My Sunak 2022 exit bet is looking better – politicalbetting.com
Options
Comments
-
Of course if he had taken his golden moment and become PM early this year (Savilesmear, Paterson and Partygate peak moment) Labour would now be enjoying all these disclosures in a different context. The story has been around at least a year but suddenly right now everyone is reporting it.rottenborough said:
I said at the time, he had to seize the moment or he was the David Miliband of Tories.Mexicanpete said:
Quantative Easing? The last resort of the scoundrel.Foxy said:
Nah, I don't think so. His chance may come again, though I doubt it. He needs to hang onto the job until the autumn budget, and print some surprises.rottenborough said:
He might walk knowing the dream is over.Richard_Nabavi said:Rishi's hopes of becoming party leader and PM are dead. But I'm not sure that means he's going to be booted out of No 11 anytime soon.
Very few in modern politics seem to stay much longer than is absolutely necessary to be in with a shout at top jobs.
I do feel somewhat sorry for Richy Rich. He was within touching distance of becoming Prime Minister, and man would he have been a vast improvement on his predecessor. Had he resigned on Johnson's Jimmy Savile slur at the height of Partygate, he would be explaining his wife's tax affairs away as PM today.
He kept his powder dry and now will never be PM.
The idea that the MSM don't read Private Eye (March 2021) and and only just noticed is obvs nonsense. So for whose interest does it emerge now?
And it shows up the weakness of even the best of the media that it is only a story when everyone else says its a story, rather than being a story a year ago on its merits.
If Sunak goes as CoE I think he is likely to leave politics. The chances look over 50%. And it's a good time coming up to be Not the Chancellor.
1 -
Pillock. You referred to them as unsophisticated so I told the story about what the soldiers called the islanders which I was aware of because I knew some of the soldiers and I thought posters here might enjoy the story.HYUFD said:
Given kjh's sneers at the Falkland Islanders intellect in the previous thread, it was well deserved!Nigelb said:
You often show that you completely misunderstand posts. I was making no point whatsoever. It was just a funny story. Get a life.1 -
"Perfectly legal" begs the question. It looks to me as of she is faking her attachment to India. She certainly felt the need to be, putting it at its kindest, disingenuous in telling the press she had no choice in the matter.Fishing said:
I think that if the economy were growing at 5% per year while all other countries stagnated and taxes were falling because of his brilliant reforms, I wouldn't give a damn about his wife's (perfectly legal) tax status. It's his poor performance in the job that is the key factor. The rest is irrelevant fluff.Heathener said:
I don't disagree with any of those points but I don't think they contradict the personal unsuitability? It's both together imho. This might be a Left-Right point of difference, and some might accuse of me of the politics of envy, but the idea that in the midst of all this incredible squeeze on our finances you should have as Chancellor, or PM, a multi-millionaire ex-banker hedge fund manager with a mega rich non-dom tax avoiding spouse just takes the mick.Fishing said:
He is indeed unsuitable for the job, but not because of his wife's tax status. It's his poor management of the economy and pubilc finances and lack of any solution to Britain's long-term economic problems (in particular chronically low productivity outside a few industries and regions and a disastrously over-regulated and volatile housing market) that are the issue.Heathener said:It is indeed as Milke says an extraordinary story.
The Sun claims it to be a Labour smear but all the others reckon it is a No.10 hatchet job. It bears all the hallmarks of Johnson's revenge. Oppose him and he will shaft you.
There is a problem of course with this. And that is that someone like Sunak, or his family and allies, will expose some more of Johnson's many skeletons.
Regardless of the origins of the story, I suggest that Sunak is now finished as a potential political leader. The idea of a non-dom tax avoiding spouse of a multi-millionaire Chancellor at a time of such huge financial squeeze is just absurd.
Even one of my most loyal tory friends thinks Sunak is totally unsuitable for the job.
It simply won't wash with the voters. Not at this time. A few on here might say it doesn't matter but all that means is that it doesn't matter to them. I believe that for a significant majority of people this does matter. As I say, a lifelong ultra-loyal tory friend of mine has been telling me for months that Sunak is completely unsuitable.
Same with whatever parties the PM attended for a few minutes in his own garden.1 -
Radio 4 did a bit nof a number on her this morning. She earned £11 million in dividends last year in India which will be denied to the Treasury. Why she chooses to do this I don't know. Perhaps she can see what's obvious to the rest of us. Under the stewaerdship of her husband and our Prime Minister we are going to Hell in a handcart and like all Tories she first and foremost looks after number 1.MaxPB said:
She pays tax.Benpointer said:
There should be No Representation Without Taxation!CarlottaVance said:
Yes. Domicile and Residence are different things.Jim_Miller said:As a non-dom, can Mrs. Rishi vote for Mr. Rishi?
0 -
And his CV looks pretty good ATM he could end up as Head Vampire Squid. They will regard the whole non dom thing as highly positivealgarkirk said:
Of course if he had taken his golden moment and become PM early this year (Savilesmear, Paterson and Partygate peak moment) Labour would now be enjoying all these disclosures in a different context. The story has been around at least a year but suddenly right now everyone is reporting it.rottenborough said:
I said at the time, he had to seize the moment or he was the David Miliband of Tories.Mexicanpete said:
Quantative Easing? The last resort of the scoundrel.Foxy said:
Nah, I don't think so. His chance may come again, though I doubt it. He needs to hang onto the job until the autumn budget, and print some surprises.rottenborough said:
He might walk knowing the dream is over.Richard_Nabavi said:Rishi's hopes of becoming party leader and PM are dead. But I'm not sure that means he's going to be booted out of No 11 anytime soon.
Very few in modern politics seem to stay much longer than is absolutely necessary to be in with a shout at top jobs.
I do feel somewhat sorry for Richy Rich. He was within touching distance of becoming Prime Minister, and man would he have been a vast improvement on his predecessor. Had he resigned on Johnson's Jimmy Savile slur at the height of Partygate, he would be explaining his wife's tax affairs away as PM today.
He kept his powder dry and now will never be PM.
The idea that the MSM don't read Private Eye (March 2021) and and only just noticed is obvs nonsense. So for whose interest does it emerge now?
And it shows up the weakness of even the best of the media that it is only a story when everyone else says its a story, rather than being a story a year ago on its merits.
If Sunak goes as CoE I think he is likely to leave politics. The chances look over 50%. And it's a good time coming up to be Not the Chancellor.0 -
It is the "at the moment" bit in your last sentence that is problematic.DavidL said:
On the contrary, Sunak has come into politics rather than make tens of millions in the private sector which he easily could have done. Some may think that this is ego, some that it is a desire to give public service but either way he sure as hell didn't do it for the money.malcolmg said:
David, you show how real Tories think , me me me , F the plebs. Given they will never be able to spend their dosh in many lifetimes and knowing how bad it would look if the COE's wife was tax avoiding , they are still so greedy they couldn't bring themselves to pay a bit of extra tax for a few years. They prefer to lie and pretend she does not reside in the UK because she wants to be buried in India. Great morals and fantastic judgement, cafring sharing Tories.DavidL said:I am clearly in a small minority in finding this attack on Sunak based upon his wife's tax affairs completely wrong and frankly a bit ridiculous. So be it. We clearly want a government of people who have done nothing but sip at the public purse, who are financially dependent upon their office and are cravenly obedient as a result.
The tax affairs of very rich people are always going to be complicated and Mrs Sunak does not hold and has not sought any public office. It remains a completely absurd basis to undermine someone who has.
As I made clear at the time I thought Rishi's latest financial statement was disastrous. He is open to a range of criticisms for what he did and what he failed to do, especially the latter, and all of that is fair enough. But this wife stuff? Not for me.
The tax his wife has legally avoided comes from her very substantial holding in an IT company based in India which makes its profits there and trades there. It is part of an even larger holding that her family hold in that business. What right has the UK taxpayer to this money, exactly? It is not invested here, it is not made here and it is not paid here.
She pays tax on all of the money she makes in the UK which is again considerable. You could argue that as someone now resident here, if not domiciled, that we are entitled to a cut of all her earnings world wide but you can equally argue the reverse and she has complied with the rules. If her residence continues for 15 years she will have to pay that tax on that Indian income but at the moment it is taxed in India where it should be.
Who decides if that should change? Rishi.0 -
It was a post that disrespected the people of the Falklands, even though at least it might have been a joke on your side.kjh said:
Pillock. You referred to them as unsophisticated so I told the story about what the soldiers called the islanders which I was aware of because I knew some of the soldiers and I thought posters here might enjoy the story.HYUFD said:
Given kjh's sneers at the Falkland Islanders intellect in the previous thread, it was well deserved!Nigelb said:
You often show that you completely misunderstand posts. I was making no point whatsoever. It was just a funny story. Get a life.
For others in the liberal elite like Sir Simon Jenkins, not only do they genuinely think of the islanders as simpletons they also want to give the islands back to Argentina which I accept you don't0 -
I think the issue here is not really the tax arrangements, but the non-domicile status. If my other half was Chancellor, and wanted to be PM, even if I was born elsewhere I'd want to demonstrate my commitment to the UK as a permanent resident. I wouldn't, every year, reassure HRMC that my permanent residence was in fact in the country of my birth rather than the UK. It would seem odd, don't you think, not to demonstrate that I share my other half's ambitions for this country by committing to it? Why on earth would I do that?DavidL said:
On the contrary, Sunak has come into politics rather than make tens of millions in the private sector which he easily could have done. Some may think that this is ego, some that it is a desire to give public service but either way he sure as hell didn't do it for the money.malcolmg said:
David, you show how real Tories think , me me me , F the plebs. Given they will never be able to spend their dosh in many lifetimes and knowing how bad it would look if the COE's wife was tax avoiding , they are still so greedy they couldn't bring themselves to pay a bit of extra tax for a few years. They prefer to lie and pretend she does not reside in the UK because she wants to be buried in India. Great morals and fantastic judgement, cafring sharing Tories.DavidL said:I am clearly in a small minority in finding this attack on Sunak based upon his wife's tax affairs completely wrong and frankly a bit ridiculous. So be it. We clearly want a government of people who have done nothing but sip at the public purse, who are financially dependent upon their office and are cravenly obedient as a result.
The tax affairs of very rich people are always going to be complicated and Mrs Sunak does not hold and has not sought any public office. It remains a completely absurd basis to undermine someone who has.
As I made clear at the time I thought Rishi's latest financial statement was disastrous. He is open to a range of criticisms for what he did and what he failed to do, especially the latter, and all of that is fair enough. But this wife stuff? Not for me.
The tax his wife has legally avoided comes from her very substantial holding in an IT company based in India which makes its profits there and trades there. It is part of an even larger holding that her family hold in that business. What right has the UK taxpayer to this money, exactly? It is not invested here, it is not made here and it is not paid here.
She pays tax on all of the money she makes in the UK which is again considerable. You could argue that as someone now resident here, if not domiciled, that we are entitled to a cut of all her earnings world wide but you can equally argue the reverse and she has complied with the rules. If her residence continues for 15 years she will have to pay that tax on that Indian income but at the moment it is taxed in India where it should be.0 -
-
Not actually lesbian, it was just a PR gimmick. Inevitably...Leon said:
There was that song “all the things she said” by the hot Russian lesbian girls? Tatu, I think? That was goodFrankBooth said:Let's be blunt. Though I'll frame this in the form of a question. Since putting the first man in space in 1961, what has Russia achieved?
0 -
David,DavidL said:
On the contrary, Sunak has come into politics rather than make tens of millions in the private sector which he easily could have done. Some may think that this is ego, some that it is a desire to give public service but either way he sure as hell didn't do it for the money.malcolmg said:
David, you show how real Tories think , me me me , F the plebs. Given they will never be able to spend their dosh in many lifetimes and knowing how bad it would look if the COE's wife was tax avoiding , they are still so greedy they couldn't bring themselves to pay a bit of extra tax for a few years. They prefer to lie and pretend she does not reside in the UK because she wants to be buried in India. Great morals and fantastic judgement, cafring sharing Tories.DavidL said:I am clearly in a small minority in finding this attack on Sunak based upon his wife's tax affairs completely wrong and frankly a bit ridiculous. So be it. We clearly want a government of people who have done nothing but sip at the public purse, who are financially dependent upon their office and are cravenly obedient as a result.
The tax affairs of very rich people are always going to be complicated and Mrs Sunak does not hold and has not sought any public office. It remains a completely absurd basis to undermine someone who has.
As I made clear at the time I thought Rishi's latest financial statement was disastrous. He is open to a range of criticisms for what he did and what he failed to do, especially the latter, and all of that is fair enough. But this wife stuff? Not for me.
The tax his wife has legally avoided comes from her very substantial holding in an IT company based in India which makes its profits there and trades there. It is part of an even larger holding that her family hold in that business. What right has the UK taxpayer to this money, exactly? It is not invested here, it is not made here and it is not paid here.
She pays tax on all of the money she makes in the UK which is again considerable. You could argue that as someone now resident here, if not domiciled, that we are entitled to a cut of all her earnings world wide but you can equally argue the reverse and she has complied with the rules. If her residence continues for 15 years she will have to pay that tax on that Indian income but at the moment it is taxed in India where it should be.
I agree with you. It is not Rishi, or his wife's, fault, that the UK tax legislation has specifically provided non UK doms with a tax benefit. Indeed, historically it was even more favourable and the rules have been tightened up.
However, what this does is put Rishi and the conservatives into a less than favourable situation if labour decide that the non UK dom tax benefits should be removed. It personalises the argument, rather than an economic argument about attracting investment into the UK and encouraging rich people to move to the UK.
It also plays into a one rule for the majority, one rule for the rich theme.0 -
If it's earned in India, how can it possibly be "denied to the [UK] Treasury"?Roger said:
Radio 4 did a bit nof a number on her this morning. She earned £11 million in dividends last year in India which will be denied to the Treasury.MaxPB said:
She pays tax.Benpointer said:
There should be No Representation Without Taxation!CarlottaVance said:
Yes. Domicile and Residence are different things.Jim_Miller said:As a non-dom, can Mrs. Rishi vote for Mr. Rishi?
1 -
Because if she is not non dom she pays tax here not there. Try to keep up.Applicant said:
If it's earned in India, how can it possibly be "denied to the [UK] Treasury"?Roger said:
Radio 4 did a bit nof a number on her this morning. She earned £11 million in dividends last year in India which will be denied to the Treasury.MaxPB said:
She pays tax.Benpointer said:
There should be No Representation Without Taxation!CarlottaVance said:
Yes. Domicile and Residence are different things.Jim_Miller said:As a non-dom, can Mrs. Rishi vote for Mr. Rishi?
Not that the treasury gets the whole lot.0 -
Correct @Big_G_NorthWales . The obsession of some members in the online rump remainer network continues to be bizarre, and mixed up with a blind hatred of the current Govt. TBF that is not too much on PB, except for a few with cast-iron false assumptions.Big_G_NorthWales said:
It is not my obsession with brexit on hereJonathan said:
Your obsession with Brexit is undermining you.Big_G_NorthWales said:
The fact is remain lost a very winnable argument on the EU, and now even labour have accepted there is no returning to the EUJonathan said:
A Conservative party they valued ideological purity over pragmatic talent ceased to be the Conservative party.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I can understand that view from the remain lobbyCarnyx said:
Well, they are so much more competent.Big_G_NorthWales said:
An EU dream team you meanJonathan said:
Not a coincidence. Boris sacked all the talent because they threatened him. For example, Rory Stewart should be Foreign Secretary, not Chesse obsessed Truss. Hunt should be in the cabinet. Gauke should be chancellor.SouthamObserver said:The Tory talent cabinet is absolutely bare. There is nothing there. This government cannot offer ideas, vision or competence; or much hope. Johnson is the best it has. That’s how bad it is.
The UK - EU need to come together, especially post Ukraine and trade needs to be at the front of this with a much more cooperative attitude on both sides
Brexit has happened and unfortunately so many simply refuse to accept it and support a better relationship with the EU while remaining outside
I got a mini dogpile the other day for pointing out that comparing "5% increase in EU area energy costs" with the "55% increase in UK energy prices" was a fake due to one being post subsidy/rebate and the other pre-subsidy/rebate. There's also a time shift as our price caps are done six months in arrears.
This was 24 hours after Eurostat had published statistics showing an annual March to March rise in EU-area energy costs of 48%.
Go figure...1 -
Duh. If money earned by an Indian citizen in India is taxed in India, it can't be said to be "denied to the [UK] Treasury" as that implies the UK Treasury has some sort of claim on it. Which is preposterous.IshmaelZ said:
Because if she is not non dom she pays tax here not there.Applicant said:
If it's earned in India, how can it possibly be "denied to the [UK] Treasury"?Roger said:
Radio 4 did a bit nof a number on her this morning. She earned £11 million in dividends last year in India which will be denied to the Treasury.MaxPB said:
She pays tax.Benpointer said:
There should be No Representation Without Taxation!CarlottaVance said:
Yes. Domicile and Residence are different things.Jim_Miller said:As a non-dom, can Mrs. Rishi vote for Mr. Rishi?
0 -
The only reason for the Falkland Islands remaining a British Overseas Territory is because the residents, in a free and fair referendum, overwhelmingly voted for it to be so.Heathener said:As a point of order, it's clearly awful that people died fighting for the Falklands and it's right to respect that but that's not a de facto reason for declaring the reason was valid. Go down that line and in 30 years Russians will be arguing that they shouldn't give up on Ukraine because their soldiers died fighting for it etc.
The idea that in 2022 Britain should rule over a lump of rock 8000 miles away is ludicrous. The sort of nonsense colonialism which will be corrected with the inevitable march of progressive thinking.
However, I'm more vexed about our disgraceful shenanigans in the Chagos islands. Just appalling British behaviour.
Just my POV, thanks.
We are a democracy and respect the wishes of the people. We are not some kind of imperialist nation than thinks it is ok to deport/eradicate large numbers of people in order to claim lordship over some patch of land3 -
Anyway, I'm old enough to remember the days when a number of PB posters regularly crowed about the inordinately long odds they'd got on Sunak being next PM.
They're not laughing all the way to the bank now, are they?1 -
She was making an important point but was howled down by people determined to take offence because they wanted a cheap nanny from RomaniaMalmesbury said:
Why am I hearing this, echoing in my head?Benpointer said:
There should be No Representation Without Taxation!CarlottaVance said:
Yes. Domicile and Residence are different things.Jim_Miller said:As a non-dom, can Mrs. Rishi vote for Mr. Rishi?
"If you believe you are a citizen of the world, you are a citizen of nowhere. You don't understand what citizenship means."
She was taking to task the rootless managers of British businesses who behaved "as though they have more in common with international elites than with the people down the road".0 -
I think you have missed a few things out on both sides.FF43 said:
Johnson wasn't doing the genomics. That's why I left it out of my assessment of his performance. I think we can assume the genomics would have been done equally well if any other prime minister was in charge. I don't salivate over daily death figures, nor do I think the UK is uniquely bad, as is clear from my comment.JosiasJessop said:
"On Covid he did well on vaccines, very badly on everything else; overall mediocre compared with West European peers. Mixed bag"FF43 said:..
Has Johnson done well in dealing with these shocks?JosiasJessop said:
I think that's slightly unfair, since politics is being events-driven at the moment. Covid, the war in Ukraine and the resultant economic woes leaves precious little room for new ideas or vision. The government has to concentrate on sailing these choppy seas.SouthamObserver said:The Tory talent cabinet is absolutely bare. There is nothing there. This government cannot offer ideas, vision or competence; or much hope. Johnson is the best it has. That’s how bad it is.
And you know what? It hasn't done too badly on Covid, and has been very good with the war in Ukraine.
As for hope: that depends on the individual. I don't see Starmer singing "Things can only get better," either. He is an utterly uninspiring individual. I'll still probably vote for him over Johnson, though. (local candidates notwithstanding).
On Covid he did well on vaccines, very badly on everything else; overall mediocre compared with West European peers. Mixed bag
Ukraine: done well on early supply of weapons, and general enthusiasm for the Ukrainian cause. Poor on refugees. Pass.
Brexit: he helped create the problem in the first place and has mishandled the implementation since. Fail.
Cost of living. Complete failure to deal with this issue, exacerbated by Brexit and poor handling of the economic consequences of Covid. Missed chance to do something in the Spring Statement. Other countries struggle with this issue too but their failure isn't quite so total.
Overall 1½ out of 4
That's rubbish. As an example we did superbly on genomics - and the fact you choose to ignore that is telling.
One of the interesting things about the Covid crisis was seeing fools almost salivating over the daily death figures, proclaiming how bad we were. It's a weird form of exceptionalism: people who like to think that we're uniquely bad.
eg on the one hand there is various things done putting vaccine infrastructure in place, and BJ largely being kept in his toybox, and much excellent work on green energy which has been continued.
On the other for example, the national green strategy published the other day has some holes, and the national vaccine centre has just been sold off, which is unforgiveable imo.0 -
France, BVA poll. 2nd round
Le Pen (RN-ID): 53.5% (+7)
Macron (EC-RE): 46.5% (-6)
…
+/- vs. 30 - 31 March
Fieldwork: 1 April 2022
Sample size: 1,015
1 -
I'd have thought most of those on at 100/1+ would have locked in a profit!?? Careless if not.Northern_Al said:Anyway, I'm old enough to remember the days when a number of PB posters regularly crowed about the inordinately long odds they'd got on Sunak being next PM.
They're not laughing all the way to the bank now, are they?1 -
On the latest figures we are well down the list - better than the US, Italy and Spain, less good than France and Germany.JosiasJessop said:
"On Covid he did well on vaccines, very badly on everything else; overall mediocre compared with West European peers. Mixed bag"FF43 said:..
Has Johnson done well in dealing with these shocks?JosiasJessop said:
I think that's slightly unfair, since politics is being events-driven at the moment. Covid, the war in Ukraine and the resultant economic woes leaves precious little room for new ideas or vision. The government has to concentrate on sailing these choppy seas.SouthamObserver said:The Tory talent cabinet is absolutely bare. There is nothing there. This government cannot offer ideas, vision or competence; or much hope. Johnson is the best it has. That’s how bad it is.
And you know what? It hasn't done too badly on Covid, and has been very good with the war in Ukraine.
As for hope: that depends on the individual. I don't see Starmer singing "Things can only get better," either. He is an utterly uninspiring individual. I'll still probably vote for him over Johnson, though. (local candidates notwithstanding).
On Covid he did well on vaccines, very badly on everything else; overall mediocre compared with West European peers. Mixed bag
Ukraine: done well on early supply of weapons, and general enthusiasm for the Ukrainian cause. Poor on refugees. Pass.
Brexit: he helped create the problem in the first place and has mishandled the implementation since. Fail.
Cost of living. Complete failure to deal with this issue, exacerbated by Brexit and poor handling of the economic consequences of Covid. Missed chance to do something in the Spring Statement. Other countries struggle with this issue too but their failure isn't quite so total.
Overall 1½ out of 4
That's rubbish. As an example we did superbly on genomics - and the fact you choose to ignore that is telling.
One of the interesting things about the Covid crisis was seeing fools almost salivating over the daily death figures, proclaiming how bad we were. It's a weird form of exceptionalism: people who like to think that we're uniquely bad.
https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/coronavirus-excess-deaths-tracker0 -
Fair point.noneoftheabove said:
I'd have thought most of those on at 100/1+ would have locked in a profit!?? Careless if not.Northern_Al said:Anyway, I'm old enough to remember the days when a number of PB posters regularly crowed about the inordinately long odds they'd got on Sunak being next PM.
They're not laughing all the way to the bank now, are they?0 -
Hopefully they laid off once he became the favourite, as is usually wise for Tory leadership contests...Northern_Al said:Anyway, I'm old enough to remember the days when a number of PB posters regularly crowed about the inordinately long odds they'd got on Sunak being next PM.
They're not laughing all the way to the bank now, are they?2 -
Oh my goodness.Leon said:France, BVA poll. 2nd round
Le Pen (RN-ID): 53.5% (+7)
Macron (EC-RE): 46.5% (-6)
…
+/- vs. 30 - 31 March
Fieldwork: 1 April 2022
Sample size: 1,015
7% lead for Le Pen. Probably the most dramatic poll this year, forget that probably the most dramatic poll this decade.
The Macron camp will be in complete panic mode now. They can still win it but need to up their game fast and stop being so complacent. Macron also needs to stop being some latter day Louis XIVth and engage with ordinary peoples' concerns on issues like cost of living etc as Le Pen seems to be doing. Yes he is understandably focused on Ukraine but French voters will vote on domestic policy0 -
No, it was pointlessly and gratuitously insulting to a lot of people who like to this they are “internationalist” at a time when the country needed healing and concord over Brexit. She also alienated the EU even furtherStillWaters said:
She was making an important point but was howled down by people determined to take offence because they wanted a cheap nanny from RomaniaMalmesbury said:
Why am I hearing this, echoing in my head?Benpointer said:
There should be No Representation Without Taxation!CarlottaVance said:
Yes. Domicile and Residence are different things.Jim_Miller said:As a non-dom, can Mrs. Rishi vote for Mr. Rishi?
"If you believe you are a citizen of the world, you are a citizen of nowhere. You don't understand what citizenship means."
She was taking to task the rootless managers of British businesses who behaved "as though they have more in common with international elites than with the people down the road".
What did she gain by sounding like Farage? I’m a soft Leaver and I like to occasionally feel like a citizen of the world. She pissed me off so god knows what she did to Remainers
That whole speech was the beginning of the Brexit clusterfuckettyfuck4 -
Question: Do we get polls in France between Rounds 1 and 2 of the Election?Leon said:France, BVA poll. 2nd round
Le Pen (RN-ID): 53.5% (+7)
Macron (EC-RE): 46.5% (-6)
…
+/- vs. 30 - 31 March
Fieldwork: 1 April 2022
Sample size: 1,015
(Watching the French coverage, I'm quite surprised how hard they are all chasing the endorsements of previous Presidents - eg Sarkozy - who have jail sentences for criminal activities committed whilst leading politicians. In his case related to campaign finance.)0 -
I hamfistedly tried to raise this last night and was called 'malevolent idiot'. I probably didn't make the best arguments, for which I apologise, but you are not alone.DavidL said:I am clearly in a small minority in finding this attack on Sunak based upon his wife's tax affairs completely wrong and frankly a bit ridiculous. So be it. We clearly want a government of people who have done nothing but sip at the public purse, who are financially dependent upon their office and are cravenly obedient as a result.
The tax affairs of very rich people are always going to be complicated and Mrs Sunak does not hold and has not sought any public office. It remains a completely absurd basis to undermine someone who has.
As I made clear at the time I thought Rishi's latest financial statement was disastrous. He is open to a range of criticisms for what he did and what he failed to do, especially the latter, and all of that is fair enough. But this wife stuff? Not for me.4 -
It is indefensible David, a tax dodge for the rich, nothing less. No morals, no principles , just greedy.DavidL said:
On the contrary, Sunak has come into politics rather than make tens of millions in the private sector which he easily could have done. Some may think that this is ego, some that it is a desire to give public service but either way he sure as hell didn't do it for the money.malcolmg said:
David, you show how real Tories think , me me me , F the plebs. Given they will never be able to spend their dosh in many lifetimes and knowing how bad it would look if the COE's wife was tax avoiding , they are still so greedy they couldn't bring themselves to pay a bit of extra tax for a few years. They prefer to lie and pretend she does not reside in the UK because she wants to be buried in India. Great morals and fantastic judgement, cafring sharing Tories.DavidL said:I am clearly in a small minority in finding this attack on Sunak based upon his wife's tax affairs completely wrong and frankly a bit ridiculous. So be it. We clearly want a government of people who have done nothing but sip at the public purse, who are financially dependent upon their office and are cravenly obedient as a result.
The tax affairs of very rich people are always going to be complicated and Mrs Sunak does not hold and has not sought any public office. It remains a completely absurd basis to undermine someone who has.
As I made clear at the time I thought Rishi's latest financial statement was disastrous. He is open to a range of criticisms for what he did and what he failed to do, especially the latter, and all of that is fair enough. But this wife stuff? Not for me.
The tax his wife has legally avoided comes from her very substantial holding in an IT company based in India which makes its profits there and trades there. It is part of an even larger holding that her family hold in that business. What right has the UK taxpayer to this money, exactly? It is not invested here, it is not made here and it is not paid here.
She pays tax on all of the money she makes in the UK which is again considerable. You could argue that as someone now resident here, if not domiciled, that we are entitled to a cut of all her earnings world wide but you can equally argue the reverse and she has complied with the rules. If her residence continues for 15 years she will have to pay that tax on that Indian income but at the moment it is taxed in India where it should be.0 -
Rishi is in an impossible position. It couldn't have happened at a worse time. The natives are getting restless and to learn that the wife of the person responsible for our finances is raking it in is going to seriously piss people off. That she's not sharing in the misery her husband is doling out makes the position of the pair untenable.
It fits the stereotype most of the country had of Tories before Boris distracted them with his clown act and though it's a bit unfair the reputation of the Sunaks has been trashed4 -
Jesus. It’s a joke! Look at the details. Look at the fieldwork dateHYUFD said:
Oh my goodness.Leon said:France, BVA poll. 2nd round
Le Pen (RN-ID): 53.5% (+7)
Macron (EC-RE): 46.5% (-6)
…
+/- vs. 30 - 31 March
Fieldwork: 1 April 2022
Sample size: 1,015
7% lead for Le Pen. Probably the most dramatic poll this year, forget that probably the most dramatic poll this decade.
The Macron camp will be in complete panic mode now. They can still win it but need to up their game fast and stop being so complacent
I just wanted to give a few people conniptions0 -
Public service shouldn’t be a life sentenceHYUFD said:
Maybe a bit harsh on Hague then but he still left the Commons at 54StillWaters said:
I think it’s unfair to have Hague on your first list. He stuck around (with less intensity perhaps) but came back to seven successfully as Foreign Secretary.HYUFD said:
Indeed, Portillo, David Miliband, Blair, Osborne, Hague, Cameron, maybe now Sunak, they all seem to walk away from politics once the top job has eluded them or has ended for them.rottenborough said:
He might walk knowing the dream is over.Richard_Nabavi said:Rishi's hopes of becoming party leader and PM are dead. But I'm not sure that means he's going to be booted out of No 11 anytime soon.
Very few in modern politics seem to stay much longer than is absolutely necessary to be in with a shout at top jobs.
In the past however Churchill, Attlee, Heath, Heseltine, Benn, Wilson, Thatcher, Tebbit etc all stayed in the political arena in some form whether as a backbencher or in the Lords so it could benefit from their status as elder statesmen or stateswomen. Theresa May to her credit and Ed Miliband too have stuck around well after their period at the top rank has ended to still give service to Parliament and their party and the public0 -
Well OK.Leon said:
Jesus. It’s a joke! Look at the details. Look at the fieldwork dateHYUFD said:
Oh my goodness.Leon said:France, BVA poll. 2nd round
Le Pen (RN-ID): 53.5% (+7)
Macron (EC-RE): 46.5% (-6)
…
+/- vs. 30 - 31 March
Fieldwork: 1 April 2022
Sample size: 1,015
7% lead for Le Pen. Probably the most dramatic poll this year, forget that probably the most dramatic poll this decade.
The Macron camp will be in complete panic mode now. They can still win it but need to up their game fast and stop being so complacent
I just wanted to give a few people conniptions
However the joke may soon end up on them given Le Pen had an actual lead in the Atlas poll yesterday0 -
Mediocre compared with West European peers? Which ones? I'd argue, when measurement was so different across nations, any perceived disparity in covid 'performance' are margin of error stuff. No-one made all the right calls, possibly with the exception of NZ, but thats a long way from West Europe and had some unique advantages.FF43 said:
Johnson wasn't doing the genomics. That's why I left it out of my assessment of his performance. I think we can assume the genomics would have been done equally well if any other prime minister was in charge. I don't salivate over daily death figures, nor do I think the UK is uniquely bad, as is clear from my comment.JosiasJessop said:
"On Covid he did well on vaccines, very badly on everything else; overall mediocre compared with West European peers. Mixed bag"FF43 said:..
Has Johnson done well in dealing with these shocks?JosiasJessop said:
I think that's slightly unfair, since politics is being events-driven at the moment. Covid, the war in Ukraine and the resultant economic woes leaves precious little room for new ideas or vision. The government has to concentrate on sailing these choppy seas.SouthamObserver said:The Tory talent cabinet is absolutely bare. There is nothing there. This government cannot offer ideas, vision or competence; or much hope. Johnson is the best it has. That’s how bad it is.
And you know what? It hasn't done too badly on Covid, and has been very good with the war in Ukraine.
As for hope: that depends on the individual. I don't see Starmer singing "Things can only get better," either. He is an utterly uninspiring individual. I'll still probably vote for him over Johnson, though. (local candidates notwithstanding).
On Covid he did well on vaccines, very badly on everything else; overall mediocre compared with West European peers. Mixed bag
Ukraine: done well on early supply of weapons, and general enthusiasm for the Ukrainian cause. Poor on refugees. Pass.
Brexit: he helped create the problem in the first place and has mishandled the implementation since. Fail.
Cost of living. Complete failure to deal with this issue, exacerbated by Brexit and poor handling of the economic consequences of Covid. Missed chance to do something in the Spring Statement. Other countries struggle with this issue too but their failure isn't quite so total.
Overall 1½ out of 4
That's rubbish. As an example we did superbly on genomics - and the fact you choose to ignore that is telling.
One of the interesting things about the Covid crisis was seeing fools almost salivating over the daily death figures, proclaiming how bad we were. It's a weird form of exceptionalism: people who like to think that we're uniquely bad.0 -
There was a germ of a reasonable idea in there - stated in the most cack-handed and ill-considered way by someone who thought she understood people not like her.Leon said:
No, it was pointlessly and gratuitously insulting to a lot of people who like to this they are “internationalist” at a time when the country needed healing and concord over Brexit. She also alienated the EU even furtherStillWaters said:
She was making an important point but was howled down by people determined to take offence because they wanted a cheap nanny from RomaniaMalmesbury said:
Why am I hearing this, echoing in my head?Benpointer said:
There should be No Representation Without Taxation!CarlottaVance said:
Yes. Domicile and Residence are different things.Jim_Miller said:As a non-dom, can Mrs. Rishi vote for Mr. Rishi?
"If you believe you are a citizen of the world, you are a citizen of nowhere. You don't understand what citizenship means."
She was taking to task the rootless managers of British businesses who behaved "as though they have more in common with international elites than with the people down the road".
What did she gain by sounding like Farage? I’m a soft Leaver and I like to occasionally feel like a citizen of the world. She pissed me off so god knows what she did to Remainers
That whole speech was the beginning of the Brexit clusterfuckettyfuck
In other words, typical Theresa May.0 -
Why should the UK Treasury expect to receive tax on money earned in India by an Indian citizen?malcolmg said:
It is indefensible David, a tax dodge for the rich, nothing less. No morals, no principles , just greedy.DavidL said:
On the contrary, Sunak has come into politics rather than make tens of millions in the private sector which he easily could have done. Some may think that this is ego, some that it is a desire to give public service but either way he sure as hell didn't do it for the money.malcolmg said:
David, you show how real Tories think , me me me , F the plebs. Given they will never be able to spend their dosh in many lifetimes and knowing how bad it would look if the COE's wife was tax avoiding , they are still so greedy they couldn't bring themselves to pay a bit of extra tax for a few years. They prefer to lie and pretend she does not reside in the UK because she wants to be buried in India. Great morals and fantastic judgement, cafring sharing Tories.DavidL said:I am clearly in a small minority in finding this attack on Sunak based upon his wife's tax affairs completely wrong and frankly a bit ridiculous. So be it. We clearly want a government of people who have done nothing but sip at the public purse, who are financially dependent upon their office and are cravenly obedient as a result.
The tax affairs of very rich people are always going to be complicated and Mrs Sunak does not hold and has not sought any public office. It remains a completely absurd basis to undermine someone who has.
As I made clear at the time I thought Rishi's latest financial statement was disastrous. He is open to a range of criticisms for what he did and what he failed to do, especially the latter, and all of that is fair enough. But this wife stuff? Not for me.
The tax his wife has legally avoided comes from her very substantial holding in an IT company based in India which makes its profits there and trades there. It is part of an even larger holding that her family hold in that business. What right has the UK taxpayer to this money, exactly? It is not invested here, it is not made here and it is not paid here.
She pays tax on all of the money she makes in the UK which is again considerable. You could argue that as someone now resident here, if not domiciled, that we are entitled to a cut of all her earnings world wide but you can equally argue the reverse and she has complied with the rules. If her residence continues for 15 years she will have to pay that tax on that Indian income but at the moment it is taxed in India where it should be.0 -
Unfortunately, it's all about the "optics" and Sunak being "tone deaf" and "tin-eared".turbotubbs said:
I hamfistedly tried to raise this last night and was called 'malevolent idiot'. I probably didn't make the best arguments, for which I apologise, but you are not alone.DavidL said:I am clearly in a small minority in finding this attack on Sunak based upon his wife's tax affairs completely wrong and frankly a bit ridiculous. So be it. We clearly want a government of people who have done nothing but sip at the public purse, who are financially dependent upon their office and are cravenly obedient as a result.
The tax affairs of very rich people are always going to be complicated and Mrs Sunak does not hold and has not sought any public office. It remains a completely absurd basis to undermine someone who has.
As I made clear at the time I thought Rishi's latest financial statement was disastrous. He is open to a range of criticisms for what he did and what he failed to do, especially the latter, and all of that is fair enough. But this wife stuff? Not for me.
Three terms that I wish could be banished from politics for good.0 -
In discussing the locals we always have to recall that in low turnout elections differentiational turnout makes a difference.Heathener said:
Please have the courage to come back here on May 6th Nerys and engage with post-locals results debate.NerysHughes said:
At this stage in the electoral cycle and with everything that has happened over the past 6 months, for the tories to be taking a seat off of Labour is incredible. Labour should be winning everything, not losing.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Yesterday local results so far indicate the continuation of the theme that lib dems are doing well, conservatives much as expected, but labour underperformingMarqueeMark said:
Labour better hope so - it isn't going to want to see many 35% swings against it in the locals!NerysHughes said:More local issues?
https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1512205823770075140
Indeed I believe the conservatives took a seat and a council off labour last night
The national polls seem to underplay the lib dems at labours benefit, and certainly labour are going to have to improve their local performance record so far in may
Deal?
Back in the early 60's, when Jo Grimond was stirring up the Liberals commentators were expecting big Liberal GE gains. They didn't happen. The actual number of Liberal votes in several constituencies I looked at were very much the same as in the local elections. However Labour and Conservative voters, less motivated in the locals, turned out at the General.1 -
Earned in India is the key there. If it was earned here and taxed elsewhere I'd agree there's a problem. Specifically for this £11m was it brought to the UK? If not then I don't see what claim Her Majesty's best has on it. There's a potential tax liability building up for her but it wouldn't be realised until the money is actually brought to the UK, which she can simply choose not to do.Roger said:
Radio 4 did a bit nof a number on her this morning. She earned £11 million in dividends last year in India which will be denied to the Treasury. Why she chooses to do this I don't know. Perhaps she can see what's obvious to the rest of us. Under the stewaerdship of her husband and our Prime Minister we are going to Hell in a handcart and like all Tories she first and foremost looks after number 1.MaxPB said:
She pays tax.Benpointer said:
There should be No Representation Without Taxation!CarlottaVance said:
Yes. Domicile and Residence are different things.Jim_Miller said:As a non-dom, can Mrs. Rishi vote for Mr. Rishi?
1 -
To some full employment for the working class is regarded as a bad thing.NerysHughes said:
And yet we live in a country with full employment, how did that happen?SouthamObserver said:The Tory talent cabinet is absolutely bare. There is nothing there. This government cannot offer ideas, vision or competence; or much hope. Johnson is the best it has. That’s how bad it is.
Especially so when it leads to higher pay and higher home ownership for the working class.
And most of all when that is happening in some Leave voting 2019 Conservative gaining area.
2 -
Can you catch covid from farts?0
-
Best PhD thesis title ever.MoonRabbit said:Can you catch covid from farts?
4 -
Fake lying toeragsIshmaelZ said:
"Perfectly legal" begs the question. It looks to me as of she is faking her attachment to India. She certainly felt the need to be, putting it at its kindest, disingenuous in telling the press she had no choice in the matter.Fishing said:
I think that if the economy were growing at 5% per year while all other countries stagnated and taxes were falling because of his brilliant reforms, I wouldn't give a damn about his wife's (perfectly legal) tax status. It's his poor performance in the job that is the key factor. The rest is irrelevant fluff.Heathener said:
I don't disagree with any of those points but I don't think they contradict the personal unsuitability? It's both together imho. This might be a Left-Right point of difference, and some might accuse of me of the politics of envy, but the idea that in the midst of all this incredible squeeze on our finances you should have as Chancellor, or PM, a multi-millionaire ex-banker hedge fund manager with a mega rich non-dom tax avoiding spouse just takes the mick.Fishing said:
He is indeed unsuitable for the job, but not because of his wife's tax status. It's his poor management of the economy and pubilc finances and lack of any solution to Britain's long-term economic problems (in particular chronically low productivity outside a few industries and regions and a disastrously over-regulated and volatile housing market) that are the issue.Heathener said:It is indeed as Milke says an extraordinary story.
The Sun claims it to be a Labour smear but all the others reckon it is a No.10 hatchet job. It bears all the hallmarks of Johnson's revenge. Oppose him and he will shaft you.
There is a problem of course with this. And that is that someone like Sunak, or his family and allies, will expose some more of Johnson's many skeletons.
Regardless of the origins of the story, I suggest that Sunak is now finished as a potential political leader. The idea of a non-dom tax avoiding spouse of a multi-millionaire Chancellor at a time of such huge financial squeeze is just absurd.
Even one of my most loyal tory friends thinks Sunak is totally unsuitable for the job.
It simply won't wash with the voters. Not at this time. A few on here might say it doesn't matter but all that means is that it doesn't matter to them. I believe that for a significant majority of people this does matter. As I say, a lifelong ultra-loyal tory friend of mine has been telling me for months that Sunak is completely unsuitable.
Same with whatever parties the PM attended for a few minutes in his own garden.0 -
It was catastrophicApplicant said:
There was a germ of a reasonable idea in there - stated in the most cack-handed and ill-considered way by someone who thought she understood people not like her.Leon said:
No, it was pointlessly and gratuitously insulting to a lot of people who like to this they are “internationalist” at a time when the country needed healing and concord over Brexit. She also alienated the EU even furtherStillWaters said:
She was making an important point but was howled down by people determined to take offence because they wanted a cheap nanny from RomaniaMalmesbury said:
Why am I hearing this, echoing in my head?Benpointer said:
There should be No Representation Without Taxation!CarlottaVance said:
Yes. Domicile and Residence are different things.Jim_Miller said:As a non-dom, can Mrs. Rishi vote for Mr. Rishi?
"If you believe you are a citizen of the world, you are a citizen of nowhere. You don't understand what citizenship means."
She was taking to task the rootless managers of British businesses who behaved "as though they have more in common with international elites than with the people down the road".
What did she gain by sounding like Farage? I’m a soft Leaver and I like to occasionally feel like a citizen of the world. She pissed me off so god knows what she did to Remainers
That whole speech was the beginning of the Brexit clusterfuckettyfuck
In other words, typical Theresa May.
Imagine if she’d gone the opposite way. Said “we will Brexit but we will not forget that 48% of the country voted Remain and they will also be respected. We want a strong and close association with the EU, our beloved friends and neighbours. This is a time to come together as a country and find a Brexit that can work for as many people as possible, knowing that the country is badly divided”. Blah blah blah
Lots of stuff like that. No stupid red lines boxing herself in. No triggering of A50 til we had some sense of how we were going to do all this
A totally different trajectory. A much better outcome. So much less bitterness6 -
However it shouldn't just be a fast track to the Cabinet and No 10 after PPE or politics degree then SPAD and safe seat then off to make big bucks by 50 either.StillWaters said:
Public service shouldn’t be a life sentenceHYUFD said:
Maybe a bit harsh on Hague then but he still left the Commons at 54StillWaters said:
I think it’s unfair to have Hague on your first list. He stuck around (with less intensity perhaps) but came back to seven successfully as Foreign Secretary.HYUFD said:
Indeed, Portillo, David Miliband, Blair, Osborne, Hague, Cameron, maybe now Sunak, they all seem to walk away from politics once the top job has eluded them or has ended for them.rottenborough said:
He might walk knowing the dream is over.Richard_Nabavi said:Rishi's hopes of becoming party leader and PM are dead. But I'm not sure that means he's going to be booted out of No 11 anytime soon.
Very few in modern politics seem to stay much longer than is absolutely necessary to be in with a shout at top jobs.
In the past however Churchill, Attlee, Heath, Heseltine, Benn, Wilson, Thatcher, Tebbit etc all stayed in the political arena in some form whether as a backbencher or in the Lords so it could benefit from their status as elder statesmen or stateswomen. Theresa May to her credit and Ed Miliband too have stuck around well after their period at the top rank has ended to still give service to Parliament and their party and the public
In the past most big political figures stayed MPs into their 60s continuing to serve their constituents even if no longer in the Cabinet or Shadow Cabinet and then went off to the Lords so Parliament could still benefit from their experience as elder statesmen or stateswomen0 -
There would be few if any politicians left if that was enforced.Applicant said:
Unfortunately, it's all about the "optics" and Sunak being "tone deaf" and "tin-eared".turbotubbs said:
I hamfistedly tried to raise this last night and was called 'malevolent idiot'. I probably didn't make the best arguments, for which I apologise, but you are not alone.DavidL said:I am clearly in a small minority in finding this attack on Sunak based upon his wife's tax affairs completely wrong and frankly a bit ridiculous. So be it. We clearly want a government of people who have done nothing but sip at the public purse, who are financially dependent upon their office and are cravenly obedient as a result.
The tax affairs of very rich people are always going to be complicated and Mrs Sunak does not hold and has not sought any public office. It remains a completely absurd basis to undermine someone who has.
As I made clear at the time I thought Rishi's latest financial statement was disastrous. He is open to a range of criticisms for what he did and what he failed to do, especially the latter, and all of that is fair enough. But this wife stuff? Not for me.
Three terms that I wish could be banished from politics for good.0 -
If I’d just posted it without the APRIL 1 line screaming away at the bottom, fair enough. But I didn’t. I told you it was a joke within the comment.MaxPB said:
I realise it's a joke but there's a lot of professional gamblers on this site both in the comments and lurking.Leon said:France, BVA poll. 2nd round
Le Pen (RN-ID): 53.5% (+7)
Macron (EC-RE): 46.5% (-6)
…
+/- vs. 30 - 31 March
Fieldwork: 1 April 2022
Sample size: 1,015
And disabused HYUFD 3 minutes later
Surely we can have a bit of fun in a time of darkness. Also I’m imagining Roger’s face when he saw that0 -
Indeed. The great tragedy is that May over-compensated for having voted Remain when she really didn't need to.Leon said:
It was catastrophicApplicant said:
There was a germ of a reasonable idea in there - stated in the most cack-handed and ill-considered way by someone who thought she understood people not like her.Leon said:
No, it was pointlessly and gratuitously insulting to a lot of people who like to this they are “internationalist” at a time when the country needed healing and concord over Brexit. She also alienated the EU even furtherStillWaters said:
She was making an important point but was howled down by people determined to take offence because they wanted a cheap nanny from RomaniaMalmesbury said:
Why am I hearing this, echoing in my head?Benpointer said:
There should be No Representation Without Taxation!CarlottaVance said:
Yes. Domicile and Residence are different things.Jim_Miller said:As a non-dom, can Mrs. Rishi vote for Mr. Rishi?
"If you believe you are a citizen of the world, you are a citizen of nowhere. You don't understand what citizenship means."
She was taking to task the rootless managers of British businesses who behaved "as though they have more in common with international elites than with the people down the road".
What did she gain by sounding like Farage? I’m a soft Leaver and I like to occasionally feel like a citizen of the world. She pissed me off so god knows what she did to Remainers
That whole speech was the beginning of the Brexit clusterfuckettyfuck
In other words, typical Theresa May.
Imagine if she’d gone the opposite way. Said “we will Brexit but we will not forget that 48% of the country voted Remain and they will also be respected. We want a strong and close association with the EU, our beloved friends and neighbours. This is a time to come together as a country and find a Brexit that can work for as many people as possible, knowing that the country is badly divided”. Blah blah blah
Lots of stuff like that. No stupid red lines boxing herself in. No triggering of A50 til we had some sense of how we were going to do all this
A totally different trajectory. A much better outcome. So much less bitterness0 -
I got a text from someone saying pretty much the same in very similar terms. Though I'm sure there are nuances to the Sunaks tax affairs Malcolm as so often cuts through the crap and tells it as most people will see it.malcolmg said:
It is indefensible David, a tax dodge for the rich, nothing less. No morals, no principles , just greedy.DavidL said:
On the contrary, Sunak has come into politics rather than make tens of millions in the private sector which he easily could have done. Some may think that this is ego, some that it is a desire to give public service but either way he sure as hell didn't do it for the money.malcolmg said:
David, you show how real Tories think , me me me , F the plebs. Given they will never be able to spend their dosh in many lifetimes and knowing how bad it would look if the COE's wife was tax avoiding , they are still so greedy they couldn't bring themselves to pay a bit of extra tax for a few years. They prefer to lie and pretend she does not reside in the UK because she wants to be buried in India. Great morals and fantastic judgement, cafring sharing Tories.DavidL said:I am clearly in a small minority in finding this attack on Sunak based upon his wife's tax affairs completely wrong and frankly a bit ridiculous. So be it. We clearly want a government of people who have done nothing but sip at the public purse, who are financially dependent upon their office and are cravenly obedient as a result.
The tax affairs of very rich people are always going to be complicated and Mrs Sunak does not hold and has not sought any public office. It remains a completely absurd basis to undermine someone who has.
As I made clear at the time I thought Rishi's latest financial statement was disastrous. He is open to a range of criticisms for what he did and what he failed to do, especially the latter, and all of that is fair enough. But this wife stuff? Not for me.
The tax his wife has legally avoided comes from her very substantial holding in an IT company based in India which makes its profits there and trades there. It is part of an even larger holding that her family hold in that business. What right has the UK taxpayer to this money, exactly? It is not invested here, it is not made here and it is not paid here.
She pays tax on all of the money she makes in the UK which is again considerable. You could argue that as someone now resident here, if not domiciled, that we are entitled to a cut of all her earnings world wide but you can equally argue the reverse and she has complied with the rules. If her residence continues for 15 years she will have to pay that tax on that Indian income but at the moment it is taxed in India where it should be.
So goodby Rishi and well done Mike!0 -
Catalent is a very good operator though.MattW said:
I think you have missed a few things out on both sides.FF43 said:
Johnson wasn't doing the genomics. That's why I left it out of my assessment of his performance. I think we can assume the genomics would have been done equally well if any other prime minister was in charge. I don't salivate over daily death figures, nor do I think the UK is uniquely bad, as is clear from my comment.JosiasJessop said:
"On Covid he did well on vaccines, very badly on everything else; overall mediocre compared with West European peers. Mixed bag"FF43 said:..
Has Johnson done well in dealing with these shocks?JosiasJessop said:
I think that's slightly unfair, since politics is being events-driven at the moment. Covid, the war in Ukraine and the resultant economic woes leaves precious little room for new ideas or vision. The government has to concentrate on sailing these choppy seas.SouthamObserver said:The Tory talent cabinet is absolutely bare. There is nothing there. This government cannot offer ideas, vision or competence; or much hope. Johnson is the best it has. That’s how bad it is.
And you know what? It hasn't done too badly on Covid, and has been very good with the war in Ukraine.
As for hope: that depends on the individual. I don't see Starmer singing "Things can only get better," either. He is an utterly uninspiring individual. I'll still probably vote for him over Johnson, though. (local candidates notwithstanding).
On Covid he did well on vaccines, very badly on everything else; overall mediocre compared with West European peers. Mixed bag
Ukraine: done well on early supply of weapons, and general enthusiasm for the Ukrainian cause. Poor on refugees. Pass.
Brexit: he helped create the problem in the first place and has mishandled the implementation since. Fail.
Cost of living. Complete failure to deal with this issue, exacerbated by Brexit and poor handling of the economic consequences of Covid. Missed chance to do something in the Spring Statement. Other countries struggle with this issue too but their failure isn't quite so total.
Overall 1½ out of 4
That's rubbish. As an example we did superbly on genomics - and the fact you choose to ignore that is telling.
One of the interesting things about the Covid crisis was seeing fools almost salivating over the daily death figures, proclaiming how bad we were. It's a weird form of exceptionalism: people who like to think that we're uniquely bad.
eg on the one hand there is various things done putting vaccine infrastructure in place, and BJ largely being kept in his toybox, and much excellent work on green energy which has been continued.
On the other for example, the national green strategy published the other day has some holes, and the national vaccine centre has just been sold off, which is unforgiveable imo.
I’ve not seen the terms of the transaction but the UK government cares about capacity and pandemic preparedness not about operating a facility
If the government has;
- got its capital invested back
- Has operating, employment and investment commitments from Catalent
- Has first priority over capacity on the event of a future pandemic
- Has done kind of golden share to prevent on sale
Then arguably it’s a very good deal. It’s better for us to have an operating facility bringing money into the country and ensuring a pool of trained staff rather than just a mothballed facility gathering dust in case we ever need it in future0 -
Had she gone for EEA and free movement however, she would have seen a surge to Farage and UKIP and lasted even less time as Tory leader than she didLeon said:
It was catastrophicApplicant said:
There was a germ of a reasonable idea in there - stated in the most cack-handed and ill-considered way by someone who thought she understood people not like her.Leon said:
No, it was pointlessly and gratuitously insulting to a lot of people who like to this they are “internationalist” at a time when the country needed healing and concord over Brexit. She also alienated the EU even furtherStillWaters said:
She was making an important point but was howled down by people determined to take offence because they wanted a cheap nanny from RomaniaMalmesbury said:
Why am I hearing this, echoing in my head?Benpointer said:
There should be No Representation Without Taxation!CarlottaVance said:
Yes. Domicile and Residence are different things.Jim_Miller said:As a non-dom, can Mrs. Rishi vote for Mr. Rishi?
"If you believe you are a citizen of the world, you are a citizen of nowhere. You don't understand what citizenship means."
She was taking to task the rootless managers of British businesses who behaved "as though they have more in common with international elites than with the people down the road".
What did she gain by sounding like Farage? I’m a soft Leaver and I like to occasionally feel like a citizen of the world. She pissed me off so god knows what she did to Remainers
That whole speech was the beginning of the Brexit clusterfuckettyfuck
In other words, typical Theresa May.
Imagine if she’d gone the opposite way. Said “we will Brexit but we will not forget that 48% of the country voted Remain and they will also be respected. We want a strong and close association with the EU, our beloved friends and neighbours. This is a time to come together as a country and find a Brexit that can work for as many people as possible, knowing that the country is badly divided”. Blah blah blah
Lots of stuff like that. No stupid red lines boxing herself in. No triggering of A50 til we had some sense of how we were going to do all this
A totally different trajectory. A much better outcome. So much less bitterness1 -
Because she clearly lives in the UK and her non-Dom status is questionable given her profound ties to this country?Applicant said:
Why should the UK Treasury expect to receive tax on money earned in India by an Indian citizen?malcolmg said:
It is indefensible David, a tax dodge for the rich, nothing less. No morals, no principles , just greedy.DavidL said:
On the contrary, Sunak has come into politics rather than make tens of millions in the private sector which he easily could have done. Some may think that this is ego, some that it is a desire to give public service but either way he sure as hell didn't do it for the money.malcolmg said:
David, you show how real Tories think , me me me , F the plebs. Given they will never be able to spend their dosh in many lifetimes and knowing how bad it would look if the COE's wife was tax avoiding , they are still so greedy they couldn't bring themselves to pay a bit of extra tax for a few years. They prefer to lie and pretend she does not reside in the UK because she wants to be buried in India. Great morals and fantastic judgement, cafring sharing Tories.DavidL said:I am clearly in a small minority in finding this attack on Sunak based upon his wife's tax affairs completely wrong and frankly a bit ridiculous. So be it. We clearly want a government of people who have done nothing but sip at the public purse, who are financially dependent upon their office and are cravenly obedient as a result.
The tax affairs of very rich people are always going to be complicated and Mrs Sunak does not hold and has not sought any public office. It remains a completely absurd basis to undermine someone who has.
As I made clear at the time I thought Rishi's latest financial statement was disastrous. He is open to a range of criticisms for what he did and what he failed to do, especially the latter, and all of that is fair enough. But this wife stuff? Not for me.
The tax his wife has legally avoided comes from her very substantial holding in an IT company based in India which makes its profits there and trades there. It is part of an even larger holding that her family hold in that business. What right has the UK taxpayer to this money, exactly? It is not invested here, it is not made here and it is not paid here.
She pays tax on all of the money she makes in the UK which is again considerable. You could argue that as someone now resident here, if not domiciled, that we are entitled to a cut of all her earnings world wide but you can equally argue the reverse and she has complied with the rules. If her residence continues for 15 years she will have to pay that tax on that Indian income but at the moment it is taxed in India where it should be.
0 -
She'd have gained far more than she lost.HYUFD said:
Had she gone for EEA and free movement however, she would have seen a surge to Farage and UKIP and lasted even less time as Tory leader than she didLeon said:
It was catastrophicApplicant said:
There was a germ of a reasonable idea in there - stated in the most cack-handed and ill-considered way by someone who thought she understood people not like her.Leon said:
No, it was pointlessly and gratuitously insulting to a lot of people who like to this they are “internationalist” at a time when the country needed healing and concord over Brexit. She also alienated the EU even furtherStillWaters said:
She was making an important point but was howled down by people determined to take offence because they wanted a cheap nanny from RomaniaMalmesbury said:
Why am I hearing this, echoing in my head?Benpointer said:
There should be No Representation Without Taxation!CarlottaVance said:
Yes. Domicile and Residence are different things.Jim_Miller said:As a non-dom, can Mrs. Rishi vote for Mr. Rishi?
"If you believe you are a citizen of the world, you are a citizen of nowhere. You don't understand what citizenship means."
She was taking to task the rootless managers of British businesses who behaved "as though they have more in common with international elites than with the people down the road".
What did she gain by sounding like Farage? I’m a soft Leaver and I like to occasionally feel like a citizen of the world. She pissed me off so god knows what she did to Remainers
That whole speech was the beginning of the Brexit clusterfuckettyfuck
In other words, typical Theresa May.
Imagine if she’d gone the opposite way. Said “we will Brexit but we will not forget that 48% of the country voted Remain and they will also be respected. We want a strong and close association with the EU, our beloved friends and neighbours. This is a time to come together as a country and find a Brexit that can work for as many people as possible, knowing that the country is badly divided”. Blah blah blah
Lots of stuff like that. No stupid red lines boxing herself in. No triggering of A50 til we had some sense of how we were going to do all this
A totally different trajectory. A much better outcome. So much less bitterness1 -
It was poorly expressed.Leon said:
No, it was pointlessly and gratuitously insulting to a lot of people who like to this they are “internationalist” at a time when the country needed healing and concord over Brexit. She also alienated the EU even furtherStillWaters said:
She was making an important point but was howled down by people determined to take offence because they wanted a cheap nanny from RomaniaMalmesbury said:
Why am I hearing this, echoing in my head?Benpointer said:
There should be No Representation Without Taxation!CarlottaVance said:
Yes. Domicile and Residence are different things.Jim_Miller said:As a non-dom, can Mrs. Rishi vote for Mr. Rishi?
"If you believe you are a citizen of the world, you are a citizen of nowhere. You don't understand what citizenship means."
She was taking to task the rootless managers of British businesses who behaved "as though they have more in common with international elites than with the people down the road".
What did she gain by sounding like Farage? I’m a soft Leaver and I like to occasionally feel like a citizen of the world. She pissed me off so god knows what she did to Remainers
That whole speech was the beginning of the Brexit clusterfuckettyfuck
But there is a group of people who float around the world (sometimes literally) paying minimal tax and free riding off countries without making a contribution to the local community
That behaviour is not meritorious2 -
And taxed in India, so it’s not like it’s gone untaxed.Applicant said:
Why should the UK Treasury expect to receive tax on money earned in India by an Indian citizen?malcolmg said:
It is indefensible David, a tax dodge for the rich, nothing less. No morals, no principles , just greedy.DavidL said:
On the contrary, Sunak has come into politics rather than make tens of millions in the private sector which he easily could have done. Some may think that this is ego, some that it is a desire to give public service but either way he sure as hell didn't do it for the money.malcolmg said:
David, you show how real Tories think , me me me , F the plebs. Given they will never be able to spend their dosh in many lifetimes and knowing how bad it would look if the COE's wife was tax avoiding , they are still so greedy they couldn't bring themselves to pay a bit of extra tax for a few years. They prefer to lie and pretend she does not reside in the UK because she wants to be buried in India. Great morals and fantastic judgement, cafring sharing Tories.DavidL said:I am clearly in a small minority in finding this attack on Sunak based upon his wife's tax affairs completely wrong and frankly a bit ridiculous. So be it. We clearly want a government of people who have done nothing but sip at the public purse, who are financially dependent upon their office and are cravenly obedient as a result.
The tax affairs of very rich people are always going to be complicated and Mrs Sunak does not hold and has not sought any public office. It remains a completely absurd basis to undermine someone who has.
As I made clear at the time I thought Rishi's latest financial statement was disastrous. He is open to a range of criticisms for what he did and what he failed to do, especially the latter, and all of that is fair enough. But this wife stuff? Not for me.
The tax his wife has legally avoided comes from her very substantial holding in an IT company based in India which makes its profits there and trades there. It is part of an even larger holding that her family hold in that business. What right has the UK taxpayer to this money, exactly? It is not invested here, it is not made here and it is not paid here.
She pays tax on all of the money she makes in the UK which is again considerable. You could argue that as someone now resident here, if not domiciled, that we are entitled to a cut of all her earnings world wide but you can equally argue the reverse and she has complied with the rules. If her residence continues for 15 years she will have to pay that tax on that Indian income but at the moment it is taxed in India where it should be.
It’s disgusting of the Labour Party to go after politicians in this way, through targeted family members. Not even the Peaky Blinders went that bad. There has to be a value code not to cross or else our politics will be anarchy that lives in gutter.
No law has been broken, so the right thing for Labour is propose a law change, if public agree and elect you then change the law.
Smearing your opponents through their family members, whatever you use be it finance, sexual orientation, etc is wrong.
And it is Labour doing this, not Tories, because there is Starmer on the news smearing Sunak’s wife.0 -
The BVA poll actually shows Macron beating Le Pen by 53 to 47 in the second round so not sure where that rogue polling has come from .
0 -
Professional gamblers would have known immediately it was a fake!MaxPB said:
I realise it's a joke but there's a lot of professional gamblers on this site both in the comments and lurking.Leon said:France, BVA poll. 2nd round
Le Pen (RN-ID): 53.5% (+7)
Macron (EC-RE): 46.5% (-6)
…
+/- vs. 30 - 31 March
Fieldwork: 1 April 2022
Sample size: 1,015
0 -
It was a rather unkind joke on two counts, as Benny, the Crossroads character wasn't the sharpest knife in the box. It was however similar remarks which are made about anywhere with small, and potentially inbred, population.HYUFD said:
It was a post that disrespected the people of the Falklands, even though at least it might have been a joke on your side.kjh said:
Pillock. You referred to them as unsophisticated so I told the story about what the soldiers called the islanders which I was aware of because I knew some of the soldiers and I thought posters here might enjoy the story.HYUFD said:
Given kjh's sneers at the Falkland Islanders intellect in the previous thread, it was well deserved!Nigelb said:
You often show that you completely misunderstand posts. I was making no point whatsoever. It was just a funny story. Get a life.
For others in the liberal elite like Sir Simon Jenkins, not only do they genuinely think of the islanders as simpletons they also want to give the islands back to Argentina which I accept you don't
Contrast and compare Norfolk, especially NW Norfolk, 'jokes"'0 -
I'm a remainer and I knew exactly who she was talking about - the big cheeses who bang on about how cosmopolitan they are, while paying not paying tax in Lichtenstein and P&Oing* the work force in their companies.Applicant said:
Indeed. The great tragedy is that May over-compensated for having voted Remain when she really didn't need to.Leon said:
It was catastrophicApplicant said:
There was a germ of a reasonable idea in there - stated in the most cack-handed and ill-considered way by someone who thought she understood people not like her.Leon said:
No, it was pointlessly and gratuitously insulting to a lot of people who like to this they are “internationalist” at a time when the country needed healing and concord over Brexit. She also alienated the EU even furtherStillWaters said:
She was making an important point but was howled down by people determined to take offence because they wanted a cheap nanny from RomaniaMalmesbury said:
Why am I hearing this, echoing in my head?Benpointer said:
There should be No Representation Without Taxation!CarlottaVance said:
Yes. Domicile and Residence are different things.Jim_Miller said:As a non-dom, can Mrs. Rishi vote for Mr. Rishi?
"If you believe you are a citizen of the world, you are a citizen of nowhere. You don't understand what citizenship means."
She was taking to task the rootless managers of British businesses who behaved "as though they have more in common with international elites than with the people down the road".
What did she gain by sounding like Farage? I’m a soft Leaver and I like to occasionally feel like a citizen of the world. She pissed me off so god knows what she did to Remainers
That whole speech was the beginning of the Brexit clusterfuckettyfuck
In other words, typical Theresa May.
Imagine if she’d gone the opposite way. Said “we will Brexit but we will not forget that 48% of the country voted Remain and they will also be respected. We want a strong and close association with the EU, our beloved friends and neighbours. This is a time to come together as a country and find a Brexit that can work for as many people as possible, knowing that the country is badly divided”. Blah blah blah
Lots of stuff like that. No stupid red lines boxing herself in. No triggering of A50 til we had some sense of how we were going to do all this
A totally different trajectory. A much better outcome. So much less bitterness
*It is interesting that P&O were lambasted for doing what so many companies have been praised for doing - employing low cost labour, and getting rid of expensive labour.2 -
That may be true. But that speech was totally the wrong time to say anything like that.StillWaters said:
It was poorly expressed.Leon said:
No, it was pointlessly and gratuitously insulting to a lot of people who like to this they are “internationalist” at a time when the country needed healing and concord over Brexit. She also alienated the EU even furtherStillWaters said:
She was making an important point but was howled down by people determined to take offence because they wanted a cheap nanny from RomaniaMalmesbury said:
Why am I hearing this, echoing in my head?Benpointer said:
There should be No Representation Without Taxation!CarlottaVance said:
Yes. Domicile and Residence are different things.Jim_Miller said:As a non-dom, can Mrs. Rishi vote for Mr. Rishi?
"If you believe you are a citizen of the world, you are a citizen of nowhere. You don't understand what citizenship means."
She was taking to task the rootless managers of British businesses who behaved "as though they have more in common with international elites than with the people down the road".
What did she gain by sounding like Farage? I’m a soft Leaver and I like to occasionally feel like a citizen of the world. She pissed me off so god knows what she did to Remainers
That whole speech was the beginning of the Brexit clusterfuckettyfuck
But there is a group of people who float around the world (sometimes literally) paying minimal tax and free riding off countries without making a contribution to the local community
That behaviour is not meritorious
That speech needed to be conciliatory and kind, consensual and open. Everyone was watching
It was one of the most misjudged speeches in recent british political history1 -
I'm pretty sure HMT examines claims of non-dom status very closely.Leon said:
Because she clearly lives in the UK and her non-Dom status is questionable given her profound ties to this country?Applicant said:
Why should the UK Treasury expect to receive tax on money earned in India by an Indian citizen?malcolmg said:
It is indefensible David, a tax dodge for the rich, nothing less. No morals, no principles , just greedy.DavidL said:
On the contrary, Sunak has come into politics rather than make tens of millions in the private sector which he easily could have done. Some may think that this is ego, some that it is a desire to give public service but either way he sure as hell didn't do it for the money.malcolmg said:
David, you show how real Tories think , me me me , F the plebs. Given they will never be able to spend their dosh in many lifetimes and knowing how bad it would look if the COE's wife was tax avoiding , they are still so greedy they couldn't bring themselves to pay a bit of extra tax for a few years. They prefer to lie and pretend she does not reside in the UK because she wants to be buried in India. Great morals and fantastic judgement, cafring sharing Tories.DavidL said:I am clearly in a small minority in finding this attack on Sunak based upon his wife's tax affairs completely wrong and frankly a bit ridiculous. So be it. We clearly want a government of people who have done nothing but sip at the public purse, who are financially dependent upon their office and are cravenly obedient as a result.
The tax affairs of very rich people are always going to be complicated and Mrs Sunak does not hold and has not sought any public office. It remains a completely absurd basis to undermine someone who has.
As I made clear at the time I thought Rishi's latest financial statement was disastrous. He is open to a range of criticisms for what he did and what he failed to do, especially the latter, and all of that is fair enough. But this wife stuff? Not for me.
The tax his wife has legally avoided comes from her very substantial holding in an IT company based in India which makes its profits there and trades there. It is part of an even larger holding that her family hold in that business. What right has the UK taxpayer to this money, exactly? It is not invested here, it is not made here and it is not paid here.
She pays tax on all of the money she makes in the UK which is again considerable. You could argue that as someone now resident here, if not domiciled, that we are entitled to a cut of all her earnings world wide but you can equally argue the reverse and she has complied with the rules. If her residence continues for 15 years she will have to pay that tax on that Indian income but at the moment it is taxed in India where it should be.
But my question is more philosophical. Let's take the case of a super-rich Brit who marries an American and moves (mostly) to California but maintains businesses and investments in the UK. Shouldn't HMT get tax on the profits from those businesses and investments?0 -
Has it been tested in laboratory, like using mice, so you can say scientifically no?Applicant said:
Best PhD thesis title ever.MoonRabbit said:Can you catch covid from farts?
0 -
But being non-dom means that Mrs Sunak has to spend more than half her time out of the UK. Not sure that I would be a happy bunny if my wife were with me only half the time.Northern_Al said:
I think the issue here is not really the tax arrangements, but the non-domicile status. If my other half was Chancellor, and wanted to be PM, even if I was born elsewhere I'd want to demonstrate my commitment to the UK as a permanent resident. I wouldn't, every year, reassure HRMC that my permanent residence was in fact in the country of my birth rather than the UK. It would seem odd, don't you think, not to demonstrate that I share my other half's ambitions for this country by committing to it? Why on earth would I do that?DavidL said:
On the contrary, Sunak has come into politics rather than make tens of millions in the private sector which he easily could have done. Some may think that this is ego, some that it is a desire to give public service but either way he sure as hell didn't do it for the money.malcolmg said:
David, you show how real Tories think , me me me , F the plebs. Given they will never be able to spend their dosh in many lifetimes and knowing how bad it would look if the COE's wife was tax avoiding , they are still so greedy they couldn't bring themselves to pay a bit of extra tax for a few years. They prefer to lie and pretend she does not reside in the UK because she wants to be buried in India. Great morals and fantastic judgement, cafring sharing Tories.DavidL said:I am clearly in a small minority in finding this attack on Sunak based upon his wife's tax affairs completely wrong and frankly a bit ridiculous. So be it. We clearly want a government of people who have done nothing but sip at the public purse, who are financially dependent upon their office and are cravenly obedient as a result.
The tax affairs of very rich people are always going to be complicated and Mrs Sunak does not hold and has not sought any public office. It remains a completely absurd basis to undermine someone who has.
As I made clear at the time I thought Rishi's latest financial statement was disastrous. He is open to a range of criticisms for what he did and what he failed to do, especially the latter, and all of that is fair enough. But this wife stuff? Not for me.
The tax his wife has legally avoided comes from her very substantial holding in an IT company based in India which makes its profits there and trades there. It is part of an even larger holding that her family hold in that business. What right has the UK taxpayer to this money, exactly? It is not invested here, it is not made here and it is not paid here.
She pays tax on all of the money she makes in the UK which is again considerable. You could argue that as someone now resident here, if not domiciled, that we are entitled to a cut of all her earnings world wide but you can equally argue the reverse and she has complied with the rules. If her residence continues for 15 years she will have to pay that tax on that Indian income but at the moment it is taxed in India where it should be.0 -
(((Dan Hodges)))
@DPJHodges
·
4m
Not a difficult one for the Treasury. Has Rishi Sunak, (we can keep his wife out of it), ever held a US Green Card. If it didn't, fine, clear it up. If he did, then admit it, and he can hand in his resignation. Very simple.0 -
And that is exactly what is happening. She is being attacked for following the law.MaxPB said:
Earned in India is the key there. If it was earned here and taxed elsewhere I'd agree there's a problem. Specifically for this £11m was it brought to the UK? If not then I don't see what claim Her Majesty's best has on it. There's a potential tax liability building up for her but it wouldn't be realised until the money is actually brought to the UK, which she can simply choose not to do.Roger said:
Radio 4 did a bit nof a number on her this morning. She earned £11 million in dividends last year in India which will be denied to the Treasury. Why she chooses to do this I don't know. Perhaps she can see what's obvious to the rest of us. Under the stewaerdship of her husband and our Prime Minister we are going to Hell in a handcart and like all Tories she first and foremost looks after number 1.MaxPB said:
She pays tax.Benpointer said:
There should be No Representation Without Taxation!CarlottaVance said:
Yes. Domicile and Residence are different things.Jim_Miller said:As a non-dom, can Mrs. Rishi vote for Mr. Rishi?
1 -
But then you rapidly fall into the trap that anything that goes right cannot possibly be the government's responsibility, whilst anything that goes wrong is their responsibility. It's not a very grown-up way to view things.Northern_Al said:
I suspect our superb performance on genomics (and vaccines) tells us more about the quality of our scientific community than about the performance of our PM.JosiasJessop said:
"On Covid he did well on vaccines, very badly on everything else; overall mediocre compared with West European peers. Mixed bag"FF43 said:..
Has Johnson done well in dealing with these shocks?JosiasJessop said:
I think that's slightly unfair, since politics is being events-driven at the moment. Covid, the war in Ukraine and the resultant economic woes leaves precious little room for new ideas or vision. The government has to concentrate on sailing these choppy seas.SouthamObserver said:The Tory talent cabinet is absolutely bare. There is nothing there. This government cannot offer ideas, vision or competence; or much hope. Johnson is the best it has. That’s how bad it is.
And you know what? It hasn't done too badly on Covid, and has been very good with the war in Ukraine.
As for hope: that depends on the individual. I don't see Starmer singing "Things can only get better," either. He is an utterly uninspiring individual. I'll still probably vote for him over Johnson, though. (local candidates notwithstanding).
On Covid he did well on vaccines, very badly on everything else; overall mediocre compared with West European peers. Mixed bag
Ukraine: done well on early supply of weapons, and general enthusiasm for the Ukrainian cause. Poor on refugees. Pass.
Brexit: he helped create the problem in the first place and has mishandled the implementation since. Fail.
Cost of living. Complete failure to deal with this issue, exacerbated by Brexit and poor handling of the economic consequences of Covid. Missed chance to do something in the Spring Statement. Other countries struggle with this issue too but their failure isn't quite so total.
Overall 1½ out of 4
That's rubbish. As an example we did superbly on genomics - and the fact you choose to ignore that is telling.
One of the interesting things about the Covid crisis was seeing fools almost salivating over the daily death figures, proclaiming how bad we were. It's a weird form of exceptionalism: people who like to think that we're uniquely bad.0 -
Every relationship is different. Don't judge others.ClippP said:
But being non-dom means that Mrs Sunak has to spend more than half her time out of the UK. Not sure that I would be a happy bunny if my wife were with me only half the time.Northern_Al said:
I think the issue here is not really the tax arrangements, but the non-domicile status. If my other half was Chancellor, and wanted to be PM, even if I was born elsewhere I'd want to demonstrate my commitment to the UK as a permanent resident. I wouldn't, every year, reassure HRMC that my permanent residence was in fact in the country of my birth rather than the UK. It would seem odd, don't you think, not to demonstrate that I share my other half's ambitions for this country by committing to it? Why on earth would I do that?DavidL said:
On the contrary, Sunak has come into politics rather than make tens of millions in the private sector which he easily could have done. Some may think that this is ego, some that it is a desire to give public service but either way he sure as hell didn't do it for the money.malcolmg said:
David, you show how real Tories think , me me me , F the plebs. Given they will never be able to spend their dosh in many lifetimes and knowing how bad it would look if the COE's wife was tax avoiding , they are still so greedy they couldn't bring themselves to pay a bit of extra tax for a few years. They prefer to lie and pretend she does not reside in the UK because she wants to be buried in India. Great morals and fantastic judgement, cafring sharing Tories.DavidL said:I am clearly in a small minority in finding this attack on Sunak based upon his wife's tax affairs completely wrong and frankly a bit ridiculous. So be it. We clearly want a government of people who have done nothing but sip at the public purse, who are financially dependent upon their office and are cravenly obedient as a result.
The tax affairs of very rich people are always going to be complicated and Mrs Sunak does not hold and has not sought any public office. It remains a completely absurd basis to undermine someone who has.
As I made clear at the time I thought Rishi's latest financial statement was disastrous. He is open to a range of criticisms for what he did and what he failed to do, especially the latter, and all of that is fair enough. But this wife stuff? Not for me.
The tax his wife has legally avoided comes from her very substantial holding in an IT company based in India which makes its profits there and trades there. It is part of an even larger holding that her family hold in that business. What right has the UK taxpayer to this money, exactly? It is not invested here, it is not made here and it is not paid here.
She pays tax on all of the money she makes in the UK which is again considerable. You could argue that as someone now resident here, if not domiciled, that we are entitled to a cut of all her earnings world wide but you can equally argue the reverse and she has complied with the rules. If her residence continues for 15 years she will have to pay that tax on that Indian income but at the moment it is taxed in India where it should be.0 -
Or Belize. Just saying.Applicant said:
I'm pretty sure HMT examines claims of non-dom status very closely.Leon said:
Because she clearly lives in the UK and her non-Dom status is questionable given her profound ties to this country?Applicant said:
Why should the UK Treasury expect to receive tax on money earned in India by an Indian citizen?malcolmg said:
It is indefensible David, a tax dodge for the rich, nothing less. No morals, no principles , just greedy.DavidL said:
On the contrary, Sunak has come into politics rather than make tens of millions in the private sector which he easily could have done. Some may think that this is ego, some that it is a desire to give public service but either way he sure as hell didn't do it for the money.malcolmg said:
David, you show how real Tories think , me me me , F the plebs. Given they will never be able to spend their dosh in many lifetimes and knowing how bad it would look if the COE's wife was tax avoiding , they are still so greedy they couldn't bring themselves to pay a bit of extra tax for a few years. They prefer to lie and pretend she does not reside in the UK because she wants to be buried in India. Great morals and fantastic judgement, cafring sharing Tories.DavidL said:I am clearly in a small minority in finding this attack on Sunak based upon his wife's tax affairs completely wrong and frankly a bit ridiculous. So be it. We clearly want a government of people who have done nothing but sip at the public purse, who are financially dependent upon their office and are cravenly obedient as a result.
The tax affairs of very rich people are always going to be complicated and Mrs Sunak does not hold and has not sought any public office. It remains a completely absurd basis to undermine someone who has.
As I made clear at the time I thought Rishi's latest financial statement was disastrous. He is open to a range of criticisms for what he did and what he failed to do, especially the latter, and all of that is fair enough. But this wife stuff? Not for me.
The tax his wife has legally avoided comes from her very substantial holding in an IT company based in India which makes its profits there and trades there. It is part of an even larger holding that her family hold in that business. What right has the UK taxpayer to this money, exactly? It is not invested here, it is not made here and it is not paid here.
She pays tax on all of the money she makes in the UK which is again considerable. You could argue that as someone now resident here, if not domiciled, that we are entitled to a cut of all her earnings world wide but you can equally argue the reverse and she has complied with the rules. If her residence continues for 15 years she will have to pay that tax on that Indian income but at the moment it is taxed in India where it should be.
But my question is more philosophical. Let's take the case of a super-rich Brit who marries an American and moves (mostly) to California but maintains businesses and investments in the UK. Shouldn't HMT get tax on the profits from those businesses and investments?0 -
How many of those 'internationalists' considered why Leave won ?Leon said:
No, it was pointlessly and gratuitously insulting to a lot of people who like to this they are “internationalist” at a time when the country needed healing and concord over Brexit. She also alienated the EU even furtherStillWaters said:
She was making an important point but was howled down by people determined to take offence because they wanted a cheap nanny from RomaniaMalmesbury said:
Why am I hearing this, echoing in my head?Benpointer said:
There should be No Representation Without Taxation!CarlottaVance said:
Yes. Domicile and Residence are different things.Jim_Miller said:As a non-dom, can Mrs. Rishi vote for Mr. Rishi?
"If you believe you are a citizen of the world, you are a citizen of nowhere. You don't understand what citizenship means."
She was taking to task the rootless managers of British businesses who behaved "as though they have more in common with international elites than with the people down the road".
What did she gain by sounding like Farage? I’m a soft Leaver and I like to occasionally feel like a citizen of the world. She pissed me off so god knows what she did to Remainers
That whole speech was the beginning of the Brexit clusterfuckettyfuck
This was a very good piece:
One way to think about the vote is that it has forced a slightly more equitable distribution of anxiety and alienation upon the country. After Thursday, I feel more insecure about my future, and that of my family. I also feel like a foreigner in my own country — that there’s this whole massive swathe of people out there who don’t think like me at all and probably don’t like me. I feel like a big decision about my life has been imposed on me by nameless people out there. But of course, this is exactly how many of those very people have been feeling for years, and at a much higher level of intensity. Democracy forces us to try on each other’s clothes. I could have carried on quite happily ignoring the unhappiness of much of the country but I can’t ignore this.
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2016/06/how-think-about-eu-result-if-you-voted-remain0 -
No, but it's typical. Just look at healthcare for a classic example.JosiasJessop said:
But then you rapidly fall into the trap that anything that goes right cannot possibly be the government's responsibility, whilst anything that goes wrong is their responsibility. It's not a very grown-up way to view things.Northern_Al said:
I suspect our superb performance on genomics (and vaccines) tells us more about the quality of our scientific community than about the performance of our PM.JosiasJessop said:
"On Covid he did well on vaccines, very badly on everything else; overall mediocre compared with West European peers. Mixed bag"FF43 said:..
Has Johnson done well in dealing with these shocks?JosiasJessop said:
I think that's slightly unfair, since politics is being events-driven at the moment. Covid, the war in Ukraine and the resultant economic woes leaves precious little room for new ideas or vision. The government has to concentrate on sailing these choppy seas.SouthamObserver said:The Tory talent cabinet is absolutely bare. There is nothing there. This government cannot offer ideas, vision or competence; or much hope. Johnson is the best it has. That’s how bad it is.
And you know what? It hasn't done too badly on Covid, and has been very good with the war in Ukraine.
As for hope: that depends on the individual. I don't see Starmer singing "Things can only get better," either. He is an utterly uninspiring individual. I'll still probably vote for him over Johnson, though. (local candidates notwithstanding).
On Covid he did well on vaccines, very badly on everything else; overall mediocre compared with West European peers. Mixed bag
Ukraine: done well on early supply of weapons, and general enthusiasm for the Ukrainian cause. Poor on refugees. Pass.
Brexit: he helped create the problem in the first place and has mishandled the implementation since. Fail.
Cost of living. Complete failure to deal with this issue, exacerbated by Brexit and poor handling of the economic consequences of Covid. Missed chance to do something in the Spring Statement. Other countries struggle with this issue too but their failure isn't quite so total.
Overall 1½ out of 4
That's rubbish. As an example we did superbly on genomics - and the fact you choose to ignore that is telling.
One of the interesting things about the Covid crisis was seeing fools almost salivating over the daily death figures, proclaiming how bad we were. It's a weird form of exceptionalism: people who like to think that we're uniquely bad.0 -
Surely the PhD Thesis (or Lancet article) would be titled "Investigating the onward transmission of Covid-19 by means of inhalation of flatus gasses".Applicant said:
Best PhD thesis title ever.MoonRabbit said:Can you catch covid from farts?
1 -
It’s not a smear. It is simply the case. The facts have been revealedMoonRabbit said:
And taxed in India, so it’s not like it’s gone untaxed.Applicant said:
Why should the UK Treasury expect to receive tax on money earned in India by an Indian citizen?malcolmg said:
It is indefensible David, a tax dodge for the rich, nothing less. No morals, no principles , just greedy.DavidL said:
On the contrary, Sunak has come into politics rather than make tens of millions in the private sector which he easily could have done. Some may think that this is ego, some that it is a desire to give public service but either way he sure as hell didn't do it for the money.malcolmg said:
David, you show how real Tories think , me me me , F the plebs. Given they will never be able to spend their dosh in many lifetimes and knowing how bad it would look if the COE's wife was tax avoiding , they are still so greedy they couldn't bring themselves to pay a bit of extra tax for a few years. They prefer to lie and pretend she does not reside in the UK because she wants to be buried in India. Great morals and fantastic judgement, cafring sharing Tories.DavidL said:I am clearly in a small minority in finding this attack on Sunak based upon his wife's tax affairs completely wrong and frankly a bit ridiculous. So be it. We clearly want a government of people who have done nothing but sip at the public purse, who are financially dependent upon their office and are cravenly obedient as a result.
The tax affairs of very rich people are always going to be complicated and Mrs Sunak does not hold and has not sought any public office. It remains a completely absurd basis to undermine someone who has.
As I made clear at the time I thought Rishi's latest financial statement was disastrous. He is open to a range of criticisms for what he did and what he failed to do, especially the latter, and all of that is fair enough. But this wife stuff? Not for me.
The tax his wife has legally avoided comes from her very substantial holding in an IT company based in India which makes its profits there and trades there. It is part of an even larger holding that her family hold in that business. What right has the UK taxpayer to this money, exactly? It is not invested here, it is not made here and it is not paid here.
She pays tax on all of the money she makes in the UK which is again considerable. You could argue that as someone now resident here, if not domiciled, that we are entitled to a cut of all her earnings world wide but you can equally argue the reverse and she has complied with the rules. If her residence continues for 15 years she will have to pay that tax on that Indian income but at the moment it is taxed in India where it should be.
It’s disgusting of the Labour Party to go after politicians in this way, through targeted family members. Not even the Peaky Blinders went that bad. There has to be a value code not to cross or else our politics will be anarchy that lives in gutter.
No law has been broken, so the right thing for Labour is propose a law change, if public agree and elect you then change the law.
Smearing your opponents through their family members, whatever you use be it finance, sexual orientation, etc is wrong.
And it is Labour doing this, not Tories, because there is Starmer on the news smearing Sunak’s wife.
And they look awful for a chancellor who is taxing the poor as he benefits from a controversial loophole which allows his wife to earn £:11, MILLION a year and not pay UK tax on any of it
Jesus. Why didn’t she just renounce her non Dom status when Sunak became chancellor? The poor lamb would be a few million quid poorer. Oh well. She’s still got £700 million left. And he could have gone on to be PM
Instead they greedily kept all the money and now his career is fucked. Zero sympathy2 -
I 'think' the first question is naked vs not naked. We've seen the endless debates about masks (to some, literally 'face nappies'), so we'll probably need two PhD studies, not one.MoonRabbit said:
Has it been tested in laboratory, like using mice, so you can say scientifically no?Applicant said:
Best PhD thesis title ever.MoonRabbit said:Can you catch covid from farts?
1 -
Obviously a Tory shill. Since you appear to be an idiot I will spell it out. JUST BECAUSE YOU CAN DOES NOT MEAN YOU SHOULD. Any brain dead moron would know how bad that looks given his position and couple that with fact that they are so rich they would not even notice the difference. Given the greed , tin earred and stupidity why would anyone want that idiot running the countries finances.Applicant said:
Why should the UK Treasury expect to receive tax on money earned in India by an Indian citizen?malcolmg said:
It is indefensible David, a tax dodge for the rich, nothing less. No morals, no principles , just greedy.DavidL said:
On the contrary, Sunak has come into politics rather than make tens of millions in the private sector which he easily could have done. Some may think that this is ego, some that it is a desire to give public service but either way he sure as hell didn't do it for the money.malcolmg said:
David, you show how real Tories think , me me me , F the plebs. Given they will never be able to spend their dosh in many lifetimes and knowing how bad it would look if the COE's wife was tax avoiding , they are still so greedy they couldn't bring themselves to pay a bit of extra tax for a few years. They prefer to lie and pretend she does not reside in the UK because she wants to be buried in India. Great morals and fantastic judgement, cafring sharing Tories.DavidL said:I am clearly in a small minority in finding this attack on Sunak based upon his wife's tax affairs completely wrong and frankly a bit ridiculous. So be it. We clearly want a government of people who have done nothing but sip at the public purse, who are financially dependent upon their office and are cravenly obedient as a result.
The tax affairs of very rich people are always going to be complicated and Mrs Sunak does not hold and has not sought any public office. It remains a completely absurd basis to undermine someone who has.
As I made clear at the time I thought Rishi's latest financial statement was disastrous. He is open to a range of criticisms for what he did and what he failed to do, especially the latter, and all of that is fair enough. But this wife stuff? Not for me.
The tax his wife has legally avoided comes from her very substantial holding in an IT company based in India which makes its profits there and trades there. It is part of an even larger holding that her family hold in that business. What right has the UK taxpayer to this money, exactly? It is not invested here, it is not made here and it is not paid here.
She pays tax on all of the money she makes in the UK which is again considerable. You could argue that as someone now resident here, if not domiciled, that we are entitled to a cut of all her earnings world wide but you can equally argue the reverse and she has complied with the rules. If her residence continues for 15 years she will have to pay that tax on that Indian income but at the moment it is taxed in India where it should be.1 -
Theresa was not the best prime minister of recent years, I’ll give you thatLeon said:
That may be true. But that speech was totally the wrong time to say anything like that.StillWaters said:
It was poorly expressed.Leon said:
No, it was pointlessly and gratuitously insulting to a lot of people who like to this they are “internationalist” at a time when the country needed healing and concord over Brexit. She also alienated the EU even furtherStillWaters said:
She was making an important point but was howled down by people determined to take offence because they wanted a cheap nanny from RomaniaMalmesbury said:
Why am I hearing this, echoing in my head?Benpointer said:
There should be No Representation Without Taxation!CarlottaVance said:
Yes. Domicile and Residence are different things.Jim_Miller said:As a non-dom, can Mrs. Rishi vote for Mr. Rishi?
"If you believe you are a citizen of the world, you are a citizen of nowhere. You don't understand what citizenship means."
She was taking to task the rootless managers of British businesses who behaved "as though they have more in common with international elites than with the people down the road".
What did she gain by sounding like Farage? I’m a soft Leaver and I like to occasionally feel like a citizen of the world. She pissed me off so god knows what she did to Remainers
That whole speech was the beginning of the Brexit clusterfuckettyfuck
But there is a group of people who float around the world (sometimes literally) paying minimal tax and free riding off countries without making a contribution to the local community
That behaviour is not meritorious
That speech needed to be conciliatory and kind, consensual and open. Everyone was watching
It was one of the most misjudged speeches in recent british political history0 -
Using mice to generate farts? That sounds… cruel?MoonRabbit said:
Has it been tested in laboratory, like using mice, so you can say scientifically no?Applicant said:
Best PhD thesis title ever.MoonRabbit said:Can you catch covid from farts?
0 -
No it doesn’t mean thatClippP said:
But being non-dom means that Mrs Sunak has to spend more than half her time out of the UK. Not sure that I would be a happy bunny if my wife were with me only half the time.Northern_Al said:
I think the issue here is not really the tax arrangements, but the non-domicile status. If my other half was Chancellor, and wanted to be PM, even if I was born elsewhere I'd want to demonstrate my commitment to the UK as a permanent resident. I wouldn't, every year, reassure HRMC that my permanent residence was in fact in the country of my birth rather than the UK. It would seem odd, don't you think, not to demonstrate that I share my other half's ambitions for this country by committing to it? Why on earth would I do that?DavidL said:
On the contrary, Sunak has come into politics rather than make tens of millions in the private sector which he easily could have done. Some may think that this is ego, some that it is a desire to give public service but either way he sure as hell didn't do it for the money.malcolmg said:
David, you show how real Tories think , me me me , F the plebs. Given they will never be able to spend their dosh in many lifetimes and knowing how bad it would look if the COE's wife was tax avoiding , they are still so greedy they couldn't bring themselves to pay a bit of extra tax for a few years. They prefer to lie and pretend she does not reside in the UK because she wants to be buried in India. Great morals and fantastic judgement, cafring sharing Tories.DavidL said:I am clearly in a small minority in finding this attack on Sunak based upon his wife's tax affairs completely wrong and frankly a bit ridiculous. So be it. We clearly want a government of people who have done nothing but sip at the public purse, who are financially dependent upon their office and are cravenly obedient as a result.
The tax affairs of very rich people are always going to be complicated and Mrs Sunak does not hold and has not sought any public office. It remains a completely absurd basis to undermine someone who has.
As I made clear at the time I thought Rishi's latest financial statement was disastrous. He is open to a range of criticisms for what he did and what he failed to do, especially the latter, and all of that is fair enough. But this wife stuff? Not for me.
The tax his wife has legally avoided comes from her very substantial holding in an IT company based in India which makes its profits there and trades there. It is part of an even larger holding that her family hold in that business. What right has the UK taxpayer to this money, exactly? It is not invested here, it is not made here and it is not paid here.
She pays tax on all of the money she makes in the UK which is again considerable. You could argue that as someone now resident here, if not domiciled, that we are entitled to a cut of all her earnings world wide but you can equally argue the reverse and she has complied with the rules. If her residence continues for 15 years she will have to pay that tax on that Indian income but at the moment it is taxed in India where it should be.0 -
Duplicate, deleted.0
-
If the business is based in the UK then taxes due on the business, eg corporation tax, should be paid to HMT. If the owner is based abroad then tax due on the income disbursed to the owner by the business in the form of dividends, eg income tax, should be paid to the tax authorities of the country the owner is resident in. It really isn't that complicated.Applicant said:
I'm pretty sure HMT examines claims of non-dom status very closely.Leon said:
Because she clearly lives in the UK and her non-Dom status is questionable given her profound ties to this country?Applicant said:
Why should the UK Treasury expect to receive tax on money earned in India by an Indian citizen?malcolmg said:
It is indefensible David, a tax dodge for the rich, nothing less. No morals, no principles , just greedy.DavidL said:
On the contrary, Sunak has come into politics rather than make tens of millions in the private sector which he easily could have done. Some may think that this is ego, some that it is a desire to give public service but either way he sure as hell didn't do it for the money.malcolmg said:
David, you show how real Tories think , me me me , F the plebs. Given they will never be able to spend their dosh in many lifetimes and knowing how bad it would look if the COE's wife was tax avoiding , they are still so greedy they couldn't bring themselves to pay a bit of extra tax for a few years. They prefer to lie and pretend she does not reside in the UK because she wants to be buried in India. Great morals and fantastic judgement, cafring sharing Tories.DavidL said:I am clearly in a small minority in finding this attack on Sunak based upon his wife's tax affairs completely wrong and frankly a bit ridiculous. So be it. We clearly want a government of people who have done nothing but sip at the public purse, who are financially dependent upon their office and are cravenly obedient as a result.
The tax affairs of very rich people are always going to be complicated and Mrs Sunak does not hold and has not sought any public office. It remains a completely absurd basis to undermine someone who has.
As I made clear at the time I thought Rishi's latest financial statement was disastrous. He is open to a range of criticisms for what he did and what he failed to do, especially the latter, and all of that is fair enough. But this wife stuff? Not for me.
The tax his wife has legally avoided comes from her very substantial holding in an IT company based in India which makes its profits there and trades there. It is part of an even larger holding that her family hold in that business. What right has the UK taxpayer to this money, exactly? It is not invested here, it is not made here and it is not paid here.
She pays tax on all of the money she makes in the UK which is again considerable. You could argue that as someone now resident here, if not domiciled, that we are entitled to a cut of all her earnings world wide but you can equally argue the reverse and she has complied with the rules. If her residence continues for 15 years she will have to pay that tax on that Indian income but at the moment it is taxed in India where it should be.
But my question is more philosophical. Let's take the case of a super-rich Brit who marries an American and moves (mostly) to California but maintains businesses and investments in the UK. Shouldn't HMT get tax on the profits from those businesses and investments?
Sunak's wife is a British resident, and so HMT should be able to tax her global income, including dividends paid to her from India. Non-dom status is simply a tax dodge. As she is the wife of the man responsible for administering the tax system, it is simply staggering to me that she has chosen to avoid paying taxes in this way.1 -
Yes there will be loads of polls next week . Once the French have given Macron a kicking in the first round it’s expected that Macron will have a decent second round lead. And of course as we’ve seen from the UK it’s hard to win an election if the over 65s hate you . Le Pens ratings with that group are dismal .MattW said:
Question: Do we get polls in France between Rounds 1 and 2 of the Election?Leon said:France, BVA poll. 2nd round
Le Pen (RN-ID): 53.5% (+7)
Macron (EC-RE): 46.5% (-6)
…
+/- vs. 30 - 31 March
Fieldwork: 1 April 2022
Sample size: 1,015
(Watching the French coverage, I'm quite surprised how hard they are all chasing the endorsements of previous Presidents - eg Sarkozy - who have jail sentences for criminal activities committed whilst leading politicians. In his case related to campaign finance.)
0 -
No, it doesn’t.ClippP said:
But being non-dom means that Mrs Sunak has to spend more than half her time out of the UK. Not sure that I would be a happy bunny if my wife were with me only half the time.Northern_Al said:
I think the issue here is not really the tax arrangements, but the non-domicile status. If my other half was Chancellor, and wanted to be PM, even if I was born elsewhere I'd want to demonstrate my commitment to the UK as a permanent resident. I wouldn't, every year, reassure HRMC that my permanent residence was in fact in the country of my birth rather than the UK. It would seem odd, don't you think, not to demonstrate that I share my other half's ambitions for this country by committing to it? Why on earth would I do that?DavidL said:
On the contrary, Sunak has come into politics rather than make tens of millions in the private sector which he easily could have done. Some may think that this is ego, some that it is a desire to give public service but either way he sure as hell didn't do it for the money.malcolmg said:
David, you show how real Tories think , me me me , F the plebs. Given they will never be able to spend their dosh in many lifetimes and knowing how bad it would look if the COE's wife was tax avoiding , they are still so greedy they couldn't bring themselves to pay a bit of extra tax for a few years. They prefer to lie and pretend she does not reside in the UK because she wants to be buried in India. Great morals and fantastic judgement, cafring sharing Tories.DavidL said:I am clearly in a small minority in finding this attack on Sunak based upon his wife's tax affairs completely wrong and frankly a bit ridiculous. So be it. We clearly want a government of people who have done nothing but sip at the public purse, who are financially dependent upon their office and are cravenly obedient as a result.
The tax affairs of very rich people are always going to be complicated and Mrs Sunak does not hold and has not sought any public office. It remains a completely absurd basis to undermine someone who has.
As I made clear at the time I thought Rishi's latest financial statement was disastrous. He is open to a range of criticisms for what he did and what he failed to do, especially the latter, and all of that is fair enough. But this wife stuff? Not for me.
The tax his wife has legally avoided comes from her very substantial holding in an IT company based in India which makes its profits there and trades there. It is part of an even larger holding that her family hold in that business. What right has the UK taxpayer to this money, exactly? It is not invested here, it is not made here and it is not paid here.
She pays tax on all of the money she makes in the UK which is again considerable. You could argue that as someone now resident here, if not domiciled, that we are entitled to a cut of all her earnings world wide but you can equally argue the reverse and she has complied with the rules. If her residence continues for 15 years she will have to pay that tax on that Indian income but at the moment it is taxed in India where it should be.
It means that she can spend no more than 15 years in any 20 in the country0 -
She didn't exactly shine as Home Secretary, either.StillWaters said:
Theresa was not the best prime minister of recent years, I’ll give you thatLeon said:
That may be true. But that speech was totally the wrong time to say anything like that.StillWaters said:
It was poorly expressed.Leon said:
No, it was pointlessly and gratuitously insulting to a lot of people who like to this they are “internationalist” at a time when the country needed healing and concord over Brexit. She also alienated the EU even furtherStillWaters said:
She was making an important point but was howled down by people determined to take offence because they wanted a cheap nanny from RomaniaMalmesbury said:
Why am I hearing this, echoing in my head?Benpointer said:
There should be No Representation Without Taxation!CarlottaVance said:
Yes. Domicile and Residence are different things.Jim_Miller said:As a non-dom, can Mrs. Rishi vote for Mr. Rishi?
"If you believe you are a citizen of the world, you are a citizen of nowhere. You don't understand what citizenship means."
She was taking to task the rootless managers of British businesses who behaved "as though they have more in common with international elites than with the people down the road".
What did she gain by sounding like Farage? I’m a soft Leaver and I like to occasionally feel like a citizen of the world. She pissed me off so god knows what she did to Remainers
That whole speech was the beginning of the Brexit clusterfuckettyfuck
But there is a group of people who float around the world (sometimes literally) paying minimal tax and free riding off countries without making a contribution to the local community
That behaviour is not meritorious
That speech needed to be conciliatory and kind, consensual and open. Everyone was watching
It was one of the most misjudged speeches in recent british political history0 -
Pay at third world rates, sell at first world rates and pay tax at Monaco rates.StillWaters said:
It was poorly expressed.Leon said:
No, it was pointlessly and gratuitously insulting to a lot of people who like to this they are “internationalist” at a time when the country needed healing and concord over Brexit. She also alienated the EU even furtherStillWaters said:
She was making an important point but was howled down by people determined to take offence because they wanted a cheap nanny from RomaniaMalmesbury said:
Why am I hearing this, echoing in my head?Benpointer said:
There should be No Representation Without Taxation!CarlottaVance said:
Yes. Domicile and Residence are different things.Jim_Miller said:As a non-dom, can Mrs. Rishi vote for Mr. Rishi?
"If you believe you are a citizen of the world, you are a citizen of nowhere. You don't understand what citizenship means."
She was taking to task the rootless managers of British businesses who behaved "as though they have more in common with international elites than with the people down the road".
What did she gain by sounding like Farage? I’m a soft Leaver and I like to occasionally feel like a citizen of the world. She pissed me off so god knows what she did to Remainers
That whole speech was the beginning of the Brexit clusterfuckettyfuck
But there is a group of people who float around the world (sometimes literally) paying minimal tax and free riding off countries without making a contribution to the local community
That behaviour is not meritorious
A few bungs to politicians and they become 'respectable'.0 -
Bloody hell, I never had you down as the Kissinger of our age.Leon said:
It was catastrophicApplicant said:
There was a germ of a reasonable idea in there - stated in the most cack-handed and ill-considered way by someone who thought she understood people not like her.Leon said:
No, it was pointlessly and gratuitously insulting to a lot of people who like to this they are “internationalist” at a time when the country needed healing and concord over Brexit. She also alienated the EU even furtherStillWaters said:
She was making an important point but was howled down by people determined to take offence because they wanted a cheap nanny from RomaniaMalmesbury said:
Why am I hearing this, echoing in my head?Benpointer said:
There should be No Representation Without Taxation!CarlottaVance said:
Yes. Domicile and Residence are different things.Jim_Miller said:As a non-dom, can Mrs. Rishi vote for Mr. Rishi?
"If you believe you are a citizen of the world, you are a citizen of nowhere. You don't understand what citizenship means."
She was taking to task the rootless managers of British businesses who behaved "as though they have more in common with international elites than with the people down the road".
What did she gain by sounding like Farage? I’m a soft Leaver and I like to occasionally feel like a citizen of the world. She pissed me off so god knows what she did to Remainers
That whole speech was the beginning of the Brexit clusterfuckettyfuck
In other words, typical Theresa May.
Imagine if she’d gone the opposite way. Said “we will Brexit but we will not forget that 48% of the country voted Remain and they will also be respected. We want a strong and close association with the EU, our beloved friends and neighbours. This is a time to come together as a country and find a Brexit that can work for as many people as possible, knowing that the country is badly divided”. Blah blah blah
Lots of stuff like that. No stupid red lines boxing herself in. No triggering of A50 til we had some sense of how we were going to do all this
A totally different trajectory. A much better outcome. So much less bitterness0 -
She probably had the most personal morality of any PM of recent times thoughStillWaters said:
Theresa was not the best prime minister of recent years, I’ll give you thatLeon said:
That may be true. But that speech was totally the wrong time to say anything like that.StillWaters said:
It was poorly expressed.Leon said:
No, it was pointlessly and gratuitously insulting to a lot of people who like to this they are “internationalist” at a time when the country needed healing and concord over Brexit. She also alienated the EU even furtherStillWaters said:
She was making an important point but was howled down by people determined to take offence because they wanted a cheap nanny from RomaniaMalmesbury said:
Why am I hearing this, echoing in my head?Benpointer said:
There should be No Representation Without Taxation!CarlottaVance said:
Yes. Domicile and Residence are different things.Jim_Miller said:As a non-dom, can Mrs. Rishi vote for Mr. Rishi?
"If you believe you are a citizen of the world, you are a citizen of nowhere. You don't understand what citizenship means."
She was taking to task the rootless managers of British businesses who behaved "as though they have more in common with international elites than with the people down the road".
What did she gain by sounding like Farage? I’m a soft Leaver and I like to occasionally feel like a citizen of the world. She pissed me off so god knows what she did to Remainers
That whole speech was the beginning of the Brexit clusterfuckettyfuck
But there is a group of people who float around the world (sometimes literally) paying minimal tax and free riding off countries without making a contribution to the local community
That behaviour is not meritorious
That speech needed to be conciliatory and kind, consensual and open. Everyone was watching
It was one of the most misjudged speeches in recent british political history0 -
Just seen this green card thing. If he had one as Chancellor then he should be sacked for being monumentally stupid, or unforgivably arrogant, as much as anything else.0
-
To be re elected Macron relies on Pecresse voting over 65s switching to him in the runoff yes.nico679 said:
Yes there will be loads of polls next week . Once the French have given Macron a kicking in the first round it’s expected that Macron will have a decent second round lead. And of course as we’ve seen from the UK it’s hard to win an election if the over 65s hate you . Le Pens ratings with that group are dismal .MattW said:
Question: Do we get polls in France between Rounds 1 and 2 of the Election?Leon said:France, BVA poll. 2nd round
Le Pen (RN-ID): 53.5% (+7)
Macron (EC-RE): 46.5% (-6)
…
+/- vs. 30 - 31 March
Fieldwork: 1 April 2022
Sample size: 1,015
(Watching the French coverage, I'm quite surprised how hard they are all chasing the endorsements of previous Presidents - eg Sarkozy - who have jail sentences for criminal activities committed whilst leading politicians. In his case related to campaign finance.)
While to beat Macron Le Pen needs to win over most Melenchon voters.
Those will be the key swing voters in the runoff, assuming Macron and Le Pen win almost all their first round voters again and the vast majority of Socialist and Green voters switch to Macron and most Zemmour voters switch to Le Pen1 -
They are shown up as greedy grasping unprincipled Tories , devoid of morals and milk of human kindness. When will they be putting children back up chimneys , telling the plebs to put another coat on or telling them to eat cake.MoonRabbit said:
And taxed in India, so it’s not like it’s gone untaxed.Applicant said:
Why should the UK Treasury expect to receive tax on money earned in India by an Indian citizen?malcolmg said:
It is indefensible David, a tax dodge for the rich, nothing less. No morals, no principles , just greedy.DavidL said:
On the contrary, Sunak has come into politics rather than make tens of millions in the private sector which he easily could have done. Some may think that this is ego, some that it is a desire to give public service but either way he sure as hell didn't do it for the money.malcolmg said:
David, you show how real Tories think , me me me , F the plebs. Given they will never be able to spend their dosh in many lifetimes and knowing how bad it would look if the COE's wife was tax avoiding , they are still so greedy they couldn't bring themselves to pay a bit of extra tax for a few years. They prefer to lie and pretend she does not reside in the UK because she wants to be buried in India. Great morals and fantastic judgement, cafring sharing Tories.DavidL said:I am clearly in a small minority in finding this attack on Sunak based upon his wife's tax affairs completely wrong and frankly a bit ridiculous. So be it. We clearly want a government of people who have done nothing but sip at the public purse, who are financially dependent upon their office and are cravenly obedient as a result.
The tax affairs of very rich people are always going to be complicated and Mrs Sunak does not hold and has not sought any public office. It remains a completely absurd basis to undermine someone who has.
As I made clear at the time I thought Rishi's latest financial statement was disastrous. He is open to a range of criticisms for what he did and what he failed to do, especially the latter, and all of that is fair enough. But this wife stuff? Not for me.
The tax his wife has legally avoided comes from her very substantial holding in an IT company based in India which makes its profits there and trades there. It is part of an even larger holding that her family hold in that business. What right has the UK taxpayer to this money, exactly? It is not invested here, it is not made here and it is not paid here.
She pays tax on all of the money she makes in the UK which is again considerable. You could argue that as someone now resident here, if not domiciled, that we are entitled to a cut of all her earnings world wide but you can equally argue the reverse and she has complied with the rules. If her residence continues for 15 years she will have to pay that tax on that Indian income but at the moment it is taxed in India where it should be.
It’s disgusting of the Labour Party to go after politicians in this way, through targeted family members. Not even the Peaky Blinders went that bad. There has to be a value code not to cross or else our politics will be anarchy that lives in gutter.
No law has been broken, so the right thing for Labour is propose a law change, if public agree and elect you then change the law.
Smearing your opponents through their family members, whatever you use be it finance, sexual orientation, etc is wrong.
And it is Labour doing this, not Tories, because there is Starmer on the news smearing Sunak’s wife.
Heartless, thick wrong uns.0 -
Mike Smithson
@MSmithsonPB
·
45m
We have crossover in the next CON leader betting.Liz Truss edges into the favourite slot.
@betdatapolitics
https://twitter.com/MSmithsonPB/status/15123462501123768322 -
It is just a con for the rich to avoid tax.Leon said:
No it doesn’t mean thatClippP said:
But being non-dom means that Mrs Sunak has to spend more than half her time out of the UK. Not sure that I would be a happy bunny if my wife were with me only half the time.Northern_Al said:
I think the issue here is not really the tax arrangements, but the non-domicile status. If my other half was Chancellor, and wanted to be PM, even if I was born elsewhere I'd want to demonstrate my commitment to the UK as a permanent resident. I wouldn't, every year, reassure HRMC that my permanent residence was in fact in the country of my birth rather than the UK. It would seem odd, don't you think, not to demonstrate that I share my other half's ambitions for this country by committing to it? Why on earth would I do that?DavidL said:
On the contrary, Sunak has come into politics rather than make tens of millions in the private sector which he easily could have done. Some may think that this is ego, some that it is a desire to give public service but either way he sure as hell didn't do it for the money.malcolmg said:
David, you show how real Tories think , me me me , F the plebs. Given they will never be able to spend their dosh in many lifetimes and knowing how bad it would look if the COE's wife was tax avoiding , they are still so greedy they couldn't bring themselves to pay a bit of extra tax for a few years. They prefer to lie and pretend she does not reside in the UK because she wants to be buried in India. Great morals and fantastic judgement, cafring sharing Tories.DavidL said:I am clearly in a small minority in finding this attack on Sunak based upon his wife's tax affairs completely wrong and frankly a bit ridiculous. So be it. We clearly want a government of people who have done nothing but sip at the public purse, who are financially dependent upon their office and are cravenly obedient as a result.
The tax affairs of very rich people are always going to be complicated and Mrs Sunak does not hold and has not sought any public office. It remains a completely absurd basis to undermine someone who has.
As I made clear at the time I thought Rishi's latest financial statement was disastrous. He is open to a range of criticisms for what he did and what he failed to do, especially the latter, and all of that is fair enough. But this wife stuff? Not for me.
The tax his wife has legally avoided comes from her very substantial holding in an IT company based in India which makes its profits there and trades there. It is part of an even larger holding that her family hold in that business. What right has the UK taxpayer to this money, exactly? It is not invested here, it is not made here and it is not paid here.
She pays tax on all of the money she makes in the UK which is again considerable. You could argue that as someone now resident here, if not domiciled, that we are entitled to a cut of all her earnings world wide but you can equally argue the reverse and she has complied with the rules. If her residence continues for 15 years she will have to pay that tax on that Indian income but at the moment it is taxed in India where it should be.0 -
No leadership election any time soon now I guess.
0 -
Well said , in one word GREED.Leon said:
It’s not a smear. It is simply the case. The facts have been revealedMoonRabbit said:
And taxed in India, so it’s not like it’s gone untaxed.Applicant said:
Why should the UK Treasury expect to receive tax on money earned in India by an Indian citizen?malcolmg said:
It is indefensible David, a tax dodge for the rich, nothing less. No morals, no principles , just greedy.DavidL said:
On the contrary, Sunak has come into politics rather than make tens of millions in the private sector which he easily could have done. Some may think that this is ego, some that it is a desire to give public service but either way he sure as hell didn't do it for the money.malcolmg said:
David, you show how real Tories think , me me me , F the plebs. Given they will never be able to spend their dosh in many lifetimes and knowing how bad it would look if the COE's wife was tax avoiding , they are still so greedy they couldn't bring themselves to pay a bit of extra tax for a few years. They prefer to lie and pretend she does not reside in the UK because she wants to be buried in India. Great morals and fantastic judgement, cafring sharing Tories.DavidL said:I am clearly in a small minority in finding this attack on Sunak based upon his wife's tax affairs completely wrong and frankly a bit ridiculous. So be it. We clearly want a government of people who have done nothing but sip at the public purse, who are financially dependent upon their office and are cravenly obedient as a result.
The tax affairs of very rich people are always going to be complicated and Mrs Sunak does not hold and has not sought any public office. It remains a completely absurd basis to undermine someone who has.
As I made clear at the time I thought Rishi's latest financial statement was disastrous. He is open to a range of criticisms for what he did and what he failed to do, especially the latter, and all of that is fair enough. But this wife stuff? Not for me.
The tax his wife has legally avoided comes from her very substantial holding in an IT company based in India which makes its profits there and trades there. It is part of an even larger holding that her family hold in that business. What right has the UK taxpayer to this money, exactly? It is not invested here, it is not made here and it is not paid here.
She pays tax on all of the money she makes in the UK which is again considerable. You could argue that as someone now resident here, if not domiciled, that we are entitled to a cut of all her earnings world wide but you can equally argue the reverse and she has complied with the rules. If her residence continues for 15 years she will have to pay that tax on that Indian income but at the moment it is taxed in India where it should be.
It’s disgusting of the Labour Party to go after politicians in this way, through targeted family members. Not even the Peaky Blinders went that bad. There has to be a value code not to cross or else our politics will be anarchy that lives in gutter.
No law has been broken, so the right thing for Labour is propose a law change, if public agree and elect you then change the law.
Smearing your opponents through their family members, whatever you use be it finance, sexual orientation, etc is wrong.
And it is Labour doing this, not Tories, because there is Starmer on the news smearing Sunak’s wife.
And they look awful for a chancellor who is taxing the poor as he benefits from a controversial loophole which allows his wife to earn £:11, MILLION a year and not pay UK tax on any of it
Jesus. Why didn’t she just renounce her non Dom status when Sunak became chancellor? The poor lamb would be a few million quid poorer. Oh well. She’s still got £700 million left. And he could have gone on to be PM
Instead they greedily kept all the money and now his career is fucked. Zero sympathy0 -
Worse than that.HYUFD said:
Had she gone for EEA and free movement however, she would have seen a surge to Farage and UKIP and lasted even less time as Tory leader than she didLeon said:
It was catastrophicApplicant said:
There was a germ of a reasonable idea in there - stated in the most cack-handed and ill-considered way by someone who thought she understood people not like her.Leon said:
No, it was pointlessly and gratuitously insulting to a lot of people who like to this they are “internationalist” at a time when the country needed healing and concord over Brexit. She also alienated the EU even furtherStillWaters said:
She was making an important point but was howled down by people determined to take offence because they wanted a cheap nanny from RomaniaMalmesbury said:
Why am I hearing this, echoing in my head?Benpointer said:
There should be No Representation Without Taxation!CarlottaVance said:
Yes. Domicile and Residence are different things.Jim_Miller said:As a non-dom, can Mrs. Rishi vote for Mr. Rishi?
"If you believe you are a citizen of the world, you are a citizen of nowhere. You don't understand what citizenship means."
She was taking to task the rootless managers of British businesses who behaved "as though they have more in common with international elites than with the people down the road".
What did she gain by sounding like Farage? I’m a soft Leaver and I like to occasionally feel like a citizen of the world. She pissed me off so god knows what she did to Remainers
That whole speech was the beginning of the Brexit clusterfuckettyfuck
In other words, typical Theresa May.
Imagine if she’d gone the opposite way. Said “we will Brexit but we will not forget that 48% of the country voted Remain and they will also be respected. We want a strong and close association with the EU, our beloved friends and neighbours. This is a time to come together as a country and find a Brexit that can work for as many people as possible, knowing that the country is badly divided”. Blah blah blah
Lots of stuff like that. No stupid red lines boxing herself in. No triggering of A50 til we had some sense of how we were going to do all this
A totally different trajectory. A much better outcome. So much less bitterness
The ERG went batso about the Chequers plan- betrayal, vassaldom, that sort of thing. Had May gone softer than that, there's no way she would have survived. Especially with the spectre of BoJo brooding over her.
There's a legit desire for the UK to have a Common Market with the EU, without being in the EU. Personally, I don't think it works long-term, because the other 27 generally want closer union faster, and the end point is then 1 orbiting 27 rather than 1 in 28. But that's an argument for the past, and maybe for the future, not for now.
Once the UK voted the way it did, the only ways to get the autonomy we apparently voted for were either roughly what we've ended up with, the EU changing its market rules to suit us (why should they?) or magic.4 -
This reminds me of the argument that Mr Meeks used to make about losers' consent. That speech, reinforced by several other things she did, trashed any opportunity for creating any sort of consensus or compromise over Brexit.Leon said:
That may be true. But that speech was totally the wrong time to say anything like that.StillWaters said:
It was poorly expressed.Leon said:
No, it was pointlessly and gratuitously insulting to a lot of people who like to this they are “internationalist” at a time when the country needed healing and concord over Brexit. She also alienated the EU even furtherStillWaters said:
She was making an important point but was howled down by people determined to take offence because they wanted a cheap nanny from RomaniaMalmesbury said:
Why am I hearing this, echoing in my head?Benpointer said:
There should be No Representation Without Taxation!CarlottaVance said:
Yes. Domicile and Residence are different things.Jim_Miller said:As a non-dom, can Mrs. Rishi vote for Mr. Rishi?
"If you believe you are a citizen of the world, you are a citizen of nowhere. You don't understand what citizenship means."
She was taking to task the rootless managers of British businesses who behaved "as though they have more in common with international elites than with the people down the road".
What did she gain by sounding like Farage? I’m a soft Leaver and I like to occasionally feel like a citizen of the world. She pissed me off so god knows what she did to Remainers
That whole speech was the beginning of the Brexit clusterfuckettyfuck
But there is a group of people who float around the world (sometimes literally) paying minimal tax and free riding off countries without making a contribution to the local community
That behaviour is not meritorious
That speech needed to be conciliatory and kind, consensual and open. Everyone was watching
It was one of the most misjudged speeches in recent british political history2 -
Cameron referred to the turnip Taliban when he was getting pushback from local parties in that region for his A list candidates.OldKingCole said:
It was a rather unkind joke on two counts, as Benny, the Crossroads character wasn't the sharpest knife in the box. It was however similar remarks which are made about anywhere with small, and potentially inbred, population.HYUFD said:
It was a post that disrespected the people of the Falklands, even though at least it might have been a joke on your side.kjh said:
Pillock. You referred to them as unsophisticated so I told the story about what the soldiers called the islanders which I was aware of because I knew some of the soldiers and I thought posters here might enjoy the story.HYUFD said:
Given kjh's sneers at the Falkland Islanders intellect in the previous thread, it was well deserved!Nigelb said:
You often show that you completely misunderstand posts. I was making no point whatsoever. It was just a funny story. Get a life.
For others in the liberal elite like Sir Simon Jenkins, not only do they genuinely think of the islanders as simpletons they also want to give the islands back to Argentina which I accept you don't
Contrast and compare Norfolk, especially NW Norfolk, 'jokes"'
It’s unpleasant.1 -
May want to check this. I think the numbers are swapped. ie Le Pen is 47%Leon said:France, BVA poll. 2nd round
Le Pen (RN-ID): 53.5% (+7)
Macron (EC-RE): 46.5% (-6)
…
+/- vs. 30 - 31 March
Fieldwork: 1 April 2022
Sample size: 1,015
https://presidentielle2022.bva-group.com/intentions-vote/intentions-de-vote-vague13-macron-lepen-participation/
See section Second round: the gap closes
0
This discussion has been closed.