Rishi Sunak and the Conservative Party.

[DC1989]

It's okay - The sun are reporting that we are getting rid of brexit red tape that says champagne bottles should have that foil that covers the cork. Makes it all worthwhile!

 

[najaB]

It's okay - The sun are reporting that we are getting rid of brexit red tape that says champagne bottles should have that foil that covers the cork. Makes it all worthwhile!

Finally! It's about time we dealt with the real issues affecting the country. None of this cost of living crisis, loss of standing in the international community or ongoing climate emergency. I want to know where we stand on champagne bottle cork coverings!

 

[DC1989]

Finally! It's about time we dealt with the real issues affecting the country. None of this cost of living crisis, loss of standing in the international community or ongoing climate emergency. I want to know where we stand on champagne bottle cork coverings!

Though readers have pointed out that any champagnes or sparkling wines imported from Europe will still have the foil, and UK producers will keep it in order to export (No point in 2 production lines)

The best they can find after all these years and it's still something completely trivial that doesn't make any difference anyway !

 

[takno]

It's okay - The sun are reporting that we are getting rid of brexit red tape that says champagne bottles should have that foil that covers the cork. Makes it all worthwhile!

Good lord, is there a war on? You mean in Brexit Britain we are now too poor to decorate our cheap sparkly wine with a bit of luxorious-looking packaging?

 

[edwin_m]

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

There's the potential for slippery slope here, but I have wondered in the past whether those that lie during a campaign should be made to correct the record or face a penalty, as ministers are if they inadvertently* mislead Parliament. This wouldn't apply to promises not kept, just something that could be shown at the time to be false, like the £350m on the Brexit bus that was criticised by the official statistics body.

Alternatively, if it could be proved that a politician introduced a bad policy purely for the financial gain of themselves or their cronies, would that count as fraud? The really worrying thing to me though, is that some of those people actually believe in the rubbish they inflict on the rest of us.

*Perhaps that should be in ironic quotes when applied to Partygate.

 

[takno]

There's the potential for slippery slope here, but I have wondered in the past whether those that lie during a campaign should be made to correct the record or face a penalty, as ministers are if they inadvertently* mislead Parliament. This wouldn't apply to promises not kept, just something that could be shown at the time to be false, like the £350m on the Brexit bus that was criticised by the official statistics body.

Alternatively, if it could be proved that a politician introduced a bad policy purely for the financial gain of themselves or their cronies, would that count as fraud? The really worrying thing to me though, is that some of those people actually believe in the rubbish they inflict on the rest of us.

*Perhaps that should be in ironic quotes when applied to Partygate.

Honestly I don't think it's a realistic option. If the behaviour passes the threshold of criminality then there are already misconduct in office offences which can be brought to bear, and anything which isn't established to a criminal standard is a slippery slope. It is frustrating seeing vandals destroy billions in value for wholly dogmatic reasons though.

 

[The Ham]

News reports of Sunak's third domestic flight in 10 days:

Rishi Sunak criticised after third domestic RAF jet flight in 10 days

Labour hits out at PM’s ‘recklessly expensive habits’ after latest flight to event in Lancashire

www.theguardian.com

Rishi Sunak has been criticised for taking a domestic flight in an RAF jet for the third time in 10 days.

The prime minister flew on a 14-seat aircraft to an event in Lancashire to hold the first of what is due to be a series of events where he will take questions from the public.

But the event on Thursday was overshadowed by the row over his transport choices after it emerged he took a 40-minute flight for a journey that would have taken about three hours by train. It is the third time the prime minister has flown domestically in an RAF jet recently, after similar trips to Scotland and Leeds.

A Labour spokesperson said: “Rishi Sunak isn’t even trying to hide these recklessly expensive habits anymore. Jetting around the country on taxpayers’ money like an A-list celeb rather than catching a train like the rest of us is simply absurd.”

Defending himself, Sunak told the audience at the event: “I travel around so I can do lots of things in one day, I’m not travelling around just for my own enjoyment – although this is very enjoyable, of course. I’m travelling around so I can talk to people in Accrington this morning, then I’ve talked to you, then I’m going to get over to Hartlepool because I’m working on all of your behalf.
“Trust me, I’m working as hard as I can to deliver for you and I travel to make myself as effective as possible.”
A Downing Street spokesperson said: “The prime minister will use different modes of transport depending on what’s in the best interest of the best use of his time to enable him to get around the entire UK.”
Asked if train reliability was a factor in not using the railways, they added: “That’s not the factor that obviously decides this, and you’ll know we are investing huge sums into our railways.”



The aircraft Sunak flew in is a 900LX made by the French company Dassault. According to the RAF website, it was bought to transport high-priority military personnel and small items of freight to and from operational areas.
Sunak’s recent trips have brought accusations that he is both wasting taxpayers’ money and damaging the environment.
Hiring the Dassault jet would cost more than £2,500 an hour on the commercial market, according to the aircraft purchasing advisers Conklin and de Decker. A standard-class train ticket would have cost about £100 if booked in advance.
The government has pledged to cut carbon emissions in its drive to reach net zero by 2050. Part of that includes reducing emissions from the domestic aviation market as part of a programme called “jet zero”, aimed at reducing the 7% of emissions that come from the aviation sector.

 

[High Dyke]

Well in fairness, could you expect him to rely on the Avanti West Coast service?

 

[The Ham]

Well in fairness, could you expect him to rely on the Avanti West Coast service?

Yes, but only the Avanti from December 2019.

 

[High Dyke]

Yes, but only the Avanti from December 2019.

 

[jfollows]

Rishi may also get fined for not wearing a seat belt. £100 I think.

 

[WizCastro197]

I see Richi is living up to his leaked R.Tunbridge Wells video, with diverting more funds to the south-east, when I am not sure it needs £210m? The south-east by far, is one of the most developed areas, therefore in less need of such a large investment of levelling up money?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Jan 2023 ==

Well in fairness, could you expect him to rely on the Avanti West Coast service?

And to think the Conservatives have said 'Avanti may need more time to prove themselves' is an absolute joke, and yet more of the usual contempt.

 

[brad465]

Rishi may also get fined for not wearing a seat belt. £100 I think.

Lancashire Police are looking at it apparently.

 

[WizCastro197]

Lancashire Police are looking at it apparently.

The whole video is just too embarrassing to watch.

 

[Gloster]

It looks as though the Conservatives are into the ‘accident prone‘ stage of government that all governments get to if they stay too long. It is usually a sign that the rest of their period ‘in power’ will become increasingly embarrassing.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Rishi may also get fined for not wearing a seat belt. £100 I think.

Oh dear... From the BBC link...

The prime minister has apologised for the incident, saying it was an "error of judgement" to take his seat belt off to film a social media clip.

You'd think that, even aside from the irresponsibility of ignoring the law and safety on seat belts, if you value your reputation and you know that you are about to be filmed for social media, that's just about the worst possible time to remove a seat belt. Obviously, it's going to become public and get investigated....

 

[Lost property]

Oh dear... From the BBC link...



You'd think that, even aside from the irresponsibility of ignoring the law and safety on seat belts, if you value your reputation and you know that you are about to be filmed for social media, that's just about the worst possible time to remove a seat belt. Obviously, it's going to become public and get investigated....

Sunak and photo-ops have always proved to be embarrassing ....such as putting fuel in a car..and not knowing how to pay....or the "helping " the homeless " conversation at Christmas...the latest showing clinging on, one handed....actually, that's a not a bad metaphor for him really, to what looks like the Para's selection frame at Catterick being yet another.

" I see Richi is living up to his leaked R.Tunbridge Wells video, with diverting more funds to the south-east, when I am not sure it needs £210m? The south-east by far, is one of the most developed areas, therefore in less need of such a large investment of levelling up money? "

Oh please..have you no heart !....he's doing a jolly fine job of looking after his constituents !....this is twice now his unstinting generosity has come to the aid of one of the most deprived areas of the UK....how would you feel if you had to drive around in last years model Range Rover or with last years model horse box...and anyway, only the churlish would suggest his generosity could be construed as... a bribe...for the next GE ...even if he won't be PM afterwards.

 

[Gloster]

According to The Grauniad the amount agreed by Zahawi with HMRC to settle his tax matters included a penalty. Estimates put the total at £5 million: £3.7 million taxes plus a 30% penalty and interest, but his spokesman said that ‘Nadhim Zahawi does not recognise this amount’. As the Grauniad put it, ‘Penalties are applied if someone does not pay the correct tax at the right time.’ Meanwhile, Gove and others are underlining that he did pay his taxes: I think that most people would feel that there is a difference between promptly paying your taxes in full and hanging on until HMRC catches up with you.

(Sorry, I can’t do a link.)

 

[The Ham]

News stories like the one below don't make for happy reading, things like 1 in 4 not being able to save £10 per month (when 2 to 8 out of 100 is more typical only a few years ago:

Is life in the UK really as bad as the numbers suggest? Yes, it is

The past 15 years have been a disappointment on a scale we could hardly have imagined

www.ft.com

Is life in the UK really as bad as the numbers suggest? Yes, it is

Tim Harford

At a time of shortages, we are certainly not short of gloomy economic forecasts. The Resolution Foundation think-tank notes that average real earnings have fallen by 7 per cent since a year ago and predicts that earnings will take four or five years to recover to the levels of January 2022.

Real household disposable income per capita has barely increased for 15 years. This is not normal. Since 1948, this measure of spending power reliably increased in the UK, doubling every 30 years. It was about twice as high in 1978 as in 1948 and was in touching distance of doubling again by 2008, before the financial crisis intervened.

Today, it’s back at those pre-crisis levels. It’s worth lingering on this point because it is so extraordinary. Had the pre-crisis trend continued, the typical Brit would by now be 40 per cent richer.

Consider the public finances. In an ideal world, governments offer their citizens low taxes, excellent public services and falling national debt. In normal circumstances, we can’t have it all. Right now, we can’t have any of it. We have rising taxes. At more than 37 per cent of national income, they are four percentage points higher than they’ve tended to be over the past four decades.

Many people struggle to pay for the basics. A large survey conducted by the Resolution Foundation in late November found that about a quarter of people said they couldn’t afford regular savings of £10 a month, couldn’t afford to spend small sums on themselves, couldn’t afford to replace electrical goods and couldn’t afford to switch on the heating when needed. Three years ago, only an unlucky few — between 2 and 8 per cent — described themselves as having such concerns over spending.

As my colleague John Burn-Murdoch has recently shown, median incomes in the UK are well below those in places such as Norway, Switzerland or the US and well below the average of developed countries. Incomes of the poor, those at the 10th percentile, are lower in the UK than in Slovenia.

If all this was happening during a deep recession, we could have hope. “One day,” we’d say to ourselves, “the business cycle will turn, businesses will start hiring again, tax revenues will increase and some of our problems will disappear of their own accord.” But we are not in a deep recession.

Recently unemployment has been lower than at any time since before the prime minister was born, which suggests that a dramatic cyclical uptick is unlikely.

 

[brad465]

Sunak gets fixed penalty notice for not wearing seatbelt, they don't mess about in the Lancashire constabulary:

Rishi Sunak fined for not wearing seatbelt in back of car

The PM says he will pay a £100 fine for breaking the law while he filmed a video in a moving car.

www.bbc.co.uk

Prime Minister Rishi Sunak gets fixed penalty notice for not wearing seatbelt in a moving car while filming social media video

 

[WizCastro197]

Sunak gets fixed penalty notice for not wearing seatbelt, they don't mess about in the Lancashire constabulary:

Rishi Sunak fined for not wearing seatbelt in back of car

The PM says he will pay a £100 fine for breaking the law while he filmed a video in a moving car.

www.bbc.co.uk

That was quick! I guess evidence wasn’t in short supply.

 

[GusB]

That's two fixed penalty notices - how many more "points" does he need before Sunak gets an automatic ban?

 

[nw1]

That's two fixed penalty notices - how many more "points" does he need before Sunak gets an automatic ban?

Can he get an automatic ban from being PM if he does it again - thus triggering a general election?

Seriously, this government lurching from one mess-up to another does remind me very much of the closing days of the Major government (though to me, the Major government was much less bad). I think it's now clear that unless anything really drastic happens, the Conservatives will be out of power by June 2024, I can't see them getting a minority government let alone a majority. I guess they could play the "bring back Boris" wildcard but I suspect they would annoy more people than they attract if they try that on.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Jan 2023 ==

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.

Indeed. And if they spent less time wittering on about how great Brexit is and how wonderful we are no longer subject to champagne-cork laws - and more about actually fixing the problems the country is facing - then maybe the Conservatives might have a chance at the next election.

 

[Gloster]

According to an item in the Grauniad, Zahawi seems now to be admitting that there was an error, but that it was ‘careless and not deliberate’. This was the man in charge of the nation’s finances. He also seems to be hinting at an element of heroic self-sacrifice, by saying he settled the matter ‘so that I could focus on my life as a public servant’.

Sorry, I can’t do a link.

 

[brad465]

According to an item in the Grauniad, Zahawi seems now to be admitting that there was an error, but that it was ‘careless and not deliberate’. This was the man in charge of the nation’s finances. He also seems to be hinting at an element of heroic self-sacrifice, by saying he settled the matter ‘so that I could focus on my life as a public servant’.

Sorry, I can’t do a link.

The BBC are also fronting the story, it certainly doesn't seem to be dying down:

Nadhim Zahawi: Tax error was careless and not deliberate

Labour calls on the ex-chancellor to answer questions after he addresses "confusion" about his taxes.

www.bbc.co.uk

Tory Party Chairman Nadhim Zahawi says an error in his tax affairs was accepted by HMRC as having been "careless and not deliberate".
In a statement, he said he wanted to address "confusion about my finances" after claims he tried to avoid tax and had to pay it back.
He said he had chosen to "settle the matter and pay what they said was due, which was the right thing to do".
Labour has called for the former chancellor to be sacked.
According to the Guardian, Mr Zahawi had to pay back tax he owed with a 30% penalty and the total amounts to £4.8m.
The BBC has been unable to verify that figure, but when the paper asked about the penalty, Mr Zahawi's spokesperson did not deny one had been paid.
Mr Zahawi's statement does not make clear whether he paid a penalty or not as part of his settlement, nor does it say how much he paid to HMRC.
Penalties can be applied if tax is not paid in the correct amount at the right time.

In the statement issued on Saturday afternoon, Mr Zahawi said: "As a senior politician I know that scrutiny and propriety are important parts of public life. Twenty-two years ago I co-founded a company called YouGov. I'm incredibly proud of what we achieved. It is an amazing business that has employed thousands of people and provides a world-beating service.
"When we set it up, I didn't have the money or the expertise to go it alone. So I asked my father to help. In the process, he took founder shares in the business in exchange for some capital and his invaluable guidance. Twenty one years later, when I was being appointed chancellor of the exchequer, questions were being raised about my tax affairs. I discussed this with the Cabinet Office at the time.
"Following discussions with HMRC, they agreed that my father was entitled to founder shares in YouGov, though they disagreed about the exact allocation. They concluded that this was a 'careless and not deliberate' error.
"So that I could focus on my life as a public servant, I chose to settle the matter and pay what they said was due, which was the right thing to do."
Mr Zahawi has faced questions over whether he used a company called Balshore to hold shares in YouGov, the polling company he co-founded in 2000 - something he has always denied.
Balshore Investments is registered offshore in Gibraltar.
In his statement, Mr Zahawi continues: "Additionally, HMRC agreed with my accountants that I have never set up an offshore structure, including Balshore Investments, and that I am not the beneficiary of Balshore Investments.
"This matter was resolved prior to my appointments as chancellor of the duchy of Lancaster and subsequently chairman of the party I love so much. When I was appointed by the prime minister, all my tax affairs were up to date."

 

[SuspectUsual]

30% is the maximum penalty for “accidental” errors with HMRC, but can be reduced if there is mitigation like raising a concern, fully cooperating etc. It looks like Zahawi received no reduction, which contradicts his statement about cooperating with the investigation.

I honestly cannot understand why any politician - regardless of party - caught up in any controversy doesn’t tell the whole truth straight away. The story always gets out eventually

 

[DynamicSpirit]

30% is the maximum penalty for “accidental” errors with HMRC, but can be reduced if there is mitigation like raising a concern, fully cooperating etc. It looks like Zahawi received no reduction, which contradicts his statement about cooperating with the investigation.

I honestly cannot understand why any politician - regardless of party - caught up in any controversy doesn’t tell the whole truth straight away. The story always gets out eventually

Yeah, now that it's emerged that there was in fact a penalty, that puts a very different perspective on the story - and means my earlier posts in this thread about it were clearly mistaken. This is starting to have the feel of partygate, the way the various statements put out by Zahawi and his allies keep getting shown to be misleading as more of the story leaks out. At this point, it looks like this should be, senior political career over for Zahawi. Lucky for the Conservatives that he didn't get very far in his leadership bid!

 

[jfollows]

I honestly cannot understand why any politician - regardless of party - caught up in any controversy doesn’t tell the whole truth straight away. The story always gets out eventually

I think it's because some of them live in a kind of parallel universe in which common sense and laws that apply to the rest of us don't apply to them - I agree with your point completely, they're stupid when they don't tell the truth from the start, but so many of them don't that there has to be a reason for it, and the only one I can think of is that the "Westminster bubble" effect makes them think that they're much more important than they really are and that the world outside Westminster doesn't really matter, so it's OK to be vague and evasive in the first place, which it really isn't.

 

[brad465]

While it concerns a former PM, this is quite the bombshell:

https://twitter.com/Gabriel_Pogrund/status/1616859756387237888

EXCLUSIVE

The BBC chairman helped arrange a guarantee on a loan of up to £800K for Boris Johnson weeks before then PM selected him for the role. Johnson was told to end Richard Sharp’s involvement in his financial affairs by Cab Office 1/7

Sharp has given £400k to the Conservatives, once managed Rishi Sunak at Goldman Sachs and is friend of Johnson But his proximity to Johnson - and involvement in financing his lifestyle in Downing St - has never been revealed (2/7)

Sharp became involved after dining with his friend Sam Blyth, a millionaire foreign national and distant cousin of Johnson's in Nov 2020 Blyth asked Sharp for advice. Sharp agreed to help. He met Simon Case to discuss matter in No10, brokered intro for Blyth, briefed PM (3/7)

Simon Case told Sharp to cease his involvement in the matter. Shortly after, Cab Office Propriety and Ethics Team told Johnson to stop talking to Sharp By then, Johnson had already selected Sharp as his candidate for the £160k-a-year role (4/7)

By the time loan was finalised, Johnson had held private dinner at Chequers with two men and a bottle of wine around a small table... Sharp and Blyth It is claimed the PM's finances were not discussed. Team Johnson dismissed Qs about the meal, saying: "So what? Big deal." (5/7)

BBC job application says: "You cannot be considered for a public appointment if you fail to declare any conflict of interest" Candidates must disclose anything which could later undermine confidence in appointment Sharp didn't tell panel. MPs on pre-hearing did not know (6/7)

Sharp acknowledges he "connected" Johnson's guarantor with the head of the civil service; he insists there was no conflict and he did not provide wider financial advice. Johnson will not answer Qs, says all interests have been declared property. (7/7)

 

[yorksrob]

News stories like the one below don't make for happy reading, things like 1 in 4 not being able to save £10 per month (when 2 to 8 out of 100 is more typical only a few years ago:

Is life in the UK really as bad as the numbers suggest? Yes, it is

The past 15 years have been a disappointment on a scale we could hardly have imagined

www.ft.com

This seems to be a problem for other western countries, the USA in particular.

The 1% of the most wealthy using their wealth to appropriate all of the resources.