches, no, not even Siena
Because Cambridge has all the history and setting and architecture and the discovery-of-DNA (up there with the Renaissance) but is also has the University, still one of the very best on earth
The equivalent would be Siena still being home to some of the best painters and sculptors, working away, making amazing new things. Siena is not doing this. It is selling overpriced pizza to Americans and is merely a tourist playground, however charming
Cambridge is great. The campus at 77 Mass Avenue is beautiful, as is the view over the Charles River to BackBay. And -- best of all -- it is free from poseurs in the Humanities going to wanky garden parties.
But, DNA was not discovered there. Photo 51 was taken in another country, off the Strand in London.
Don't be daft! Cambridge, England - apples were discovered there! Isaac Newton and all that. Gravitas!
By extension it is though. The argument is that he is rich and has comprehension of the common man. I’d also wonder about @Gardenwalker’s own tax arrangements, as he now lives in the states and earns profits in th3 U.K. on his properties.
It’s not at all what I said, you berk.
I don’t mind especially that Rishi is insanely rich, although it does raise questions about his relatability to the taxpayer.
What I cannot accept is that his wife (and by extension him) is availing herself of various tax schemes available to a global rentier class, and claiming that one of them “has no firm plans to stay in the UK” so they can continue to take the piss.
As for me,
1. I’m not a billionaire. 2. I neither inherited or married into money. 3. I’m not seeking elected office. 4. I’m not a cunt.
She benefits from dual nationality, as I believe do you. That’s your right, and hers. As long as she pays the tax she owes in the U.K. and he does what’s the problem? Should she impoverish India by NOT paying the due tax there? Or pay twice to keep people happy? Isn’t this really just because she is rich? She’s not even the elected mp. Are we saying spouses and other family are fair game now?
If you cannot see the issue with the Chancellor of the Exchequer levying taxes (or scrapping welfare) on the poorest in society, while taking advantage of tax dodges only available to those who must claim they don’t have any real commitment the UK, then I’m afraid you are a moral pygmy.
It’s breathtakingly awful.
So what would be the moral thing to do? Give up her Indian nationality? Only pay taxes in the U.K. on earning made elsewhere? Do the taxes paid in Indian not go to the Indian state?
In 2019, out of 764,000 Indian millionaires, only 319,000 declared more than the equivalent of $75,000 on their (Indian) tax returns.
2.5m $ millionaires in the UK apparently. Almost 1 in 20 adults.
In Switzerland 1 in 7 adults are $ millionaires, USA & Australia 1 in 11
On Rishi's wife and tax/non dom; the most interesting question is why is every single outle majoring on it right now when it the question has been in the public domain (Private Eye) for at least a year? Cui bono
Parisian restaurants are overall poor: mediocre and expensive food. But you can eat really well in small town France. The trick is to find the restaurant that everyone goes to for Sunday lunch. Else the smart place next to the town hall. That's where the mayor goes for his lunch and it will be good.
Another place for good food (it seems) are schools. Each primary and secondary school publishes the menu for the week on their website. Some of these menus look delicious.
I think these things are still relative. A couple of times I've eaten a burger in a rush at Parisian train stations, Expectations of zero, but results of far better than their British equivalents. Similarly in Italy, random road-stop salami or train station cafes can be pretty good ; in fact, they're nearly always better than here.
This is the "baseline", or default of good functional food, that these two countries still have, and that outside of trendy metropolitan centres, you still tend not to get in the UK, or other parts of Northern Europe either.
By extension it is though. The argument is that he is rich and has comprehension of the common man. I’d also wonder about @Gardenwalker’s own tax arrangements, as he now lives in the states and earns profits in th3 U.K. on his properties.
It’s not at all what I said, you berk.
I don’t mind especially that Rishi is insanely rich, although it does raise questions about his relatability to the taxpayer.
What I cannot accept is that his wife (and by extension him) is availing herself of various tax schemes available to a global rentier class, and claiming that one of them “has no firm plans to stay in the UK” so they can continue to take the piss.
As for me,
1. I’m not a billionaire. 2. I neither inherited or married into money. 3. I’m not seeking elected office. 4. I’m not a cunt.
She benefits from dual nationality, as I believe do you. That’s your right, and hers. As long as she pays the tax she owes in the U.K. and he does what’s the problem? Should she impoverish India by NOT paying the due tax there? Or pay twice to keep people happy? Isn’t this really just because she is rich? She’s not even the elected mp. Are we saying spouses and other family are fair game now?
If you cannot see the issue with the Chancellor of the Exchequer levying taxes (or scrapping welfare) on the poorest in society, while taking advantage of tax dodges only available to those who must claim they don’t have any real commitment the UK, then I’m afraid you are a moral pygmy.
It’s breathtakingly awful.
So what would be the moral thing to do? Give up her Indian nationality? Only pay taxes in the U.K. on earning made elsewhere? Do the taxes paid in Indian not go to the Indian state? If the claim was that the chancellor was changing the laws to enable her to dodge tax, then I’d get the anger. He isn’t. She is following the law. Don’t like it? Vote the Tories out, elect a government to change it. It’s a personal question so feel free to ignore, but you surely in a limited way have to answer the question of where you should pay tax on U.K. earnings. Small beer compared to a billionaire for sure.
The correct thing to do would be to get these affairs sorted BEFORE Rishi sought high office.
As to how, without knowing Ms Murty’s precise situation I can’t say, but I do think she should not LIE about having “no firm plans to stay in the UK” despite her husband being CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER.
Everyone’s marriage is different. Some couples need to be together all the time, others are happy living apart and only getting together from time to time. I have no way of knowing if this is the case for them. She is rich enough to to fly to India and back for the weekend, every week, Ist class, or private jet. Maybe she does. We don’t know that it’s a lie. The current career of politicians is much reduced. PMs could lose, serve as leader of the opposition and then return as Pm 5 years later in the past. Not now. Lose once and you are done. Rishi is being described as finished already. He could be free in 2024 to move to India full time.
As a matter of interest, Stephen Kinnock (now an MP) was married to the former prime minister of Denmark Helle Thorning-Schmidt. They had interesting tax related controversies early on in their marriage, arising from being located in different countries, and which you can find out about via google.
By extension it is though. The argument is that he is rich and has comprehension of the common man. I’d also wonder about @Gardenwalker’s own tax arrangements, as he now lives in the states and earns profits in th3 U.K. on his properties.
It’s not at all what I said, you berk.
I don’t mind especially that Rishi is insanely rich, although it does raise questions about his relatability to the taxpayer.
What I cannot accept is that his wife (and by extension him) is availing herself of various tax schemes available to a global rentier class, and claiming that one of them “has no firm plans to stay in the UK” so they can continue to take the piss.
As for me,
1. I’m not a billionaire. 2. I neither inherited or married into money. 3. I’m not seeking elected office. 4. I’m not a cunt.
She benefits from dual nationality, as I believe do you. That’s your right, and hers. As long as she pays the tax she owes in the U.K. and he does what’s the problem? Should she impoverish India by NOT paying the due tax there? Or pay twice to keep people happy? Isn’t this really just because she is rich? She’s not even the elected mp. Are we saying spouses and other family are fair game now?
If you cannot see the issue with the Chancellor of the Exchequer levying taxes (or scrapping welfare) on the poorest in society, while taking advantage of tax dodges only available to those who must claim they don’t have any real commitment the UK, then I’m afraid you are a moral pygmy.
It’s breathtakingly awful.
So what would be the moral thing to do? Give up her Indian nationality? Only pay taxes in the U.K. on earning made elsewhere? Do the taxes paid in Indian not go to the Indian state? If the claim was that the chancellor was changing the laws to enable her to dodge tax, then I’d get the anger. He isn’t. She is following the law. Don’t like it? Vote the Tories out, elect a government to change it. It’s a personal question so feel free to ignore, but you surely in a limited way have to answer the question of where you should pay tax on U.K. earnings. Small beer compared to a billionaire for sure.
The correct thing to do would be to get these affairs sorted BEFORE Rishi sought high office.
As to how, without knowing Ms Murty’s precise situation I can’t say, but I do think she should not LIE about having “no firm plans to stay in the UK” despite her husband being CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER.
Everyone’s marriage is different. Some couples need to be together all the time, others are happy living apart and only getting together from time to time. I have no way of knowing if this is the case for them. She is rich enough to to fly to India and back for the weekend, every week, Ist class, or private jet. Maybe she does. We don’t know that it’s a lie. The current career of politicians is much reduced. PMs could lose, serve as leader of the opposition and then return as Pm 5 years later in the past. Not now. Lose once and you are done. Rishi is being described as finished already. He could be free in 2024 to move to India full time.
As a matter of interest, Stephen Kinnock (now an MP) was married to the former prime minister of Denmark Helle Thorning-Schmidt. They had interesting tax related controversies early on in their marriage, arising from being located in different countries, and which you can find out about via google.
He shouldn't be Chancellor of the Exchequer either
Dipped into PB for a few minutes and what do I find? ...@Leon wants to vote for Le Pen.
Shocked I am, truly shocked! Never saw that coming, no not at all.
I love how, in his thought experiment, he wrote off Hidalgo as a “failed mayor”.
Admittedly her campaign for president was a complete non-starter, but she’s been a very successful mayor.
She’s trashed the city and she’s polling at 1% for president. Lol
Trashed the city?
She’s made the “15-minute city” concept globally famous. Paris is considered the world leader for urban innovation, in a way Boris the biker only dreamt of.
She may be woke, I don’t know, but she’s won twice, already, even if Paris mayor (which has a lot more power than London mayor) is the summit of her achievement.
Paris is a pain as regards transport in my one recent visit. (Admittedly there was some sort of a strike on one day of the three I was there)
London is better.
Do tell.
Well in London you generally get where you want to relatively swiftly and other than some time in the morning you'll not be a sardine.
In Paris the metro was often over-crowded, and quite slow - just a function of the density of stations. It really shows its age.
25 years ago it would have been the reverse. Back then the tube was pretty awful, and the metro pretty great.
I think the last time I was in Paris was late 2018, a while ago. What I do know is there’s been quite significant expansion into the suburbs as part of the Grand Paris Express project - twice as large as Crossrail.
And yet most Parisian suburbs are a mixture of hellholes and shitholes.
I have no idea why you seem to like Paris, it's a dump with not very good food. France has got so much to offer, Paris isn't even close to the top of their list.
Yes, Paris is known far and wide as a “dump with not very good food”.
Do you think you might be over-egging the omelette?
The perception and reality are somewhat disconnected, but they are aligning. Its reputation has been sliding for years and there's no sign of improvement.
My main issue with Paris is that it’s become globally gentrified in the twenty years since I’ve known it, and the centre is ever more a kind of cleaned-up disneyfied ghetto for the very rich.
That’s true of a lot of places, though.
I dunno if Paris’s reputation has been sliding. I think it lost ground against London for many years as the “place to be” in Europe, but like I said the stuff Hidalgo has been pioneering is considered a testing ground for urban innovation.
Certainly its food reputation - once stellar - is sliding. No way it is the global capital of cuisine, that hasn’t been true for decades, and no one really believes it any more
Has the decline stopped? We won’t know til the fogs of war and plague disperse
@MaxPB also has a point that the romantic image of Paris is sadly let down by the reality. This psychological shock even has a name - Paris Syndrome - when Japanese women brought up on Ratatouille and Emily in Paris actually go there and find some Algerian guy trying to grope them and some Slovak trying to rob them and some posh British stag-nighter trying not to puke in front of them, and lots and lots of litter and graffiti
“Paris syndrome (French: syndrome de Paris, Japanese: パリ症候群, Pari shōkōgun) is a sense of disappointment exhibited by some individuals when visiting Paris, who feel that the city was not what they had expected. The condition is commonly viewed as a severe form of culture shock.
The syndrome is characterized by a number of psychiatric symptoms such as acute delusional states, hallucinations, feelings of persecution (perceptions of being a victim of prejudice, aggression, and hostility from others),[1] derealization, depersonalization, anxiety, and also psychosomatic manifestations such as dizziness, tachycardia, sweating, and others, such as vomiting.[2]”
Paris remains the most beautiful city of its size on earth. That will never change, even if it becomes ever more preserved in aspic.
You’ve made me think about the food. It’s possible that one reason for the decline in food quality is that it’s just too posh now.
Very rich people have banal, insipid taste in all things, including food. Which is why there are no destination restaurants in Hampstead or Richmond.
I agree it is the most beautiful large city on earth. Of all cities, I would put Venice first.
The most beautiful small city is Cambridge (and it really is). Yay, go UK
i disagree on your diagnosis of the food problems. The issue is Paris is too popular. The restaurants don’t have to try, they can rake it in, so they don’t try, and they rake it in. See Venice again for an even worse situation. The food in Venice is famously appalling and overpriced. Fifty quid for fucking terrible risottos. But people will pay it because its in Venice and if they wont pay then there are 3 billion Chinese and Indians newly flush with money and passports who are DESPERATE to see Venice and they WILL pay it, so fuck the Brits and French and Germans they can eat pizza by the train station
London now has better food than Paris for this same reason. London is not entirely swamped with tourists and has to cater for a huge, diverse, affluent and notably sophisticated LOCAL dining crowd, so the pressure is to get better and better; if your food is crap someone else will take over your slot very quickly
Of course this is all pre Covid wisdom but my guess is it still applies, and will apply as we exit (please God) the recent horrors
The most wonderful place in the universe is clearly Cambridge on a long afternoon at a garden party in a college garden. Even today if I walk through the courts of the Cambridge colleges it sort of sends a shiver up my spine. Oxford is close sometimes, but Cambridge is the real deal.
Cambridge is spell-blindingly beautiful. I believe we overlook it because it is ours. And perhaps because we are used to our cities being a bit tatty and ruined?
Cambridge is peerless for its size. No other small city on earth matches, no, not even Siena
Because Cambridge has all the history and setting and architecture and the discovery-of-DNA (up there with the Renaissance) but is also has the University, still one of the very best on earth
The equivalent would be Siena still being home to some of the best painters and sculptors, working away, making amazing new things. Siena is not doing this. It is selling overpriced pizza to Americans and is merely a tourist playground, however charming
Cambridge is great. The campus at 77 Mass Avenue is beautiful, as is the view over the Charles River to BackBay. And -- best of all -- it is free from poseurs in the Humanities going to wanky garden parties.
But, DNA was not discovered there. Photo 51 was taken in another country, off the Strand in London.
Don't be daft! Cambridge, England - apples were discovered there! Isaac Newton and all that. Gravitas!
But both apples and gravity were of course invented in Woolsthorpe, Lincolnshire, but 30 miles from Algarkirk.
On Rishi's wife and tax/non dom; the most interesting question is why is every single outle majoring on it right now when it the question has been in the public domain (Private Eye) for at least a year? Cui bono
Dipped into PB for a few minutes and what do I find? ...@Leon wants to vote for Le Pen.
Shocked I am, truly shocked! Never saw that coming, no not at all.
I love how, in his thought experiment, he wrote off Hidalgo as a “failed mayor”.
Admittedly her campaign for president was a complete non-starter, but she’s been a very successful mayor.
She’s trashed the city and she’s polling at 1% for president. Lol
Trashed the city?
She’s made the “15-minute city” concept globally famous. Paris is considered the world leader for urban innovation, in a way Boris the biker only dreamt of.
She may be woke, I don’t know, but she’s won twice, already, even if Paris mayor (which has a lot more power than London mayor) is the summit of her achievement.
Paris is a pain as regards transport in my one recent visit. (Admittedly there was some sort of a strike on one day of the three I was there)
London is better.
I haven't been to Paris for 20 years, so my views may be out of date. But I thought the metro was shit. 1) It didn't go anywhere directly. Each line meanders all over the place. From a transport planning point of view, not great. 2) Full of nutters and flashers and other neer-do-wells. 3) most of the trains ran on rubber tyres. What's that all about? 4) dirty and unkempt. Made London look like Singapore.
It is odd that there is so much wrong with France yet they manage to attract the most visitors in the world by quite a considerable distance.
Presumably all the Brexiters are too busy holidaying in Cleethorpes to worry about “dumps with not very good food”.
That’s fine. I’ve no urgent need to share Paris (or France) with the sort of people who complain about “shit-ache” mushrooms.
HYUFD was quite lyrical on PB recently about the potential for holidays in places such as Skegness post_Brexit, interestingly. (Though I am rather fond of Whitby and Scarborough myself.)
Well Max was pointing out the other day that the UK’s tourism receipts have collapsed, so Skegness needs you more than ever.
Not sure that it was a major destination for, say, the average Parisian or Chinese visitor (as opposed, in the case of the latter, to Banbury shopping village - quite an eye opener to be on a Sunday morning train from Maryelobone to Oxford a few years back along the Princes Risborough line btw). So not sure how Skegness is doing even worse than it was.
Bicester Village.
Thanks - I stand corrected.
Don't want you going to the wrong place and wondering where all the shops are!
By extension it is though. The argument is that he is rich and has comprehension of the common man. I’d also wonder about @Gardenwalker’s own tax arrangements, as he now lives in the states and earns profits in th3 U.K. on his properties.
It’s not at all what I said, you berk.
I don’t mind especially that Rishi is insanely rich, although it does raise questions about his relatability to the taxpayer.
What I cannot accept is that his wife (and by extension him) is availing herself of various tax schemes available to a global rentier class, and claiming that one of them “has no firm plans to stay in the UK” so they can continue to take the piss.
As for me,
1. I’m not a billionaire. 2. I neither inherited or married into money. 3. I’m not seeking elected office. 4. I’m not a cunt.
She benefits from dual nationality, as I believe do you. That’s your right, and hers. As long as she pays the tax she owes in the U.K. and he does what’s the problem? Should she impoverish India by NOT paying the due tax there? Or pay twice to keep people happy? Isn’t this really just because she is rich? She’s not even the elected mp. Are we saying spouses and other family are fair game now?
If you cannot see the issue with the Chancellor of the Exchequer levying taxes (or scrapping welfare) on the poorest in society, while taking advantage of tax dodges only available to those who must claim they don’t have any real commitment the UK, then I’m afraid you are a moral pygmy.
It’s breathtakingly awful.
So what would be the moral thing to do? Give up her Indian nationality? Only pay taxes in the U.K. on earning made elsewhere? Do the taxes paid in Indian not go to the Indian state? If the claim was that the chancellor was changing the laws to enable her to dodge tax, then I’d get the anger. He isn’t. She is following the law. Don’t like it? Vote the Tories out, elect a government to change it. It’s a personal question so feel free to ignore, but you surely in a limited way have to answer the question of where you should pay tax on U.K. earnings. Small beer compared to a billionaire for sure.
The correct thing to do would be to get these affairs sorted BEFORE Rishi sought high office.
As to how, without knowing Ms Murty’s precise situation I can’t say, but I do think she should not LIE about having “no firm plans to stay in the UK” despite her husband being CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER.
Everyone’s marriage is different. Some couples need to be together all the time, others are happy living apart and only getting together from time to time. I have no way of knowing if this is the case for them. She is rich enough to to fly to India and back for the weekend, every week, Ist class, or private jet. Maybe she does. We don’t know that it’s a lie. The current career of politicians is much reduced. PMs could lose, serve as leader of the opposition and then return as Pm 5 years later in the past. Not now. Lose once and you are done. Rishi is being described as finished already. He could be free in 2024 to move to India full time.
As a matter of interest, Stephen Kinnock (now an MP) was married to the former prime minister of Denmark Helle Thorning-Schmidt. They had interesting tax related controversies early on in their marriage, arising from being located in different countries, and which you can find out about via google.
I'm not a fan of Kinnock. But paying tax in Switzerland when you live in Switzerland and work in Switzerland doesn't sound like a scandal.
By extension it is though. The argument is that he is rich and has comprehension of the common man. I’d also wonder about @Gardenwalker’s own tax arrangements, as he now lives in the states and earns profits in th3 U.K. on his properties.
It’s not at all what I said, you berk.
I don’t mind especially that Rishi is insanely rich, although it does raise questions about his relatability to the taxpayer.
What I cannot accept is that his wife (and by extension him) is availing herself of various tax schemes available to a global rentier class, and claiming that one of them “has no firm plans to stay in the UK” so they can continue to take the piss.
As for me,
1. I’m not a billionaire. 2. I neither inherited or married into money. 3. I’m not seeking elected office. 4. I’m not a cunt.
She benefits from dual nationality, as I believe do you. That’s your right, and hers. As long as she pays the tax she owes in the U.K. and he does what’s the problem? Should she impoverish India by NOT paying the due tax there? Or pay twice to keep people happy? Isn’t this really just because she is rich? She’s not even the elected mp. Are we saying spouses and other family are fair game now?
If you cannot see the issue with the Chancellor of the Exchequer levying taxes (or scrapping welfare) on the poorest in society, while taking advantage of tax dodges only available to those who must claim they don’t have any real commitment the UK, then I’m afraid you are a moral pygmy.
It’s breathtakingly awful.
So what would be the moral thing to do? Give up her Indian nationality? Only pay taxes in the U.K. on earning made elsewhere? Do the taxes paid in Indian not go to the Indian state?
In 2019, out of 764,000 Indian millionaires, only 319,000 declared more than the equivalent of $75,000 on their (Indian) tax returns.
2.5m $ millionaires in the UK apparently. Almost 1 in 20 adults.
In Switzerland 1 in 7 adults are $ millionaires, USA & Australia 1 in 11
By extension it is though. The argument is that he is rich and has comprehension of the common man. I’d also wonder about @Gardenwalker’s own tax arrangements, as he now lives in the states and earns profits in th3 U.K. on his properties.
It’s not at all what I said, you berk.
I don’t mind especially that Rishi is insanely rich, although it does raise questions about his relatability to the taxpayer.
What I cannot accept is that his wife (and by extension him) is availing herself of various tax schemes available to a global rentier class, and claiming that one of them “has no firm plans to stay in the UK” so they can continue to take the piss.
As for me,
1. I’m not a billionaire. 2. I neither inherited or married into money. 3. I’m not seeking elected office. 4. I’m not a cunt.
She benefits from dual nationality, as I believe do you. That’s your right, and hers. As long as she pays the tax she owes in the U.K. and he does what’s the problem? Should she impoverish India by NOT paying the due tax there? Or pay twice to keep people happy? Isn’t this really just because she is rich? She’s not even the elected mp. Are we saying spouses and other family are fair game now?
If you cannot see the issue with the Chancellor of the Exchequer levying taxes (or scrapping welfare) on the poorest in society, while taking advantage of tax dodges only available to those who must claim they don’t have any real commitment the UK, then I’m afraid you are a moral pygmy.
It’s breathtakingly awful.
So what would be the moral thing to do? Give up her Indian nationality? Only pay taxes in the U.K. on earning made elsewhere? Do the taxes paid in Indian not go to the Indian state? If the claim was that the chancellor was changing the laws to enable her to dodge tax, then I’d get the anger. He isn’t. She is following the law. Don’t like it? Vote the Tories out, elect a government to change it. It’s a personal question so feel free to ignore, but you surely in a limited way have to answer the question of where you should pay tax on U.K. earnings. Small beer compared to a billionaire for sure.
The correct thing to do would be to get these affairs sorted BEFORE Rishi sought high office.
As to how, without knowing Ms Murty’s precise situation I can’t say, but I do think she should not LIE about having “no firm plans to stay in the UK” despite her husband being CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER.
Everyone’s marriage is different. Some couples need to be together all the time, others are happy living apart and only getting together from time to time. I have no way of knowing if this is the case for them. She is rich enough to to fly to India and back for the weekend, every week, Ist class, or private jet. Maybe she does. We don’t know that it’s a lie. The current career of politicians is much reduced. PMs could lose, serve as leader of the opposition and then return as Pm 5 years later in the past. Not now. Lose once and you are done. Rishi is being described as finished already. He could be free in 2024 to move to India full time.
As a matter of interest, Stephen Kinnock (now an MP) was married to the former prime minister of Denmark Helle Thorning-Schmidt. They had interesting tax related controversies early on in their marriage, arising from being located in different countries, and which you can find out about via google.
In that instance, the Kinnock-Thorning-Schmidts we’re guilty of the same scam.
On one hand, Kinnock was working and paying tax in Switzerland because he claimed to reside there.
On the other hand, he was trying to buy a house with his wife, then LOTO, by claiming he spent most of his time in Denmark.
I believe they bit they bullet and paid the appropriate Danish taxes.
No Swiss children ever missed out on chapatis, as far as I know.
By extension it is though. The argument is that he is rich and has comprehension of the common man. I’d also wonder about @Gardenwalker’s own tax arrangements, as he now lives in the states and earns profits in th3 U.K. on his properties.
It’s not at all what I said, you berk.
I don’t mind especially that Rishi is insanely rich, although it does raise questions about his relatability to the taxpayer.
What I cannot accept is that his wife (and by extension him) is availing herself of various tax schemes available to a global rentier class, and claiming that one of them “has no firm plans to stay in the UK” so they can continue to take the piss.
As for me,
1. I’m not a billionaire. 2. I neither inherited or married into money. 3. I’m not seeking elected office. 4. I’m not a cunt.
She benefits from dual nationality, as I believe do you. That’s your right, and hers. As long as she pays the tax she owes in the U.K. and he does what’s the problem? Should she impoverish India by NOT paying the due tax there? Or pay twice to keep people happy? Isn’t this really just because she is rich? She’s not even the elected mp. Are we saying spouses and other family are fair game now?
If you cannot see the issue with the Chancellor of the Exchequer levying taxes (or scrapping welfare) on the poorest in society, while taking advantage of tax dodges only available to those who must claim they don’t have any real commitment the UK, then I’m afraid you are a moral pygmy.
It’s breathtakingly awful.
So what would be the moral thing to do? Give up her Indian nationality? Only pay taxes in the U.K. on earning made elsewhere? Do the taxes paid in Indian not go to the Indian state? If the claim was that the chancellor was changing the laws to enable her to dodge tax, then I’d get the anger. He isn’t. She is following the law. Don’t like it? Vote the Tories out, elect a government to change it. It’s a personal question so feel free to ignore, but you surely in a limited way have to answer the question of where you should pay tax on U.K. earnings. Small beer compared to a billionaire for sure.
The correct thing to do would be to get these affairs sorted BEFORE Rishi sought high office.
As to how, without knowing Ms Murty’s precise situation I can’t say, but I do think she should not LIE about having “no firm plans to stay in the UK” despite her husband being CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER.
Everyone’s marriage is different. Some couples need to be together all the time, others are happy living apart and only getting together from time to time. I have no way of knowing if this is the case for them. She is rich enough to to fly to India and back for the weekend, every week, Ist class, or private jet. Maybe she does. We don’t know that it’s a lie. The current career of politicians is much reduced. PMs could lose, serve as leader of the opposition and then return as Pm 5 years later in the past. Not now. Lose once and you are done. Rishi is being described as finished already. He could be free in 2024 to move to India full time.
As a matter of interest, Stephen Kinnock (now an MP) was married to the former prime minister of Denmark Helle Thorning-Schmidt. They had interesting tax related controversies early on in their marriage, arising from being located in different countries, and which you can find out about via google.
In that instance, the Kinnock-Thorning-Schmidts we’re guilty of the same scam.
On one hand, Kinnock was working and paying tax in Switzerland because he claimed to reside there.
On the other hand, he was trying to buy a house with his wife, then LOTO, by claiming he spent most of his time in Denmark.
I believe they bit they bullet and paid the appropriate Danish taxes.
No Swiss children ever missed out on chapatis, as far as I know.
Not being sure where your main home is seems to be a common problem for politicians.
They really struggle to stick to a core reason for the war, don't they? The last to join NATO were North Macedonia, Montenegro and Albania. There hasn't been a move to Russia's boundaries since 2004, so any nervousness has taken awhile to set in.
BBC:
In the interview, Peskov repeated Russia's reasons for what it describes as a "special military operation", saying Ukraine had become "anti-Russian" and Russia was "really nervous" as Nato had "started to move towards our boundaries".
By extension it is though. The argument is that he is rich and has comprehension of the common man. I’d also wonder about @Gardenwalker’s own tax arrangements, as he now lives in the states and earns profits in th3 U.K. on his properties.
It’s not at all what I said, you berk.
I don’t mind especially that Rishi is insanely rich, although it does raise questions about his relatability to the taxpayer.
What I cannot accept is that his wife (and by extension him) is availing herself of various tax schemes available to a global rentier class, and claiming that one of them “has no firm plans to stay in the UK” so they can continue to take the piss.
As for me,
1. I’m not a billionaire. 2. I neither inherited or married into money. 3. I’m not seeking elected office. 4. I’m not a cunt.
She benefits from dual nationality, as I believe do you. That’s your right, and hers. As long as she pays the tax she owes in the U.K. and he does what’s the problem? Should she impoverish India by NOT paying the due tax there? Or pay twice to keep people happy? Isn’t this really just because she is rich? She’s not even the elected mp. Are we saying spouses and other family are fair game now?
If you cannot see the issue with the Chancellor of the Exchequer levying taxes (or scrapping welfare) on the poorest in society, while taking advantage of tax dodges only available to those who must claim they don’t have any real commitment the UK, then I’m afraid you are a moral pygmy.
It’s breathtakingly awful.
So what would be the moral thing to do? Give up her Indian nationality? Only pay taxes in the U.K. on earning made elsewhere? Do the taxes paid in Indian not go to the Indian state? If the claim was that the chancellor was changing the laws to enable her to dodge tax, then I’d get the anger. He isn’t. She is following the law. Don’t like it? Vote the Tories out, elect a government to change it. It’s a personal question so feel free to ignore, but you surely in a limited way have to answer the question of where you should pay tax on U.K. earnings. Small beer compared to a billionaire for sure.
The correct thing to do would be to get these affairs sorted BEFORE Rishi sought high office.
As to how, without knowing Ms Murty’s precise situation I can’t say, but I do think she should not LIE about having “no firm plans to stay in the UK” despite her husband being CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER.
Everyone’s marriage is different. Some couples need to be together all the time, others are happy living apart and only getting together from time to time. I have no way of knowing if this is the case for them. She is rich enough to to fly to India and back for the weekend, every week, Ist class, or private jet. Maybe she does. We don’t know that it’s a lie. The current career of politicians is much reduced. PMs could lose, serve as leader of the opposition and then return as Pm 5 years later in the past. Not now. Lose once and you are done. Rishi is being described as finished already. He could be free in 2024 to move to India full time.
As a matter of interest, Stephen Kinnock (now an MP) was married to the former prime minister of Denmark Helle Thorning-Schmidt. They had interesting tax related controversies early on in their marriage, arising from being located in different countries, and which you can find out about via google.
In that instance, the Kinnock-Thorning-Schmidts we’re guilty of the same scam.
On one hand, Kinnock was working and paying tax in Switzerland because he claimed to reside there.
On the other hand, he was trying to buy a house with his wife, then LOTO, by claiming he spent most of his time in Denmark.
I believe they bit they bullet and paid the appropriate Danish taxes.
No Swiss children ever missed out on chapatis, as far as I know.
Not being sure where your main home is seems to be a common problem for politicians.
At least Sunak and Kinnock appear to know who their wife is. This is a distinct advance on Mr Johnson...
Gabriel Milland @gabrielmilland Actual quote from a focus group last night. "I'd rather have a massive wind turbine in my back garden than nothing in my bank account."
SNIP
Even better is to have a massive wind turbine in someone else's back garden.
And so, the uplands of mid-Wales are sprouting wind-farms (with no benefit for the locals).
Most are run by a company called Bute Empire, I mean Bute Energy, based in Edinburgh and London,
And people still disputes that Wales is a colony run for the benefit of others ...
Are there no local taxes on these things, like for other businesses?
No it is a Tory pocket filler scheme, they even charge us double to connect it the grid and sell it cheaper down south and in France. We are also a colony.
"We are also a colony."
Go on - just for the fun of it explain quite how that works.
Otherwise, evening Malcolm.
Every nation and region of Britain is essentially a colony of London and the Home Counties.
I think you may mean satellite or some other phrase.
London did not colonise all of these other places.
Yeh I mean it in an economic sense.
And as such you surely have to see that it's others gravitating towards London that has been the theme.
They really struggle to stick to a core reason for the war, don't they? The last to join NATO were North Macedonia, Montenegro and Albania. There hasn't been a move to Russia's boundaries since 2004, so any nervousness has taken awhile to set in.
BBC:
In the interview, Peskov repeated Russia's reasons for what it describes as a "special military operation", saying Ukraine had become "anti-Russian" and Russia was "really nervous" as Nato had "started to move towards our boundaries".
They can really get paranoid then when Finland joins.
They will have a complete inability to join the dots as to why.
They really struggle to stick to a core reason for the war, don't they? The last to join NATO were North Macedonia, Montenegro and Albania. There hasn't been a move to Russia's boundaries since 2004, so any nervousness has taken awhile to set in.
BBC:
In the interview, Peskov repeated Russia's reasons for what it describes as a "special military operation", saying Ukraine had become "anti-Russian" and Russia was "really nervous" as Nato had "started to move towards our boundaries".
Unless the aforementioned former Soviet Satellites count as "Russian"...
Dipped into PB for a few minutes and what do I find? ...@Leon wants to vote for Le Pen.
Shocked I am, truly shocked! Never saw that coming, no not at all.
I love how, in his thought experiment, he wrote off Hidalgo as a “failed mayor”.
Admittedly her campaign for president was a complete non-starter, but she’s been a very successful mayor.
She’s trashed the city and she’s polling at 1% for president. Lol
Trashed the city?
She’s made the “15-minute city” concept globally famous. Paris is considered the world leader for urban innovation, in a way Boris the biker only dreamt of.
She may be woke, I don’t know, but she’s won twice, already, even if Paris mayor (which has a lot more power than London mayor) is the summit of her achievement.
Paris is a pain as regards transport in my one recent visit. (Admittedly there was some sort of a strike on one day of the three I was there)
London is better.
Do tell.
Well in London you generally get where you want to relatively swiftly and other than some time in the morning you'll not be a sardine.
In Paris the metro was often over-crowded, and quite slow - just a function of the density of stations. It really shows its age.
25 years ago it would have been the reverse. Back then the tube was pretty awful, and the metro pretty great.
I think the last time I was in Paris was late 2018, a while ago. What I do know is there’s been quite significant expansion into the suburbs as part of the Grand Paris Express project - twice as large as Crossrail.
And yet most Parisian suburbs are a mixture of hellholes and shitholes.
I have no idea why you seem to like Paris, it's a dump with not very good food. France has got so much to offer, Paris isn't even close to the top of their list.
Yes, Paris is known far and wide as a “dump with not very good food”.
Do you think you might be over-egging the omelette?
The perception and reality are somewhat disconnected, but they are aligning. Its reputation has been sliding for years and there's no sign of improvement.
My main issue with Paris is that it’s become globally gentrified in the twenty years since I’ve known it, and the centre is ever more a kind of cleaned-up disneyfied ghetto for the very rich.
That’s true of a lot of places, though.
I dunno if Paris’s reputation has been sliding. I think it lost ground against London for many years as the “place to be” in Europe, but like I said the stuff Hidalgo has been pioneering is considered a testing ground for urban innovation.
Certainly its food reputation - once stellar - is sliding. No way it is the global capital of cuisine, that hasn’t been true for decades, and no one really believes it any more
Has the decline stopped? We won’t know til the fogs of war and plague disperse
@MaxPB also has a point that the romantic image of Paris is sadly let down by the reality. This psychological shock even has a name - Paris Syndrome - when Japanese women brought up on Ratatouille and Emily in Paris actually go there and find some Algerian guy trying to grope them and some Slovak trying to rob them and some posh British stag-nighter trying not to puke in front of them, and lots and lots of litter and graffiti
“Paris syndrome (French: syndrome de Paris, Japanese: パリ症候群, Pari shōkōgun) is a sense of disappointment exhibited by some individuals when visiting Paris, who feel that the city was not what they had expected. The condition is commonly viewed as a severe form of culture shock.
The syndrome is characterized by a number of psychiatric symptoms such as acute delusional states, hallucinations, feelings of persecution (perceptions of being a victim of prejudice, aggression, and hostility from others),[1] derealization, depersonalization, anxiety, and also psychosomatic manifestations such as dizziness, tachycardia, sweating, and others, such as vomiting.[2]”
Paris remains the most beautiful city of its size on earth. That will never change, even if it becomes ever more preserved in aspic.
You’ve made me think about the food. It’s possible that one reason for the decline in food quality is that it’s just too posh now.
Very rich people have banal, insipid taste in all things, including food. Which is why there are no destination restaurants in Hampstead or Richmond.
I agree it is the most beautiful large city on earth. Of all cities, I would put Venice first.
The most beautiful small city is Cambridge (and it really is). Yay, go UK
i disagree on your diagnosis of the food problems. The issue is Paris is too popular. The restaurants don’t have to try, they can rake it in, so they don’t try, and they rake it in. See Venice again for an even worse situation. The food in Venice is famously appalling and overpriced. Fifty quid for fucking terrible risottos. But people will pay it because its in Venice and if they wont pay then there are 3 billion Chinese and Indians newly flush with money and passports who are DESPERATE to see Venice and they WILL pay it, so fuck the Brits and French and Germans they can eat pizza by the train station
London now has better food than Paris for this same reason. London is not entirely swamped with tourists and has to cater for a huge, diverse, affluent and notably sophisticated LOCAL dining crowd, so the pressure is to get better and better; if your food is crap someone else will take over your slot very quickly
Of course this is all pre Covid wisdom but my guess is it still applies, and will apply as we exit (please God) the recent horrors
The most wonderful place in the universe is clearly Cambridge on a long afternoon at a garden party in a college garden. Even today if I walk through the courts of the Cambridge colleges it sort of sends a shiver up my spine. Oxford is close sometimes, but Cambridge is the real deal.
Cambridge is spell-blindingly beautiful. I believe we overlook it because it is ours. And perhaps because we are used to our cities being a bit tatty and ruined?
Cambridge is peerless for its size. No other small city on earth matches, no, not even Siena
Because Cambridge has all the history and setting and architecture and the discovery-of-DNA (up there with the Renaissance) but is also has the University, still one of the very best on earth
The equivalent would be Siena still being home to some of the best painters and sculptors, working away, making amazing new things. Siena is not doing this. It is selling overpriced pizza to Americans and is merely a tourist playground, however charming
Cambridge is great. The campus at 77 Mass Avenue is beautiful, as is the view over the Charles River to BackBay. And -- best of all -- it is free from poseurs in the Humanities going to wanky garden parties.
But, DNA was not discovered there. Photo 51 was taken in another country, off the Strand in London.
Don't be daft! Cambridge, England - apples were discovered there! Isaac Newton and all that. Gravitas!
Not Bramleys, which are the King of Apples.
If one have those had bonced Newton, he would have been out cold.
Back to politics and Smarkets has traded the princely sum of £750 on the Cote Heath by-election in High Peak. Looks wide open as the market suggests - you just wonder if the presence of a Green candidate might help the Conservatives gain the other seat in this Ward.
On other pointless betting activities, I've had a quick look at that long distance handicap chase being run in the Liverpool area on Saturday:
My three against the field (or rather certainties to fall at the first fence are):
Parisian restaurants are overall poor: mediocre and expensive food. But you can eat really well in small town France. The trick is to find the restaurant that everyone goes to for Sunday lunch. Else the smart place next to the town hall. That's where the mayor goes for his lunch and it will be good.
Another place for good food (it seems) are schools. Each primary and secondary school publishes the menu for the week on their website. Some of these menus look delicious.
I think these things are still relative. A couple of times I've eaten a burger in a rush at Parisian train stations, Expectations of zero, but results of far better than their British equivalents. Similarly in Italy, random road-stop salami or train station cafes can be pretty good ; in fact, they're nearly always better than here.
This is the "baseline", or default of good functional food, that these two countries still have, and that outside of trendy metropolitan centres, you still tend not to get in the UK, or other parts of Northern Europe either.
My favourite restaurant in Paris is Le Train Bleu at the Gare de Lyon. The food is expensive for what it is, but it is a wonderful belle epoque pile that can't be beat for sheer theatricality. The signature dish is baba au rhum. Actually rhum au baba as you help yourself from the bottle provided.
The legendary band @pinkfloyd remixed Ukrainian folk song in support of #Ukraine. They recorded the feat together with the leader of the Ukrainian band Boombox Andriy Khlyvnyuk, who is currently defending Ukraine in the #Kyiv Territorial Defense. Thanks🇺🇦 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saEpkcVi1d4
Parisian restaurants are overall poor: mediocre and expensive food. But you can eat really well in small town France. The trick is to find the restaurant that everyone goes to for Sunday lunch. Else the smart place next to the town hall. That's where the mayor goes for his lunch and it will be good.
Another place for good food (it seems) are schools. Each primary and secondary school publishes the menu for the week on their website. Some of these menus look delicious.
I think these things are still relative. A couple of times I've eaten a burger in a rush at Parisian train stations, Expectations of zero, but results of far better than their British equivalents. Similarly in Italy, random road-stop salami or train station cafes can be pretty good ; in fact, they're nearly always better than here.
This is the "baseline", or default of good functional food, that these two countries still have, and that outside of trendy metropolitan centres, you still tend not to get in the UK, or other parts of Northern Europe either.
My favourite restaurant in Paris is Le Train Bleu at the Gate de Lyon. The food is expensive for what it is, but it is a wonderful belle epoque pile that can't be beat for sheer theatricality. The signature dish is baba au rhum. Actually rhum au baba as you help yourself from the bottle provided.
They really struggle to stick to a core reason for the war, don't they? The last to join NATO were North Macedonia, Montenegro and Albania. There hasn't been a move to Russia's boundaries since 2004, so any nervousness has taken awhile to set in.
BBC:
In the interview, Peskov repeated Russia's reasons for what it describes as a "special military operation", saying Ukraine had become "anti-Russian" and Russia was "really nervous" as Nato had "started to move towards our boundaries".
Lukashenko has also gone totally off message today, talking about the "war" in a way that is not supposedly used by the Russian alliance, and clearly signalling his dissatisfaction at being cut out of peace talks.
Whatever this says, it's not encouraging for the strength of Putin's position. Peskov was also talking about heavy losses.
By extension it is though. The argument is that he is rich and has comprehension of the common man. I’d also wonder about @Gardenwalker’s own tax arrangements, as he now lives in the states and earns profits in th3 U.K. on his properties.
It’s not at all what I said, you berk.
I don’t mind especially that Rishi is insanely rich, although it does raise questions about his relatability to the taxpayer.
What I cannot accept is that his wife (and by extension him) is availing herself of various tax schemes available to a global rentier class, and claiming that one of them “has no firm plans to stay in the UK” so they can continue to take the piss.
As for me,
1. I’m not a billionaire. 2. I neither inherited or married into money. 3. I’m not seeking elected office. 4. I’m not a cunt.
She benefits from dual nationality, as I believe do you. That’s your right, and hers. As long as she pays the tax she owes in the U.K. and he does what’s the problem? Should she impoverish India by NOT paying the due tax there? Or pay twice to keep people happy? Isn’t this really just because she is rich? She’s not even the elected mp. Are we saying spouses and other family are fair game now?
If you cannot see the issue with the Chancellor of the Exchequer levying taxes (or scrapping welfare) on the poorest in society, while taking advantage of tax dodges only available to those who must claim they don’t have any real commitment the UK, then I’m afraid you are a moral pygmy.
It’s breathtakingly awful.
So what would be the moral thing to do? Give up her Indian nationality? Only pay taxes in the U.K. on earning made elsewhere? Do the taxes paid in Indian not go to the Indian state? If the claim was that the chancellor was changing the laws to enable her to dodge tax, then I’d get the anger. He isn’t. She is following the law. Don’t like it? Vote the Tories out, elect a government to change it. It’s a personal question so feel free to ignore, but you surely in a limited way have to answer the question of where you should pay tax on U.K. earnings. Small beer compared to a billionaire for sure.
The correct thing to do would be to get these affairs sorted BEFORE Rishi sought high office.
As to how, without knowing Ms Murty’s precise situation I can’t say, but I do think she should not LIE about having “no firm plans to stay in the UK” despite her husband being CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER.
Everyone’s marriage is different. Some couples need to be together all the time, others are happy living apart and only getting together from time to time. I have no way of knowing if this is the case for them. She is rich enough to to fly to India and back for the weekend, every week, Ist class, or private jet. Maybe she does. We don’t know that it’s a lie. The current career of politicians is much reduced. PMs could lose, serve as leader of the opposition and then return as Pm 5 years later in the past. Not now. Lose once and you are done. Rishi is being described as finished already. He could be free in 2024 to move to India full time.
As a matter of interest, Stephen Kinnock (now an MP) was married to the former prime minister of Denmark Helle Thorning-Schmidt. They had interesting tax related controversies early on in their marriage, arising from being located in different countries, and which you can find out about via google.
In that instance, the Kinnock-Thorning-Schmidts we’re guilty of the same scam.
On one hand, Kinnock was working and paying tax in Switzerland because he claimed to reside there.
On the other hand, he was trying to buy a house with his wife, then LOTO, by claiming he spent most of his time in Denmark.
I believe they bit they bullet and paid the appropriate Danish taxes.
No Swiss children ever missed out on chapatis, as far as I know.
Not being sure where your main home is seems to be a common problem for politicians.
At least Sunak and Kinnock appear to know who their wife is. This is a distinct advance on Mr Johnson...
What, Sunak and Kinnock share the same wife? Now there's a real scandal.
Back to politics and Smarkets has traded the princely sum of £750 on the Cote Heath by-election in High Peak. Looks wide open as the market suggests - you just wonder if the presence of a Green candidate might help the Conservatives gain the other seat in this Ward.
On other pointless betting activities, I've had a quick look at that long distance handicap chase being run in the Liverpool area on Saturday:
My three against the field (or rather certainties to fall at the first fence are):
FIDDLERONTHEHOOF RUN WILD RED SANTINI
There you are, only 37 possible winners.
I would think a Conservative win because the ward was split in 2019 although Labour did win both seats in 2011. A relatively exciting by election as it will determine whether Labour holds their majority or not.
On Rishi's wife and tax/non dom; the most interesting question is why is every single outle majoring on it right now when it the question has been in the public domain (Private Eye) for at least a year?
Guido called it the first success for Labour's new "Director of Attack and Rebuttal", which is one reason why I've been harsh on the Government wrt their supine response. They must have known about it as it was advertised on w4mpjobs:
Last month Labour were advertising for a “Director of Attack and Rebuttal” and today we are seeing the first fruits of a more aggressive, New Labourish, approach. The media grid saw them first up the digital output on social media featuring Rishi as the face of tax hikes, letters to Lobby hacks “signed by Rishi” were hand delivered yesterday morning, subverting his own vanity for branding against him. Then they put Sunak in the frame with a classic-of-the-genre photo opportunity outside the Treasury, putting his face (masks) next to oversised tax bills, setting the backdrop for newspaper picture desks. Literally putting his face on the tax hikes he unwisely scheduled for yesterday, weeks before crucial local elections. Then they dropped the non-domiciled wife story to a sympathetic hack for a scoop.
If the Sunak-Murtys have “no firm plans” to stay in Britain, will Sunak please resign and just fuck off?
He has no moral right to impose taxation on the British people, let alone the very poorest, whom he seems to have chosen to punish.
Can only a poor person govern now? Have we come to this?
I still can't see the traction in this given that he is a tory - this is what they do, and people still vote for them anyway. The scheme is lawful, and organised by the government.
And, as far as I can tell, Labour don't want to get rid of non dom status.
I should bloody well hope not. That really would be cutting off our noses to spite our feet.
Most of the commentary about non-dom status has been extremely ill-informed, but in the particular case of Mrs Sunak that is irrelevant, it's politically a non-starter to have someone in Rishi's position as party leader.
OR as Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The question I'm not musing on is how far up the greasy pole someone in Sunak's position can ascend without it looking awful.
Before the just passing through comment, I suspect Cabinet-but-not-to-do-with-money. Skin in the game and all that.
But if Mr S is tied to Mrs S (and I hope so) and Mrs S sees herself tied to India more than Britain, then sorry Rishi, you don't get to run the country, because of the likelihood of you going somewhere else. It's not a major deprivation; lots of people who want to be MPs and ministers don't get the chance either.
Someone must have known the facts of this all along. And the political consequences are obvious. What the hell were the Conservatives thinking?
That they can get away with it. Because fan boys will always find obscure reasons, like critics are being racist, or sexist, or trying to steal Indian taxes.
Trying to steal Indian taxes is a great one.
Once you see that, you realise that the poster is basically a malevolent idiot.
I don’t think I’m a malevolent idiot, but I’m just raising arguments against yours. You believe it’s untenable, I don’t. I think it may harm his electoral prospects. And that may mean he won’t get to be pm. Fine. But please don’t just insult someone for having a different viewpoint, or even just raising possible points. Otherwise a discussion never happens.
Dipped into PB for a few minutes and what do I find? ...@Leon wants to vote for Le Pen.
Shocked I am, truly shocked! Never saw that coming, no not at all.
I love how, in his thought experiment, he wrote off Hidalgo as a “failed mayor”.
Admittedly her campaign for president was a complete non-starter, but she’s been a very successful mayor.
She’s trashed the city and she’s polling at 1% for president. Lol
Trashed the city?
She’s made the “15-minute city” concept globally famous. Paris is considered the world leader for urban innovation, in a way Boris the biker only dreamt of.
She may be woke, I don’t know, but she’s won twice, already, even if Paris mayor (which has a lot more power than London mayor) is the summit of her achievement.
Paris is a pain as regards transport in my one recent visit. (Admittedly there was some sort of a strike on one day of the three I was there)
London is better.
I haven't been to Paris for 20 years, so my views may be out of date. But I thought the metro was shit. 1) It didn't go anywhere directly. Each line meanders all over the place. From a transport planning point of view, not great. 2) Full of nutters and flashers and other neer-do-wells. 3) most of the trains ran on rubber tyres. What's that all about? 4) dirty and unkempt. Made London look like Singapore.
It is odd that there is so much wrong with France yet they manage to attract the most visitors in the world by quite a considerable distance.
Presumably all the Brexiters are too busy holidaying in Cleethorpes to worry about “dumps with not very good food”.
That’s fine. I’ve no urgent need to share Paris (or France) with the sort of people who complain about “shit-ache” mushrooms.
HYUFD was quite lyrical on PB recently about the potential for holidays in places such as Skegness post_Brexit, interestingly. (Though I am rather fond of Whitby and Scarborough myself.)
Well Max was pointing out the other day that the UK’s tourism receipts have collapsed, so Skegness needs you more than ever.
Not sure that it was a major destination for, say, the average Parisian or Chinese visitor (as opposed, in the case of the latter, to Banbury shopping village - quite an eye opener to be on a Sunday morning train from Maryelobone to Oxford a few years back along the Princes Risborough line btw). So not sure how Skegness is doing even worse than it was.
Bicester Village.
Thanks - I stand corrected.
Don't want you going to the wrong place and wondering where all the shops are!
Better things to do ... that day we paid homage to the LNWR swing bridge at Oxford (as well as have a very nice lunch with an old friend, which was admittedly the main reason). But I'd never even seen Marylebone before, let alone ridden on that line. Very Betjeman.
By extension it is though. The argument is that he is rich and has comprehension of the common man. I’d also wonder about @Gardenwalker’s own tax arrangements, as he now lives in the states and earns profits in th3 U.K. on his properties.
It’s not at all what I said, you berk.
I don’t mind especially that Rishi is insanely rich, although it does raise questions about his relatability to the taxpayer.
What I cannot accept is that his wife (and by extension him) is availing herself of various tax schemes available to a global rentier class, and claiming that one of them “has no firm plans to stay in the UK” so they can continue to take the piss.
As for me,
1. I’m not a billionaire. 2. I neither inherited or married into money. 3. I’m not seeking elected office. 4. I’m not a cunt.
She benefits from dual nationality, as I believe do you. That’s your right, and hers. As long as she pays the tax she owes in the U.K. and he does what’s the problem? Should she impoverish India by NOT paying the due tax there? Or pay twice to keep people happy? Isn’t this really just because she is rich? She’s not even the elected mp. Are we saying spouses and other family are fair game now?
If you cannot see the issue with the Chancellor of the Exchequer levying taxes (or scrapping welfare) on the poorest in society, while taking advantage of tax dodges only available to those who must claim they don’t have any real commitment the UK, then I’m afraid you are a moral pygmy.
It’s breathtakingly awful.
So what would be the moral thing to do? Give up her Indian nationality? Only pay taxes in the U.K. on earning made elsewhere? Do the taxes paid in Indian not go to the Indian state?
In 2019, out of 764,000 Indian millionaires, only 319,000 declared more than the equivalent of $75,000 on their (Indian) tax returns.
By extension it is though. The argument is that he is rich and has comprehension of the common man. I’d also wonder about @Gardenwalker’s own tax arrangements, as he now lives in the states and earns profits in th3 U.K. on his properties.
It’s not at all what I said, you berk.
I don’t mind especially that Rishi is insanely rich, although it does raise questions about his relatability to the taxpayer.
What I cannot accept is that his wife (and by extension him) is availing herself of various tax schemes available to a global rentier class, and claiming that one of them “has no firm plans to stay in the UK” so they can continue to take the piss.
As for me,
1. I’m not a billionaire. 2. I neither inherited or married into money. 3. I’m not seeking elected office. 4. I’m not a cunt.
She benefits from dual nationality, as I believe do you. That’s your right, and hers. As long as she pays the tax she owes in the U.K. and he does what’s the problem? Should she impoverish India by NOT paying the due tax there? Or pay twice to keep people happy? Isn’t this really just because she is rich? She’s not even the elected mp. Are we saying spouses and other family are fair game now?
If you cannot see the issue with the Chancellor of the Exchequer levying taxes (or scrapping welfare) on the poorest in society, while taking advantage of tax dodges only available to those who must claim they don’t have any real commitment the UK, then I’m afraid you are a moral pygmy.
It’s breathtakingly awful.
So what would be the moral thing to do? Give up her Indian nationality? Only pay taxes in the U.K. on earning made elsewhere? Do the taxes paid in Indian not go to the Indian state? If the claim was that the chancellor was changing the laws to enable her to dodge tax, then I’d get the anger. He isn’t. She is following the law. Don’t like it? Vote the Tories out, elect a government to change it. It’s a personal question so feel free to ignore, but you surely in a limited way have to answer the question of where you should pay tax on U.K. earnings. Small beer compared to a billionaire for sure.
The correct thing to do would be to get these affairs sorted BEFORE Rishi sought high office.
As to how, without knowing Ms Murty’s precise situation I can’t say, but I do think she should not LIE about having “no firm plans to stay in the UK” despite her husband being CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER.
Everyone’s marriage is different. Some couples need to be together all the time, others are happy living apart and only getting together from time to time. I have no way of knowing if this is the case for them. She is rich enough to to fly to India and back for the weekend, every week, Ist class, or private jet. Maybe she does. We don’t know that it’s a lie. The current career of politicians is much reduced. PMs could lose, serve as leader of the opposition and then return as Pm 5 years later in the past. Not now. Lose once and you are done. Rishi is being described as finished already. He could be free in 2024 to move to India full time.
As a matter of interest, Stephen Kinnock (now an MP) was married to the former prime minister of Denmark Helle Thorning-Schmidt. They had interesting tax related controversies early on in their marriage, arising from being located in different countries, and which you can find out about via google.
But that’s Labour, so the good guys, on our side so it’s fine...
On Rishi's wife and tax/non dom; the most interesting question is why is every single outle majoring on it right now when it the question has been in the public domain (Private Eye) for at least a year?
Guido called it the first success for Labour's new "Director of Attack and Rebuttal", which is one reason why I've been harsh on the Government wrt their supine response. They must have known about it as it was advertised on w4mpjobs:
Last month Labour were advertising for a “Director of Attack and Rebuttal” and today we are seeing the first fruits of a more aggressive, New Labourish, approach. The media grid saw them first up the digital output on social media featuring Rishi as the face of tax hikes, letters to Lobby hacks “signed by Rishi” were hand delivered yesterday morning, subverting his own vanity for branding against him. Then they put Sunak in the frame with a classic-of-the-genre photo opportunity outside the Treasury, putting his face (masks) next to oversised tax bills, setting the backdrop for newspaper picture desks. Literally putting his face on the tax hikes he unwisely scheduled for yesterday, weeks before crucial local elections. Then they dropped the non-domiciled wife story to a sympathetic hack for a scoop.
It fits in with the Politically Useless Boris history.
Remember whose leadership bid Staines did the digital PR for.....And Lynton Crosby spinner just started working #10.
There has been 3 Sunak hit stories in 3 days, 2 required leaked info which only a limited number of people know for certain and 1 was so obscure nobody is finding it out without very careful instruction.
All very convenient, especially just as Rishi goes on his hols. In fact, Sunak goes on holiday, was also a story in the press.
If the Sunak-Murtys have “no firm plans” to stay in Britain, will Sunak please resign and just fuck off?
He has no moral right to impose taxation on the British people, let alone the very poorest, whom he seems to have chosen to punish.
Can only a poor person govern now? Have we come to this?
I still can't see the traction in this given that he is a tory - this is what they do, and people still vote for them anyway. The scheme is lawful, and organised by the government.
And, as far as I can tell, Labour don't want to get rid of non dom status.
I should bloody well hope not. That really would be cutting off our noses to spite our feet.
Most of the commentary about non-dom status has been extremely ill-informed, but in the particular case of Mrs Sunak that is irrelevant, it's politically a non-starter to have someone in Rishi's position as party leader.
OR as Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The question I'm not musing on is how far up the greasy pole someone in Sunak's position can ascend without it looking awful.
Before the just passing through comment, I suspect Cabinet-but-not-to-do-with-money. Skin in the game and all that.
But if Mr S is tied to Mrs S (and I hope so) and Mrs S sees herself tied to India more than Britain, then sorry Rishi, you don't get to run the country, because of the likelihood of you going somewhere else. It's not a major deprivation; lots of people who want to be MPs and ministers don't get the chance either.
Someone must have known the facts of this all along. And the political consequences are obvious. What the hell were the Conservatives thinking?
That they can get away with it. Because fan boys will always find obscure reasons, like critics are being racist, or sexist, or trying to steal Indian taxes.
Trying to steal Indian taxes is a great one.
Once you see that, you realise that the poster is basically a malevolent idiot.
I don’t think I’m a malevolent idiot, but I’m just raising arguments against yours. You believe it’s untenable, I don’t. I think it may harm his electoral prospects. And that may mean he won’t get to be pm. Fine. But please don’t just insult someone for having a different viewpoint, or even just raising possible points. Otherwise a discussion never happens.
Did you claim that if Ms Murty were to regularise her status in the UK it would deprive India of taxes?
I don’t see it in this nested thread.
If you did, perhaps elsewhere, them I’m afraid I stand by my point. It’s a gratuitously bad faith argument to make.
By extension it is though. The argument is that he is rich and has comprehension of the common man. I’d also wonder about @Gardenwalker’s own tax arrangements, as he now lives in the states and earns profits in th3 U.K. on his properties.
It’s not at all what I said, you berk.
I don’t mind especially that Rishi is insanely rich, although it does raise questions about his relatability to the taxpayer.
What I cannot accept is that his wife (and by extension him) is availing herself of various tax schemes available to a global rentier class, and claiming that one of them “has no firm plans to stay in the UK” so they can continue to take the piss.
As for me,
1. I’m not a billionaire. 2. I neither inherited or married into money. 3. I’m not seeking elected office. 4. I’m not a cunt.
She benefits from dual nationality, as I believe do you. That’s your right, and hers. As long as she pays the tax she owes in the U.K. and he does what’s the problem? Should she impoverish India by NOT paying the due tax there? Or pay twice to keep people happy? Isn’t this really just because she is rich? She’s not even the elected mp. Are we saying spouses and other family are fair game now?
If you cannot see the issue with the Chancellor of the Exchequer levying taxes (or scrapping welfare) on the poorest in society, while taking advantage of tax dodges only available to those who must claim they don’t have any real commitment the UK, then I’m afraid you are a moral pygmy.
It’s breathtakingly awful.
So what would be the moral thing to do? Give up her Indian nationality? Only pay taxes in the U.K. on earning made elsewhere? Do the taxes paid in Indian not go to the Indian state? If the claim was that the chancellor was changing the laws to enable her to dodge tax, then I’d get the anger. He isn’t. She is following the law. Don’t like it? Vote the Tories out, elect a government to change it. It’s a personal question so feel free to ignore, but you surely in a limited way have to answer the question of where you should pay tax on U.K. earnings. Small beer compared to a billionaire for sure.
The correct thing to do would be to get these affairs sorted BEFORE Rishi sought high office.
As to how, without knowing Ms Murty’s precise situation I can’t say, but I do think she should not LIE about having “no firm plans to stay in the UK” despite her husband being CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER.
Everyone’s marriage is different. Some couples need to be together all the time, others are happy living apart and only getting together from time to time. I have no way of knowing if this is the case for them. She is rich enough to to fly to India and back for the weekend, every week, Ist class, or private jet. Maybe she does. We don’t know that it’s a lie. The current career of politicians is much reduced. PMs could lose, serve as leader of the opposition and then return as Pm 5 years later in the past. Not now. Lose once and you are done. Rishi is being described as finished already. He could be free in 2024 to move to India full time.
As a matter of interest, Stephen Kinnock (now an MP) was married to the former prime minister of Denmark Helle Thorning-Schmidt. They had interesting tax related controversies early on in their marriage, arising from being located in different countries, and which you can find out about via google.
In that instance, the Kinnock-Thorning-Schmidts we’re guilty of the same scam.
On one hand, Kinnock was working and paying tax in Switzerland because he claimed to reside there.
On the other hand, he was trying to buy a house with his wife, then LOTO, by claiming he spent most of his time in Denmark.
I believe they bit they bullet and paid the appropriate Danish taxes.
No Swiss children ever missed out on chapatis, as far as I know.
Not being sure where your main home is seems to be a common problem for politicians.
At least Sunak and Kinnock appear to know who their wife is. This is a distinct advance on Mr Johnson...
No, no. He’s always known who his wife is. He just wants to sleep with other women.
If the Sunak-Murtys have “no firm plans” to stay in Britain, will Sunak please resign and just fuck off?
He has no moral right to impose taxation on the British people, let alone the very poorest, whom he seems to have chosen to punish.
Can only a poor person govern now? Have we come to this?
I still can't see the traction in this given that he is a tory - this is what they do, and people still vote for them anyway. The scheme is lawful, and organised by the government.
And, as far as I can tell, Labour don't want to get rid of non dom status.
I should bloody well hope not. That really would be cutting off our noses to spite our feet.
Most of the commentary about non-dom status has been extremely ill-informed, but in the particular case of Mrs Sunak that is irrelevant, it's politically a non-starter to have someone in Rishi's position as party leader.
OR as Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The question I'm not musing on is how far up the greasy pole someone in Sunak's position can ascend without it looking awful.
Before the just passing through comment, I suspect Cabinet-but-not-to-do-with-money. Skin in the game and all that.
But if Mr S is tied to Mrs S (and I hope so) and Mrs S sees herself tied to India more than Britain, then sorry Rishi, you don't get to run the country, because of the likelihood of you going somewhere else. It's not a major deprivation; lots of people who want to be MPs and ministers don't get the chance either.
Someone must have known the facts of this all along. And the political consequences are obvious. What the hell were the Conservatives thinking?
That they can get away with it. Because fan boys will always find obscure reasons, like critics are being racist, or sexist, or trying to steal Indian taxes.
Trying to steal Indian taxes is a great one.
Once you see that, you realise that the poster is basically a malevolent idiot.
I don’t think I’m a malevolent idiot, but I’m just raising arguments against yours. You believe it’s untenable, I don’t. I think it may harm his electoral prospects. And that may mean he won’t get to be pm. Fine. But please don’t just insult someone for having a different viewpoint, or even just raising possible points. Otherwise a discussion never happens.
Being called an idiot was certainly uncalled for.
But so were "Isn’t this really just because she is rich?" and "Are we saying spouses and other family are fair game now?"
You were assigning insulting motives to other people's point of view in the same discussion.
The issue is with Sunak not his wife. Nothing to do with wealth but conflicts of interest, which put him in a situation where he should have said, "Thanks but CoE is not for me due to family circumstances, would love any non Treasury jobs that come up."
Dipped into PB for a few minutes and what do I find? ...@Leon wants to vote for Le Pen.
Shocked I am, truly shocked! Never saw that coming, no not at all.
I love how, in his thought experiment, he wrote off Hidalgo as a “failed mayor”.
Admittedly her campaign for president was a complete non-starter, but she’s been a very successful mayor.
She’s trashed the city and she’s polling at 1% for president. Lol
Trashed the city?
She’s made the “15-minute city” concept globally famous. Paris is considered the world leader for urban innovation, in a way Boris the biker only dreamt of.
She may be woke, I don’t know, but she’s won twice, already, even if Paris mayor (which has a lot more power than London mayor) is the summit of her achievement.
Paris is a pain as regards transport in my one recent visit. (Admittedly there was some sort of a strike on one day of the three I was there)
London is better.
Do tell.
Well in London you generally get where you want to relatively swiftly and other than some time in the morning you'll not be a sardine.
In Paris the metro was often over-crowded, and quite slow - just a function of the density of stations. It really shows its age.
25 years ago it would have been the reverse. Back then the tube was pretty awful, and the metro pretty great.
I think the last time I was in Paris was late 2018, a while ago. What I do know is there’s been quite significant expansion into the suburbs as part of the Grand Paris Express project - twice as large as Crossrail.
And yet most Parisian suburbs are a mixture of hellholes and shitholes.
I have no idea why you seem to like Paris, it's a dump with not very good food. France has got so much to offer, Paris isn't even close to the top of their list.
Yes, Paris is known far and wide as a “dump with not very good food”.
Do you think you might be over-egging the omelette?
The perception and reality are somewhat disconnected, but they are aligning. Its reputation has been sliding for years and there's no sign of improvement.
My main issue with Paris is that it’s become globally gentrified in the twenty years since I’ve known it, and the centre is ever more a kind of cleaned-up disneyfied ghetto for the very rich.
That’s true of a lot of places, though.
I dunno if Paris’s reputation has been sliding. I think it lost ground against London for many years as the “place to be” in Europe, but like I said the stuff Hidalgo has been pioneering is considered a testing ground for urban innovation.
Certainly its food reputation - once stellar - is sliding. No way it is the global capital of cuisine, that hasn’t been true for decades, and no one really believes it any more
Has the decline stopped? We won’t know til the fogs of war and plague disperse
@MaxPB also has a point that the romantic image of Paris is sadly let down by the reality. This psychological shock even has a name - Paris Syndrome - when Japanese women brought up on Ratatouille and Emily in Paris actually go there and find some Algerian guy trying to grope them and some Slovak trying to rob them and some posh British stag-nighter trying not to puke in front of them, and lots and lots of litter and graffiti
“Paris syndrome (French: syndrome de Paris, Japanese: パリ症候群, Pari shōkōgun) is a sense of disappointment exhibited by some individuals when visiting Paris, who feel that the city was not what they had expected. The condition is commonly viewed as a severe form of culture shock.
The syndrome is characterized by a number of psychiatric symptoms such as acute delusional states, hallucinations, feelings of persecution (perceptions of being a victim of prejudice, aggression, and hostility from others),[1] derealization, depersonalization, anxiety, and also psychosomatic manifestations such as dizziness, tachycardia, sweating, and others, such as vomiting.[2]”
Paris remains the most beautiful city of its size on earth. That will never change, even if it becomes ever more preserved in aspic.
You’ve made me think about the food. It’s possible that one reason for the decline in food quality is that it’s just too posh now.
Very rich people have banal, insipid taste in all things, including food. Which is why there are no destination restaurants in Hampstead or Richmond.
I agree it is the most beautiful large city on earth. Of all cities, I would put Venice first.
The most beautiful small city is Cambridge (and it really is). Yay, go UK
i disagree on your diagnosis of the food problems. The issue is Paris is too popular. The restaurants don’t have to try, they can rake it in, so they don’t try, and they rake it in. See Venice again for an even worse situation. The food in Venice is famously appalling and overpriced. Fifty quid for fucking terrible risottos. But people will pay it because its in Venice and if they wont pay then there are 3 billion Chinese and Indians newly flush with money and passports who are DESPERATE to see Venice and they WILL pay it, so fuck the Brits and French and Germans they can eat pizza by the train station
London now has better food than Paris for this same reason. London is not entirely swamped with tourists and has to cater for a huge, diverse, affluent and notably sophisticated LOCAL dining crowd, so the pressure is to get better and better; if your food is crap someone else will take over your slot very quickly
Of course this is all pre Covid wisdom but my guess is it still applies, and will apply as we exit (please God) the recent horrors
The most wonderful place in the universe is clearly Cambridge on a long afternoon at a garden party in a college garden. Even today if I walk through the courts of the Cambridge colleges it sort of sends a shiver up my spine. Oxford is close sometimes, but Cambridge is the real deal.
Cambridge is spell-blindingly beautiful. I believe we overlook it because it is ours. And perhaps because we are used to our cities being a bit tatty and ruined?
Cambridge is peerless for its size. No other small city on earth matches, no, not even Siena
Because Cambridge has all the history and setting and architecture and the discovery-of-DNA (up there with the Renaissance) but is also has the University, still one of the very best on earth
The equivalent would be Siena still being home to some of the best painters and sculptors, working away, making amazing new things. Siena is not doing this. It is selling overpriced pizza to Americans and is merely a tourist playground, however charming
Cambridge is great. The campus at 77 Mass Avenue is beautiful, as is the view over the Charles River to BackBay. And -- best of all -- it is free from poseurs in the Humanities going to wanky garden parties.
But, DNA was not discovered there. Photo 51 was taken in another country, off the Strand in London.
Don't be daft! Cambridge, England - apples were discovered there! Isaac Newton and all that. Gravitas!
Not Bramleys, which are the King of Apples.
If one have those had bonced Newton, he would have been out cold.
Bramleys are utterly horrible things, entirely inedible without adding their own weight in refined sugar, and skins so tough you could make footwear out of them. I grow Keswick codling cooking apples and guess what? They make blackberry and apple with just blackberry and apple, no added Tate and Lyle.
But yes if you value apples on "boncing" capability I'm sure they rock
If the Sunak-Murtys have “no firm plans” to stay in Britain, will Sunak please resign and just fuck off?
He has no moral right to impose taxation on the British people, let alone the very poorest, whom he seems to have chosen to punish.
Can only a poor person govern now? Have we come to this?
I still can't see the traction in this given that he is a tory - this is what they do, and people still vote for them anyway. The scheme is lawful, and organised by the government.
And, as far as I can tell, Labour don't want to get rid of non dom status.
I should bloody well hope not. That really would be cutting off our noses to spite our feet.
Most of the commentary about non-dom status has been extremely ill-informed, but in the particular case of Mrs Sunak that is irrelevant, it's politically a non-starter to have someone in Rishi's position as party leader.
OR as Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The question I'm not musing on is how far up the greasy pole someone in Sunak's position can ascend without it looking awful.
Before the just passing through comment, I suspect Cabinet-but-not-to-do-with-money. Skin in the game and all that.
But if Mr S is tied to Mrs S (and I hope so) and Mrs S sees herself tied to India more than Britain, then sorry Rishi, you don't get to run the country, because of the likelihood of you going somewhere else. It's not a major deprivation; lots of people who want to be MPs and ministers don't get the chance either.
Someone must have known the facts of this all along. And the political consequences are obvious. What the hell were the Conservatives thinking?
That they can get away with it. Because fan boys will always find obscure reasons, like critics are being racist, or sexist, or trying to steal Indian taxes.
Trying to steal Indian taxes is a great one.
Once you see that, you realise that the poster is basically a malevolent idiot.
I don’t think I’m a malevolent idiot, but I’m just raising arguments against yours. You believe it’s untenable, I don’t. I think it may harm his electoral prospects. And that may mean he won’t get to be pm. Fine. But please don’t just insult someone for having a different viewpoint, or even just raising possible points. Otherwise a discussion never happens.
Did you claim that if Ms Murty were to regularise her status in the UK it would deprive India of taxes?
I don’t see it in this nested thread.
If you did, perhaps elsewhere, them I’m afraid I stand by my point. It’s a gratuitously bad faith argument to make.
I did claim that, but I am not well versed in tax affairs. Is your case that she should pay twice? In the U.K. and in India?
By extension it is though. The argument is that he is rich and has comprehension of the common man. I’d also wonder about @Gardenwalker’s own tax arrangements, as he now lives in the states and earns profits in th3 U.K. on his properties.
It’s not at all what I said, you berk.
I don’t mind especially that Rishi is insanely rich, although it does raise questions about his relatability to the taxpayer.
What I cannot accept is that his wife (and by extension him) is availing herself of various tax schemes available to a global rentier class, and claiming that one of them “has no firm plans to stay in the UK” so they can continue to take the piss.
As for me,
1. I’m not a billionaire. 2. I neither inherited or married into money. 3. I’m not seeking elected office. 4. I’m not a cunt.
She benefits from dual nationality, as I believe do you. That’s your right, and hers. As long as she pays the tax she owes in the U.K. and he does what’s the problem? Should she impoverish India by NOT paying the due tax there? Or pay twice to keep people happy? Isn’t this really just because she is rich? She’s not even the elected mp. Are we saying spouses and other family are fair game now?
If you cannot see the issue with the Chancellor of the Exchequer levying taxes (or scrapping welfare) on the poorest in society, while taking advantage of tax dodges only available to those who must claim they don’t have any real commitment the UK, then I’m afraid you are a moral pygmy.
It’s breathtakingly awful.
So what would be the moral thing to do? Give up her Indian nationality? Only pay taxes in the U.K. on earning made elsewhere? Do the taxes paid in Indian not go to the Indian state? If the claim was that the chancellor was changing the laws to enable her to dodge tax, then I’d get the anger. He isn’t. She is following the law. Don’t like it? Vote the Tories out, elect a government to change it. It’s a personal question so feel free to ignore, but you surely in a limited way have to answer the question of where you should pay tax on U.K. earnings. Small beer compared to a billionaire for sure.
The correct thing to do would be to get these affairs sorted BEFORE Rishi sought high office.
As to how, without knowing Ms Murty’s precise situation I can’t say, but I do think she should not LIE about having “no firm plans to stay in the UK” despite her husband being CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER.
Everyone’s marriage is different. Some couples need to be together all the time, others are happy living apart and only getting together from time to time. I have no way of knowing if this is the case for them. She is rich enough to to fly to India and back for the weekend, every week, Ist class, or private jet. Maybe she does. We don’t know that it’s a lie. The current career of politicians is much reduced. PMs could lose, serve as leader of the opposition and then return as Pm 5 years later in the past. Not now. Lose once and you are done. Rishi is being described as finished already. He could be free in 2024 to move to India full time.
As a matter of interest, Stephen Kinnock (now an MP) was married to the former prime minister of Denmark Helle Thorning-Schmidt. They had interesting tax related controversies early on in their marriage, arising from being located in different countries, and which you can find out about via google.
In that instance, the Kinnock-Thorning-Schmidts we’re guilty of the same scam.
On one hand, Kinnock was working and paying tax in Switzerland because he claimed to reside there.
On the other hand, he was trying to buy a house with his wife, then LOTO, by claiming he spent most of his time in Denmark.
I believe they bit they bullet and paid the appropriate Danish taxes.
No Swiss children ever missed out on chapatis, as far as I know.
Not being sure where your main home is seems to be a common problem for politicians.
At least Sunak and Kinnock appear to know who their wife is. This is a distinct advance on Mr Johnson...
What, Sunak and Kinnock share the same wife? Now there's a real scandal.
I am sure Sunak wouldn't deign to commit adultery with Mrs Kinnock...
If the Sunak-Murtys have “no firm plans” to stay in Britain, will Sunak please resign and just fuck off?
He has no moral right to impose taxation on the British people, let alone the very poorest, whom he seems to have chosen to punish.
Can only a poor person govern now? Have we come to this?
I still can't see the traction in this given that he is a tory - this is what they do, and people still vote for them anyway. The scheme is lawful, and organised by the government.
And, as far as I can tell, Labour don't want to get rid of non dom status.
I should bloody well hope not. That really would be cutting off our noses to spite our feet.
Most of the commentary about non-dom status has been extremely ill-informed, but in the particular case of Mrs Sunak that is irrelevant, it's politically a non-starter to have someone in Rishi's position as party leader.
OR as Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The question I'm not musing on is how far up the greasy pole someone in Sunak's position can ascend without it looking awful.
Before the just passing through comment, I suspect Cabinet-but-not-to-do-with-money. Skin in the game and all that.
But if Mr S is tied to Mrs S (and I hope so) and Mrs S sees herself tied to India more than Britain, then sorry Rishi, you don't get to run the country, because of the likelihood of you going somewhere else. It's not a major deprivation; lots of people who want to be MPs and ministers don't get the chance either.
Someone must have known the facts of this all along. And the political consequences are obvious. What the hell were the Conservatives thinking?
That they can get away with it. Because fan boys will always find obscure reasons, like critics are being racist, or sexist, or trying to steal Indian taxes.
Trying to steal Indian taxes is a great one.
Once you see that, you realise that the poster is basically a malevolent idiot.
I don’t think I’m a malevolent idiot, but I’m just raising arguments against yours. You believe it’s untenable, I don’t. I think it may harm his electoral prospects. And that may mean he won’t get to be pm. Fine. But please don’t just insult someone for having a different viewpoint, or even just raising possible points. Otherwise a discussion never happens.
Being called an idiot was certainly uncalled for.
But so were "Isn’t this really just because she is rich?" and "Are we saying spouses and other family are fair game now?"
You were assigning insulting motives to other people's point of view in the same discussion.
The issue is with Sunak not his wife. Nothing to do with wealth but conflicts of interest, which put him in a situation where he should have said, "Thanks but CoE is not for me due to family circumstances, would love any non Treasury jobs that come up."
Would it matter if she was an entirely UK billionaire? Is it just the non Dom status? Or is it partly, as I suspect, the wealth?
If the Sunak-Murtys have “no firm plans” to stay in Britain, will Sunak please resign and just fuck off?
He has no moral right to impose taxation on the British people, let alone the very poorest, whom he seems to have chosen to punish.
Can only a poor person govern now? Have we come to this?
I still can't see the traction in this given that he is a tory - this is what they do, and people still vote for them anyway. The scheme is lawful, and organised by the government.
And, as far as I can tell, Labour don't want to get rid of non dom status.
I should bloody well hope not. That really would be cutting off our noses to spite our feet.
Most of the commentary about non-dom status has been extremely ill-informed, but in the particular case of Mrs Sunak that is irrelevant, it's politically a non-starter to have someone in Rishi's position as party leader.
OR as Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The question I'm not musing on is how far up the greasy pole someone in Sunak's position can ascend without it looking awful.
Before the just passing through comment, I suspect Cabinet-but-not-to-do-with-money. Skin in the game and all that.
But if Mr S is tied to Mrs S (and I hope so) and Mrs S sees herself tied to India more than Britain, then sorry Rishi, you don't get to run the country, because of the likelihood of you going somewhere else. It's not a major deprivation; lots of people who want to be MPs and ministers don't get the chance either.
Someone must have known the facts of this all along. And the political consequences are obvious. What the hell were the Conservatives thinking?
That they can get away with it. Because fan boys will always find obscure reasons, like critics are being racist, or sexist, or trying to steal Indian taxes.
Trying to steal Indian taxes is a great one.
Once you see that, you realise that the poster is basically a malevolent idiot.
I don’t think I’m a malevolent idiot, but I’m just raising arguments against yours. You believe it’s untenable, I don’t. I think it may harm his electoral prospects. And that may mean he won’t get to be pm. Fine. But please don’t just insult someone for having a different viewpoint, or even just raising possible points. Otherwise a discussion never happens.
Did you claim that if Ms Murty were to regularise her status in the UK it would deprive India of taxes?
I don’t see it in this nested thread.
If you did, perhaps elsewhere, them I’m afraid I stand by my point. It’s a gratuitously bad faith argument to make.
I did claim that, but I am not well versed in tax affairs. Is your case that she should pay twice? In the U.K. and in India?
You are not well versed in tax affairs, and you continue to make bad faith arguments.
See your previous post, “If it’s Labour it’s Ok”, which is a claim literally nobody has made.
Similar to Rishi's woes, one of the reasons for Zelensky's declining ratings before the war was his involvement in the Pandora Papers. If only voters in Russia were so exacting of their leaders.
If the Sunak-Murtys have “no firm plans” to stay in Britain, will Sunak please resign and just fuck off?
He has no moral right to impose taxation on the British people, let alone the very poorest, whom he seems to have chosen to punish.
Can only a poor person govern now? Have we come to this?
I still can't see the traction in this given that he is a tory - this is what they do, and people still vote for them anyway. The scheme is lawful, and organised by the government.
And, as far as I can tell, Labour don't want to get rid of non dom status.
I should bloody well hope not. That really would be cutting off our noses to spite our feet.
Most of the commentary about non-dom status has been extremely ill-informed, but in the particular case of Mrs Sunak that is irrelevant, it's politically a non-starter to have someone in Rishi's position as party leader.
OR as Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The question I'm not musing on is how far up the greasy pole someone in Sunak's position can ascend without it looking awful.
Before the just passing through comment, I suspect Cabinet-but-not-to-do-with-money. Skin in the game and all that.
But if Mr S is tied to Mrs S (and I hope so) and Mrs S sees herself tied to India more than Britain, then sorry Rishi, you don't get to run the country, because of the likelihood of you going somewhere else. It's not a major deprivation; lots of people who want to be MPs and ministers don't get the chance either.
Someone must have known the facts of this all along. And the political consequences are obvious. What the hell were the Conservatives thinking?
That they can get away with it. Because fan boys will always find obscure reasons, like critics are being racist, or sexist, or trying to steal Indian taxes.
Trying to steal Indian taxes is a great one.
Once you see that, you realise that the poster is basically a malevolent idiot.
I don’t think I’m a malevolent idiot, but I’m just raising arguments against yours. You believe it’s untenable, I don’t. I think it may harm his electoral prospects. And that may mean he won’t get to be pm. Fine. But please don’t just insult someone for having a different viewpoint, or even just raising possible points. Otherwise a discussion never happens.
Did you claim that if Ms Murty were to regularise her status in the UK it would deprive India of taxes?
I don’t see it in this nested thread.
If you did, perhaps elsewhere, them I’m afraid I stand by my point. It’s a gratuitously bad faith argument to make.
I did claim that, but I am not well versed in tax affairs. Is your case that she should pay twice? In the U.K. and in India?
You are not well versed in tax affairs, and you continue to make bad faith arguments.
See your previous post, “If it’s Labour it’s Ok”, which is a claim literally nobody has made.
Genuine question, so maybe idiot is right. What’s the bad faith argument?
They really struggle to stick to a core reason for the war, don't they? The last to join NATO were North Macedonia, Montenegro and Albania. There hasn't been a move to Russia's boundaries since 2004, so any nervousness has taken awhile to set in.
BBC:
In the interview, Peskov repeated Russia's reasons for what it describes as a "special military operation", saying Ukraine had become "anti-Russian" and Russia was "really nervous" as Nato had "started to move towards our boundaries".
Unless the aforementioned former Soviet Satellites count as "Russian"...
That's really like the alleged ISIS argument that any country that had ever been 'Muslim' should be Muslim again ... except worse, as if the translations are correct, Russia see anywhere with Russians in as worthy of protecting the 'Russians'...
edit: not targeted at you, but at Russia's attitude. Which is rather like Germany's in 1938...
Parisian restaurants are overall poor: mediocre and expensive food. But you can eat really well in small town France. The trick is to find the restaurant that everyone goes to for Sunday lunch. Else the smart place next to the town hall. That's where the mayor goes for his lunch and it will be good.
Another place for good food (it seems) are schools. Each primary and secondary school publishes the menu for the week on their website. Some of these menus look delicious.
I think these things are still relative. A couple of times I've eaten a burger in a rush at Parisian train stations, Expectations of zero, but results of far better than their British equivalents. Similarly in Italy, random road-stop salami or train station cafes can be pretty good ; in fact, they're nearly always better than here.
This is the "baseline", or default of good functional food, that these two countries still have, and that outside of trendy metropolitan centres, you still tend not to get in the UK, or other parts of Northern Europe either.
Isaac Newton was a sh*t Robert Hooke was a much more interesting character...
(runs for cover)
But to be serious, the interplay between the two, and the way common history sees them, is very interesting. If I could go back to any time/place in history, that might be one of them.
Speaking for myself, I don't really care about Sunak's wife.
Well, hold the front page. Your indifference changes everything.
Speaking for MYself, this annoys me more than partygate. That was people doing a crap job at a crap time letting off a bit of steam. This is someone in the second most powerful job in Government treating the UK like a cheap Travellodge. What does it say about Sunak's own spending plans that he thought better of contributing more to them than was strictly necessary?
On Rishi's wife and tax/non dom; the most interesting question is why is every single outle majoring on it right now when it the question has been in the public domain (Private Eye) for at least a year?
Guido called it the first success for Labour's new "Director of Attack and Rebuttal", which is one reason why I've been harsh on the Government wrt their supine response. They must have known about it as it was advertised on w4mpjobs:
Last month Labour were advertising for a “Director of Attack and Rebuttal” and today we are seeing the first fruits of a more aggressive, New Labourish, approach. The media grid saw them first up the digital output on social media featuring Rishi as the face of tax hikes, letters to Lobby hacks “signed by Rishi” were hand delivered yesterday morning, subverting his own vanity for branding against him. Then they put Sunak in the frame with a classic-of-the-genre photo opportunity outside the Treasury, putting his face (masks) next to oversised tax bills, setting the backdrop for newspaper picture desks. Literally putting his face on the tax hikes he unwisely scheduled for yesterday, weeks before crucial local elections. Then they dropped the non-domiciled wife story to a sympathetic hack for a scoop.
If the Sunak-Murtys have “no firm plans” to stay in Britain, will Sunak please resign and just fuck off?
He has no moral right to impose taxation on the British people, let alone the very poorest, whom he seems to have chosen to punish.
Can only a poor person govern now? Have we come to this?
I still can't see the traction in this given that he is a tory - this is what they do, and people still vote for them anyway. The scheme is lawful, and organised by the government.
And, as far as I can tell, Labour don't want to get rid of non dom status.
I should bloody well hope not. That really would be cutting off our noses to spite our feet.
Most of the commentary about non-dom status has been extremely ill-informed, but in the particular case of Mrs Sunak that is irrelevant, it's politically a non-starter to have someone in Rishi's position as party leader.
OR as Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The question I'm not musing on is how far up the greasy pole someone in Sunak's position can ascend without it looking awful.
Before the just passing through comment, I suspect Cabinet-but-not-to-do-with-money. Skin in the game and all that.
But if Mr S is tied to Mrs S (and I hope so) and Mrs S sees herself tied to India more than Britain, then sorry Rishi, you don't get to run the country, because of the likelihood of you going somewhere else. It's not a major deprivation; lots of people who want to be MPs and ministers don't get the chance either.
Someone must have known the facts of this all along. And the political consequences are obvious. What the hell were the Conservatives thinking?
That they can get away with it. Because fan boys will always find obscure reasons, like critics are being racist, or sexist, or trying to steal Indian taxes.
Trying to steal Indian taxes is a great one.
Once you see that, you realise that the poster is basically a malevolent idiot.
I don’t think I’m a malevolent idiot, but I’m just raising arguments against yours. You believe it’s untenable, I don’t. I think it may harm his electoral prospects. And that may mean he won’t get to be pm. Fine. But please don’t just insult someone for having a different viewpoint, or even just raising possible points. Otherwise a discussion never happens.
Being called an idiot was certainly uncalled for.
But so were "Isn’t this really just because she is rich?" and "Are we saying spouses and other family are fair game now?"
You were assigning insulting motives to other people's point of view in the same discussion.
The issue is with Sunak not his wife. Nothing to do with wealth but conflicts of interest, which put him in a situation where he should have said, "Thanks but CoE is not for me due to family circumstances, would love any non Treasury jobs that come up."
Would it matter if she was an entirely UK billionaire? Is it just the non Dom status? Or is it partly, as I suspect, the wealth?
If you object to being insulted, do you not think others might do likewise? You are pretty much suggesting I am both lying and simply jealous rather than having concerns about a conflict of interest.
If the Sunak-Murtys have “no firm plans” to stay in Britain, will Sunak please resign and just fuck off?
He has no moral right to impose taxation on the British people, let alone the very poorest, whom he seems to have chosen to punish.
Can only a poor person govern now? Have we come to this?
I still can't see the traction in this given that he is a tory - this is what they do, and people still vote for them anyway. The scheme is lawful, and organised by the government.
And, as far as I can tell, Labour don't want to get rid of non dom status.
I should bloody well hope not. That really would be cutting off our noses to spite our feet.
Most of the commentary about non-dom status has been extremely ill-informed, but in the particular case of Mrs Sunak that is irrelevant, it's politically a non-starter to have someone in Rishi's position as party leader.
OR as Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The question I'm not musing on is how far up the greasy pole someone in Sunak's position can ascend without it looking awful.
Before the just passing through comment, I suspect Cabinet-but-not-to-do-with-money. Skin in the game and all that.
But if Mr S is tied to Mrs S (and I hope so) and Mrs S sees herself tied to India more than Britain, then sorry Rishi, you don't get to run the country, because of the likelihood of you going somewhere else. It's not a major deprivation; lots of people who want to be MPs and ministers don't get the chance either.
Someone must have known the facts of this all along. And the political consequences are obvious. What the hell were the Conservatives thinking?
That they can get away with it. Because fan boys will always find obscure reasons, like critics are being racist, or sexist, or trying to steal Indian taxes.
Trying to steal Indian taxes is a great one.
Once you see that, you realise that the poster is basically a malevolent idiot.
I don’t think I’m a malevolent idiot, but I’m just raising arguments against yours. You believe it’s untenable, I don’t. I think it may harm his electoral prospects. And that may mean he won’t get to be pm. Fine. But please don’t just insult someone for having a different viewpoint, or even just raising possible points. Otherwise a discussion never happens.
Being called an idiot was certainly uncalled for.
But so were "Isn’t this really just because she is rich?" and "Are we saying spouses and other family are fair game now?"
You were assigning insulting motives to other people's point of view in the same discussion.
The issue is with Sunak not his wife. Nothing to do with wealth but conflicts of interest, which put him in a situation where he should have said, "Thanks but CoE is not for me due to family circumstances, would love any non Treasury jobs that come up."
Would it matter if she was an entirely UK billionaire? Is it just the non Dom status? Or is it partly, as I suspect, the wealth?
Moronic. Seriously. If you don't understand why, you prove the point. If you do understand why, ditto. Also If she were, not was.
On Rishi's wife and tax/non dom; the most interesting question is why is every single outle majoring on it right now when it the question has been in the public domain (Private Eye) for at least a year?
Guido called it the first success for Labour's new "Director of Attack and Rebuttal", which is one reason why I've been harsh on the Government wrt their supine response. They must have known about it as it was advertised on w4mpjobs:
Last month Labour were advertising for a “Director of Attack and Rebuttal” and today we are seeing the first fruits of a more aggressive, New Labourish, approach. The media grid saw them first up the digital output on social media featuring Rishi as the face of tax hikes, letters to Lobby hacks “signed by Rishi” were hand delivered yesterday morning, subverting his own vanity for branding against him. Then they put Sunak in the frame with a classic-of-the-genre photo opportunity outside the Treasury, putting his face (masks) next to oversised tax bills, setting the backdrop for newspaper picture desks. Literally putting his face on the tax hikes he unwisely scheduled for yesterday, weeks before crucial local elections. Then they dropped the non-domiciled wife story to a sympathetic hack for a scoop.
It fits in with the Politically Useless Boris history.
On my list of 'who has got it in for Sunak?' it never occurred to me that it might be the Labour Party!
It doesn't really work. The "scoop" the Indy had knew very precise details like he had disclosed this to the cabinet office in 2018. Yes the story had been in PE a year ago, but there was very detailed info, and there has been 2-3 other stories that in concurrent days that required leaked info from within government.
If the Sunak-Murtys have “no firm plans” to stay in Britain, will Sunak please resign and just fuck off?
He has no moral right to impose taxation on the British people, let alone the very poorest, whom he seems to have chosen to punish.
Can only a poor person govern now? Have we come to this?
I still can't see the traction in this given that he is a tory - this is what they do, and people still vote for them anyway. The scheme is lawful, and organised by the government.
And, as far as I can tell, Labour don't want to get rid of non dom status.
I should bloody well hope not. That really would be cutting off our noses to spite our feet.
Most of the commentary about non-dom status has been extremely ill-informed, but in the particular case of Mrs Sunak that is irrelevant, it's politically a non-starter to have someone in Rishi's position as party leader.
OR as Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The question I'm not musing on is how far up the greasy pole someone in Sunak's position can ascend without it looking awful.
Before the just passing through comment, I suspect Cabinet-but-not-to-do-with-money. Skin in the game and all that.
But if Mr S is tied to Mrs S (and I hope so) and Mrs S sees herself tied to India more than Britain, then sorry Rishi, you don't get to run the country, because of the likelihood of you going somewhere else. It's not a major deprivation; lots of people who want to be MPs and ministers don't get the chance either.
Someone must have known the facts of this all along. And the political consequences are obvious. What the hell were the Conservatives thinking?
That they can get away with it. Because fan boys will always find obscure reasons, like critics are being racist, or sexist, or trying to steal Indian taxes.
Trying to steal Indian taxes is a great one.
Once you see that, you realise that the poster is basically a malevolent idiot.
I don’t think I’m a malevolent idiot, but I’m just raising arguments against yours. You believe it’s untenable, I don’t. I think it may harm his electoral prospects. And that may mean he won’t get to be pm. Fine. But please don’t just insult someone for having a different viewpoint, or even just raising possible points. Otherwise a discussion never happens.
Being called an idiot was certainly uncalled for.
But so were "Isn’t this really just because she is rich?" and "Are we saying spouses and other family are fair game now?"
You were assigning insulting motives to other people's point of view in the same discussion.
The issue is with Sunak not his wife. Nothing to do with wealth but conflicts of interest, which put him in a situation where he should have said, "Thanks but CoE is not for me due to family circumstances, would love any non Treasury jobs that come up."
Would it matter if she was an entirely UK billionaire? Is it just the non Dom status? Or is it partly, as I suspect, the wealth?
If you object to being insulted, do you not think others might do likewise? You are pretty much suggesting I am both lying and simply jealous rather than having concerns about a conflict of interest.
It is the conflict of interest, not the wealth.
No I’m not trying to suggest you are lying, apologies if that is how it seems. We’ve had anger against non dims forvever, and governments of all flavours show no sign of closing it as a loophole. I just find it a bit odd that you can pay all your legal dues yet still get attacked for it.
What's most interesting about this is that Rishi's wife must not have taken up British citizenship. I find that a truly odd decision.
Where does she live most of the time? She was born in India to Indian parents. Perhaps she still feels Indian?
It's perfectly reasonable to "feel" Indian and take up British citizenship. My mum did it and so many others do it too.
That's what's been bugging me more than anything else, if Rishi's wife doesn't see herself as actually British despite living here for years, that's a much bigger problem than a few tax issues. The chancellor is married to a foreign citizen who, when it comes down to it, won't have Britain's best interests at heart. There's a huge conflict of interest there.
Dipped into PB for a few minutes and what do I find? ...@Leon wants to vote for Le Pen.
Shocked I am, truly shocked! Never saw that coming, no not at all.
I love how, in his thought experiment, he wrote off Hidalgo as a “failed mayor”.
Admittedly her campaign for president was a complete non-starter, but she’s been a very successful mayor.
She’s trashed the city and she’s polling at 1% for president. Lol
Trashed the city?
She’s made the “15-minute city” concept globally famous. Paris is considered the world leader for urban innovation, in a way Boris the biker only dreamt of.
She may be woke, I don’t know, but she’s won twice, already, even if Paris mayor (which has a lot more power than London mayor) is the summit of her achievement.
Paris is a pain as regards transport in my one recent visit. (Admittedly there was some sort of a strike on one day of the three I was there)
London is better.
Do tell.
Well in London you generally get where you want to relatively swiftly and other than some time in the morning you'll not be a sardine.
In Paris the metro was often over-crowded, and quite slow - just a function of the density of stations. It really shows its age.
25 years ago it would have been the reverse. Back then the tube was pretty awful, and the metro pretty great.
I think the last time I was in Paris was late 2018, a while ago. What I do know is there’s been quite significant expansion into the suburbs as part of the Grand Paris Express project - twice as large as Crossrail.
And yet most Parisian suburbs are a mixture of hellholes and shitholes.
I have no idea why you seem to like Paris, it's a dump with not very good food. France has got so much to offer, Paris isn't even close to the top of their list.
Yes, Paris is known far and wide as a “dump with not very good food”.
Do you think you might be over-egging the omelette?
The perception and reality are somewhat disconnected, but they are aligning. Its reputation has been sliding for years and there's no sign of improvement.
My main issue with Paris is that it’s become globally gentrified in the twenty years since I’ve known it, and the centre is ever more a kind of cleaned-up disneyfied ghetto for the very rich.
That’s true of a lot of places, though.
I dunno if Paris’s reputation has been sliding. I think it lost ground against London for many years as the “place to be” in Europe, but like I said the stuff Hidalgo has been pioneering is considered a testing ground for urban innovation.
Certainly its food reputation - once stellar - is sliding. No way it is the global capital of cuisine, that hasn’t been true for decades, and no one really believes it any more
Has the decline stopped? We won’t know til the fogs of war and plague disperse
@MaxPB also has a point that the romantic image of Paris is sadly let down by the reality. This psychological shock even has a name - Paris Syndrome - when Japanese women brought up on Ratatouille and Emily in Paris actually go there and find some Algerian guy trying to grope them and some Slovak trying to rob them and some posh British stag-nighter trying not to puke in front of them, and lots and lots of litter and graffiti
“Paris syndrome (French: syndrome de Paris, Japanese: パリ症候群, Pari shōkōgun) is a sense of disappointment exhibited by some individuals when visiting Paris, who feel that the city was not what they had expected. The condition is commonly viewed as a severe form of culture shock.
The syndrome is characterized by a number of psychiatric symptoms such as acute delusional states, hallucinations, feelings of persecution (perceptions of being a victim of prejudice, aggression, and hostility from others),[1] derealization, depersonalization, anxiety, and also psychosomatic manifestations such as dizziness, tachycardia, sweating, and others, such as vomiting.[2]”
Paris remains the most beautiful city of its size on earth. That will never change, even if it becomes ever more preserved in aspic.
You’ve made me think about the food. It’s possible that one reason for the decline in food quality is that it’s just too posh now.
Very rich people have banal, insipid taste in all things, including food. Which is why there are no destination restaurants in Hampstead or Richmond.
I agree it is the most beautiful large city on earth. Of all cities, I would put Venice first.
The most beautiful small city is Cambridge (and it really is). Yay, go UK
i disagree on your diagnosis of the food problems. The issue is Paris is too popular. The restaurants don’t have to try, they can rake it in, so they don’t try, and they rake it in. See Venice again for an even worse situation. The food in Venice is famously appalling and overpriced. Fifty quid for fucking terrible risottos. But people will pay it because its in Venice and if they wont pay then there are 3 billion Chinese and Indians newly flush with money and passports who are DESPERATE to see Venice and they WILL pay it, so fuck the Brits and French and Germans they can eat pizza by the train station
London now has better food than Paris for this same reason. London is not entirely swamped with tourists and has to cater for a huge, diverse, affluent and notably sophisticated LOCAL dining crowd, so the pressure is to get better and better; if your food is crap someone else will take over your slot very quickly
Of course this is all pre Covid wisdom but my guess is it still applies, and will apply as we exit (please God) the recent horrors
The most wonderful place in the universe is clearly Cambridge on a long afternoon at a garden party in a college garden. Even today if I walk through the courts of the Cambridge colleges it sort of sends a shiver up my spine. Oxford is close sometimes, but Cambridge is the real deal.
Cambridge is spell-blindingly beautiful. I believe we overlook it because it is ours. And perhaps because we are used to our cities being a bit tatty and ruined?
Cambridge is peerless for its size. No other small city on earth matches, no, not even Siena
Because Cambridge has all the history and setting and architecture and the discovery-of-DNA (up there with the Renaissance) but is also has the University, still one of the very best on earth
The equivalent would be Siena still being home to some of the best painters and sculptors, working away, making amazing new things. Siena is not doing this. It is selling overpriced pizza to Americans and is merely a tourist playground, however charming
Cambridge is great. The campus at 77 Mass Avenue is beautiful, as is the view over the Charles River to BackBay. And -- best of all -- it is free from poseurs in the Humanities going to wanky garden parties.
But, DNA was not discovered there. Photo 51 was taken in another country, off the Strand in London.
Don't be daft! Cambridge, England - apples were discovered there! Isaac Newton and all that. Gravitas!
Not Bramleys, which are the King of Apples.
If one have those had bonced Newton, he would have been out cold.
Bramleys are utterly horrible things, entirely inedible without adding their own weight in refined sugar, and skins so tough you could make footwear out of them. I grow Keswick codling cooking apples and guess what? They make blackberry and apple with just blackberry and apple, no added Tate and Lyle.
But yes if you value apples on "boncing" capability I'm sure they rock
You are meant to add sugar to cooking apples. You could have saved yourself lots of time by asking someone.
What's most interesting about this is that Rishi's wife must not have taken up British citizenship. I find that a truly odd decision.
See, I don’t mind that. It’s up to her.
It’s the the idea that - according to her declaration to HMRC - that she is “just passing through” which is an abomination.
Or at least, it becomes so when you have several homes here, are raising a family here, have donated to the bloody school here, and your husband is launching a blitzkrieg on the poorest in society here as Chancellor or the freaking Exchequer here.
If the Sunak-Murtys have “no firm plans” to stay in Britain, will Sunak please resign and just fuck off?
He has no moral right to impose taxation on the British people, let alone the very poorest, whom he seems to have chosen to punish.
Can only a poor person govern now? Have we come to this?
I still can't see the traction in this given that he is a tory - this is what they do, and people still vote for them anyway. The scheme is lawful, and organised by the government.
And, as far as I can tell, Labour don't want to get rid of non dom status.
I should bloody well hope not. That really would be cutting off our noses to spite our feet.
Most of the commentary about non-dom status has been extremely ill-informed, but in the particular case of Mrs Sunak that is irrelevant, it's politically a non-starter to have someone in Rishi's position as party leader.
OR as Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The question I'm not musing on is how far up the greasy pole someone in Sunak's position can ascend without it looking awful.
Before the just passing through comment, I suspect Cabinet-but-not-to-do-with-money. Skin in the game and all that.
But if Mr S is tied to Mrs S (and I hope so) and Mrs S sees herself tied to India more than Britain, then sorry Rishi, you don't get to run the country, because of the likelihood of you going somewhere else. It's not a major deprivation; lots of people who want to be MPs and ministers don't get the chance either.
Someone must have known the facts of this all along. And the political consequences are obvious. What the hell were the Conservatives thinking?
That they can get away with it. Because fan boys will always find obscure reasons, like critics are being racist, or sexist, or trying to steal Indian taxes.
Trying to steal Indian taxes is a great one.
Once you see that, you realise that the poster is basically a malevolent idiot.
I don’t think I’m a malevolent idiot, but I’m just raising arguments against yours. You believe it’s untenable, I don’t. I think it may harm his electoral prospects. And that may mean he won’t get to be pm. Fine. But please don’t just insult someone for having a different viewpoint, or even just raising possible points. Otherwise a discussion never happens.
Being called an idiot was certainly uncalled for.
But so were "Isn’t this really just because she is rich?" and "Are we saying spouses and other family are fair game now?"
You were assigning insulting motives to other people's point of view in the same discussion.
The issue is with Sunak not his wife. Nothing to do with wealth but conflicts of interest, which put him in a situation where he should have said, "Thanks but CoE is not for me due to family circumstances, would love any non Treasury jobs that come up."
Would it matter if she was an entirely UK billionaire? Is it just the non Dom status? Or is it partly, as I suspect, the wealth?
Moronic. Seriously. If you don't understand why, you prove the point. If you do understand why, ditto. Also If she were, not was.
You do love to correct people’s writing don’t you. I am fascinated by this. I am asking if it were a marriage to a U.K. billionaire if it would make Sunak ineligible to set taxes. Maybe it does.
What's most interesting about this is that Rishi's wife must not have taken up British citizenship. I find that a truly odd decision.
Where does she live most of the time? She was born in India to Indian parents. Perhaps she still feels Indian?
It's perfectly reasonable to "feel" Indian and take up British citizenship. My mum did it and so many others do it too.
That's what's been bugging me more than anything else, if Rishi's wife doesn't see herself as actually British despite living here for years, that's a much bigger problem than a few tax issues. The chancellor is married to a foreign citizen who, when it comes down to it, won't have Britain's best interests at heart. There's a huge conflict of interest there.
If the Sunak-Murtys have “no firm plans” to stay in Britain, will Sunak please resign and just fuck off?
He has no moral right to impose taxation on the British people, let alone the very poorest, whom he seems to have chosen to punish.
Can only a poor person govern now? Have we come to this?
I still can't see the traction in this given that he is a tory - this is what they do, and people still vote for them anyway. The scheme is lawful, and organised by the government.
And, as far as I can tell, Labour don't want to get rid of non dom status.
I should bloody well hope not. That really would be cutting off our noses to spite our feet.
Most of the commentary about non-dom status has been extremely ill-informed, but in the particular case of Mrs Sunak that is irrelevant, it's politically a non-starter to have someone in Rishi's position as party leader.
OR as Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The question I'm not musing on is how far up the greasy pole someone in Sunak's position can ascend without it looking awful.
Before the just passing through comment, I suspect Cabinet-but-not-to-do-with-money. Skin in the game and all that.
But if Mr S is tied to Mrs S (and I hope so) and Mrs S sees herself tied to India more than Britain, then sorry Rishi, you don't get to run the country, because of the likelihood of you going somewhere else. It's not a major deprivation; lots of people who want to be MPs and ministers don't get the chance either.
Someone must have known the facts of this all along. And the political consequences are obvious. What the hell were the Conservatives thinking?
That they can get away with it. Because fan boys will always find obscure reasons, like critics are being racist, or sexist, or trying to steal Indian taxes.
Trying to steal Indian taxes is a great one.
Once you see that, you realise that the poster is basically a malevolent idiot.
I don’t think I’m a malevolent idiot, but I’m just raising arguments against yours. You believe it’s untenable, I don’t. I think it may harm his electoral prospects. And that may mean he won’t get to be pm. Fine. But please don’t just insult someone for having a different viewpoint, or even just raising possible points. Otherwise a discussion never happens.
Being called an idiot was certainly uncalled for.
But so were "Isn’t this really just because she is rich?" and "Are we saying spouses and other family are fair game now?"
You were assigning insulting motives to other people's point of view in the same discussion.
The issue is with Sunak not his wife. Nothing to do with wealth but conflicts of interest, which put him in a situation where he should have said, "Thanks but CoE is not for me due to family circumstances, would love any non Treasury jobs that come up."
Would it matter if she was an entirely UK billionaire? Is it just the non Dom status? Or is it partly, as I suspect, the wealth?
If you object to being insulted, do you not think others might do likewise? You are pretty much suggesting I am both lying and simply jealous rather than having concerns about a conflict of interest.
It is the conflict of interest, not the wealth.
No I’m not trying to suggest you are lying, apologies if that is how it seems. We’ve had anger against non dims forvever, and governments of all flavours show no sign of closing it as a loophole. I just find it a bit odd that you can pay all your legal dues yet still get attacked for it.
You are continually missing my point. I have no objection to Mrs Sunak taking advantage of the non dom rules.
I object to Mr Sunak taking a role where he is responsible for deciding those non dom rules, knowing his wife is taking advantage of them. Standards in public life used to matter. Anyway enough from me, whilst its wrong, its probably not in the top 10 ethics scandals for this government.
If the Sunak-Murtys have “no firm plans” to stay in Britain, will Sunak please resign and just fuck off?
He has no moral right to impose taxation on the British people, let alone the very poorest, whom he seems to have chosen to punish.
Can only a poor person govern now? Have we come to this?
I still can't see the traction in this given that he is a tory - this is what they do, and people still vote for them anyway. The scheme is lawful, and organised by the government.
And, as far as I can tell, Labour don't want to get rid of non dom status.
I should bloody well hope not. That really would be cutting off our noses to spite our feet.
Most of the commentary about non-dom status has been extremely ill-informed, but in the particular case of Mrs Sunak that is irrelevant, it's politically a non-starter to have someone in Rishi's position as party leader.
OR as Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The question I'm not musing on is how far up the greasy pole someone in Sunak's position can ascend without it looking awful.
Before the just passing through comment, I suspect Cabinet-but-not-to-do-with-money. Skin in the game and all that.
But if Mr S is tied to Mrs S (and I hope so) and Mrs S sees herself tied to India more than Britain, then sorry Rishi, you don't get to run the country, because of the likelihood of you going somewhere else. It's not a major deprivation; lots of people who want to be MPs and ministers don't get the chance either.
Someone must have known the facts of this all along. And the political consequences are obvious. What the hell were the Conservatives thinking?
That they can get away with it. Because fan boys will always find obscure reasons, like critics are being racist, or sexist, or trying to steal Indian taxes.
Trying to steal Indian taxes is a great one.
Once you see that, you realise that the poster is basically a malevolent idiot.
I don’t think I’m a malevolent idiot, but I’m just raising arguments against yours. You believe it’s untenable, I don’t. I think it may harm his electoral prospects. And that may mean he won’t get to be pm. Fine. But please don’t just insult someone for having a different viewpoint, or even just raising possible points. Otherwise a discussion never happens.
Being called an idiot was certainly uncalled for.
But so were "Isn’t this really just because she is rich?" and "Are we saying spouses and other family are fair game now?"
You were assigning insulting motives to other people's point of view in the same discussion.
The issue is with Sunak not his wife. Nothing to do with wealth but conflicts of interest, which put him in a situation where he should have said, "Thanks but CoE is not for me due to family circumstances, would love any non Treasury jobs that come up."
Would it matter if she was an entirely UK billionaire? Is it just the non Dom status? Or is it partly, as I suspect, the wealth?
If you object to being insulted, do you not think others might do likewise? You are pretty much suggesting I am both lying and simply jealous rather than having concerns about a conflict of interest.
It is the conflict of interest, not the wealth.
No I’m not trying to suggest you are lying, apologies if that is how it seems. We’ve had anger against non dims forvever, and governments of all flavours show no sign of closing it as a loophole. I just find it a bit odd that you can pay all your legal dues yet still get attacked for it.
You are continually missing my point. I have no objection to Mrs Sunak taking advantage of the non dom rules.
I object to Mr Sunak taking a role where he is responsible for deciding those non dom rules, knowing his wife is taking advantage of them. Standards in public life used to matter. Anyway enough from me, whilst its wrong, its probably not in the top 10 ethics scandals for this government.
The reason he keeps missing the point, despite several posters explaining it over and over, is because he is, as I suggested upthread, a malevolent idiot.
If the Sunak-Murtys have “no firm plans” to stay in Britain, will Sunak please resign and just fuck off?
He has no moral right to impose taxation on the British people, let alone the very poorest, whom he seems to have chosen to punish.
Can only a poor person govern now? Have we come to this?
I still can't see the traction in this given that he is a tory - this is what they do, and people still vote for them anyway. The scheme is lawful, and organised by the government.
And, as far as I can tell, Labour don't want to get rid of non dom status.
I should bloody well hope not. That really would be cutting off our noses to spite our feet.
Most of the commentary about non-dom status has been extremely ill-informed, but in the particular case of Mrs Sunak that is irrelevant, it's politically a non-starter to have someone in Rishi's position as party leader.
OR as Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The question I'm not musing on is how far up the greasy pole someone in Sunak's position can ascend without it looking awful.
Before the just passing through comment, I suspect Cabinet-but-not-to-do-with-money. Skin in the game and all that.
But if Mr S is tied to Mrs S (and I hope so) and Mrs S sees herself tied to India more than Britain, then sorry Rishi, you don't get to run the country, because of the likelihood of you going somewhere else. It's not a major deprivation; lots of people who want to be MPs and ministers don't get the chance either.
Someone must have known the facts of this all along. And the political consequences are obvious. What the hell were the Conservatives thinking?
That they can get away with it. Because fan boys will always find obscure reasons, like critics are being racist, or sexist, or trying to steal Indian taxes.
Trying to steal Indian taxes is a great one.
Once you see that, you realise that the poster is basically a malevolent idiot.
I don’t think I’m a malevolent idiot, but I’m just raising arguments against yours. You believe it’s untenable, I don’t. I think it may harm his electoral prospects. And that may mean he won’t get to be pm. Fine. But please don’t just insult someone for having a different viewpoint, or even just raising possible points. Otherwise a discussion never happens.
Being called an idiot was certainly uncalled for.
But so were "Isn’t this really just because she is rich?" and "Are we saying spouses and other family are fair game now?"
You were assigning insulting motives to other people's point of view in the same discussion.
The issue is with Sunak not his wife. Nothing to do with wealth but conflicts of interest, which put him in a situation where he should have said, "Thanks but CoE is not for me due to family circumstances, would love any non Treasury jobs that come up."
Would it matter if she was an entirely UK billionaire? Is it just the non Dom status? Or is it partly, as I suspect, the wealth?
If you object to being insulted, do you not think others might do likewise? You are pretty much suggesting I am both lying and simply jealous rather than having concerns about a conflict of interest.
It is the conflict of interest, not the wealth.
No I’m not trying to suggest you are lying, apologies if that is how it seems. We’ve had anger against non dims forvever, and governments of all flavours show no sign of closing it as a loophole. I just find it a bit odd that you can pay all your legal dues yet still get attacked for it.
You are continually missing my point. I have no objection to Mrs Sunak taking advantage of the non dom rules.
I object to Mr Sunak taking a role where he is responsible for deciding those non dom rules, knowing his wife is taking advantage of them. Standards in public life used to matter. Anyway enough from me, whilst its wrong, its probably not in the top 10 ethics scandals for this government.
Fair enough, I totally understand that objection. I didn’t think that was the dispute, so maybe idiot is right. I dont think I’m being malevolent though.
Dipped into PB for a few minutes and what do I find? ...@Leon wants to vote for Le Pen.
Shocked I am, truly shocked! Never saw that coming, no not at all.
I love how, in his thought experiment, he wrote off Hidalgo as a “failed mayor”.
Admittedly her campaign for president was a complete non-starter, but she’s been a very successful mayor.
She’s trashed the city and she’s polling at 1% for president. Lol
Trashed the city?
She’s made the “15-minute city” concept globally famous. Paris is considered the world leader for urban innovation, in a way Boris the biker only dreamt of.
She may be woke, I don’t know, but she’s won twice, already, even if Paris mayor (which has a lot more power than London mayor) is the summit of her achievement.
Paris is a pain as regards transport in my one recent visit. (Admittedly there was some sort of a strike on one day of the three I was there)
London is better.
Do tell.
Well in London you generally get where you want to relatively swiftly and other than some time in the morning you'll not be a sardine.
In Paris the metro was often over-crowded, and quite slow - just a function of the density of stations. It really shows its age.
25 years ago it would have been the reverse. Back then the tube was pretty awful, and the metro pretty great.
I think the last time I was in Paris was late 2018, a while ago. What I do know is there’s been quite significant expansion into the suburbs as part of the Grand Paris Express project - twice as large as Crossrail.
And yet most Parisian suburbs are a mixture of hellholes and shitholes.
I have no idea why you seem to like Paris, it's a dump with not very good food. France has got so much to offer, Paris isn't even close to the top of their list.
Yes, Paris is known far and wide as a “dump with not very good food”.
Do you think you might be over-egging the omelette?
The perception and reality are somewhat disconnected, but they are aligning. Its reputation has been sliding for years and there's no sign of improvement.
My main issue with Paris is that it’s become globally gentrified in the twenty years since I’ve known it, and the centre is ever more a kind of cleaned-up disneyfied ghetto for the very rich.
That’s true of a lot of places, though.
I dunno if Paris’s reputation has been sliding. I think it lost ground against London for many years as the “place to be” in Europe, but like I said the stuff Hidalgo has been pioneering is considered a testing ground for urban innovation.
Certainly its food reputation - once stellar - is sliding. No way it is the global capital of cuisine, that hasn’t been true for decades, and no one really believes it any more
Has the decline stopped? We won’t know til the fogs of war and plague disperse
@MaxPB also has a point that the romantic image of Paris is sadly let down by the reality. This psychological shock even has a name - Paris Syndrome - when Japanese women brought up on Ratatouille and Emily in Paris actually go there and find some Algerian guy trying to grope them and some Slovak trying to rob them and some posh British stag-nighter trying not to puke in front of them, and lots and lots of litter and graffiti
“Paris syndrome (French: syndrome de Paris, Japanese: パリ症候群, Pari shōkōgun) is a sense of disappointment exhibited by some individuals when visiting Paris, who feel that the city was not what they had expected. The condition is commonly viewed as a severe form of culture shock.
The syndrome is characterized by a number of psychiatric symptoms such as acute delusional states, hallucinations, feelings of persecution (perceptions of being a victim of prejudice, aggression, and hostility from others),[1] derealization, depersonalization, anxiety, and also psychosomatic manifestations such as dizziness, tachycardia, sweating, and others, such as vomiting.[2]”
Paris remains the most beautiful city of its size on earth. That will never change, even if it becomes ever more preserved in aspic.
You’ve made me think about the food. It’s possible that one reason for the decline in food quality is that it’s just too posh now.
Very rich people have banal, insipid taste in all things, including food. Which is why there are no destination restaurants in Hampstead or Richmond.
I agree it is the most beautiful large city on earth. Of all cities, I would put Venice first.
The most beautiful small city is Cambridge (and it really is). Yay, go UK
i disagree on your diagnosis of the food problems. The issue is Paris is too popular. The restaurants don’t have to try, they can rake it in, so they don’t try, and they rake it in. See Venice again for an even worse situation. The food in Venice is famously appalling and overpriced. Fifty quid for fucking terrible risottos. But people will pay it because its in Venice and if they wont pay then there are 3 billion Chinese and Indians newly flush with money and passports who are DESPERATE to see Venice and they WILL pay it, so fuck the Brits and French and Germans they can eat pizza by the train station
London now has better food than Paris for this same reason. London is not entirely swamped with tourists and has to cater for a huge, diverse, affluent and notably sophisticated LOCAL dining crowd, so the pressure is to get better and better; if your food is crap someone else will take over your slot very quickly
Of course this is all pre Covid wisdom but my guess is it still applies, and will apply as we exit (please God) the recent horrors
The most wonderful place in the universe is clearly Cambridge on a long afternoon at a garden party in a college garden. Even today if I walk through the courts of the Cambridge colleges it sort of sends a shiver up my spine. Oxford is close sometimes, but Cambridge is the real deal.
Cambridge is spell-blindingly beautiful. I believe we overlook it because it is ours. And perhaps because we are used to our cities being a bit tatty and ruined?
Cambridge is peerless for its size. No other small city on earth matches, no, not even Siena
Because Cambridge has all the history and setting and architecture and the discovery-of-DNA (up there with the Renaissance) but is also has the University, still one of the very best on earth
The equivalent would be Siena still being home to some of the best painters and sculptors, working away, making amazing new things. Siena is not doing this. It is selling overpriced pizza to Americans and is merely a tourist playground, however charming
Cambridge is great. The campus at 77 Mass Avenue is beautiful, as is the view over the Charles River to BackBay. And -- best of all -- it is free from poseurs in the Humanities going to wanky garden parties.
But, DNA was not discovered there. Photo 51 was taken in another country, off the Strand in London.
Don't be daft! Cambridge, England - apples were discovered there! Isaac Newton and all that. Gravitas!
Not Bramleys, which are the King of Apples.
If one have those had bonced Newton, he would have been out cold.
Bramleys are utterly horrible things, entirely inedible without adding their own weight in refined sugar, and skins so tough you could make footwear out of them. I grow Keswick codling cooking apples and guess what? They make blackberry and apple with just blackberry and apple, no added Tate and Lyle.
But yes if you value apples on "boncing" capability I'm sure they rock
Try the Howgate Wonder. A spectacular large cooker that needs very little sugar.
If the Sunak-Murtys have “no firm plans” to stay in Britain, will Sunak please resign and just fuck off?
He has no moral right to impose taxation on the British people, let alone the very poorest, whom he seems to have chosen to punish.
Can only a poor person govern now? Have we come to this?
I still can't see the traction in this given that he is a tory - this is what they do, and people still vote for them anyway. The scheme is lawful, and organised by the government.
And, as far as I can tell, Labour don't want to get rid of non dom status.
I should bloody well hope not. That really would be cutting off our noses to spite our feet.
Most of the commentary about non-dom status has been extremely ill-informed, but in the particular case of Mrs Sunak that is irrelevant, it's politically a non-starter to have someone in Rishi's position as party leader.
OR as Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The question I'm not musing on is how far up the greasy pole someone in Sunak's position can ascend without it looking awful.
Before the just passing through comment, I suspect Cabinet-but-not-to-do-with-money. Skin in the game and all that.
But if Mr S is tied to Mrs S (and I hope so) and Mrs S sees herself tied to India more than Britain, then sorry Rishi, you don't get to run the country, because of the likelihood of you going somewhere else. It's not a major deprivation; lots of people who want to be MPs and ministers don't get the chance either.
Someone must have known the facts of this all along. And the political consequences are obvious. What the hell were the Conservatives thinking?
That they can get away with it. Because fan boys will always find obscure reasons, like critics are being racist, or sexist, or trying to steal Indian taxes.
Trying to steal Indian taxes is a great one.
Once you see that, you realise that the poster is basically a malevolent idiot.
I don’t think I’m a malevolent idiot, but I’m just raising arguments against yours. You believe it’s untenable, I don’t. I think it may harm his electoral prospects. And that may mean he won’t get to be pm. Fine. But please don’t just insult someone for having a different viewpoint, or even just raising possible points. Otherwise a discussion never happens.
Being called an idiot was certainly uncalled for.
But so were "Isn’t this really just because she is rich?" and "Are we saying spouses and other family are fair game now?"
You were assigning insulting motives to other people's point of view in the same discussion.
The issue is with Sunak not his wife. Nothing to do with wealth but conflicts of interest, which put him in a situation where he should have said, "Thanks but CoE is not for me due to family circumstances, would love any non Treasury jobs that come up."
Would it matter if she was an entirely UK billionaire? Is it just the non Dom status? Or is it partly, as I suspect, the wealth?
If you object to being insulted, do you not think others might do likewise? You are pretty much suggesting I am both lying and simply jealous rather than having concerns about a conflict of interest.
It is the conflict of interest, not the wealth.
No I’m not trying to suggest you are lying, apologies if that is how it seems. We’ve had anger against non dims forvever, and governments of all flavours show no sign of closing it as a loophole. I just find it a bit odd that you can pay all your legal dues yet still get attacked for it.
You are continually missing my point. I have no objection to Mrs Sunak taking advantage of the non dom rules.
I object to Mr Sunak taking a role where he is responsible for deciding those non dom rules, knowing his wife is taking advantage of them. Standards in public life used to matter. Anyway enough from me, whilst its wrong, its probably not in the top 10 ethics scandals for this government.
The reason he keeps missing the point, despite several posters explaining it over and over, is because he is, as I suggested upthread, a malevolent idiot.
Not really, as I have just posted. I thought the objections were about the tax, not about the ability to set the non Dom rules. I get that now. Apologies for being thick. I don’t think I’m malevolent.
Comments
Another place for good food (it seems) are schools. Each primary and secondary school publishes the menu for the week on their website. Some of these menus look delicious.
Before the just passing through comment, I suspect Cabinet-but-not-to-do-with-money. Skin in the game and all that.
But if Mr S is tied to Mrs S (and I hope so) and Mrs S sees herself tied to India more than Britain, then sorry Rishi, you don't get to run the country, because of the likelihood of you going somewhere else. It's not a major deprivation; lots of people who want to be MPs and ministers don't get the chance either.
Someone must have known the facts of this all along. And the political consequences are obvious. What the hell were the Conservatives thinking?
Ordinary people may not know what a non-dom is, but they’ll not be happy to find out that the CotE is a “tax dodger” who tries to put up taxes on the little folk.
Even Labour can’t miss this open goal.
Cambridge is great. The campus at 77 Mass Avenue is beautiful, as is the view over the Charles River to BackBay. And -- best of all -- it is free from poseurs in the Humanities going to wanky garden parties.
But, DNA was not discovered there. Photo 51 was taken in another country, off the Strand in London.
Once you see that, you realise that the poster is basically a malevolent idiot.
She has a very confused set of political ideas. How much scrutiny she's subjected to will be key to how well she does.
In Switzerland 1 in 7 adults are $ millionaires, USA & Australia 1 in 11
https://twitter.com/privateeyenews/status/1367141610098679809
This is the "baseline", or default of good functional food, that these two countries still have, and that outside of trendy metropolitan centres, you still tend not to get in the UK, or other parts of Northern Europe either.
On one hand, Kinnock was working and paying tax in Switzerland because he claimed to reside there.
On the other hand, he was trying to buy a house with his wife, then LOTO, by claiming he spent most of his time in Denmark.
I believe they bit they bullet and paid the appropriate Danish taxes.
No Swiss children ever missed out on chapatis, as far as I know.
- Hospital Admissions - FLAT. R has dropped to 1
- MV beds - FLAT
- In hospital - FLAT
- Deaths - UP. Rate of increase slowing.
BBC:
In the interview, Peskov repeated Russia's reasons for what it describes as a "special military operation", saying Ukraine had become "anti-Russian" and Russia was "really nervous" as Nato had "started to move towards our boundaries".
Whodathunkit?
(Walks out of door to go shopping.)
They will have a complete inability to join the dots as to why.
If one have those had bonced Newton, he would have been out cold.
On other pointless betting activities, I've had a quick look at that long distance handicap chase being run in the Liverpool area on Saturday:
My three against the field (or rather certainties to fall at the first fence are):
FIDDLERONTHEHOOF
RUN WILD RED
SANTINI
There you are, only 37 possible winners.
Sure beats Burger King at Euston.
Thanks🇺🇦
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saEpkcVi1d4
Whatever this says, it's not encouraging for the strength of Putin's position. Peskov was also talking about heavy losses.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10696967/Belarus-troops-carried-special-operation-Ukraine-Lukashenko-admits.html
Now there's a real scandal.
Last month Labour were advertising for a “Director of Attack and Rebuttal” and today we are seeing the first fruits of a more aggressive, New Labourish, approach. The media grid saw them first up the digital output on social media featuring Rishi as the face of tax hikes, letters to Lobby hacks “signed by Rishi” were hand delivered yesterday morning, subverting his own vanity for branding against him. Then they put Sunak in the frame with a classic-of-the-genre photo opportunity outside the Treasury, putting his face (masks) next to oversised tax bills, setting the backdrop for newspaper picture desks. Literally putting his face on the tax hikes he unwisely scheduled for yesterday, weeks before crucial local elections. Then they dropped the non-domiciled wife story to a sympathetic hack for a scoop.
https://order-order.com/2022/04/07/labours-attack-unit-celebrates-sunak-slotting/
http://www.w4mpjobs.org/JobDetails.aspx?jobid=82635
It fits in with the Politically Useless Boris history.
There has been 3 Sunak hit stories in 3 days, 2 required leaked info which only a limited number of people know for certain and 1 was so obscure nobody is finding it out without very careful instruction.
All very convenient, especially just as Rishi goes on his hols. In fact, Sunak goes on holiday, was also a story in the press.
I don’t see it in this nested thread.
If you did, perhaps elsewhere, them I’m afraid I stand by my point. It’s a gratuitously bad faith argument to make.
But so were "Isn’t this really just because she is rich?" and "Are we saying spouses and other family are fair game now?"
You were assigning insulting motives to other people's point of view in the same discussion.
The issue is with Sunak not his wife. Nothing to do with wealth but conflicts of interest, which put him in a situation where he should have said, "Thanks but CoE is not for me due to family circumstances, would love any non Treasury jobs that come up."
But yes if you value apples on "boncing" capability I'm sure they rock
See your previous post, “If it’s Labour it’s Ok”, which is a claim literally nobody has made.
edit: not targeted at you, but at Russia's attitude. Which is rather like Germany's in 1938...
(runs for cover)
But to be serious, the interplay between the two, and the way common history sees them, is very interesting. If I could go back to any time/place in history, that might be one of them.
It is the conflict of interest, not the wealth.
That's what's been bugging me more than anything else, if Rishi's wife doesn't see herself as actually British despite living here for years, that's a much bigger problem than a few tax issues. The chancellor is married to a foreign citizen who, when it comes down to it, won't have Britain's best interests at heart. There's a huge conflict of interest there.
I suppose Sunak benefits from his wife's tax status, but that benefit doesn't come from his being CoE.
It’s up to her.
It’s the the idea that - according to her declaration to HMRC - that she is “just passing through” which is an abomination.
Or at least, it becomes so when you have several homes here, are raising a family here, have donated to the bloody school here, and your husband is launching a blitzkrieg on the poorest in society here as Chancellor or the freaking Exchequer here.
I object to Mr Sunak taking a role where he is responsible for deciding those non dom rules, knowing his wife is taking advantage of them. Standards in public life used to matter. Anyway enough from me, whilst its wrong, its probably not in the top 10 ethics scandals for this government.
https://twitter.com/AFP/status/1512165927563018240
“British sovereignty over the Falklands is an absurd imperial hangover that must end”
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/apr/07/british-sovereignty-falklands-absurd-imperial-hangover-argentina?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other