Rishi Sunak and the Conservative Party.

[jon0844]

Boris will never fully go away.

 

[DC1989]

Polls are holding steady, Labour lead by 20+ pts in all. Is there any hope for the Tory party to win the next election? Even if Rishi manages to keep his 5 pledges I can't see it happening

 

[WizCastro197]

Polls are holding steady, Labour lead by 20+ pts in all. Is there any hope for the Tory party to win the next election? Even if Rishi manages to keep his 5 pledges I can't see it happening

I mean, Rishi broke his first three made on day one, the same day.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Boris Johnson (remember him) is to publish a book about his time at No. 10 which, according to the publisher’s publishing director, will be a “prime ministerial memoir like no other”. Considering that most prime ministerial memoirs, not that there have been that many, tend to be self-justifying uncorroborated versions of selected truths, does that it mean that this one will be the plain and unvarnished truth? Which would be a first for Johnson. A hae ma doots.

I mean maybe the publisher means it will be full of lies, contain no truths at all (select truths or otherwise) and be a work of pure fiction? Would certainly be a memoir like no other and would be more on brand for him than giving the plain truth!

 

[nw1]

Polls are holding steady, Labour lead by 20+ pts in all. Is there any hope for the Tory party to win the next election? Even if Rishi manages to keep his 5 pledges I can't see it happening

Of course there is. Getting Boris back!

(Not a serious comment, btw)

 

[Gloster]

Chair of the Conservative Party and former Chancellor Nadhim Zahawi is, or his representatives are, to pay several million pounds (one estimate is £3.7 million) in unpaid capital gains tax to HMRC; it is related to shares held in an offshore company. Now there is a question of how much control he had over the money, but this dispute was flagged before he became Chancellor (or Chair): he denied knowing anything about the investigation and claimed to be being smeared. At best, it is an extraordinary level of incompetence (even by current standards) by someone in such a post. At worst it is a level of dishonesty that renders him unfit for public office.

Source: The Grauniad (Sorry, I can’t do a link.)

 

[WizCastro197]

Chair of the Conservative Party and former Chancellor Nadhim Zahawi is, or his representatives are, to pay several million pounds (one estimate is £3.7 million) in unpaid capital gains tax to HMRC; it is related to shares held in an offshore company. Now there is a question of how much control he had over the money, but this dispute was flagged before he became Chancellor (or Chair): he denied knowing anything about the investigation and claimed to be being smeared. At best, it is an extraordinary level of incompetence (even by current standards) by someone in such a post. At worst it is a level of dishonesty that renders him unfit for public office.

Source: The Grauniad (Sorry, I can’t do a link.)

For anyone who needs the link for this article.

Nadhim Zahawi has agreed to pay several million pounds in tax to the authorities after a dispute over his family’s financial affairs, it has been reported.

Nadhim Zahawi to pay millions in tax after dispute over family finances

Questions were raised over Tory chair’s use of offshore company to hold shares in polling firm YouGov

www.theguardian.com

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Chair of the Conservative Party and former Chancellor Nadhim Zahawi is, or his representatives are, to pay several million pounds (one estimate is £3.7 million) in unpaid capital gains tax to HMRC; it is related to shares held in an offshore company. Now there is a question of how much control he had over the money, but this dispute was flagged before he became Chancellor (or Chair): he denied knowing anything about the investigation and claimed to be being smeared. At best, it is an extraordinary level of incompetence (even by current standards) by someone in such a post. At worst it is a level of dishonesty that renders him unfit for public office.

Source: The Grauniad (Sorry, I can’t do a link.)

one of many but Tories never do the dirty on their own

 

[SuspectUsual]

As far as I’m aware the BBC just aren’t reporting this. Why?

But to be clear, this is the result of an investigation into his tax affairs which Zahawi repeatedly explicitly denied was happening.

But nothing will happen

 

[Railsigns]

As far as I’m aware the BBC just aren’t reporting this. Why?

No idea...

Boris Johnson installs Tory party donor as new BBC Chair. Labour is set to challenge the appointment of Sharp, who was once Rishi Sunak’s boss at Goldman.

 

[The Ham]

As far as I’m aware the BBC just aren’t reporting this. Why?

Neither are Sky News or ITV News.

 

[Typhoon]

Boris Johnson (remember him) is to publish a book about his time at No. 10 which, according to the publisher’s publishing director, will be a “prime ministerial memoir like no other”. Considering that most prime ministerial memoirs, not that there have been that many, tend to be self-justifying uncorroborated versions of selected truths, does that it mean that this one will be the plain and unvarnished truth? Which would be a first for Johnson. A hae ma doots.

I know that this is Johnson, not Sunak, but isn’t the Johnson thread closed, hopefully for ever.

Johnson's book on Shakespeare was scheduled for publication in October 2016. There is an interesting description of the (yet unpublished) book at https://www.amazon.co.uk/Shakespeare-Riddle-Genius-Boris-Johnson/dp/0771050836
So either Johnson will prioritise his memoirs (which may not go down too well with the publisher of the Shakespeare tome) or we will be in for a long wait to find out how he saved the country by being a key member of the team that discovered the vaccine but refusing to take credit for it, was really the mastermind behind Ukraine's attacks on Russia and really did get Brexit done in 2020 (but the pesky remoaner media did not give him the claim he deserves.)

Alternatively he may just pocket the advance and, like so much in his life, put it off until tomorrow. He'll do (almost) anything for publicity - and 'Spare' has taken him off of the front pages.

 

[DelayRepay]

Johnson's book on Shakespeare was scheduled for publication in October 2016. There is an interesting description of the (yet unpublished) book at https://www.amazon.co.uk/Shakespeare-Riddle-Genius-Boris-Johnson/dp/0771050836
So either Johnson will prioritise his memoirs (which may not go down too well with the publisher of the Shakespeare tome) or we will be in for a long wait to find out how he saved the country by being a key member of the team that discovered the vaccine but refusing to take credit for it, was really the mastermind behind Ukraine's attacks on Russia and really did get Brexit done in 2020 (but the pesky remoaner media did not give him the claim he deserves.)

The question is which section of the bookshop it will be stocked in. Fiction, or True Crime?

 

[oldman]

As far as I’m aware the BBC just aren’t reporting this. Why?

But to be clear, this is the result of an investigation into his tax affairs which Zahawi repeatedly explicitly denied was happening.

But nothing will happen

The Guardian story is based on one in the Sun, which quotes unspecified 'sources'. Not really enough for the BBC to run the story.

Tax Policy Associates referred to in the article has a carefully worded piece, suggesting that there probably was not an actual enquiry, but Zahawi realised he would be in trouble if there was, and got his accountants to settle with HMRC.

This is the way the very rich work. Set up an avoidance scheme and hope it works but cut a deal with HMRC if you have to.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

As far as I’m aware the BBC just aren’t reporting this. Why?

Impossible to know for sure, but the most plausible guess would be that the BBC (and the other, generally impartial, media outlets that haven't reported the story) decided the story didn't have enough legs to be worth reporting. There is after all, no obligation on the BBC to report every muck-raking story that a left wing (or for that matter, any right-wing) newspaper publishes.

May also be significant that Zahawi's political career doesn't seem to be going anywhere. He's basically been reduced to a backbench MP, with little prospect of anything more under Sunak. There's therefore going to be less media interest than there would be if he was still a minister.

But to be clear, this is the result of an investigation into his tax affairs which Zahawi repeatedly explicitly denied was happening.

As far as we can tell from the story, the conclusion of the investigation was that it was mutually agreed that some tax was owed, and this was subsequently paid to HMRC. I think it's significant that there are no reports of any penalty being issued - since if HMRC conclude that a person has wilfully (or negligently) misled them then they would normally issue a penalty as well as demanding that all outstanding tax is paid. We can probably conclude from that that this was likely to be a case where there was genuine uncertainty/disagreement about what tax was owed (not uncommon when you have very complex financial affairs or money that crosses international borders and it can become unclear precisely what tax regulations that income falls under: That will typically end up with negotiations between HMRC and the accountants). That may explain why the BBC and other media outlets have apparently chosen not to report it.

 

[najaB]

I think it's significant that there are no reports of any penalty being issued - since if HMRC conclude that a person has wilfully (or negligently) misled them then they would normally issue a penalty as well as demanding that all outstanding tax is paid. We can probably conclude from that that this was likely to be a case where there was genuine uncertainty/disagreement about what tax was owed (not uncommon when you have very complex financial affairs or money that crosses international borders and it can become unclear precisely what tax regulations that income falls under: That will typically end up with negotiations between HMRC and the accountants).

Indeed, there isn't any indication of criminality. However, this rather misses the point: if someone who is elevated to the position of Chancellor has questionable tax affairs, it destroys any moral authority they have to go after real tax cheats.

 

[jfollows]

As far as I’m aware the BBC just aren’t reporting this. Why?

They are now (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64304132):

Nadhim Zahawi facing questions about tax payment​

• • Published
    3 hours ago

By Brian Wheeler and Damian Grammaticas
BBC News

Former Chancellor Nadhim Zahawi has not denied a report he has agreed to pay millions of pounds in tax to settle a dispute with Revenue and Customs.
It comes after the Sun on Sunday claimed Mr Zahawi's representatives would pay a "seven-figure sum" to HMRC.
BBC News has not been able to verify the Sun story but a representative for Mr Zahawi did not issue a denial when asked if it was true.
His tax affairs "were and are fully up to date and paid in the UK", they said.
HMRC said it would not comment on the affairs of individual taxpayers.

Personal fortune​

Labour says Mr Zahawi, who now chairs the Conservative Party, has "serious questions" to answer about his tax affairs.
The questions centre on whether Mr Zahawi tried to avoid paying tax by using an offshore company to hold shares in polling company YouGov.
The minister, who has a personal fortune estimated at up to £100m, co-founded YouGov in 2000, before he entered politics.
At the time, his co-founder was given just over 40% of the shares in the company.
Unusually, Mr Zahawi did not take any shares himself. However, a similar size shareholding was allocated to Balshore Investments Ltd, based in Gibraltar.

Family trust​

Dan Neidle, a Labour-supporting tax lawyer, who has looked into Mr Zahawi's affairs, last year described his decision not to take any YouGov shares himself as "surprising and unusual." He questioned why the arrangement had been put in place.
YouGov's 2009 annual report said: "Balshore Investments Ltd is the family trust of Nadhim Zahawi, an executive director of YouGov PLC."
A representative for Mr Zahawi said: "Neither he nor his direct family are beneficiaries of Balshore Investments or any trust associated with it.
"Mr Zahawi has always said that he will answer any questions from HMRC, which he has always done."

'Another nail'​

By 2018, YouGov had become a very successful business and Mr Neidle says company accounts suggest Balshore Investments Ltd had sold shares it had held in the company for a total of up to £27m.
Mr Neidle has estimated the tax due, if this had been liable to UK capital gains tax, would have been in the region of £3.7m.
BBC News asked Mr Zahawi's spokesman whether any sum had been paid, or was planned to be paid, by Mr Zahawi, or a representative, to HMRC - but he declined to comment.
It also asked whether any such sum had been to settle a tax matter identified by HMRC and whether that had been in relation to YouGov but did not receive an answer.
Reacting to the reports about a payment to HMRC, Anneliese Dodds, who chairs the Labour Party, said: "If true, this is another nail in the coffin of the honesty, integrity and accountability promised by Rishi Sunak.
"Not for the first time, Rishi Sunak's judgement has been called into serious question. The question remains is he strong enough to sack Nadhim Zahawi?"

'Paying tax'​

Mr Zahawi ignored reporters' questions on his way in and out of a cabinet meeting, in Downing Street, on Tuesday morning.
Asked if the public had a right to know if Mr Zahawi had made a large payment to the tax authorities, his cabinet colleague Gillian Keegan said: "He is paying tax, so that's the important thing.
"His tax affairs are up to date," she told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.
Additional reporting: Phil Kemp

 

[nw1]

They are now (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64304132):

I'm not impressed by Keegan seemingly completely dismissing this.

I'd like to see some acknowledgement that, while not proven, something unusual may have happened - "investigations are ongoing... if anything irregular such as legal tax-avoidance did in fact happen, appropriate action will take place..." etc.

Do they not understand that this sort of attitude is why many of us are thoroughly fed up with the lot of them?

 

[jfollows]

Rishi Sunak wasn't accurate on the subject of Nadhim Zadhawi today (https://www.theguardian.com/politic...ishi-sunak-keir-starmer-pmqs-uk-politics-live):

12.36 GMT
Alex Sobel (Lab) asks if Sunak was aware of the payments of millons to settle a tax bill by Nadhim Zahawi when he appointed him to cabinet as Tory chair.
Sunak says Zahawi has already addressed this in full, and he has nothing to add.
(That is untrue. Zahawi has put out a statement, but that statement does not address the matter in full.)

Further from the same source:

15.13 GMT

No 10 defends Zahawi after reports he paid millions to settle tax dispute​

At the post-PMQs lobby briefing the PM’s press secretary said that Rishi Sunak has full confidence in Conservative party chair Nadhim Zahawi and takes him “at his word” over allegations around his tax affairs.

At PMQs, asked about the report that Zahawi has paid millions to settle a tax dispute, Sunak said Zahawi has “addressed this matter in full”. In fact, Zahawi has not confirmed the payments, or answered questions about the story, but just issued a statement saying he pays his taxes.

The PM’s press secretary defended this, saying Zahawi “has spoken and been transparent with HMRC”.

Asked if Sunak considered the matter closed, she said:

I don’t know whether the prime minister has reviewed it in full, but I do know that he takes Nadhim Zahawi at his word.

She also said that Sunak intended to publish his own tax return shortly.

 

[WizCastro197]

PMQs once again, a complete shambles. The thing I primarily picked up on, was Sunak's 'Starmer breaks promises left right and centre' jibe. Funny that, considering how much hypocrisy that actual contains, when he broke his first 3 with the Braverman sitting right next to him, yet she seems very content nodding her head off into non-existence. She is just a very strange woman.

Tories chuntering when Starmer was speaking about the death of a woman, is quite frankly horrifying, and it really shows how much contempt they have for the country, when it is their own constituents who are suffering from long ambulance waits.

 

[JonathanH]

Given the admission today that it would be cheaper to make the pay increase to railway staff than have a long period of disruption, and the impact of all the other disputes, how much would income tax need to increase by to make all the disputing public sector workers content with their levels of pay?

Would it be electorally better to increase taxes and end disputes, or keep the disputes going indefinitely, which seems ultimately to be the alternative?

Clearly tax increases are meant to be anathema to a Conservative government, but it seems very clear that the unions and workers will not back down, so there is no obvious resolution.

Might a responsible address to the nation with the message that something like a 2p increase in the basic rate to 22p and 5p on the higher rate to 45p is necessary to solve the issue go down better than ongoing disputes that the government can't hope to resolve?

 

[brad465]

Given the admission today that it would be cheaper to make the pay increase to railway staff than have a long period of disruption, and the impact of all the other disputes, how much would income tax need to increase by to make all the disputing public sector workers content with their levels of pay?

Would it be electorally better to increase taxes and end disputes, or keep the disputes going indefinitely, which seems ultimately to be the alternative?

Clearly tax increases are meant to be anathema to a Conservative government, but it seems very clear that the unions and workers will not back down, so there is no obvious resolution.

Might a responsible address to the nation with the message that something like a 2p increase in the basic rate to 22p and 5p on the higher rate to 45p is necessary to solve the issue go down better than ongoing disputes that the government can't hope to resolve?

Or they could just not waste money writing off covid fraud, and/or get HMRC to do its job properly in going after tax fraud, after a report recently highlighted that a diversion in civil service resources has led to less tax revenue being collected.

It's also worth remembering that whatever we pay public sector workers finds its way back into the economy, both through it being taxed and supporting other sectors and in turn the tax they pay.

 

[jon0844]

It's amazing to admit it would have been better to just pay people more. People who would have money to put back into the economy, thus helping the people who actually suffered before Christmas.

I thought the Tories were meant to be good with money?

What gets me is the same Government keep going on about how great it is that wages are going up, then arguing that paying nurses or teachers more will increase inflation and mustn't be allowed.

It's as crazy as last year saying inflation was not within the control of Government, then this year saying you're working to bring it down to 5%. So it IS within the control of Government now?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Given the admission today that it would be cheaper to make the pay increase to railway staff than have a long period of disruption, and the impact of all the other disputes, how much would income tax need to increase by to make all the disputing public sector workers content with their levels of pay?

I'm somewhat astonished that no-one has noticed this so-called admission makes no logical sense, at least in the form in which it is being publicised:

• The cost of the disruption is one-off and fixed. Once the strikes end, there should be no significant further cost.
• The cost of settling the strikes is ongoing and essentially permanent: If the Government gives the pay rise that is demanded, they will have to continue paying that extra for years to come.

It is therefore not possible to say that either one is more expensive than the other, unless you're specifying, within a certain timescale.

What I suspect was meant (because it's really the only plausible way to make sense of it) is that the cost of the strikes/disruption exceeds the direct cost for one year of giving the pay rise (or maybe, the cost within this financial year), and ignoring the indirect costs that will come when other groups start saying 'The railway workers got their pay rise. We should go on strike if we don't get one too'

Once you allow for those things, it becomes pretty clear that the cost of the strikes could easily be far less than the total cost - over many years - would be of giving the railway workers the rise the unions are demanding.

 

[The Ham]

It's amazing to admit it would have been better to just pay people more. People who would have money to put back into the economy, thus helping the people who actually suffered before Christmas.

I thought the Tories were meant to be good with money?

What gets me is the same Government keep going on about how great it is that wages are going up, then arguing that paying nurses or teachers more will increase inflation and mustn't be allowed.

It's as crazy as last year saying inflation was not within the control of Government, then this year saying you're working to bring it down to 5%. So it IS within the control of Government now?

Apparently, there's a theory which says that the Tories are good at creating large profits in the short to medium term. However, as this is limited to those who own businesses or those with shares, this only benefits the wealthy.

Conversely Labour tend to bring benefits to the workforce and so redress personal income.

As such, says the theory, they shouldn't remain in power for very long.

I was listening to someone the other day talk about how Liz Truss was right because it's business that needs to grow to boost the economy, which is true too a point.

As there's no point trying to grow that business is all the public sector are having pay cuts (which may be rises which are slower than the rate of inflation) and so there's less money milling in the economy. As that means that there's not the money to be spend in those businesses that are trying to grow.

A very simplistic example, a truck shop in a school wants the children to spend more money, well that's only going to happen if those children can get more money from their parents. Now if those parents get some of their income from the truck shop, it could well be in those parents interest it give the kids more money. As I said very simplistic, but illustrates the issue with focusing on "profits" only.

The reality is we need both profits and better wages across the board to grow a song economy.

I'm somewhat astonished that no-one has noticed this so-called admission makes no logical sense, at least in the form in which it is being publicised:

• The cost of the disruption is one-off and fixed. Once the strikes end, there should be no significant further cost.
• The cost of settling the strikes is ongoing and essentially permanent: If the Government gives the pay rise that is demanded, they will have to continue paying that extra for years to come.

It is therefore not possible to say that either one is more expensive than the other, unless you're specifying, within a certain timescale.

What I suspect was meant (because it's really the only plausible way to make sense of it) is that the cost of the strikes/disruption exceeds the direct cost for one year of giving the pay rise (or maybe, the cost within this financial year), and ignoring the indirect costs that will come when other groups start saying 'The railway workers got their pay rise. We should go on strike if we don't get one too'

Once you allow for those things, it becomes pretty clear that the cost of the strikes could easily be far less than the total cost - over many years - would be of giving the railway workers the rise the unions are demanding.

One thing which many in the private sector have done (on the assumption that inflation will fall in the next few months and may even go backwards) is make a one off payment of (say) 6% and give a 4% pay rise.

That means that your ongoing costs don't rise on compounded interest youngsters, but staff feel that they've got something to pay their bills.

 

[edwin_m]

I was listening to someone the other day talk about how Liz Truss was right because it's business that needs to grow to boost the economy, which is true too a point.

It's very true, but highly unlikely the Truss tax cuts would have helped business, as they were mainly aimed at wealthy individuals. It would tend to give them more spending power and stoke inflation.

Besides which, Brexit-related shortage of labour and uncertainty about the future legislative/trading framework make it pretty unlikely that investors will want to put money into expanding British businesses, or the businesses itself would be able to take advantage of any investment.

 

[DC1989]

So it's been reported today that London has pulled even further ahead of the rest of the country since the last election. Levelling up is dead and you have to wonder if the red wall are full of regrets and if they'll ever vote Tory again

 

[edwin_m]

Also heard John Armitt on Radio 4 saying that investment in British industry is being held back by uncertainty about whether we will continue to follow EU standards, and that not doing so will make us less competitive. Meanwhile the bill for blanket repeal of EU-derived UK laws at the end of 2023 without specific Parliamentary scrutiny goes ahead.

 

[takno]

Also heard John Armitt on Radio 4 saying that investment in British industry is being held back by uncertainty about whether we will continue to follow EU standards, and that not doing so will make us less competitive. Meanwhile the bill for blanket repeal of EU-derived UK laws at the end of 2023 without specific Parliamentary scrutiny goes ahead.

Maybe Labour should commit to surcharges on any legislators and ministers who deliberately damage the country in this way. There's no evidence they are acting in the national interest, just hell bent on doing all the damage they can while they're still in control

 

[jfollows]

The Conservatives are doing what I thought they'd do all along, the point about leaving the EU was simply to shift powers from Brussels to UK government ministers, and neither I nor my elected representative are meant to be part of this.
And if, like me, you happened to think that Brussels did a better job of it than UK government ministers (of any hue, actually), then it's not surprising I was against leaving the EU.
Now that more people are seeing that "sovereignty" means "give more power to politicians in Whitehall" it's hardly surprising that the mood is turning against what's happened all the more.