• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

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

Status
Not open for further replies.

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
9,213
Location
SE London
I completely agree, even the 1970s are now ancient history. But whenever tax gets mentioned you always get someone saying tax in the 70s was higher. The point is it wasn't.

Agreed. Overall, tax rates were lower in the 1970s. The particular problem in the 1970s (and indeed the 1950s and 60s) was that, for higher earners, the top rates of income tax were so high that, in some cases, pretty much everything you earned above a certain amount was instantly taken away as tax. As I understand it, the 1974-9 Labour Government raised the top income tax rate to 83%, with a surcharge taking it to 98% for investment income. That basically meant that if you earned above a certain amount, there was zero incentive to work to earn more (unless you could arrange your tax affairs abroad).

Today that's not such a problem: Overall tax rates are higher, but arranged so that you always get to keep a reasonable portion of what you earn (with the possible exception that I'm not sure if there are still issues for people on low incomes around the point where Universal Credit gets removed, and I seem to recall a couple of years ago, a combination of tax allowances tapering off and possibly NI(?) was causing effective 100%+ tax rates for a small income range around £100K, but I can't recall the details).
 
Last edited:
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Yew

Established Member
Joined
12 Mar 2011
Messages
7,236
Location
UK
Today that's not such a problem: Overall tax rates are higher, but arranged so that you always get to keep a reasonable portion of what you earn (with the possible exception that I'm not sure if there are still issues for people on low incomes around the point where Universal Credit gets removed, and I seem to recall a couple of years ago, a combination of tax allowances tapering off and possibly NI(?) was causing effective 100%+ tax rates for a small income range around £100K, but I can't recall the details).
So the poor pay more so that the rich have more capital to exploit their labor?
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
9,213
Location
SE London
So the poor pay more so that the rich have more capital to exploit their labor?

Not at all. The problem of people on benefits losing effectively 100% of additional income has been around for many decades. It was certainly a problem in the 1970s and 1980s, I think probably to a greater extent than today: The issue was that, if you started to earn money, you'd basically lose £1 of benefit for every additional £1 you earned. The point was presumably to ensure you were giving people enough to live on without it costing the Government any more than it had to, but it obviously lead to the problem of, people on benefits having zero financial incentive to take on work unless the work was going to earn them substantially more than the total they were already getting in benefits. As I understand it, one of the motivations behind the introduction of Universal Credit was precisely to stop that problem, and ensure the tapering of benefits with income was low enough to always make it worthwhile for people to work - but I'm not sure to what extent it succeeded in that - hence my phrase 'I'm not sure' in the post you were replying to.

At any rate nothing in what I've said would allow you to deduce that that poor are paying more.
 

brad465

Veteran Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
11,480
Location
Taunton or Kent
The FT are reporting growing momentum for Johnson to be ousted and how more MPs are getting tired of having to defend him:


...One close ally of the prime minister in London said: “He should have been here, working the tea rooms and trying to reassure colleagues. Instead people have just seen clips of him looking exasperated.”...
 

Cdd89

Established Member
Joined
8 Jan 2017
Messages
1,745
The FT are reporting growing momentum for Johnson to be ousted and how more MPs are getting tired of having to defend him.
I suspect the only thing keeping him in post is the knowledge that the investigation is not yet over, and someone else may yet be implicated.

Imagine how stupid they’d have felt if they’d installed Sunak a couple of months ago.

I suspect he’ll cling on until after the investigation has concluded.
 

The Ham

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
12,036
I suspect the only thing keeping him in post is the knowledge that the investigation is not yet over, and someone else may yet be implicated.

Imagine how stupid they’d have felt if they’d installed Sunak a couple of months ago.

I suspect he’ll cling on until after the investigation has concluded.

I suspect that it would have been questioned a LOT in any leadership contest, with anyone then receiving a fine after the event being in a lot of hot water.

Of course it could have been possible for someone to have fessed up to bring in the room when there were events and avoided quite a lot of any future fall out when fines were issued.

In the case of Sunak; IF it's only the cake party he gets a fine for he may have been able to ride it out if he didn't try and cover it up during the leadership contest, bit rather apologised for it right from the start.
 

jfollows

Established Member
Joined
26 Feb 2011
Messages
10,118
Location
Wilmslow
The Observer also reporting growing momentum to get rid of Boris Johnson, one change being that there is less focus now on who might replace him, it's more important just to get rid of him and the assumption is that a good replacement will emerge (https://www.theguardian.com/politic...hnson-leadership-second-partygate-fine-report)
Boris Johnson should go sooner rather than later, say top Tory MPs

‘We can’t wait for successor to emerge,’ they claim, as Partygate revelations have become ‘too damaging’

Toby Helm and Michael Savage

Sat 23 Apr 2022 20.30 BST

Plans to ditch Boris Johnson as Tory leader and prime minister “sooner rather than later”, without waiting for a clear and obvious successor to emerge, are being advanced by a growing number of senior Conservatives.

Amid mounting alarm at the effects the Partygate scandal could have on their electoral chances, high-ranking MPs are urging wavering colleagues not to dither because of worries about the succession, or Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, but rather to strike before it is too late.

One former minister told the Observer: “Things have changed. There is now a feeling that we can’t defend what is going on and that we can’t delay any longer because of the succession or Ukraine. If we don’t act well before the party conference in October, it will be too late.”

After another disastrous week for Johnson, during which MPs of all parties agreed to set up their own investigation into whether he deliberately misled parliament, MPs say several potential successors are stepping up campaign preparations and canvassing support – including Liz Truss, Penny Mordaunt and Jeremy Hunt.

Last night Mark Harper, the former Tory chief whip, who last week called for Johnson to go, told the Observer he understood why some colleagues wanted to delay acting until after Partygate investigations were complete, or for other reasons.

But he urged them to have confidence that an excellent successor would emerge during the process to elect a new leader, even if it was unclear now who that would be.

“I have seen enough to reach a conclusion that the prime minister needs to go,” Harper said. “My colleagues can be confident that we have very talented people and a very robust process for selecting a new leader that will ensure we get a capable, credible successor who can set out an attractive proposition and ensure we can win the next election.”

He added: “I think the facts will mean that a majority of Conservative MPs will reach the conclusion that the prime minister needs to go.”

Another former cabinet minister said doubts over the succession were now irrelevant, such was the urgency of the situation. “A broomstick would be better than what we have at the moment,” he said.

The mood swung dramatically against Johnson last week after he was forced to apologise to the Commons for being fined for attending a lockdown birthday party in 2020, and then appeared to back attempts to order his own MPs to block an investigation into whether he had deliberately misled parliament by previously denying parties had taken place.

Many Tory MPs are waiting until the results of the 5 May local elections before deciding whether to send a formal letter of no confidence in Johnson to the chair of the backbench 1922 Committee, Sir Graham Brady. If Brady receives 54 or more such letters, a vote of confidence has to be held, and if Johnson loses he must step down.

The problems that have recently engulfed the previous favourite to succeed Johnson, the chancellor, Rishi Sunak – over his wife’s tax affairs, and the fact that he, too, was fined for breaking lockdown rules – are seen as having destroyed his chances of following Johnson into No 10.

The Tory peer Lord Hayward agreed that the mood had changed and succession issues were less likely to hold MPs back. “I get the impression that because people have moved from whatever position they were in to a more sceptical position, they now believe it’s just got to happen – and we’ll have the conversation about ‘who next’ when it happens. There are people moving, reaching the point of no return, even though they’re not sure who the alternative would be. It’s only a question of judging when the moment arrives.”

Another senior Tory MP said: “Lots of colleagues who have local elections going on have been hearing, ‘I like what you’re doing as our new MP, but we can’t vote for you while that blithering idiot is in office’. I spoke to several MPs this week who had all taken their seats from Labour. They all said the situation was terrible. They’re starting to say, it’s not whether but when – and it doesn’t matter who, as long as it’s not him.”

Johnson insisted during a two-day trade trip to India that he would lead his party into the next general election. But the Partygate scandal dogged him throughout the visit. Shortly before his return to London on Friday, it emerged that the Metropolitan police had started to issue fines for another party he attended – in this case a “bring your own booze” garden event on 20 May 2020. No 10 said Johnson had not been fined for attending the event, though it was impossible to say whether he would be in the future.

Opposition party leaders said it would be unacceptable for the prime minister to hold back information about whether he had been fined ahead of the local elections.

Labour’s deputy leader, Angela Rayner, said: “There can be no hiding place for law breaking, and that includes in Downing Street. Boris Johnson must keep his promise and declare without hesitation if he is given another fine for breaking his own lockdown law. He has withheld the truth from the British public for far too long.”
My sense accords with this; this week started with Boris apologising but doing a better job than he'd done before by not attacking Keir Starmer in the process, but he then shrugged it all off in a "private" meeting with Conservative MPs, then tried to derail the Labour motion that he be investigated only to realise that this attempt might fail, so there was a big U-turn which only reminded everyone about the Owen Paterson affair all over again.

I think this week is when Boris Johnson finally understands that he's on the way out; until now he's resorted to bluff and bluster but has also convinced himself that he's not leaving. One of his characteristics I attribute him with is that he's a fantasist who deludes himself, and he's been doing this, but I think this week's developments will finally have revealed the reality of the situation which even he can't ignore.
 
Last edited:

MattRat

On Moderation
Joined
26 May 2021
Messages
2,128
Location
Liverpool
There is this new thing called investment, they pay back more than their costs over the long term; we could be enjoying their fruits if it wasn't for the systemic underinvestment since Thatcher.
There is investment, and then there is money burning. HS2 shouldn't cost as much as it does, and I'd like to know where the money is actually going.

And that's the Tories in a nutshell. All this cash thrown at something, and then it effectively disappears.
 

brad465

Veteran Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
11,480
Location
Taunton or Kent
Daily Mail reporting ruses of an early General Election…
He's using that as a threat to try and get his MPs into line, something now possible because the Fixed Term Parliaments Act has been repealed. It maybe an empty threat, or if he followed through it would, based on the current situation, look like "if I'm going down, you're all going down with me".

The Mail [on Sunday] are also reporting an extremely misogynistic article claiming Angela Rayner is trying to distract the PM in PMQs through Basic Instinct style leg crossing and uncrossing, which is causing uproar on Twitter, particularly from female journalists. I'm not quoting that article here as it's beyond inappropriate.
 

Bayum

Established Member
Joined
21 Mar 2008
Messages
3,297
Location
Leeds
He's using that as a threat to try and get his MPs into line, something now possible because the Fixed Term Parliaments Act has been repealed. It maybe an empty threat, or if he followed through it would, based on the current situation, look like "if I'm going down, you're all going down with me".
Thus my use of the word ‘ruse’.
 

Gloster

Veteran Member
Joined
4 Sep 2020
Messages
12,996
Location
Up the creek
Thus my use of the word ‘ruse’.
Alternatively Johnson is looking at a ‘Rally round the flag’ election. ‘Support the party that is the only one that can defend the country in our hour of need, unlike the opposition who would cravenly surrender to Russia at the first opportunity. Anyone who doesn’t is a traitor.’ He would probably hope that Putin would do something that would panic the electorate: Putin knows how useful it is (to him) to have a useful idiot in Downing Street.
 

Yew

Established Member
Joined
12 Mar 2011
Messages
7,236
Location
UK
Not at all. The problem of people on benefits losing effectively 100% of additional income has been around for many decades. It was certainly a problem in the 1970s and 1980s, I think probably to a greater extent than today: The issue was that, if you started to earn money, you'd basically lose £1 of benefit for every additional £1 you earned. The point was presumably to ensure you were giving people enough to live on without it costing the Government any more than it had to, but it obviously lead to the problem of, people on benefits having zero financial incentive to take on work unless the work was going to earn them substantially more than the total they were already getting in benefits. As I understand it, one of the motivations behind the introduction of Universal Credit was precisely to stop that problem, and ensure the tapering of benefits with income was low enough to always make it worthwhile for people to work - but I'm not sure to what extent it succeeded in that - hence my phrase 'I'm not sure' in the post you were replying to.

At any rate nothing in what I've said would allow you to deduce that that poor are paying more.
I made no mention of benefits. I was speaking of the reduction in income tax for high level earners, and a move to taxation at point of sale, It costs the same to put a litre of diesel in a 15 year old ford as a brand new Mercedes. And hence overall a less "progressive" taxation regime.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

There is investment, and then there is money burning. HS2 shouldn't cost as much as it does, and I'd like to know where the money is actually going.

And that's the Tories in a nutshell. All this cash thrown at something, and then it effectively disappears.
If only we had maintained our own electrification skills base, and didn't have to employ expensive consultants from the continent.
 

nw1

Established Member
Joined
9 Aug 2013
Messages
9,430
Alternatively Johnson is looking at a ‘Rally round the flag’ election. ‘Support the party that is the only one that can defend the country in our hour of need, unlike the opposition who would cravenly surrender to Russia at the first opportunity. Anyone who doesn’t is a traitor.’ He would probably hope that Putin would do something that would panic the electorate: Putin knows how useful it is (to him) to have a useful idiot in Downing Street.

Only people with exceptionally low intelligence or naive enough to believe everything the Mail and Express tells them would believe that: since when has Keir Starmer been a Putin apologist?

Then again, there do seem to be a lot of people that believe that the wealthy Eton- and Oxford-educated Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson, a descendant of German royalty, is somehow a "man of the people" and "standing up against the elite", or at least they did in 2019. Hopefully that ship has now sailed now and people realise he, well, isn't.
 
Last edited:

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
9,213
Location
SE London
Only people with exceptionally low intelligence or naive enough to believe everything the Mail and Express tells them would believe that: since when has Keir Starmer been a Putin apologist?

Indeed. I think it's probably worth bearing in mind that the post you're replying to is pure personal speculation by @Gloster. In 2019 it was easy (and arguably, justified) to attack Labour's leader on national security grounds; today that would look rather ridiculous, beyond that the Conservatives might try the 'you supported Corbyn' line. At any rate, given that the Conservatives are some way behind in the polls, it seems extremely unlikely that Johnson would be thinking about any kind of early election right now.
 

MattRat

On Moderation
Joined
26 May 2021
Messages
2,128
Location
Liverpool
Only people with exceptionally low intelligence or naive enough to believe everything the Mail and Express tells them would believe that: since when has Keir Starmer been a Putin apologist?
Starmer has focused more on Boris' parties than Russia, and some voters already want to move on from the parties, so here's there opportunity gifted to them.

Don't know how many people it will be, but expect it to be spread around on social media by some people.
 

nw1

Established Member
Joined
9 Aug 2013
Messages
9,430
Indeed. I think it's probably worth bearing in mind that the post you're replying to is pure personal speculation by @Gloster.
True, I wasn't arguing against @Gloster, as such, but just arguing against the (theoretical) argument that support for Starmer equates to tolerance of Putin.
 

Shrop

Established Member
Joined
6 Aug 2019
Messages
1,354
This thread has now been going on for the best part of a year and we are well past 2000 comments, and yet the very fact that it was started at all, was because Boris's position was dubious many months ago. Since then it has been proved that he broke the law, as have many of his colleagues, and yet somehow his resignation looks hardly any more likely now than when this thread was first started. If there's one thing Boris has proved himself to be very good at, along with his "seat for life" cronies who are so well practised at making ridiculous diversionary comments whilst being lawbreakers, it's being slippery.
 

DanNCL

Established Member
Joined
17 Jul 2017
Messages
5,123
Location
County Durham
Identically worded tweets this morning from Boris Johnson and Nadine Dorries regarding the misogynistic Mail on Sunday article about Angela Rayner.
Boris Johnson said:
As much as I disagree with @AngelaRayner on almost every political issue I respect her as a parliamentarian and deplore the misogyny directed at her anonymously today.

Nadine Dorries said:
As much as I disagree with @AngelaRayner on almost every political issue I respect her as a parliamentarian and deplore the misogyny directed at her anonymously today.
 

AM9

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2014
Messages
16,034
Location
St Albans
Identically worded tweets this morning from Boris Johnson and Nadine Dorries regarding the misogynistic Mail on Sunday article about Angela Rayner.


There's an article in today's Sunday Times where Dorries claims to be dislexic. That clearly doesn't affect her judgement of the way the BBC is reporting things in the news. Maybe it was easier to assume that Boris's tweet didn't have any spelling errors in it.
 

GusB

Established Member
Joined
9 Jul 2016
Messages
8,141
Location
Elginshire

Domh245

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2013
Messages
8,426
Location
nowhere
When I heard on the news earlier that he'd tweeted in Raynor's defence, my thoughts were that it was the decent thing to do.

How silly of me to think that there was any sincerity behind it!

I think that this was Dorries doing a copy-paste job rather than any sort of centralised message to be tweeted out. I suspect there's some sincerity from Boris (well, as much as Boris is capable of managing)
 

brad465

Veteran Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
11,480
Location
Taunton or Kent
I think that this was Dorries doing a copy-paste job rather than any sort of centralised message to be tweeted out. I suspect there's some sincerity from Boris (well, as much as Boris is capable of managing)
Yes Javid had a contrastingly different text that still criticised the report:


If an MP or MPs really said this then it’s utterly shameful. No woman in politics should have to put up with this.
 

brad465

Veteran Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
11,480
Location
Taunton or Kent
The dead cats are getting quite rancid.
When the stories being distracted from are extremely rancid, then the dead cats have to be rancid. In this case it'll be reports of 56 MPs being subject to sexual misconduct allegations, including 3 Cabinet and 2 Shadow Cabinet members; this would be an order of magnitude worse than the expenses scandal.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
35,817
If only we had maintained our own electrification skills base, and didn't have to employ expensive consultants from the continent.

for electrification, we don’t employ many (if any) ‘consultants’ from the continent. We have employed OLE construction teams from the continent, but they are cheaper than those from the U.K.
 

Yew

Established Member
Joined
12 Mar 2011
Messages
7,236
Location
UK
for electrification, we don’t employ many (if any) ‘consultants’ from the continent. We have employed OLE construction teams from the continent, but they are cheaper than those from the U.K.
I'd daresay that the domestic teams spend more of their money in the country though, so it's only cheaper if we pretend the entire field of macroeconomics doesn't exist.
 

Trog

Established Member
Joined
30 Oct 2009
Messages
1,546
Location
In Retirement.
This thread has now been going on for the best part of a year and we are well past 2000 comments, and yet the very fact that it was started at all, was because Boris's position was dubious many months ago. Since then it has been proved that he broke the law, as have many of his colleagues............................

Something interesting that was said to me today was that the Covid restrictions were governed by the Public Health Control of Disease act 1984. This however does not apply to properties of the Crown Estate which includes Downing Street. So while the Police can dish out fines to their hearts content those such as the Civil Servants who have no image to maintain before the elections can just refuse to pay, and the Police can do nothing about it.

This would also make it technically true that legally no offence was committed, presumably however Boris and Co thought that weaselling out via a loop hole not available to the public at large would look worse than holding up their hands and paying a small fine.

(Below somewhat less than 100% seriously)
Also while paying a fine you owe because you are guilty would be non refundable, I wonder if you pay a fine you are technically not guilty of for political reasons could that be claimed back as a business expense?
 

jfollows

Established Member
Joined
26 Feb 2011
Messages
10,118
Location
Wilmslow
Although not quite the same thing, a former employer who employed Boris Johnson to review cars wrote off the numerous parking tickets he received as a business expense, he said the articles were good enough to be worth it. He also noted that not infrequently the cars delivered to Boris to be reviewed had precisely the same mileage on their clocks later when Boris had them collected from his house after reviewing them.
 

Kite159

Veteran Member
Joined
27 Jan 2014
Messages
22,786
Location
West of Andover
Remind me, who's manifesto at the last election was fully costed?
Fully costed with the assumption that by hiking up tax rates those affected wouldn't just go "bugger it, I'm off to another country" or use other legal ways to reduce their tax liability?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top