When Will It All Go Wrong For The Tories/ Johnson?

[jon0844]

Before I was really into politics, I had a bit of respect for Jacob Rees Mogg. Never really agreed with him, but felt he stood by his principles and gave a good argument.

Now I just think I was fooled by his posh accent.

I think most people were equally fooled by Boris, and I think my experience of Jacob Rees Mogg was from his appearances on HIGNFY (just like Boris). That programme has a lot to answer for!!

 

[edwin_m]

I think most people were equally fooled by Boris, and I think my experience of Jacob Rees Mogg was from his appearances on HIGNFY (just like Boris). That programme has a lot to answer for!!

Farage too.

 

[birchesgreen]

If i'm to honest i'd take these calls from Tory politicians to "move on" from past indiscretions like covid parties if they weren't the same people who still hark on about the Winter of Discontent.

 

[Domh245]

If i'm to honest i'd take these calls from Tory politicians to "move on" from past indiscretions like covid parties if they weren't the same people who still hark on about the Winter of Discontent.

I'll think you'll find that it's the last Labour government that refuses to move on

 

[brad465]

The decision to drop the bill around banning gay conversion therapy doesn't appear to be going down well; it was a pledge in the last Queen's speech, to the point that the LGBT+ conference has been cancelled as most groups invited boycotted it. There are gay Tory MPs who I would imagine would support such legislation and thus not approve of the drop:

'Safe To Be Me' LGBT conference cancelled after boycott

Over 100 LGBT+ groups had vowed to boycott the "Safe To Be Me" event over the government's stance on conversion therapy.

www.bbc.co.uk

The UK has cancelled its first-ever international LGBT+ conference after a boycott by more than 100 organisations, the BBC understands.
"Safe To Be Me" was scheduled to take place in London in June to promote LGBT rights within the UK and globally.
The event will not go ahead after LGBT+ charities and other groups pulled out over the government's stance on conversion therapy.
Therapy aimed at transgender people was excluded from a ban outlined last week.
The BBC understands there were several hours of crunch talks in an attempt to salvage the event, but ultimately organisers were unable to move forward after the majority of organisations involved pulled out.
A number of LGBT+ organisations and charities had signed an open letter written by campaign group Stonewall which said they would not lend their support for the event unless Boris Johnson included transgender people in the ban.
Earlier on Tuesday the government's first LGBT+ business champion resigned over the exclusion of transgender people from any conversion therapy ban that would instead only apply to sexual orientation.
The unpaid role was created especially in the lead-up to the conference, and was expected to last at least 18 months.
In a letter to the prime minister, Iain Anderson said he had "no choice" but to quit and did so with a "heavy heart".
At the conference, Mr Anderson would have been expected to showcase what UK businesses have done in reducing workplace discrimination and promoting quality for LGBT people.

He wrote: "Trust and belief in the government's overall commitment to LGBT+ rights has been damaged.
"I believe a comprehensive plan to support LGBT+ people to play their full part in our society is urgently needed."
In a statement, a government spokesperson thanked him for his contribution and said they were considering the issue of transgender conversion therapy further in what they described as a "legally complex" area.
According to NHS England, that therapy tries to change someone's sexual orientation or gender identity.
Some groups have expressed concern it could impede those helping people with gender dysphoria by blocking explorative therapies or those that do not automatically affirm someone's gender identity.
The government had promised to outlaw the practice of conversion therapy for all, but announced last week any ban would only apply to attempts to alter a person's sexuality, not attempts to try to change people's gender identity.
A spokesperson said the government would carry out "separate work" on the issue of transgender conversion therapy but it was keen for any legislation not to have "unintended consequences", adding it was a "legally complex area".
The U-turn led to more than 100 organisations withdrawing from the Safe To Be Me Conference, which was due to be held in London over three days this summer.
Boris Johnson has previously called the practice of conversion therapy "repulsive and abhorrent" and had promised plans to outlaw it on a number of separate occasions.
A number of gender critical groups had fought for the ban not to include conversion therapy relating to issues of gender identity.
Responding to the legislation on Friday, Nikki da Costa, a former director of legislative affairs at No 10, said elements of the law would have had "profound consequences for children struggling with gender dysphoria".
She told BBC Radio 4's Today: "Doctors, therapists and parents would be deterred from exploring with a child any feelings of what else may be going on, for fear of being told they're trying to change a child's identity", adding it was "deeply concerning".
The Welsh government is now looking at legal advice to see what action it can take to ban trans conversion therapy.

 

[permarquis]

The decision to drop the bill around banning gay conversion therapy doesn't appear to be going down well; it was a pledge in the last Queen's speech, to the point that the LGBT+ conference has been cancelled as most groups invited boycotted it. There are gay Tory MPs who I would imagine would support such legislation and thus not approve of the drop:

'Safe To Be Me' LGBT conference cancelled after boycott

Over 100 LGBT+ groups had vowed to boycott the "Safe To Be Me" event over the government's stance on conversion therapy.

www.bbc.co.uk

I suppose the one (very small) crumb of consolation we can take when it comes to this government is that they are so incompetent at actually doing all the awful stuff they want to do.

 

[Gloster]

It is now being reported that Sunak’s wife has continued to hold non-dom status and has taken the tax advantages that come with it. Non-dom status may be unavoidable for her due to Indian rules, but claiming the tax advantages is, so it seems, optional. If she has, as The Independent seems to think, this could have saved her sums in millions. Whatever the rights and wrongs, and she probably hasn’t done anything illegal, it doesn’t look good. And of course, if the system wasn’t so skewed, people would be asking why it is legal.

 

[brad465]

It is now being reported that Sunak’s wife has continued to hold non-dom status and has taken the tax advantages that come with it. Non-dom status may be unavoidable for her due to Indian rules, but claiming the tax advantages is, so it seems, optional. If she has, as The Independent seems to think, this could have saved her sums in millions. Whatever the rights and wrongs, and she probably hasn’t done anything illegal, it doesn’t look good. And of course, if the system wasn’t so skewed, people would be asking why it is legal.

A quick google search and this was the news section result, showing that even the Mail and Telegraph have articles on it:

rishi sunak - Google Search

www.google.com

As it happens yesterday YouGov did approval rating polls, and Sunak's rating has completely plummeted:

https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1511645033887318019

22-23 Mar (before SS): -5 net favourability 23-24 Mar (after SS): -15 4-5 Apr: -29

The longer he stays Chancellor, the longer I think he will damage the wider Tory party, which leads to questions about whether or not he will be dumped soon.

 

[The Ham]

It is now being reported that Sunak’s wife has continued to hold non-dom status and has taken the tax advantages that come with it. Non-dom status may be unavoidable for her due to Indian rules, but claiming the tax advantages is, so it seems, optional. If she has, as The Independent seems to think, this could have saved her sums in millions. Whatever the rights and wrongs, and she probably hasn’t done anything illegal, it doesn’t look good. And of course, if the system wasn’t so skewed, people would be asking why it is legal.

Someone recently said the system doesn't need to be fixed, it already is. In that it's fixed to help those with money!

 

[brad465]

There is definitely an internal plot to weaken Sunak, to the point that his aides are publicly claiming it, and there's now also a revelation of what his wife is paying to retain non-dom status:

Tomorrow's Papers Today - UK Front Pages - Latest Newspaper Headlines

All of UK's Tomorrow's Front Pages ✅ Updated Daily between 7PM - 11pm ✅ The Mail, Express, Times, Guardian and many more Proudly supporting #buyapaper

www.tomorrowspapers.co.uk

Chancellor's wife pays £30,000 a year for non-dom status

Akshata Murty is charged yearly fee for status allowing her not to pay UK tax on overseas earnings.

www.bbc.co.uk

Chancellor Rishi Sunak's wife pays £30,000 a year to maintain her non-dom status, her spokeswoman has confirmed.
Akshata Murty is reported to have received £11.6m in dividends in the past year from Indian firm Infosys.
But her non-dom status means she is not liable for UK tax on income earned abroad. She would not have paid UK tax, at a rate of 39.35%, on the dividends.
The £30,000 fee is chargeable if a person has lived in the UK for at least seven of the previous nine years.
Under government rules, people can be granted non-dom status - meaning the UK is not considered their permanent home - if they live in the UK but intend to go back to their home country.
Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer said Mr Sunak faced "very serious questions to answer" about his family's finances, adding: "If it now transpires that his wife has used schemes to reduce her tax, while he's been increasing taxes on working people, that's breathtaking hypocrisy."
The Liberal Dems have urged Mr Sunak to ban the partners of ministers from claiming non-dom status, calling it a "loophole".

Ms Murty is an Indian citizen and has retained family ties there, and the BBC understands she has said she would eventually like to return there.
She owns a 0.9% stake in the software firm Infosys - founded by her billionaire father - estimated to be worth more than £500m.
Business Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng defended Mr Sunak, saying it was "completely unfair" to scrutinise the tax affairs of Ms Murty, "who is not a politician" and rejecting opposition claims that she was sheltering from UK taxes.

 

[DanNCL]

It gets worse, I’ve just seen on Twitter (yes I know…) that Rishi Sunak himself has a US Green Card!

Amazingly being registered as a permanent resident in another country isn’t enough to disqualify someone from being an MP…

 

[brad465]

It gets worse, I’ve just seen on Twitter (yes I know…) that Rishi Sunak himself has a US Green Card!

Amazingly being registered as a permanent resident in another country isn’t enough to disqualify someone from being an MP…

My understanding is he doesn't have one anymore, but it's believed he did have one from a notable period in his Chancellor tenure. This certainly won't look good though if this particular issue gains more traction on top of everything else.

 

[AlterEgo]

It gets worse, I’ve just seen on Twitter (yes I know…) that Rishi Sunak himself has a US Green Card!

Amazingly being registered as a permanent resident in another country isn’t enough to disqualify someone from being an MP…

Why would it?

He lives here and works here. I don’t get why this is an issue. When did he ever not?

The PM was born in the USA and was a citizen until about five years ago if I recall. Again, not an issue.

 

[The Ham]

There is definitely an internal plot to weaken Sunak, to the point that his aides are publicly claiming it, and there's now also a revelation of what his wife is paying to retain non-dom status:

Tomorrow's Papers Today - UK Front Pages - Latest Newspaper Headlines

All of UK's Tomorrow's Front Pages ✅ Updated Daily between 7PM - 11pm ✅ The Mail, Express, Times, Guardian and many more Proudly supporting #buyapaper

www.tomorrowspapers.co.uk

View attachment 112682View attachment 112683

Chancellor's wife pays £30,000 a year for non-dom status

Akshata Murty is charged yearly fee for status allowing her not to pay UK tax on overseas earnings.

www.bbc.co.uk

Whilst I can understand why the PM is keen to weaken those who could be seen as good candidates to replace him as PM, ultimately the public see bad news stories about Tories and it reduces their opinion of Tories overall.

As such whilst it may reduce the risk of as vote of no confidence, it's going to lead to it being much harder for the Tories to win the next election. It's also going to make it harder for them to do well at the local elections.

It makes Boris look like he wants to stay in power regardless of the cost.

A divided party is much more likely to lose, than one which is united.

Why would it?

He lives here and works here. I don’t get why this is an issue. When did he ever not?

The PM was born in the USA and was a citizen until about five years ago if I recall. Again, not an issue.

Indeed, however (assuming there is at least an element of the PM trying to bring him down) it does just highlight that Boris is willing to hope that people forget about his past as it's not right in front of them.

If people bring it up, he'll try and distract.

Whilst the photo opp for Sunak went badly, he's not the one implicated in breaking lockdown rules, on potentially dubious funding for works to his government flat, and the like.

Maybe his wife having Non Dom status isn't quite the level of morals which we'd prefer from our MP's, it was declared (& wasn't an issue) and is less of a moral fuax pas as telling the nation not to have face to face business meetings where possible and then being confused as if something was as work event or a party (when neither should have ideally been happening) and still not apologising for allowing it to happen.

Even that pales into insignificance compared with being the boss at an organisation where there was the assumption that leaving event where alcohol is present was an acceptable thing to have the day before Prince Phillip's funeral. As regardless of what the Covid rules were, that's always going to result in negative publicity for most significant organisations, yet alone the government.

 

[DanNCL]

Why would it?

He lives here and works here. I don’t get why this is an issue. When did he ever not?

The PM was born in the USA and was a citizen until about five years ago if I recall. Again, not an issue.

The chancellor of the UK should not be a permanent resident of any country other than the UK. If he lives permanently in the UK then he should not have US permanent residency. Regardless which it is, it’s wrong.

If he has a US Green card (which I understand he no longer does but did for a significant period of his time as chancellor), he would have been paying US tax, and presumably therefore not paying UK tax.

Maybe his wife having Non Dom status isn't quite the level of morals which we'd prefer from our MP's, it was declared (& wasn't an issue) and is less of a moral fuax pas as telling the nation not to have face to face business meetings where possible and then being confused as if something was as work event or a party (when neither should have ideally been happening) and still not apologising for allowing it to happen.

It was not declared as a potential conflict of interest, which it should have been.

 

[Gloster]

It appears that Johnson has done an interview with that far-famed truth-seeking news channel GB News. He was grilled by those hard-hitting inquisators Philip Davies and Esther McVey, who by chance are both Conservative MPs. No doubt we will get the answers to such vital questions as, ‘Do you change [subs, please fill in the sprog’s name]’s nappies?’, What is your favourite colour?’, ‘Do you find it tiring being so wonderful?‘, and ‘Can we have jobs at the Department of Trade and Industry.’

Answers:
‘I always change thingy’s whatevers.’
‘Money...sorry, blue.’
‘Oh, no, it is nothing. Sorry about the blushing in embarrassment.’
‘Just vote the right way.’

 

[Typhoon]

It appears that Johnson has done an interview with that far-famed truth-seeking news channel GB News. He was grilled by those hard-hitting inquisators Philip Davies and Esther McVey, who by chance are both Conservative MPs. No doubt we will get the answers to such vital questions as, ‘Do you change [subs, please fill in the sprog’s name]’s nappies?’, What is your favourite colour?’, ‘Do you find it tiring being so wonderful?‘, and ‘Can we have jobs at the Department of Trade and Industry.’

Answers:
‘I always change thingy’s whatevers.’
‘Money...sorry, blue.’
‘Oh, no, it is nothing. Sorry about the blushing in embarrassment.’
‘Just vote the right way.’

I'm not surprised Johnson agreed to the interview, he'll be the least annoying person on screen. (Pretty low bar.)

Caution is advised - the following report contains a still taken at the time of the interview.
https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/p...nterview-on-gb-news-with-two-tory-mps-318694/

 

[DynamicSpirit]

The chancellor of the UK should not be a permanent resident of any country other than the UK. If he lives permanently in the UK then he should not have US permanent residency. Regardless which it is, it’s wrong.

Why on Earth is it wrong for someone to have permanent residency in another country?

If he has a US Green card (which I understand he no longer does but did for a significant period of his time as chancellor), he would have been paying US tax, and presumably therefore not paying UK tax.

I believe that he would have had to file a US tax return, but he would still pay taxes to the UK on his UK earnings (because, obviously, he lives here). According to Bright Tax:

Green Card holders are subject to the same US tax filing requirements as US citizens. For both groups, this means filing a US federal tax return reporting all your global income wherever in the world you may live.

This means that Green Card Holders living in the UK will normally have to file both US and UK taxes (as a US Green Card Holder and a UK resident), and both countries tax worldwide income.

When they file their US tax return however, they can claim the Foreign Tax Credit , by filing IRS Form 1116, which allows them to claim US tax credits up to the value of the UK income taxes that they have paid. For most people, this will remove their US tax liability, although they still have to file both tax returns.

It was not declared as a potential conflict of interest, which it should have been.

I'm not clear how having residency in another country generates a conflict of interest with your duties as Chancellor of the Exchequer. I could see how it might generate a potential conflict if you were - say - Foreign Secretary, but not if your job is dealing with matters in the UK. Could you clarify what you think the conflict of interest is?

 

[brad465]

Sunak's wife now saying she'll pay UK tax on overseas income:

Rishi Sunak's wife to pay UK tax on overseas income

Akshata Murty has previously not paid UK tax on shares worth £700m in an Indian tech company.

www.bbc.co.uk

Chancellor Rishi Sunak's wife Akshata Murty has said she will pay UK taxes on her overseas income, following a row over her non-domicile status.
She owns £700m in shares of the Indian IT giant Infosys, founded by her father, from which she received £11.6m in dividend income last year.
As a non-domiciled (non-dom) UK resident she is not required by law to pay UK taxes on her overseas income.
But she told the BBC she did not want to be a "distraction" for her husband.
Ms Murty's decision to change her tax arrangement follows accusations of hypocrisy against the chancellor, with Labour saying his family is benefiting from it at a time when the cost of living is going up and the government he serves in is raising National Insurance payments.
But Mr Sunak has accused political opponents of "smearing" his wife to get at him.

Why on Earth is it wrong for someone to have permanent residency in another country?

I'm guessing it's legal as Sunak would have been found out a long time ago if it wasn't, but if one's interests are not fully aligned with the country they should be helping to govern one can easily say they're not fully focused on the job in hand. For all his faults at least Johnson renounced his US citizenship long before becoming PM.

 

[DanNCL]

Why on Earth is it wrong for someone to have permanent residency in another country?

He is a UK government minister, he should be a permanent resident of the UK. The fact that he wasn’t registered as such either meant he didn’t live in the UK or it meant he was registered as a permanent resident in a country he doesn’t live in order to avoid paying tax. Both are wrong.

I'm not clear how having residency in another country generates a conflict of interest with your duties as Chancellor of the Exchequer. I could see how it might generate a potential conflict if you were - say - Foreign Secretary, but not if your job is dealing with matters in the UK. Could you clarify what you think the conflict of interest is?

He is responsible for setting the taxes people in the UK pay, yet because he registered himself as being a permanent resident of another country he didn't pay those taxes himself. Hypocrisy as well as a conflict of interest - it should go without saying that in order to be suitable to set UK taxes you should be a UK taxpayer.

The fact he’s a multimillionaire who has plunged millions of people into poverty to further line his own pockets makes it worse.

Sunak's wife now saying she'll pay UK tax on overseas income:

Only because of the uproar.

I'm guessing it's legal as Sunak would have been found out a long time ago if it wasn't, but if one's interests are not fully aligned with the country they should be helping to govern one can easily say they're not fully focused on the job in hand. For all his faults at least Johnson renounced his US citizenship long before becoming PM.

If this had been any previous chancellor I’d have agreed. Sadly with this government we already know they think they’re above the law, so it wouldn’t surprise me if the law had been wilfully broken.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

He is a UK government minister, he should be a permanent resident of the UK. The fact that he wasn’t registered as such either meant he didn’t live in the UK or it meant he was registered as a permanent resident in a country he doesn’t live in order to avoid paying tax. Both are wrong.

Well yes, of course he should be a permanent resident of the UK, and as far as we are aware he (a) IS a permanent resident of the UK, and (b) is a UK citizen. Being a permanent resident of another country does NOT necessarily mean you are trying to avoid paying tax. There are loads of other reasons why UK citizens might obtain permanent residency rights abroad, such as having family in that country, or having lived for a long time in that country, etc.

Until we left the EU, just about every one of us had permanent residency rights in dozens of European countries. And even today, every UK citizen has permanent residency rights in Ireland. Would you argue that means none of us should be allowed to be a Government minister? So what's different about having permanent residency rights in the USA?

He is responsible for setting the taxes people in the UK pay, yet because he registered himself as being a permanent resident of another country he didn't pay those taxes himself.

Eh? Are you trying to claim that Sunak isn't paying UK taxes? If so, can you provide evidence for that?

Hypocrisy as well as a conflict of interest - it should go without saying that in order to be suitable to set UK taxes you should be a UK taxpayer.

Sure. And at the risk of getting repetitive, as far as I'm aware no-one is seriously claiming that Sunak is not a UK taxpayer.

The fact he’s a multimillionaire who has plunged millions of people into poverty to further line his own pockets makes it worse.

There is nothing wrong with being a multi-millionaire, and it's absurd to claim he's plunged people into poverty in order to line his own pockets. Sure, people are going into poverty, but that's because of the crises of Covid and Russia/Ukraine, neither of which are Sunak's fault.

Seriously, do you have any contribution to make to this debate other than spurious, wild, and evidence-free accusations?

 

[DanNCL]

Well yes, of course he should be a permanent resident of the UK, and as far as we are aware he (a) IS a permanent resident of the UK, and (b) is a UK citizen. Being a permanent resident of another country does NOT necessarily mean you are trying to avoid paying tax. There are loads of other reasons why UK citizens might obtain permanent residency rights abroad, such as having family in that country, or having lived for a long time in that country, etc.

Until we left the EU, just about every one of us had permanent residency rights in dozens of European countries. And even today, every UK citizen has permanent residency rights in Ireland. Would you argue that means none of us should be allowed to be a Government minister? So what's different about having permanent residency rights in the USA?

It’s a specific requirement of the US Green card scheme that holders pledge allegiance to the US, live in the US and pay US taxes. If he was paying US taxes as a permanent US resident, which the green card will have required him to do, he won’t also be paying UK taxes as a permanent UK resident. It is not possible to be in two places at once, therefore it’s not possible to be a permanent resident of two countries at the same time.

There is nothing wrong with being a multi-millionaire, and it's absurd to claim he's plunged people into poverty in order to line his own pockets. Sure, people are going into poverty, but that's because of the crises of Covid and Russia/Ukraine, neither of which are Sunak's fault.

Seriously, do you have any contribution to make to this debate other than spurious, wild, and evidence-free accusations?

Russia/Ukraine has nothing to do with British people being plunged into poverty. Covid has had an effect, but it is not the main reason. The main reason is because Rishi Sunak as chancellor has chosen to allow energy prices to skyrocket (whilst in other countries they’re capped at a reasonable level) and hiked national insurance. If he’d made the choice to freeze national insurance and to cap energy prices at a reasonable percentage increase a significant number of those people wouldn’t be forced into poverty. He may be doing it through his job, but it’s still a millionaire forcing people into poverty.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Russia/Ukraine has nothing to do with British people being plunged into poverty. Covid has had an effect, but it is not the main reason. The main reason is because Rishi Sunak as chancellor has chosen to allow energy prices to skyrocket (whilst in other countries they’re capped at a reasonable level) and hiked national insurance. If he’d made the choice to freeze national insurance and to cap energy prices at a reasonable percentage increase a significant number of those people wouldn’t be forced into poverty. He may be doing it through his job, but it’s still a millionaire forcing people into poverty.

To be able to cap energy prices, that would mean a subsidy. I'm not sure, in the context of needing to reduce usage for many reasons, that this is a sensible plan, other than short-term. It would be better to subsidise improvements in home energy efficiency e.g. insulation, and to mandate housebuilders and landlords to improve it too.

 

[DanNCL]

To be able to cap energy prices, that would mean a subsidy. I'm not sure, in the context of needing to reduce usage for many reasons, that this is a sensible plan, other than short-term. It would be better to subsidise improvements in home energy efficiency e.g. insulation, and to mandate housebuilders and landlords to improve it too.

Obviously a different long term solution would be needed but a price cap as a short term measure is something that would massively help out a lot of people.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

It’s a specific requirement of the US Green card scheme that holders pledge allegiance to the US, live in the US and pay US taxes. If he was paying US taxes as a permanent US resident, which the green card will have required him to do, he won’t also be paying UK taxes as a permanent UK resident.

Yes, you said that before and in post #1668 above, I provided the evidence that your statement was false, so I'm not sure why you're repeating the same falsehood after it was demonstrated to be a falsehood?

It is not possible to be in two places at once, therefore it’s not possible to be a permanent resident of two countries at the same time.

You can't actually physically be living in two countries in the same time, but it's perfectly possible to have the right to live in multiple countries at the same time, and in my previous post I gave a couple of examples of perfectly legitimate reasons why you might want to have that right.

Russia/Ukraine has nothing to do with British people being plunged into poverty.

Yes it does. It has an effect because it's an important driver of the increase in energy prices, which is one of the key factors driving people into poverty.

Covid has had an effect, but it is not the main reason.

Covid had a *massive* effect. In case you didn't notice, it forced millions of people to be furloughed, which basically drove a coach and horses through the UK Government's finances as well as baking inflation into our economy and lowering production.

The main reason is because Rishi Sunak as chancellor has chosen to allow energy prices to skyrocket (whilst in other countries they’re capped at a reasonable level) and hiked national insurance.

Sunak is responsible for the Government finances. The only way that it is possible to cap energy prices is if the Government steps in to subsidise them, which would then damage Government finances even further, forcing further tax rises, as well as adding to inflationary pressures. Obviously other countries are in slightly different situations and may take slightly different decisions in response to that, but you seem to be expecting Sunak to somehow be able to defy the laws of economics. Sorry, but no human being and no Government is physically able to do that.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Obviously a different long term solution would be needed but a price cap as a short term measure is something that would massively help out a lot of people.

I'd support a short term benefits based approach, but not a cap. Those of us who can afford to pay more should. And it's nudging me towards improving my insulation further.

 

[Gloster]

It seems unlikely that Mrs Sunak has done anything illegal and it is probable that Sunak himself has not done anything wrong as far as her tax affairs are concerned. However, to most people their tax affairs are intertwined and that she has chosen, as appears to be the case, not to pay UK tax is going to be seen as involving him. To some this will be stupidity or lack of empathy, to others it will be a form of guilt by association or even joint enterprise.

I won’t comment much about the green card as details are still unclear, but most people are going to feel that someone of his importance should offer their full allegiance to the country of which they are an important part of the government. Even if the details don’t end up showing that he actually has any allegiance to another country (whether merely technical/legal or not), most people are going to feel that someone in his position shouldn’t have a green card at all. And the Conservative Party is the one that wraps itself in the flag.

 

[DanNCL]

Yes, you said that before and in post #1668 above, I provided the evidence that your statement was false, so I'm not sure why you're repeating the same falsehood after it was demonstrated to be a falsehood?

You provided no such evidence. Your EU comparison doesn't work as unlike the US green card, when the UK was a member of the EU British citizens didn't have to live in the EU27 to qualify for permanent residency in them - you do have to live in the US to qualify for permanent residency there.

You can't actually physically be living in two countries in the same time, but it's perfectly possible to have the right to live in multiple countries at the same time, and in my previous post I gave a couple of examples of perfectly legitimate reasons why you might want to have that right.

Except we're not talking about the fact he had the right to live in the US, we're talking about the fact he'd registered himself as living in the US permanently.

Yes it does. It has an effect because it's an important driver of the increase in energy prices, which is one of the key factors driving people into poverty.

The UK gets just 3% of its gas from Russia. Yes the global price of oil has gone up but not to anywhere near the same extent as what consumers are being charged. You can't blame the difference the consumers are seeing in prices (as opposed to the difference the suppliers are seeing on wholesale prices) on the Russia/Ukraine war.

Covid had a *massive* effect. In case you didn't notice, it forced millions of people to be furloughed, which basically drove a coach and horses through the UK Government's finances as well as baking inflation into our economy and lowering production.

Had being the key word. The vast majority of sectors are up and running again, many of them at pre-covid levels. It had a major effect on the economy in 2020, and to a lessor extent in 2021. It is only having a small effect on the economy now.

Sunak is responsible for the Government finances. The only way that it is possible to cap energy prices is if the Government steps in to subsidise them, which would then damage Government finances even further, forcing further tax rises, as well as adding to inflationary pressures. Obviously other countries are in slightly different situations and may take slightly different decisions in response to that, but you seem to be expecting Sunak to somehow be able to defy the laws of economics. Sorry, but no human being and no Government is physically able to do that.

There is a second way to cover that, a windfall tax.

 

[brad465]

It seems unlikely that Mrs Sunak has done anything illegal and it is probable that Sunak himself has not done anything wrong as far as her tax affairs are concerned. However, to most people their tax affairs are intertwined and that she has chosen, as appears to be the case, not to pay UK tax is going to be seen as involving him. To some this will be stupidity or lack of empathy, to others it will be a form of guilt by association or even joint enterprise.

I won’t comment much about the green card as details are still unclear, but most people are going to feel that someone of his importance should offer their full allegiance to the country of which they are an important part of the government. Even if the details don’t end up showing that he actually has any allegiance to another country (whether merely technical/legal or not), most people are going to feel that someone in his position shouldn’t have a green card at all. And the Conservative Party is the one that wraps itself in the flag.

It is certainly something that needs to be illegal, or at least all the tax havens we have closed, but no-one who comes up with that proposal will get it past the corporate media who benefit from similar.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

You provided no such evidence. Your EU comparison doesn't work as unlike the US green card, when the UK was a member of the EU British citizens didn't have to live in the EU27 to qualify for permanent residency in them - you do have to live in the US to qualify for permanent residency there.

The falsehood I pointed out was that you twice claimed Sunak does not pay UK taxes. That is not something that I have seen any reputable source claim, and holding a US Green Card does not stop you from paying UK taxes.

The UK gets just 3% of its gas from Russia. Yes the global price of oil has gone up but not to anywhere near the same extent as what consumers are being charged.

Sure. But gas is still priced globally and the UK is part of the global gas market. That means that gas prices in the UK are set by their international levels and will go up and down according to international prices. The fact that we only get 3% of our gas from Russia doesn't change that.

Had being the key word. The vast majority of sectors are up and running again, many of them at pre-covid levels. It had a major effect on the economy in 2020, and to a lessor extent in 2021. It is only having a small effect on the economy now.

But the financial consequences are still there in terms of levels of Government debt, interest the Government needs to pay on that debt, and the urgency to get that debt down. Debts that you accrued last year don't magically disappear just because you're earning a bit more this year.

There is a second way to cover that, a windfall tax.

Windfall taxes are not problem-free. In the first place, who are you proposing to levy them on? Lots of energy companies have gone bankrupt because of the rise in energy prices, and most surviving companies that supply gas/electricity are struggling. In the second place, even if you find companies that are profitable (and I suspect oil companies probably are), levying them can be economically very damaging for the future years. The biggest problem with windfall taxes is that successful business (especially in things like energy) generally works by companies taking risks: They invest a huge amount of money on things like looking for energy sources in the hope of making a profit. Sometimes it doesn't work and they make a loss or only a small profit. Sometimes the risk proves successful and they make a large profit. If every time their risk pays off and they make a large profit, Governments come along and take the profit away by levying a windfall tax, then it becomes not worth taking the risk of investing in the first place, which means the whole country eventually loses out.

I'm afraid Windfall taxes are one of those things that people/politicians (usually, but not always, on the left) who don't understand business or economics like to propose as the magical solution to our problems. They aren't - and if used carelessly, they can easily cause more problems than they solve.