My Sunak 2022 exit bet is looking better – politicalbetting.com

Theuniondivvie said:

TOPPING said:

1. She is a non-Dom which is a perfectly legitimate category but which arouses some suspicion of tax dodging/one rule for them.
2. She is very, very wealthy.
3. She is married to the CotE.
4. Does she owe tax in the UK according to the law? It's complicated.
5. Is she legitmately a "non-Dom"? See Pt.1.

If you put all those factors into a bowl and stir you come to the conclusion that it was a hugely idiotic move politically by Sunak to do anything other than have himself and his family pay as much tax as possible as might ever be suggested by the tax authorities.

Complicated dividend payments held offshore? Nope. Non-dom status for your spouse? Nope. Even ISAs could be used against you, so ISAs? Nope.

It was a political blunder.

The really, really stoopid thing is that Rishi could have turned it into a positive: I publicly renounce capitalism and all its works (for a defined period while keeping all that lovely capital) just so I can serve our wonderful country.

Amateur hour.

Carnyx said:

MattW said:

StillWaters said:

MattW said:

FF43 said:

JosiasJessop said:

FF43 said:

..

JosiasJessop said:

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.

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.

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).

Has Johnson done well in dealing with these shocks?

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

"On Covid he did well on vaccines, very badly on everything else; overall mediocre compared with West European peers. Mixed bag"

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.

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.

I think you have missed a few things out on both sides.

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.

Catalent is a very good operator though.

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 future

They may be a good operator, but for me this needs to be about a national resource, and does not belong in the commercial sector as a subunit of a multinational.

The organisation had the potential to further develop the non-profit strategy of AZ during the pandemic, and encourage the development of local vaccine industries worldwide - which is one of the great things done during the pandemic. Compare with the strategy of the large majority of advanced countries who have tried to land-grab for their local industries.

It would be best positioned either in the commerce-related part of academe, as a Govt-owned laboratory funded as part of science and also overseas development, or perhaps owned by an organisation such as the Wellcome Trust.

Those important possibilities have now been snuffed out for a bit of cash.

Absolutely right. An appropriatde model might be the Royal Ordnance Factories of the 1930s onwards. Some were kept on postwar in state ownership for obvious reasons of ensuring a production basis for future wars.

Foxy said:

It is being investigated by the Ukranian military, unlike the transparent lies of the Russians. Understandable anger, but a war crime if true.

DecrepiterJohnL said:

rottenborough said:

No leadership election any time soon now I guess.

Why not? Boris might have miscalculated by castrating the Chancellor, because it will encourage all those who want rid of Boris but who did not want Rishi either.

A leadership election now might be the best opportunity for the various second-tier candidates like Hunt, Mordaunt, Wallace and anyone else who fancies a go. They gain nothing from waiting for a new heir apparent to rock up, because it almost certainly won't be them.

Dura_Ace said:

Foxy said:

It is being investigated by the Ukranian military, unlike the transparent lies of the Russians. Understandable anger, but a war crime if true.

Yeah, I'm sure they're investigating super very hard.

PoWs have to be transported, fed, housed and secured. Some of the time that isn't possible so the choice is let them go or waste them.

Malmesbury said:

Theuniondivvie said:

TOPPING said:

1. She is a non-Dom which is a perfectly legitimate category but which arouses some suspicion of tax dodging/one rule for them.
2. She is very, very wealthy.
3. She is married to the CotE.
4. Does she owe tax in the UK according to the law? It's complicated.
5. Is she legitmately a "non-Dom"? See Pt.1.

If you put all those factors into a bowl and stir you come to the conclusion that it was a hugely idiotic move politically by Sunak to do anything other than have himself and his family pay as much tax as possible as might ever be suggested by the tax authorities.

Complicated dividend payments held offshore? Nope. Non-dom status for your spouse? Nope. Even ISAs could be used against you, so ISAs? Nope.

It was a political blunder.

The really, really stoopid thing is that Rishi could have turned it into a positive: I publicly renounce capitalism and all its works (for a defined period while keeping all that lovely capital) just so I can serve our wonderful country.

Amateur hour.

Particularly after the example set by Boris Johnson - he arranged to pay full PAYE tax on his earning from the Telegraph column. Before the expenses scandal broke.

He didn't announce it, either. Just waited until Ken Livingstone walked into the elephant trap he had dug.

Cost BJ something like high 6 figures in extra tax over the years, probably.

Malmesbury said:

Theuniondivvie said:

TOPPING said:

1. She is a non-Dom which is a perfectly legitimate category but which arouses some suspicion of tax dodging/one rule for them.
2. She is very, very wealthy.
3. She is married to the CotE.
4. Does she owe tax in the UK according to the law? It's complicated.
5. Is she legitmately a "non-Dom"? See Pt.1.

If you put all those factors into a bowl and stir you come to the conclusion that it was a hugely idiotic move politically by Sunak to do anything other than have himself and his family pay as much tax as possible as might ever be suggested by the tax authorities.

Complicated dividend payments held offshore? Nope. Non-dom status for your spouse? Nope. Even ISAs could be used against you, so ISAs? Nope.

It was a political blunder.

The really, really stoopid thing is that Rishi could have turned it into a positive: I publicly renounce capitalism and all its works (for a defined period while keeping all that lovely capital) just so I can serve our wonderful country.

Amateur hour.

Particularly after the example set by Boris Johnson - he arranged to pay full PAYE tax on his earning from the Telegraph column. Before the expenses scandal broke.

He didn't announce it, either. Just waited until Ken Livingstone walked into the elephant trap he had dug.

Cost BJ something like high 6 figures in extra tax over the years, probably.

Dura_Ace said:

Foxy said:

It is being investigated by the Ukranian military, unlike the transparent lies of the Russians. Understandable anger, but a war crime if true.

Yeah, I'm sure they're investigating super very hard.

PoWs have to be transported, fed, housed and secured. Some of the time that isn't possible so the choice is let them go or waste them.

DecrepiterJohnL said:

rottenborough said:

No leadership election any time soon now I guess.

Why not? Boris might have miscalculated by castrating the Chancellor, because it will encourage all those who want rid of Boris but who did not want Rishi either.

A leadership election now might be the best opportunity for the various second-tier candidates like Hunt, Mordaunt, Wallace and anyone else who fancies a go. They gain nothing from waiting for a new heir apparent to rock up, because it almost certainly won't be them.

Carnyx said:

Malmesbury said:

Theuniondivvie said:

TOPPING said:

1. She is a non-Dom which is a perfectly legitimate category but which arouses some suspicion of tax dodging/one rule for them.
2. She is very, very wealthy.
3. She is married to the CotE.
4. Does she owe tax in the UK according to the law? It's complicated.
5. Is she legitmately a "non-Dom"? See Pt.1.

If you put all those factors into a bowl and stir you come to the conclusion that it was a hugely idiotic move politically by Sunak to do anything other than have himself and his family pay as much tax as possible as might ever be suggested by the tax authorities.

Complicated dividend payments held offshore? Nope. Non-dom status for your spouse? Nope. Even ISAs could be used against you, so ISAs? Nope.

It was a political blunder.

The really, really stoopid thing is that Rishi could have turned it into a positive: I publicly renounce capitalism and all its works (for a defined period while keeping all that lovely capital) just so I can serve our wonderful country.

Amateur hour.

Particularly after the example set by Boris Johnson - he arranged to pay full PAYE tax on his earning from the Telegraph column. Before the expenses scandal broke.

He didn't announce it, either. Just waited until Ken Livingstone walked into the elephant trap he had dug.

Cost BJ something like high 6 figures in extra tax over the years, probably.

That implies he was organised enough in the first place. Butd he certainly took advantage of it.

IshmaelZ said:

Twitter is *very* excited over green card. Sunak retained his for a year while a Treasury minister

I think this could tip him into resigning rather than hanging on in office but not in power

Carnyx said:

MattW said:

Carnyx said:

MattW said:

StillWaters said:

MattW said:

FF43 said:

JosiasJessop said:

FF43 said:

..

JosiasJessop said:

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.

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.

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).

Has Johnson done well in dealing with these shocks?

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

"On Covid he did well on vaccines, very badly on everything else; overall mediocre compared with West European peers. Mixed bag"

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.

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.

I think you have missed a few things out on both sides.

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.

Catalent is a very good operator though.

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 future

They may be a good operator, but for me this needs to be about a national resource, and does not belong in the commercial sector as a subunit of a multinational.

The organisation had the potential to further develop the non-profit strategy of AZ during the pandemic, and encourage the development of local vaccine industries worldwide - which is one of the great things done during the pandemic. Compare with the strategy of the large majority of advanced countries who have tried to land-grab for their local industries.

It would be best positioned either in the commerce-related part of academe, as a Govt-owned laboratory funded as part of science and also overseas development, or perhaps owned by an organisation such as the Wellcome Trust.

Those important possibilities have now been snuffed out for a bit of cash.

Absolutely right. An appropriatde model might be the Royal Ordnance Factories of the 1930s onwards. Some were kept on postwar in state ownership for obvious reasons of ensuring a production basis for future wars.

I'd add that imo this is a necessary part of rebuilding networks after Brexit, and an important part (borrowing Macron's line) of UK strategic autonomy. I'd make a similar point about offshore wind - we are streets ahead of anyone else on implementation amongst developed countries except Denmark and possibly Germany. That should be an industry we are driving internationally as both goods and services.

But Government BOJO have not imo realised that we now need more than quite such pure free market beliefs.

And it is not helped by BJ not being able to see more than 9cos(45) inches in front of his pelvis.

Now that is an interesting pair of points (the first para I mean: the second is not new). I actually wonder how much reception oru free market PBers would get here now if they asserted that UK farmers should go to the wall and we shoudl import all our food more cheaply [sic] frrom e.g. Australia?

IshmaelZ said:

Twitter is *very* excited over green card. Sunak retained his for a year while a Treasury minister

I think this could tip him into resigning rather than hanging on in office but not in power

Malmesbury said:

Carnyx said:

Malmesbury said:

Theuniondivvie said:

TOPPING said:

1. She is a non-Dom which is a perfectly legitimate category but which arouses some suspicion of tax dodging/one rule for them.
2. She is very, very wealthy.
3. She is married to the CotE.
4. Does she owe tax in the UK according to the law? It's complicated.
5. Is she legitmately a "non-Dom"? See Pt.1.

If you put all those factors into a bowl and stir you come to the conclusion that it was a hugely idiotic move politically by Sunak to do anything other than have himself and his family pay as much tax as possible as might ever be suggested by the tax authorities.

Complicated dividend payments held offshore? Nope. Non-dom status for your spouse? Nope. Even ISAs could be used against you, so ISAs? Nope.

It was a political blunder.

The really, really stoopid thing is that Rishi could have turned it into a positive: I publicly renounce capitalism and all its works (for a defined period while keeping all that lovely capital) just so I can serve our wonderful country.

Amateur hour.

Particularly after the example set by Boris Johnson - he arranged to pay full PAYE tax on his earning from the Telegraph column. Before the expenses scandal broke.

He didn't announce it, either. Just waited until Ken Livingstone walked into the elephant trap he had dug.

Cost BJ something like high 6 figures in extra tax over the years, probably.

That implies he was organised enough in the first place. Butd he certainly took advantage of it.

When writing for papers like that, everyone else in politics used a personal company, dividends, pay yourself minimum wage etc etc. Ken Livingstone did.

This is why Ken Livingstone went on the attack with it, without checking the facts.

To pay the extra tax like that took a special arrangement and a deliberate instruction to whoever did the taxes for Boris Johnson. Unless you think that BJ did his taxes himself, rather than using an accountant.

Leon said:

Also, where’s this law that prevents us criticising Mrs Sunak? Is there legislation about this?

She may be a private citizen but that doesn’t mean she is somehow sacred and immune. Private citizens get criticised all the time.

Sunak is a fool. His wife is exceptionally avaricious

Dura_Ace said:

Foxy said:

It is being investigated by the Ukranian military, unlike the transparent lies of the Russians. Understandable anger, but a war crime if true.

Yeah, I'm sure they're investigating super very hard.

PoWs have to be transported, fed, housed and secured. Some of the time that isn't possible so the choice is let them go or waste them.

tlg86 said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

tlg86 said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

TOPPING said:

1. She is a non-Dom which is a perfectly legitimate category but which arouses some suspicion of tax dodging/one rule for them.
2. She is very, very wealthy.
3. She is married to the CotE.
4. Does she owe tax in the UK according to the law? It's complicated.
5. Is she legitmately a "non-Dom"? See Pt.1.

If you put all those factors into a bowl and stir you come to the conclusion that it was a hugely idiotic move politically by Sunak to do anything other than have himself and his family pay as much tax as possible as might ever be suggested by the tax authorities.

Complicated dividend payments held offshore? Nope. Non-dom status for your spouse? Nope. Even ISAs could be used against you, so ISAs? Nope.

It was a political blunder.

Yes, exactly. His wife is blameless, provided her claim to non-dom status stands up, but Rishi is toast. It's over (in fact, it probably already was anyway).

It's not even just the tax aspect, although as we're seeing that's not going down well. It's also the question about his long-term commitment to the UK.

Apologies if you did answer this last night, but do you think it was wrong to have Mark Carney as governor of the Bank of England?

No, it wasn't wrong. He was hired for a specific term (later extended), for his expertise, and around the world it's not actually that uncommon for foreign citizens to be appointed to such posts. There was never any suggestion that he was moving here permanently. That's not the same as a politician seeking to become PM, and voters won't see it as the same.

I disagree. People can have allegiances to more than one country. It really wouldn't bother me if he followed his wife to India in 10 years time or whatever (or if, more importantly, he refused to rule out moving there in the future).

Fairliered said:

MattW said:

MoonRabbit said:

Can you catch covid from farts?

Been there; done that.

TL:DR - the other person wearing pants/panties helps you not catch it.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7716952/

A recent study has also suggested post-flush toilet plume to be a potential route of transmission through ‘aerosolized feces’. Another aspect of probable transmission could be through flatulence by infected patients, although no such published data has been found. But, according to several existing investigations, farts do have the tendency to carry micro-particles which have the capacity to spread bacteria (55). However, additional research is still warranted to estimate the intensity of such infections; presence of undergarments/ clothing would however, lower the risk of transmission through this passage. The same was claimed by the Chinese Centres of Disease Control and Prevention that pants do act as a hindrance in the transmission of disease via flatulence that contains the SARS-CoV-2 virus (56).

That explains the high covid levels in Scotland. Kilts!

Sandpit said:

Malmesbury said:

Carnyx said:

Malmesbury said:

Theuniondivvie said:

TOPPING said:

1. She is a non-Dom which is a perfectly legitimate category but which arouses some suspicion of tax dodging/one rule for them.
2. She is very, very wealthy.
3. She is married to the CotE.
4. Does she owe tax in the UK according to the law? It's complicated.
5. Is she legitmately a "non-Dom"? See Pt.1.

If you put all those factors into a bowl and stir you come to the conclusion that it was a hugely idiotic move politically by Sunak to do anything other than have himself and his family pay as much tax as possible as might ever be suggested by the tax authorities.

Complicated dividend payments held offshore? Nope. Non-dom status for your spouse? Nope. Even ISAs could be used against you, so ISAs? Nope.

It was a political blunder.

The really, really stoopid thing is that Rishi could have turned it into a positive: I publicly renounce capitalism and all its works (for a defined period while keeping all that lovely capital) just so I can serve our wonderful country.

Amateur hour.

Particularly after the example set by Boris Johnson - he arranged to pay full PAYE tax on his earning from the Telegraph column. Before the expenses scandal broke.

He didn't announce it, either. Just waited until Ken Livingstone walked into the elephant trap he had dug.

Cost BJ something like high 6 figures in extra tax over the years, probably.

That implies he was organised enough in the first place. Butd he certainly took advantage of it.

When writing for papers like that, everyone else in politics used a personal company, dividends, pay yourself minimum wage etc etc. Ken Livingstone did.

This is why Ken Livingstone went on the attack with it, without checking the facts.

To pay the extra tax like that took a special arrangement and a deliberate instruction to whoever did the taxes for Boris Johnson. Unless you think that BJ did his taxes himself, rather than using an accountant.

It’s the other way around IMHO.

The Telegraph asked him who to make the cheque out to, and he said he didn’t have a company so just make it to Boris Johnson. Then, at the end of the year his accountant looked up the payments and paid the tax bill on it - one hour of the accountant’s time.

Actually setting up and running a company, with quarterly returns, payroll, VAT etc is way more complicated, and required deliberate actions.

IshmaelZ said:

boulay said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

rottenborough said:

No leadership election any time soon now I guess.

Why not? Boris might have miscalculated by castrating the Chancellor, because it will encourage all those who want rid of Boris but who did not want Rishi either.

A leadership election now might be the best opportunity for the various second-tier candidates like Hunt, Mordaunt, Wallace and anyone else who fancies a go. They gain nothing from waiting for a new heir apparent to rock up, because it almost certainly won't be them.

It also potentially backfires on Tories who might be in the cabinet or fringes who could be stoking anti-Sunak attitudes for a while - say there was someone like this who believed that they could/should be chancellor or another office of great state.

They think that the Sunak story clears him away however what has also happened is that it’s surely impossible now for any politician to reach senior rank if they or their partner are using a legal means of managing their tax affairs where it could be perceived that if they didn’t use, for example, an offshore structure to hold a major asset or benefit from offshoring of business, then the UK exchequer would be receiving more tax if it was instead domiciled in the UK.

I can live with that

Pulpstar said:

Foxy said:

Theuniondivvie said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Carnyx said:

OldKingCole said:

Good morning everybody.
I wasn't sure that there was much new to say about the Falklands, but there was an interesting programme on ITV last night about the Royal Marine garrison on the islands who, completely outnumbered and outgunned, were accused by the 'popular press' of not fighting hard enough.
They were in an even worse position than the defenders of Hong Kong in 1941 but fortunately didn't face such a ruthless enemy.

Quite.A few score booties (more than usual because of a changeover, but with some detached to S Georgia) plus some sailors and Falklands territorials versus a force of over 20 Amtracs and plenty of Agrentinians.

As my ex-para mate put it, the crack Argentine invaders and Royal Marines shot at each other for two hours with no casualties on either side.

Honour satisfied on both sides, the best outcome. I’d guess most battlefield massacres/shooting of prisoners (most of which never reach the public eye) happen after the captors have suffered high casualties beforehand.

It does seem that the Georgian volunteers fighting for Ukraine shot some Russian Prisoners captured retreating from near Bucha.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/apr/07/video-appears-to-show-ukrainian-soldiers-shooting-russian-prisoners-of-war

It is being investigated by the Ukranian military, unlike the transparent lies of the Russians. Understandable anger, but a war crime if true.

Normally in a war different sides focus on the convienient for their cause and leave the inconvienient out - but BBC, Ukranian and Russian telegram all focussed on Kramatorsk this morning.

My current guess is a malfunction of a (Ukranian) Tochka-U.

Two definite facts.

i. Civilians have been killed.
ii. It's a Tochka-U

Perhaps it's a Russian Tochka ? You'd expect an Iksander normally from the Russians.
Russian launched Tochka to frame Ukraine maybe ?

williamglenn said:

@JamesShotter
French president Macron has attacked Poland's PM Morawiecki for comparing his talks with Putin to negotiating with Hitler:

"The Polish PM is a far-right anti-Semite, who bans LGBT people" he said, adding that Morawiecki wanted to help Le Pen pre-election

https://twitter.com/JamesShotter/status/1512361292585226244

williamglenn said:

@JamesShotter
French president Macron has attacked Poland's PM Morawiecki for comparing his talks with Putin to negotiating with Hitler:

"The Polish PM is a far-right anti-Semite, who bans LGBT people" he said, adding that Morawiecki wanted to help Le Pen pre-election

https://twitter.com/JamesShotter/status/1512361292585226244

kle4 said:

Leon said:

Also, where’s this law that prevents us criticising Mrs Sunak? Is there legislation about this?

She may be a private citizen but that doesn’t mean she is somehow sacred and immune. Private citizens get criticised all the time.

Sunak is a fool. His wife is exceptionally avaricious

I dont know about the last line, but he has made things much worse by getting uppity and outraged over this being looked into, when it can be legitimate to look into spousal interests. He and the government know that and the rules reflect that, so he looks shifty trying to deflect with outrage.

tlg86 said:

williamglenn said:

@JamesShotter
French president Macron has attacked Poland's PM Morawiecki for comparing his talks with Putin to negotiating with Hitler:

"The Polish PM is a far-right anti-Semite, who bans LGBT people" he said, adding that Morawiecki wanted to help Le Pen pre-election

https://twitter.com/JamesShotter/status/1512361292585226244

Blimey. Macron getting nervous?

Malmesbury said:

Sandpit said:

Malmesbury said:

Carnyx said:

Malmesbury said:

Theuniondivvie said:

TOPPING said:

1. She is a non-Dom which is a perfectly legitimate category but which arouses some suspicion of tax dodging/one rule for them.
2. She is very, very wealthy.
3. She is married to the CotE.
4. Does she owe tax in the UK according to the law? It's complicated.
5. Is she legitmately a "non-Dom"? See Pt.1.

If you put all those factors into a bowl and stir you come to the conclusion that it was a hugely idiotic move politically by Sunak to do anything other than have himself and his family pay as much tax as possible as might ever be suggested by the tax authorities.

Complicated dividend payments held offshore? Nope. Non-dom status for your spouse? Nope. Even ISAs could be used against you, so ISAs? Nope.

It was a political blunder.

The really, really stoopid thing is that Rishi could have turned it into a positive: I publicly renounce capitalism and all its works (for a defined period while keeping all that lovely capital) just so I can serve our wonderful country.

Amateur hour.

Particularly after the example set by Boris Johnson - he arranged to pay full PAYE tax on his earning from the Telegraph column. Before the expenses scandal broke.

He didn't announce it, either. Just waited until Ken Livingstone walked into the elephant trap he had dug.

Cost BJ something like high 6 figures in extra tax over the years, probably.

That implies he was organised enough in the first place. Butd he certainly took advantage of it.

When writing for papers like that, everyone else in politics used a personal company, dividends, pay yourself minimum wage etc etc. Ken Livingstone did.

This is why Ken Livingstone went on the attack with it, without checking the facts.

To pay the extra tax like that took a special arrangement and a deliberate instruction to whoever did the taxes for Boris Johnson. Unless you think that BJ did his taxes himself, rather than using an accountant.

It’s the other way around IMHO.

The Telegraph asked him who to make the cheque out to, and he said he didn’t have a company so just make it to Boris Johnson. Then, at the end of the year his accountant looked up the payments and paid the tax bill on it - one hour of the accountant’s time.

Actually setting up and running a company, with quarterly returns, payroll, VAT etc is way more complicated, and required deliberate actions.

IIRC Private Eye did an investigation - BJ had previously used a personal company, including for work with the Telegraph. But had switched before getting the big weekly column thing.

Malmesbury said:

Dura_Ace said:

Foxy said:

It is being investigated by the Ukranian military, unlike the transparent lies of the Russians. Understandable anger, but a war crime if true.

Yeah, I'm sure they're investigating super very hard.

PoWs have to be transported, fed, housed and secured. Some of the time that isn't possible so the choice is let them go or waste them.

My guess is that these guys will get nailed - even if it is just for politics.

Breaker Morant and all that.

OldKingCole said:

Carnyx said:

Malmesbury said:

Theuniondivvie said:

TOPPING said:

1. She is a non-Dom which is a perfectly legitimate category but which arouses some suspicion of tax dodging/one rule for them.
2. She is very, very wealthy.
3. She is married to the CotE.
4. Does she owe tax in the UK according to the law? It's complicated.
5. Is she legitmately a "non-Dom"? See Pt.1.

If you put all those factors into a bowl and stir you come to the conclusion that it was a hugely idiotic move politically by Sunak to do anything other than have himself and his family pay as much tax as possible as might ever be suggested by the tax authorities.

Complicated dividend payments held offshore? Nope. Non-dom status for your spouse? Nope. Even ISAs could be used against you, so ISAs? Nope.

It was a political blunder.

The really, really stoopid thing is that Rishi could have turned it into a positive: I publicly renounce capitalism and all its works (for a defined period while keeping all that lovely capital) just so I can serve our wonderful country.

Amateur hour.

Particularly after the example set by Boris Johnson - he arranged to pay full PAYE tax on his earning from the Telegraph column. Before the expenses scandal broke.

He didn't announce it, either. Just waited until Ken Livingstone walked into the elephant trap he had dug.

Cost BJ something like high 6 figures in extra tax over the years, probably.

That implies he was organised enough in the first place. Butd he certainly took advantage of it.

Did doing so affect the amount he had to pay however many ex-wives etc at that point?

kle4 said:

Leon said:

Also, where’s this law that prevents us criticising Mrs Sunak? Is there legislation about this?

She may be a private citizen but that doesn’t mean she is somehow sacred and immune. Private citizens get criticised all the time.

Sunak is a fool. His wife is exceptionally avaricious

I dont know about the last line, but he has made things much worse by getting uppity and outraged over this being looked into, when it can be legitimate to look into spousal interests. He and the government know that and the rules reflect that, so he looks shifty trying to deflect with outrage.

kle4 said:

OldKingCole said:

kle4 said:

Leon said:

Also, where’s this law that prevents us criticising Mrs Sunak? Is there legislation about this?

She may be a private citizen but that doesn’t mean she is somehow sacred and immune. Private citizens get criticised all the time.

Sunak is a fool. His wife is exceptionally avaricious

I dont know about the last line, but he has made things much worse by getting uppity and outraged over this being looked into, when it can be legitimate to look into spousal interests. He and the government know that and the rules reflect that, so he looks shifty trying to deflect with outrage.

Well, you'd think after his neighbour got caught out over 'rules not applying to him'.....

No one ever thinks it'll happen to them. You'd think they'd all make sure they were whiter than white on these issues, but they miss great big bear traps all the time.

tlg86 said:

williamglenn said:

@JamesShotter
French president Macron has attacked Poland's PM Morawiecki for comparing his talks with Putin to negotiating with Hitler:

"The Polish PM is a far-right anti-Semite, who bans LGBT people" he said, adding that Morawiecki wanted to help Le Pen pre-election

https://twitter.com/JamesShotter/status/1512361292585226244

Blimey. Macron getting nervous?

Nigelb said:

Carnyx said:

MattW said:

Carnyx said:

MattW said:

StillWaters said:

MattW said:

FF43 said:

JosiasJessop said:

FF43 said:

..

JosiasJessop said:

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.

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.

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).

Has Johnson done well in dealing with these shocks?

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

"On Covid he did well on vaccines, very badly on everything else; overall mediocre compared with West European peers. Mixed bag"

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.

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.

I think you have missed a few things out on both sides.

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.

Catalent is a very good operator though.

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 future

They may be a good operator, but for me this needs to be about a national resource, and does not belong in the commercial sector as a subunit of a multinational.

The organisation had the potential to further develop the non-profit strategy of AZ during the pandemic, and encourage the development of local vaccine industries worldwide - which is one of the great things done during the pandemic. Compare with the strategy of the large majority of advanced countries who have tried to land-grab for their local industries.

It would be best positioned either in the commerce-related part of academe, as a Govt-owned laboratory funded as part of science and also overseas development, or perhaps owned by an organisation such as the Wellcome Trust.

Those important possibilities have now been snuffed out for a bit of cash.

Absolutely right. An appropriatde model might be the Royal Ordnance Factories of the 1930s onwards. Some were kept on postwar in state ownership for obvious reasons of ensuring a production basis for future wars.

I'd add that imo this is a necessary part of rebuilding networks after Brexit, and an important part (borrowing Macron's line) of UK strategic autonomy. I'd make a similar point about offshore wind - we are streets ahead of anyone else on implementation amongst developed countries except Denmark and possibly Germany. That should be an industry we are driving internationally as both goods and services.

But Government BOJO have not imo realised that we now need more than quite such pure free market beliefs.

And it is not helped by BJ not being able to see more than 9cos(45) inches in front of his pelvis.

Now that is an interesting pair of points (the first para I mean: the second is not new). I actually wonder how much reception oru free market PBers would get here now if they asserted that UK farmers should go to the wall and we shoudl import all our food more cheaply [sic] frrom e.g. Australia?

Some of them already have ?

IshmaelZ said:

IshmaelZ said:

Leon said:

IshmaelZ said:

Twitter is *very* excited over green card. Sunak retained his for a year while a Treasury minister

I think this could tip him into resigning rather than hanging on in office but not in power

Why is the green card thing so damaging, potentially?

Genuine Q. I have no idea of what obligations or problems might come with it

You have to state you intend to reside permanently in USA which makes Sunak's allegiance to UK look dodgy and makes Mrs S look like she must have been lying to at least one of UK and US

You pay all your tax (excluding PAYE I assume?) to USA whether you live there or not. No idea how this works in practice but I have a well off friend who is accidentally USA citizen (born there, doesn't go there any more than I do) who basically sets aside a full week per year getting her US tax return right.

On reflection this is probably bollocks. You def have to file a return with IRS if you are a US citizen and I think if you have a green card (which isn't citizenship) but I imagine if you live ouside US you pay taxes elsewhere and they sweep up what's left

rottenborough said:

ido vock
@idvck
·
41m
EXCLUSIVE: Macron on 51 per cent to Le Pen's 49 per cent in the second round of voting for the French president, new poll shows.


https://twitter.com/idvck/status/1512372475056775170

Carnyx said:

Malmesbury said:

Carnyx said:

Malmesbury said:

Theuniondivvie said:

TOPPING said:

1. She is a non-Dom which is a perfectly legitimate category but which arouses some suspicion of tax dodging/one rule for them.
2. She is very, very wealthy.
3. She is married to the CotE.
4. Does she owe tax in the UK according to the law? It's complicated.
5. Is she legitmately a "non-Dom"? See Pt.1.

If you put all those factors into a bowl and stir you come to the conclusion that it was a hugely idiotic move politically by Sunak to do anything other than have himself and his family pay as much tax as possible as might ever be suggested by the tax authorities.

Complicated dividend payments held offshore? Nope. Non-dom status for your spouse? Nope. Even ISAs could be used against you, so ISAs? Nope.

It was a political blunder.

The really, really stoopid thing is that Rishi could have turned it into a positive: I publicly renounce capitalism and all its works (for a defined period while keeping all that lovely capital) just so I can serve our wonderful country.

Amateur hour.

Particularly after the example set by Boris Johnson - he arranged to pay full PAYE tax on his earning from the Telegraph column. Before the expenses scandal broke.

He didn't announce it, either. Just waited until Ken Livingstone walked into the elephant trap he had dug.

Cost BJ something like high 6 figures in extra tax over the years, probably.

That implies he was organised enough in the first place. Butd he certainly took advantage of it.

When writing for papers like that, everyone else in politics used a personal company, dividends, pay yourself minimum wage etc etc. Ken Livingstone did.

This is why Ken Livingstone went on the attack with it, without checking the facts.

To pay the extra tax like that took a special arrangement and a deliberate instruction to whoever did the taxes for Boris Johnson. Unless you think that BJ did his taxes himself, rather than using an accountant.

EDIT: IIRC from the Private Eye investigation into all this, BJ was using a personal company before he got the big column thing from the Telegraph. He *switched over* to full PAYE style tax about 6 months before the expenses scandal came out, and years before the Mayoral election.

Hmm. The expenses scandal was the DT, wasn't it?

HYUFD said:

rottenborough said:

ido vock
@idvck
·
41m
EXCLUSIVE: Macron on 51 per cent to Le Pen's 49 per cent in the second round of voting for the French president, new poll shows.


https://twitter.com/idvck/status/1512372475056775170

Close. Melenchon voters now splitting almost equally between Macron and Le Pen of those who will vote in the runoff.

Macron gets 58% against Melenchon, 65% against Zemmour and 67% against Pecresse however.

noneoftheabove said:

Stuartinromford said:

Foxy said:

tlg86 said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

tlg86 said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

TOPPING said:

1. She is a non-Dom which is a perfectly legitimate category but which arouses some suspicion of tax dodging/one rule for them.
2. She is very, very wealthy.
3. She is married to the CotE.
4. Does she owe tax in the UK according to the law? It's complicated.
5. Is she legitmately a "non-Dom"? See Pt.1.

If you put all those factors into a bowl and stir you come to the conclusion that it was a hugely idiotic move politically by Sunak to do anything other than have himself and his family pay as much tax as possible as might ever be suggested by the tax authorities.

Complicated dividend payments held offshore? Nope. Non-dom status for your spouse? Nope. Even ISAs could be used against you, so ISAs? Nope.

It was a political blunder.

Yes, exactly. His wife is blameless, provided her claim to non-dom status stands up, but Rishi is toast. It's over (in fact, it probably already was anyway).

It's not even just the tax aspect, although as we're seeing that's not going down well. It's also the question about his long-term commitment to the UK.

Apologies if you did answer this last night, but do you think it was wrong to have Mark Carney as governor of the Bank of England?

No, it wasn't wrong. He was hired for a specific term (later extended), for his expertise, and around the world it's not actually that uncommon for foreign citizens to be appointed to such posts. There was never any suggestion that he was moving here permanently. That's not the same as a politician seeking to become PM, and voters won't see it as the same.

I disagree. People can have allegiances to more than one country. It really wouldn't bother me if he followed his wife to India in 10 years time or whatever (or if, more importantly, he refused to rule out moving there in the future).

I do think it shows the difference between the Brexiteer elite, like Sunak, who see it as a liberating freedom for their money to move around the world, taxed lightly if at all, and the culturally Conservative working class Brexiteers who want to protect a way of life. The discordant between these two can develop into quite a chasm, and the Tories need to choose a side.

Ultimately, they will need to choose a side.

But the recent success of the Conservative party has been underpinned by not choosing a side- you can call it cakeism, or the more respectable "and" theory of Conservatism (smugly contrasted with the way that humourless lefties expel anyone who departs from the orthodox path in any way).

As the good book says, a man cannot serve two masters.

They have chosen, the donor elite get liberated freedom and the hoi polloi get flags and trans protection.

Dura_Ace said:

dixiedean said:

Was musing on the Chancellor's PR bid for Number 10.
Then the builder's radio began to play "Common People".
And I need give it no more thought.
'Cos he'll never get it right.

She came from Stanford with a thirst for money.
She dodged her taxes until it wasn't funny.
That's where I
Caught her eye
She told me that her dad was loaded
I said well in that case I'm addicted to Coca Cola
And then in thirty seconds time
She said, I wanna live in California
I wanna do whatever Californians do

Richard_Nabavi said:

IshmaelZ said:

IshmaelZ said:

Leon said:

IshmaelZ said:

Twitter is *very* excited over green card. Sunak retained his for a year while a Treasury minister

I think this could tip him into resigning rather than hanging on in office but not in power

Why is the green card thing so damaging, potentially?

Genuine Q. I have no idea of what obligations or problems might come with it

You have to state you intend to reside permanently in USA which makes Sunak's allegiance to UK look dodgy and makes Mrs S look like she must have been lying to at least one of UK and US

You pay all your tax (excluding PAYE I assume?) to USA whether you live there or not. No idea how this works in practice but I have a well off friend who is accidentally USA citizen (born there, doesn't go there any more than I do) who basically sets aside a full week per year getting her US tax return right.

On reflection this is probably bollocks. You def have to file a return with IRS if you are a US citizen and I think if you have a green card (which isn't citizenship) but I imagine if you live ouside US you pay taxes elsewhere and they sweep up what's left

It would be covered by the double-taxation treaty, so you can offset your UK tax against any US tax. Basically you pay the higher of the two in any given category.

The problem of course is the administrative nightmare. US tax returns are horrendous!

Malmesbury said:

Carnyx said:

Malmesbury said:

Carnyx said:

Malmesbury said:

Theuniondivvie said:

TOPPING said:

1. She is a non-Dom which is a perfectly legitimate category but which arouses some suspicion of tax dodging/one rule for them.
2. She is very, very wealthy.
3. She is married to the CotE.
4. Does she owe tax in the UK according to the law? It's complicated.
5. Is she legitmately a "non-Dom"? See Pt.1.

If you put all those factors into a bowl and stir you come to the conclusion that it was a hugely idiotic move politically by Sunak to do anything other than have himself and his family pay as much tax as possible as might ever be suggested by the tax authorities.

Complicated dividend payments held offshore? Nope. Non-dom status for your spouse? Nope. Even ISAs could be used against you, so ISAs? Nope.

It was a political blunder.

The really, really stoopid thing is that Rishi could have turned it into a positive: I publicly renounce capitalism and all its works (for a defined period while keeping all that lovely capital) just so I can serve our wonderful country.

Amateur hour.

Particularly after the example set by Boris Johnson - he arranged to pay full PAYE tax on his earning from the Telegraph column. Before the expenses scandal broke.

He didn't announce it, either. Just waited until Ken Livingstone walked into the elephant trap he had dug.

Cost BJ something like high 6 figures in extra tax over the years, probably.

That implies he was organised enough in the first place. Butd he certainly took advantage of it.

When writing for papers like that, everyone else in politics used a personal company, dividends, pay yourself minimum wage etc etc. Ken Livingstone did.

This is why Ken Livingstone went on the attack with it, without checking the facts.

To pay the extra tax like that took a special arrangement and a deliberate instruction to whoever did the taxes for Boris Johnson. Unless you think that BJ did his taxes himself, rather than using an accountant.

EDIT: IIRC from the Private Eye investigation into all this, BJ was using a personal company before he got the big column thing from the Telegraph. He *switched over* to full PAYE style tax about 6 months before the expenses scandal came out, and years before the Mayoral election.

Hmm. The expenses scandal was the DT, wasn't it?

Printed in the DT - the Guardian wanted the right to "edit out" politicians it wanted to protect. The guy leaking the info demanded full disclosure.

The six months running up to the scandal, there had been various things about MPs expenses, and general financial behaviour. The expenses scandal was just about expenses, remember, not about earnings outside parliament.

All the other politicians stayed on the personal company setup - which is why they don't criticise people for using it. Unless they are desperate and bit stupid, like Ken.

MaxPB said:

williamglenn said:

@JamesShotter
French president Macron has attacked Poland's PM Morawiecki for comparing his talks with Putin to negotiating with Hitler:

"The Polish PM is a far-right anti-Semite, who bans LGBT people" he said, adding that Morawiecki wanted to help Le Pen pre-election

https://twitter.com/JamesShotter/status/1512361292585226244

The truth hurts, sometimes.

kle4 said:

williamglenn said:

Evidence emerges that undercover Lib Dem pie chart experts are working for Macron:



https://twitter.com/DatapraxisEU/status/1512370126401810432

It's not a real dodgy bar/pie chart unless it's so off it is showing the minority side as larger than the majority.

ping said:

Who the fuck do the Sunaks think they are?

They’re taking the piss out of the British people.

Just fuck off to whichever tax haven will have you. You have shown contempt for our country.

Piss off. Now.

TOPPING said:

ping said:

Who the fuck do the Sunaks think they are?

They’re taking the piss out of the British people.

Just fuck off to whichever tax haven will have you. You have shown contempt for our country.

Piss off. Now.

Who was it upthread who said that no one would bring up the "loyalty to the UK" thing.