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

[AlterEgo]

. However, to most people their tax affairs are intertwined

Because of sexism.

A woman’s property is her own concern, unless people are saying Mr Sunak should have exercised some control or veto over his wife.

 

[jon0844]

@DynamicSpirit The smaller energy companies (service providers) were often not financially viable as they couldn't cope with big increases in energy costs and were just middle men buying on an open market and gambling they could profit over time.

They were allowed to spend customer money to do so, which wasn't ringfenced and hoped to build up to one day become like the big providers. We were the investors.

Many lost out when prices shot up and they walked away, losing all that customer money.

Now everyone is paying that back in increased standing charges.

That is fair and just, apparently, yet a levy on the energy companies producing the energy (not the same company as the service provider, even if both are called Shell or whoever) seems unreasonable.

I am pretty sure given the record profits that you could tax the big companies and then subsidise a certain level of energy/gas before the price rises (pretty easy to do with modern billing systems) and therefore the power people who likely use less fuel would save money. Heavy users would save only on a small amount before paying a higher rate. People heating and lighting huge homes would pay more than someone in a small home who can at least now afford to heat and eat.

And I'd also say we should not allow the standing charge to cripple people who pay even if they use no electric or gas on any given day. I was stunned when I heard some people are paying 60 or 70p per day for absolutely nothing (you know what I mean).

 

[DynamicSpirit]

@DynamicSpirit The smaller energy companies (service providers) were often not financially viable as they couldn't cope with big increases in energy costs and were just middle men buying on an open market and gambling they could profit over time.

That's not entirely accurate. The reason they went bust was essentially because of Government regulation: Energy wholesale prices suddenly went up, but Government regulation prevented those companies from raising the prices charged to consumers to match - meaning companies were being forced to sell electricity/gas on to households at prices that didn't reflect what those companies were having to pay for that energy. Now I guess you could argue about whether those companies should've made more provision for the possibility of large wholesale price increases - but if they had done that would certainly have involved charging households more in previous years. And in the end, the fact that those companies went bust is part of the nature of business - you have to take take risks. Sometimes those risks pay off, sometimes they don't.

They were allowed to spend customer money to do so, which wasn't ringfenced and hoped to build up to one day become like the big providers. We were the investors.

Eh? How on Earth were they spending customer money to gamble? We, as customers, paid money for gas and electricity. We got the gas and electricity we paid for. Nothing more, nothing less.

The other day, I went to Sainsburys. I paid them some money, and got some food in return. I don't think you'd argue that makes me an investor.

Now everyone is paying that back in increased standing charges.

The increased standing charges are because wholesale energy prices are now much higher - because supply is constricted but demand is high. Companies charge us by contracts that means we pay partly in standing charges, and partly in per-unit charges for what we actually consume. Maybe there's a case for charging lower standing charges and more in per-unit charges, but you can't just reduce standing charges with no other consequences.

That is fair and just, apparently, yet a levy on the energy companies producing the energy (not the same company as the service provider, even if both are called Shell or whoever) seems unreasonable.

A windfall levy is unreasonable because it's basically changing the rules after the event. Companies such as shell invest huge amounts, taking the risk that they might lose billions of pounds, in the hope that their investment will pay off and they will make a profit. When they make a profit, that's essentially their reward for investing and taking the risk that they might lose money if things don't work out. They will obviously factor into that their investment decisions that, if their investment pays off, they will pay X% in tax. It's hardly fair if, in the event that their investment pays off, the Government suddenly changes the rules and decrees that they have to pay much more tax just because this time the risk paid off.

 

[Royston Vasey]

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.

You're conflating permanent residency, substantial presence and tax residency.

If he was present in the UK for 183 days in a tax year he is a UK tax resident.

The US requires payment of tax on overseas earnings (and all US earnings) under a time weighted formula but in some cases with only 31 days spent in the US in the most recent year.

It is entirely possible and indeed very common to qualify for tax in two countries, permanent residency doesn't come into it.

I've been there and qualified for and paid tax in the UK and US. I'm afraid your assumption is wrong.

 

[GS250]

The Tories will get in once again although I'd expect their majority to be halved. Labour needs to regain 'Workington Man' once again. They aren't going to do that if their leader is still seen to be part of the 'Islington Elite'....of which his recent comments or non comments about biological issues would suggest he is.

 

[jon0844]

That's not entirely accurate. The reason they went bust was essentially because of Government regulation: Energy wholesale prices suddenly went up, but Government regulation prevented those companies from raising the prices charged to consumers to match - meaning companies were being forced to sell electricity/gas on to households at prices that didn't reflect what those companies were having to pay for that energy. Now I guess you could argue about whether those companies should've made more provision for the possibility of large wholesale price increases - but if they had done that would certainly have involved charging households more in previous years. And in the end, the fact that those companies went bust is part of the nature of business - you have to take take risks. Sometimes those risks pay off, sometimes they don't.

These middle men had a risk, but not one that you or I would necessarily consider a real risk. Set up a company, get the money coming in by coming up with a tariff or ten (some have 300, 400 or more tariffs), pay yourself a nice salary and if it all goes tits up (like a massive increase in charges) then let the company go bust and walk away. Great business model, and Ofgem were happy to allow them to start up and use OUR money as working capital because the intention was to allow these firms to grow and get as big as the incumbent firms.

I love that these businesses got all the benefits during the good times and no issues during the bad, because they could just fold, and we pick up the tab.

We really were investors for their business, as I doubt they could function without having that money build up for them to use to buy energy at the best opportunity - which clearly worked when prices were well below the cap.

It absolutely was a gamble because prices could rocket, just as they did, and they lost. No, sorry, we lost.

Ofgem allowed this. That means the Government allowed it. And, okay, I get that the cap played a part in bringing down companies that really weren't financially secure. But how does that matter to the consumer now paying more for the many firms that failed?

To try and steer back on topic, I think this Government needed to implement some short term measure to help people, and that could be from tweaking the standing charge to introducing a variable rate so you get the first xxxx KwH at one price, then it goes up, to protect the poorer customers. That, I should stress, is not the same as a variable tariff based on time (many of which are no longer available).

Instead, you have them on Question Time going on about the £200 discount being applied, and insisting over and over that it isn't a loan. Then saying you'll pay it back with a levy next year (no, not a loan!). It seems, as usual, that when someone has to pay - it's us that foot the bill.

I can withstand the increases, although I'm not happy about the huge increase on the standing charge, but we have more to come in October and I know people who are going to struggle.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

These middle men had a risk, but not one that you or I would necessarily consider a real risk. Set up a company, get the money coming in by coming up with a tariff or ten (some have 300, 400 or more tariffs), pay yourself a nice salary and if it all goes tits up (like a massive increase in charges) then let the company go bust and walk away.

You seem to have a rather utopian idea of what setting up and running a company involves. It's hard work. You have to do loads of admin, set up IT systems to serve your customers, arrange contracts, etc. And if companies go bust, there are sometimes consequences for directors - particularly if they have money invested in the company. The real losers are of course the shareholders. But that's not unreasonable - when you buy shares you hope for a profit in return for taking a risk.

I love that these businesses got all the benefits during the good times and no issues during the bad, because they could just fold, and we pick up the tab.

How on Earth have we picked up the tab? When those companies were running, they were providing competition, which would have almost certainly caused prices for us to be a bit lower than they would otherwise have been. I was getting my electricity/gas from one of the companies that went bust. I chose that company precisely because they were offering cheaper prices than the bigger, established companies.

Of course now I, along with many other people, have had to transfer to a bigger company that is charging a lot more. But they aren't charging more because the small companies went bust: They are charging more because international energy prices are now very, very, high.

It absolutely was a gamble because prices could rocket, just as they did, and they lost. No, sorry, we lost.

No, we didn't lose. Those companies probably gave us slightly cheaper energy for a while. And now we are paying pretty much the same prices that we would be paying if those companies that went bust had never been set up in the first place.

But as for 'was a gamble'.... Yeah. Business is a gamble. Setting up a company is almost always a gamble. The reason we have such high living standards today (compared to - say - 100 or 200 years ago) is precisely because in those intervening years, so many people set up businesses, took a gamble that some innovative idea would pay off, took a risk that they'd lose everything, but often did made a profit and as they did so, provided some good or service or developed some technology that ultimately benefitted us all. There's nothing bad about taking risks in business (provided obviously that you're taking risks in a sensible way) - our prosperity depends on people being willing to do that!

I can withstand the increases, although I'm not happy about the huge increase on the standing charge, but we have more to come in October and I know people who are going to struggle.

Yes I agree with you there - it's going to be awful for many people - and it would be nice to see the Government doing something to help. But you need to be realistic about that the reason why it's going to be awful for many people is because international energy prices are so high - which is because of international conditions that are largely beyond the control of either the UK Government or the UK energy companies - it has nothing to do with those companies that went bust.

 

[baz962]

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 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.



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 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.



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.

Well one thing is correct. Green card holders cannot live outside of the USA for long. You will usually lose the green card after a year. That's not to say I agree or disagree with the specific case here.

 

[island]

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.

This isn't correct, it is perfectly possible. The US only requires you to be there for a day a year (maybe every two years now) to keep lawful permanent residence status. You can have lawful permanent residence status in the USA whilst also being resident in the UK.

 

[Gloster]

I don’t think the details of the rules surrounding the Green Card matter. It is that someone at the top of the government of this country has such a tie with another country. It may not, in reality, require any compromises by him, but why does he need it if he is supposed to be dedicating his life and efforts to this country and its future? It is (mostly) about public perception: most people in this country don’t know the details of the Green Card and will wonder.

 

[JamesT]

I don’t think the details of the rules surrounding the Green Card matter. It is that someone at the top of the government of this country has such a tie with another country. It may not, in reality, require any compromises by him, but why does he need it if he is supposed to be dedicating his life and efforts to this country and its future? It is (mostly) about public perception: most people in this country don’t know the details of the Green Card and will wonder.

As I understand it the Green Card is a legacy of his previous life and work. He studied at Stanford University until 2006 (where he met his now wife) and then worked in the US for several years. He would need some sort of visa to be able to work there, the Green Card is one route.
He returned to the UK and was only elected to Parliament in 2015. I don’t think there has been any suggestion he carried on working after his election? He’s said he merely retained the card to make travel to the US easier.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

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.

I don’t think the details of the rules surrounding the Green Card matter. It is that someone at the top of the government of this country has such a tie with another country. It may not, in reality, require any compromises by him, but why does he need it if he is supposed to be dedicating his life and efforts to this country and its future? It is (mostly) about public perception: most people in this country don’t know the details of the Green Card and will wonder.

I think you're on dangerous ground if you start making out that there's something wrong with anyone who has residency rights or links to another country being a Government minister. What about people who have foreign spouses or girlfriend/boyfriends? What about people who were born abroad and who subsequently got UK citizenship? I hope we wouldn't be thinking of discriminating against those people when it comes to Government positions.

In the end you have to realise that we all have some kind of outside interests and links, but most people doing a professional job will be capable of mentally putting those outside interests aside in order to focus on their job. Also, MP/ministerial jobs are not jobs-for-life: In fact they often rank very low in terms of job security. It's therefore not at all unreasonable that a Government minister might have other plans for what they might wish to be doing in 10 or 15 years' time - which might include a desire to live abroad which would justify something like holding a Green Card. I could see an argument for requiring an MP/minister to declare things like permanent foreign residency rights - just so things like that are open and above board, but I don't think there's a good argument for automatically distrusting them or making out they can't be committed to their jobs on account of that.

 

[AlterEgo]

I don’t think the details of the rules surrounding the Green Card matter. It is that someone at the top of the government of this country has such a tie with another country.

I’m both an Irish and British citizen. Could I be the chancellor under your rules?

 

[duncanp]

I’m both an Irish and British citizen. Could I be the chancellor under your rules?

People forget that Boris Johnson was born in New York City, and thus was eligible to be president of the United States until her relinquished his US citizenship a few years ago.

All these attacks on Rishi Sunak and his wife are nothing more than a smear campaign, orchestrated by Michael Gove and Boris Johnson those who do not want Mr Sunak to succeed Boris Johnson as Conservative leader and Prime Minister.

 

[Gloster]

As I understand it the Green Card is a legacy of his previous life and work. He studied at Stanford University until 2006 (where he met his now wife) and then worked in the US for several years. He would need some sort of visa to be able to work there, the Green Card is one route.
He returned to the UK and was only elected to Parliament in 2015. I don’t think there has been any suggestion he carried on working after his election? He’s said he merely retained the card to make travel to the US easier.

I think you're on dangerous ground if you start making out that there's something wrong with anyone who has residency rights or links to another country being a Government minister. What about people who have foreign spouses or girlfriend/boyfriends? What about people who were born abroad and who subsequently got UK citizenship? I hope we wouldn't be thinking of discriminating against those people when it comes to Government positions.

In the end you have to realise that we all have some kind of outside interests and links, but most people doing a professional job will be capable of mentally putting those outside interests aside in order to focus on their job. Also, MP/ministerial jobs are not jobs-for-life: In fact they often rank very low in terms of job security. It's therefore not at all unreasonable that a Government minister might have other plans for what they might wish to be doing in 10 or 15 years' time - which might include a desire to live abroad which would justify something like holding a Green Card. I could see an argument for requiring an MP/minister to declare things like permanent foreign residency rights - just so things like that are open and above board, but I don't think there's a good argument for automatically distrusting them or making out they can't be committed to their jobs on account of that.

I’m both an Irish and British citizen. Could I be the chancellor under your rules?

Just to make clear: I am talking about what I think is likely to be the public perception of the issue of Sunak’s Green Card. I am not laying down rules or making judgements about it or anything else he or others do in their private life, so long as they keep within legal and ethical norms. I do feel that he or others display a rather insouciant attitude to their job and others’ opinions of their behaviour.

 

[brad465]

People forget that Boris Johnson was born in New York City, and thus was eligible to be president of the United States until her relinquished his US citizenship a few years ago.

All these attacks on Rishi Sunak and his wife are nothing more than a smear campaign, orchestrated by Michael Gove and Boris Johnson those who do not want Mr Sunak to succeed Boris Johnson as Conservative leader and Prime Minister.

Was the bold a typo/error?

Agree there definitely is a plan going on to weaken Sunak, what will be interesting is if any of the Sunday papers tomorrow have anymore revelations.

 

[duncanp]

Was the bold a typo/error?

Agree there definitely is a plan going on to weaken Sunak, what will be interesting is if any of the Sunday papers tomorrow have anymore revelations.

The bold was a typo.

It should have read "..he relinquished his US citizenship..."

 

[317 forever]

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!!

Yes it does. Why we missed out on having Ian Hislop as Prime Minister we shall never know.

 

[Acfb]

Wakefield MP found guilty of sexually assaulting a 15 year old. We will see what sentence he gets, more than a year = automatic expulsion otherwise recall petition (like in Peterborough in 2019).

Extremely likely to go Labour in a by election.

 

[Gloster]

Wakefield MP found guilty of sexually assaulting a 15 year old. We will see what sentence he gets, more than a year = automatic expulsion otherwise recall petition (like in Peterborough in 2019).

Unless they rush through an act saying that this rule is abolished. In theory they can’t act retrospectively, but clever wording might get round that.

 

[Typhoon]

Wakefield MP found guilty of sexually assaulting a 15 year old. We will see what sentence he gets, more than a year = automatic expulsion otherwise recall petition (like in Peterborough in 2019).

Extremely likely to go Labour in a by election.

In the BBC account, it includes:

The man, who cannot be named, contacted the Conservative party in 2019 after learning Mr Khan was standing in the general election. He then called police after Mr Khan was elected to Parliament.

I would be interested in learning what steps Central Office took when they were contacted. Did no alarm bells ring? Given there were two others whose testimony was believed, It was not a case of one persons word against another.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-61026348

Edit:

Unless they rush through an act saying that this rule is abolished. In theory they can’t act retrospectively, but clever wording might get round that.

I would have thought there would be more than a few Conservatives who would struggle to support such an action, especially after being whipped to support Paterson.

 

[edwin_m]

I would have thought there would be more than a few Conservatives who would struggle to support such an action, especially after being whipped to support Paterson.

Can't see many Tory MPs voting to suspend the punishment of someone convicted of sexually assaulting a minor.

 

[Gloster]

I would have thought there would be more than a few Conservatives who would struggle to support such an action, especially after being whipped to support Paterson.

Can't see many Tory MPs voting to suspend the punishment of someone convicted of sexually assaulting a minor.

But if he appeals, I can see that there will be those who will say that they should not take such a drastic step as ejecting the voters’ chosen representative until the matter has been finally decided. Of course, he does not appear to have the advantage that Paterson did of being in the inner circle, or at least close to it.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Unless they rush through an act saying that this rule is abolished. In theory they can’t act retrospectively, but clever wording might get round that.

Blimey, what kind of conspiracy-theory-mentality does it take to seriously think the Government would do something like that? Just stop for a second and ask yourself how (im)plausible it is!

 

[birchesgreen]

Blimey, what kind of conspiracy-theory-mentality does it take to seriously think the Government would do something like that? Just stop for a second and ask yourself how (im)plausible it is!

I suspect the government have already written that seat off.

 

[Gloster]

Blimey, what kind of conspiracy-theory-mentality does it take to seriously think the Government would do something like that? Just stop for a second and ask yourself how (im)plausible it is!

I think it is possible. Maybe not probable, but certainly possible.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I suspect the government have already written that seat off.

I'm inclined to agree. It doesn't need a huge swing for Labour to take that seat, and - barring a successful appeal against the conviction (which seems unlikely) there's basically no way Imran Ahmad Khan is going to be able to avoid a by-election getting triggered. Even he avoids getting a sentence that's long enough to trigger a by-election automatically, I'd say a successful recall petition is virtually guaranteed given the nature of the conviction.

 

[brad465]

Blimey, what kind of conspiracy-theory-mentality does it take to seriously think the Government would do something like that? Just stop for a second and ask yourself how (im)plausible it is!

While I agree the Government won't try and act to prevent the subject MP being dismissed, we saw last year with Owen Paterson that they have shown themselves to try and rewrite the rules to their advantage where they think they can get away with it. Fortunately they didn't get away with it then, and expect they've learned that lesson. Even without that experience I cannot see them wanting to change the rules here, given the offence in question.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Apr 2022 ==







MP Crispin Blunt is doing a sterling job of trying to trash his party's reputation for law and order, by releasing a statement claiming the guilty verdict in question is a miscarriage of justice:

https://twitter.com/CrispinBlunt/status/1513603624164859918

Statement on the conviction of Imran Ahmad Khan MP

Retraction of statement on Imran Ahmad Khan

On reflection I have decided to retract my statement defending Imran Ahmad Khan. I am sorry that my defence of him has been a cause of significant upset and concern not least to victims of sexual offences. It was not my intention to do this.

www.blunt4reigate.com

I am utterly appalled and distraught at the dreadful miscarriage of justice that has befallen my friend and colleague Imran Ahmad Khan, MP for Wakefield since December 2019. His conviction today is nothing short of an international scandal, with dreadful wider implications for millions of LGBT+ muslims around the world.

I sat through some of the trial. The conduct of this case relied on lazy tropes about LGBT+ people that we might have thought we had put behind us decades ago.

As a former Justice Minister I was prepared to testify about the truly extraordinary sequence of events that has resulted in Imran being put through this nightmare start to his Parliamentary career.

I hope for the return of Imran Ahmad Khan to the public service that has exemplified his life to date. Any other outcome will be a stain on our reputation for justice, and an appalling own goal by Britain as we try to take a lead in reversing the Victorian era prejudice that still disfigures too much of the global statute book.

Worth bearing in mind the Tory Party have expelled Khan in response to the verdict, so Blunt is also going against his party with this arguably defamatory statement.

 

[Typhoon]

While I agree the Government won't try and act to prevent the subject MP being dismissed, we saw last year with Owen Paterson that they have shown themselves to try and rewrite the rules to their advantage where they think they can get away with it. Fortunately they didn't get away with it then, and expect they've learned that lesson. Even without that experience I cannot see them wanting to change the rules here, given the offence in question.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Apr 2022 ==


MP Crispin Blunt is doing a sterling job of trying to trash his party's reputation for law and order, by releasing a statement claiming the guilty verdict in question is a miscarriage of justice:

https://twitter.com/CrispinBlunt/status/1513603624164859918

Worth bearing in mind the Tory Party have expelled Khan in response to the verdict, so Blunt is also going against his party with this arguably defamatory statement.

The tweet no long exists and the page on his website comes up with 404 - Not found. Not surprised.

Of course, he does not appear to have the advantage that Paterson did of being in the inner circle, or at least close to it.

And Paterson was not found guilty in a court of law. I gather that the sentence for this level of offence, given the situation (involvement of alcohol, touching of genitalia) could mean several years in prison even for a first offence.

I note that the Conservative MP for Keighley has adopted a different tack.

The crimes Imran Ahmad Khan has been convicted of are vile & disgusting.

He has no place in the House of Commons & should now immediately resign so people of Wakefield can have a new MP as soon as possible.

The victim has shown immense bravery & courage

https://twitter.com/_RobbieMoore/status/1513554302899560459
Whatever the outcome, this type of internecine conflict will do nothing to boost confidence in the government. If others dive in on the Moore side of the argument, Labour would do well to ease off.

 

[brad465]

The tweet no long exists and the page on his website comes up with 404 - Not found. Not surprised.

He has now also apologised and resigned as Committee Chair for the relevant group:

Crispin Blunt apologises for defending sex offender MP Imran Ahmad Khan

The former Tory minister had called Imran Khan's sex assault conviction "a miscarriage of justice".

www.bbc.co.uk

Conservative MP Crispin Blunt has apologised for a statement defending fellow MP Imran Ahmad Khan, who was convicted of sexual assault.
Wakefield MP Khan was found guilty on Monday of assaulting a 15-year-old boy in 2008.
Mr Blunt called the verdict a "dreadful miscarriage of justice" in a statement on his website.
He deleted the message after Tory bosses said it was "wholly unacceptable" and has now apologised.
The Reigate MP said: "I am sorry that my defence of him has been a cause of significant upset and concern not least to victims of sexual offences."
Mr Blunt also said he did not condone any form of abuse and believed in the "independence and integrity" of the justice system.
He has also resigned as chair of Parliament's cross-party APPG for global LGBT+ rights.