Rishi Sunak and the Conservative Party.

[Lost property]

''We're on the up, so loosen the purse strings Mr Hunt!!'' as the Express was trumpeting with its usual acuity today

''We're on the up, so loosen the purse strings Mr Hunt!!'' as the Express was trumpeting with its usual acuity today

Ironically, and in a complete reversal to the Express's usual standard of lies / fantasies headlines, today they've launched a, warranted, attack on BG whose profits luckily rose from £70+m to a mere £750+m, not that this will be reflected in lower costs for the consumer.

It's even more ironic when Ofgem say the reason, in part, for increases is to pay of the debt incurred by failed suppliers.

They seem to conveniently forget, that, if they had bothered with "due diligence" when awarding supply contracts to "Fred Bloggs honest gas and lecky company" then the debts would not have been incurred when they folded in the first place.

 

[SteveP29]

Even marginally better is better.

This Square One the Tories keep going on about Labour taking us back to is a million times better than the current situation.

His point is that he already has the ministerial salary, so the mortgage increase is a real cost increase to him

Welcome to our monthly struggle Mr Freeman

Apologies for coming into this so late, your quotes are from page 222 @najaB & @SteveM70

 

[ainsworth74]

This Square One the Tories keep going on about Labour taking us back to is a million times better than the current situation.

Yes I'm not convinced it's a particularly powerful attack line to threaten us with going back to how things were in 2010

 

[birchesgreen]

Rishi in a video interview with the Telegraph said there wasn't a lot of enthusiasm for the Labour party. I got bad news for him about enthusiasm for his party.

 

[Gloster]

Rishi in a video interview with the Telegraph said there wasn't a lot of enthusiasm for the Labour Party.

There probably isn’t among the carefully selected groups that he is allowed to meet.

 

[JonathanH]

The Telegraph (reported by The Guardian at https://www.theguardian.com/politic...conservatives-results-uk-politics-live-friday) has reported that plans for a 2p cut in income tax or National Insurance have been dropped because they can no longer be afforded.

Good. There is no justification for a cut in tax income. It is essentially just a wrecking ball, being done so that when the next government is in power and needs to reverse the move they can score some political points.

An increase in personal allowance to take more of the lower paid out of tax would be a far better spend.

 

[jfollows]

An increase in personal allowance to take more of the lower paid out of tax would be a far better spend.

To be fair, they did previously increase this significantly, but now I agree that both this and the higher rate threshold need to be increased, and "fiscal drag" is pernicious. I paid 40% tax when I worked in 2008, but my salary then was something like £80,000 in today's terms, and having to pay 40% tax on 5/8 of this today seems wrong.
I spent a lot of time and effort in avoiding 40% tax, hence a good pension provision now, but once too many people get sucked into the 40% rate they'll lose the incentive I had.

 

[JonathanH]

To be fair, they did previously increase this significantly, but now I agree that both this and the higher rate threshold need to be increased, and "fiscal drag" is pernicious. I paid 40% tax when I worked in 2008, but my salary then was something like £80,000 in today's terms, and having to pay 40% tax on 5/8 of this today seems wrong.

Absolutely not. The personal allowance needs increasing at the bottom but ultimately more tax is needed by the exchequer and taking it from those who can afford it, by keeping the higher thresholds where they are, must be the right thing to do.

The upper National Insurance threshold and threshold for Higher Income Tax is effectively a switch from 30p to 42p for people in employment so it isn't that stark a switch.

Also, a lot of people have not had significant pay increases since 2008, other than in the last year or so, so the number getting caught by higher rate is not as high as inflation would suggest.

 

[Thirteen]

I wonder if the Election is still pencilled for November? I flipped past GB News and Tom Harwood was suggesting it could go to January 2025 which IMO would be an insane move.

 

[SteveP29]

I maintain: he should apologise. Not to do so makes this more of a story.

Of course he should, make the apology, story ends there and then, but no, they double down on it.
As with other things they've been caught lying with, they make up another lie and when that is exposed, another lie that is eventually uncovered replaces that.

If only in both situations, they just owned it, turned around and said 'yes, OK, I F**ked up, I apologise unreservedly' it goes away, as they saying goes, today's newspapers, tomorrows chip wrappers.
But they continue to do this and just as that dies down, another issue becomes apparent, is it not possible for them just to run the country instead of gaslighting us and starting culture wars to distract from their incompetence?

That's fine and a perfectly acceptable response.

The counter argument of course would be that were they not here the rates would not have been depressed.

Although ultimately of course someone will always take a role and people will always find an excuse for not taking one.

So you've just turned that back once again onto the immigrants, it's their fault whether they're here or not eh?

 

[Gloster]

I wonder if the Election is still pencilled for November? I flipped past GB News and Tom Harwood was suggesting it could go to January 2025 which IMO would be an insane move.

Not if you are desperate to hang on to power so that you can give out contracts to friends and cronies, stick a bit more money in your MPs pockets, fill every public appointment you have in your gift with friendly members of the ‘great and good’, etc. All bring you favours in exchange, but the last causes difficulties for your successors if you choose sufficiently unscrupulous characters. You are going to lose anyway, so you might as well salt the earth for your successor.

 

[jfollows]

Absolutely not. The personal allowance needs increasing at the bottom but ultimately more tax is needed by the exchequer and taking it from those who can afford it, by keeping the higher thresholds where they are, must be the right thing to do.

The upper National Insurance threshold and threshold for Higher Income Tax is effectively a switch from 30p to 42p for people in employment so it isn't that stark a switch.

Also, a lot of people have not had significant pay increases since 2008, other than in the last year or so, so the number getting caught by higher rate is not as high as inflation would suggest.

The problem is, and there's no easy solution, you've got to cater for the aspirational middle classes as well.
A number of years ago I applied for a promotion and got to go to an interview board for the job, which was a new job. The problem was that I worked out that the relatively small pay rise would be eaten up by a 40% marginal tax rate. So I didn't really want the job, since it would have involved a lot more work as well. I'm happy to say I didn't get it, but at least I was observed to have "wanted" it.
The base personal allowance in 2008 was £6,035, or something like £9,300 in today's money, which is a lot less than the actual allowance of £12,570. So we're ahead of that game today anyway.
So I don't agree with you, although I understand what you're saying.

The problem is that it’s the aspirational middle class that often makes the difference in a general election.

 

[The Ham]

To be fair, they did previously increase this significantly, but now I agree that both this and the higher rate threshold need to be increased, and "fiscal drag" is pernicious. I paid 40% tax when I worked in 2008, but my salary then was something like £80,000 in today's terms, and having to pay 40% tax on 5/8 of this today seems wrong.
I spent a lot of time and effort in avoiding 40% tax, hence a good pension provision now, but once too many people get sucked into the 40% rate they'll lose the incentive I had.

The problem is, and there's no easy solution, you've got to cater for the aspirational middle classes as well.
A number of years ago I applied for a promotion and got to go to an interview board for the job, which was a new job. The problem was that I worked out that the relatively small pay rise would be eaten up by a 40% marginal tax rate. So I didn't really want the job, since it would have involved a lot more work as well. I'm happy to say I didn't get it, but at least I was observed to have "wanted" it.
The base personal allowance in 2008 was £6,035, or something like £9,300 in today's money, which is a lot less than the actual allowance of £12,570. So we're ahead of that game today anyway.
So I don't agree with you, although I understand what you're saying.

The problem is that it’s the aspirational middle class that often makes the difference in a general election.

Looking at another area, the £50,000 income before you are taxed to reduce the amount you get from child benefit, 13 years ago you could have been earning about £37,500 and if you got inflation matching pay rises you'd now be earning £50,000.

Whilst those are good salaries, what then happens is that if you've got the children your marginal tax rate is then something like 71%!

Even if you kept the starting point of the tax the same if you spread it over a larger amount before you ended up with zero child benefit (currently £60,000) it would reduce the marginal tax rate. Again inflation would have that 13 years ago someone earning £45,000 with inflation matched pay rises would now be getting zero child benefits when previously they would have been a reasonable pay rise away from even starting to pay the extra tax.

As said, it wouldn't be so controversial if the starting point was £50,000 but the upper level was £80,000 (so the top amount kept up with inflation but the bottom amount stayed at the same value). This would still mean a lot more people paying the tax but the nominal rate would be much smaller for those who do.

 

[brad465]

I wonder if the Election is still pencilled for November? I flipped past GB News and Tom Harwood was suggesting it could go to January 2025 which IMO would be an insane move.

I think they are aiming for May actually. Various followers of CCHQ activity are reporting it's a very active setup there, and Isaac Levido, the Tory election campaign chair, has been seen going to Downing Street daily of late. They wouldn't be doing this if the election were in the autumn, because you'd burn through too much money, and there are election year spending limits (the Tories have also been getting less donation money, presumably because anyone donating as an investment won't get any return when all likelihood is they'll lose). This doesn't mean they will go for May, but having to wait till autumn will cause them other problems. January definitely would be insane though.

 

[aavm]

Looks like Putin is going to loose us the election by the war putting up the cost of living. Boris does carry the blame for closing (not mothballing) coal power stations too quickly and putting us at the mercy of gas prices. A last laugh for Scargill.

 

[Snow1964]

I wonder if the Election is still pencilled for November? I flipped past GB News and Tom Harwood was suggesting it could go to January 2025 which IMO would be an insane move.

Bearing in mind Commons doesn't sit most of July and August, then does few weeks, then has a gap for conferences season. If then dissolve Parliament in October for November election, not actually going to be much after June anyway.

Could of course run to last date mid December, with January election. But no one is going to do much electioneering over Christmas (which might be blessing). Main problem with January is generally cold and short daylight hours.

 

[jon0844]

Looks like Putin is going to loose us the election by the war putting up the cost of living. Boris does carry the blame for closing (not mothballing) coal power stations too quickly and putting us at the mercy of gas prices. A last laugh for Scargill.

If we fixed our distribution problems we'd be able to use more wind power without exporting it. Get cheap enough electricity (people on variable tariffs like those from Octopus are able to pay as little as 3 or 4p per KWh at times, and even get paid at others) and heat pumps become more logical than gas for heating - especially now you can get pumps capable of high flow temperatures so you don't need change rads or pipework.

Perhaps Russia is going to encourage us to act, rather than stay dependent on gas - or even think of keeping coal as an option.

 

[nw1]

Not if you are desperate to hang on to power so that you can give out contracts to friends and cronies, stick a bit more money in your MPs pockets, fill every public appointment you have in your gift with friendly members of the ‘great and good’, etc. All bring you favours in exchange, but the last causes difficulties for your successors if you choose sufficiently unscrupulous characters. You are going to lose anyway, so you might as well salt the earth for your successor.

A politician would have to be incredibly stupid to schedule a January election.

It'll be dark (darker than now), and it will mean campaigning over Christmas. Real risk also of disruptive snow and storms, at least in Scotland and northern England.

Even November would be poor as there would be very limited daylight (sunset on average around 4.20pm, around an hour earlier than now), which would influence campaigning and turnout, but not half as crazy as January. I still maintain October as the latest (and probably most likely) date.

Plus people would resent Sunak's arrogance and egotism in keeping us all waiting until the latest legal date. That would, I'm sure, work against the Tories.

Looks like Putin is going to loose us the election by the war putting up the cost of living. Boris does carry the blame for closing (not mothballing) coal power stations too quickly and putting us at the mercy of gas prices. A last laugh for Scargill.

Lose "us" the election? Who are "us"?

 

[PGAT]

I thought Sunak confirmed it was in 2024. Or has that all been thrown out the window?

 

[JamesT]

Looks like Putin is going to loose us the election by the war putting up the cost of living. Boris does carry the blame for closing (not mothballing) coal power stations too quickly and putting us at the mercy of gas prices. A last laugh for Scargill.

In the grand scheme of things, a couple of GW of coal isn't going to meaningfully shift the dial on generation costs. Though probably the person to blame for accelerating the closure of coal plants is Theresa May, who enshrined a Net Zero target in law.

If we fixed our distribution problems we'd be able to use more wind power without exporting it. Get cheap enough electricity (people on variable tariffs like those from Octopus are able to pay as little as 3 or 4p per KWh at times, and even get paid at others) and heat pumps become more logical than gas for heating - especially now you can get pumps capable of high flow temperatures so you don't need change rads or pipework.

Perhaps Russia is going to encourage us to act, rather than stay dependent on gas - or even think of keeping coal as an option.

You could have a nigh on perfect distribution system, it's not going to help when there's a weather low that covers the whole country or indeed a large chunk of Europe. https://reports.electricinsights.co.uk/q1-2021/when-the-wind-goes-gas-fills-in-the-gap/

For more than a week calm weather covered the country. Wind farm output fell to as low as 0.6 GW on the 3rd of March, in sharp contrast to the 18.1 GW delivered later on that month.

The lull in March saw a deficit of over 10 GW of wind capacity compared to the surrounding weeks, and some 2,300 GWh of energy. In comparison, the UK’s largest storage facility – the Dinorwig pumped hydro plant in North Wales – stores just 9 GWh.

The priority should be figuring out an economic way of storing renewable energy.

 

[nw1]

I thought Sunak confirmed it was in 2024. Or has that all been thrown out the window?

I suspect it's GB News fake news. It seems incredibly likely anyone sane would hold a January election.

 

[simonw]

The problem is, and there's no easy solution, you've got to cater for the aspirational middle classes as well.
A number of years ago I applied for a promotion and got to go to an interview board for the job, which was a new job. The problem was that I worked out that the relatively small pay rise would be eaten up by a 40% marginal tax rate. So I didn't really want the job, since it would have involved a lot more work as well. I'm happy to say I didn't get it, but at least I was observed to have "wanted" it.
The base personal allowance in 2008 was £6,035, or something like £9,300 in today's money, which is a lot less than the actual allowance of £12,570. So we're ahead of that game today anyway.
So I don't agree with you, although I understand what you're saying.

The problem is that it’s the aspirational middle class that often makes the difference in a general election.

You would only have paid 40% tax on whatever part of the pay was over the threshold,not on all your income.

 

[Busaholic]

Looks like Putin is going to loose us the election by the war putting up the cost of living. Boris does carry the blame for closing (not mothballing) coal power stations too quickly and putting us at the mercy of gas prices. A last laugh for Scargill.

Who's the 'us'?! Sounds like a message Tory Central Office dredged up from the bottom of their cesspit to use only in the direst circumstances (for their party of course, the rest of us can go to hell.) How ironic you mention Boris, a suitably Russian name for an individual whose party facilitated so much Russian money laundering into the U.K., and London in particular, during his time as London Mayor and then Prime Minister, the effects of which will reverberate for decades.

 

[jfollows]

You would only have paid 40% tax on whatever part of the patties was over the threshold,not on all your income.

Hence "marginal" above, yes.
But a pay rise of £5,000 meant £250/month extra take-home (say +8%) which wasn't attractive in light of the extra work required, which was the sort of money I would have received at the time.
That was my call at the time.
EDIT I recognise that for some people paying income tax at 40% would be a good problem to have.
PS That’s ignoring 2% National Insurance on top.

You would only have paid 40% tax on whatever part of the patties was over the threshold,not on all your income.

And also it has knock-on liability for higher tax on savings and capital gains (at least, these are the only ones I've cared about) once you hit the 40% threshold on income, which can either be a pain or irrelevant.

 

[johnnychips]

Somebody - maybe on here - said that it would be impossible to have our election later in October, because it would clash with the US election, which is definitely the first week in November. Is this true, and if so, what is the reason?

 

[birchesgreen]

Somebody - maybe on here - said that it would be impossible to have our election later in October, because it would clash with the US election, which is definitely the first week in November. Is this true, and if so, what is the reason?

Nonsense, we should just tell the US to delay their election while we have ours.

 

[Gloster]

They are probably worried that if it clashes with the US election (or should that be the other way round) no one will notice. The UK result will appear on page 94 of all the world’s paper below a report of the results from Racoon Droppings, Alabama, and say that Congressman Starter has defeated Congressman Sunk in an election in LondonTown. Politicians want to be in the headlines.

 

[dangie]

I thought Sunak confirmed it was in 2024. Or has that all been thrown out the window?

If, and it’s a very big if, the Conservatives had any level of decency, they would call an election to be held at the soonest date possible. The country is in a bit of a mess and they’ve shown they are unable to fix it. Time to let someone else have a go.

Time to put the country first and not themselves.
Oh sorry, think I must have drifted off for a while……

 

[najaB]

Somebody - maybe on here - said that it would be impossible to have our election later in October, because it would clash with the US election, which is definitely the first week in November. Is this true, and if so, what is the reason?

It's not impossible, but the intelligence services would rather that the two most important members of Five Eyes weren't both in election mode at the same time.

It means that neither government will be able to give it's full attention to world events, and both country's election systems will be exposed to threats from the same actors at the same time.

 

[Busaholic]

Nonsense, we should just tell the US to delay their election while we have ours.

Droit du seigneur to the upstart colony.