Rishi Sunak - Prime Minister
Discussion
Collectingbrass said:
I think he is going to have to stick around for a while. I think the vote will be close enough that the problems, or perceived problems, getting postal votes out and returned will trigger by-elections and legal challenges. This could mean that
- some of the potential candidates for the next Tory leader won't be MPs on Friday, Kemi Badenoch's seat is one example - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9785zegzm8o
- enough seats will be disputed (either for cause as above or for Trumpian behaviours) that we won't know whether the Tories or the Lib Dems are the Loyal Opposition. Can Parliament even sit if that isn't settled?
These are all internal Party issues, nothing to do with Parliament. Change the rules, they go away. - some of the potential candidates for the next Tory leader won't be MPs on Friday, Kemi Badenoch's seat is one example - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9785zegzm8o
- enough seats will be disputed (either for cause as above or for Trumpian behaviours) that we won't know whether the Tories or the Lib Dems are the Loyal Opposition. Can Parliament even sit if that isn't settled?
Parliament can sit without a firm decision on who the biggest loser was in the last election.
JagLover said:
Not sure "failure" matters so much as whether he has being doing favours for the right people while in office.
Which he will no longer be able to do and given the crushing defeat certain to be suffered, will not be able to have any influence on those who now are able to do so. Past favours count for little if he’s not able to be useful in that kind of company as they aren’t particularly prone to mere gratitude I’d say.98elise said:
Yup. I retired as soon as the IR35 changes impacted me. I would have ended up paying 15% more tax, so just stopped working. Instead of being a positive contributor to the economy I'm now a drain. I contribute nothing to GDP, I minimise my tax, and I spend less.
That means a couple of other people need to contribute more to just break even.
Tax is a means to raise money and to change behavior. You can't have one without the other so when you tax work more, you also encourage people to work less.
Similar situation for me. Dividend and corporation tax changes in the mix too, but nothing to deal with, for instance, the £100k+ income tax marginal rate.That means a couple of other people need to contribute more to just break even.
Tax is a means to raise money and to change behavior. You can't have one without the other so when you tax work more, you also encourage people to work less.
Retirement was supposed to be 25 years away for me though. I'm not the only one I know looking at retirement in their early 40s either.
isaldiri said:
JagLover said:
Not sure "failure" matters so much as whether he has being doing favours for the right people while in office.
Which he will no longer be able to do and given the crushing defeat certain to be suffered, will not be able to have any influence on those who now are able to do so. Past favours count for little if he’s not able to be useful in that kind of company as they aren’t particularly prone to mere gratitude I’d say.Consultancies, advisors, think tanks, book deals, speaking engagements etc etc.
Nick Clegg makes millions every year!
BikeBikeBIke said:
oyster said:
carlo996 said:
markh1973 said:
As opposed to those using the politics of fear and making up Labour's policies for them.
Try again, Labour themselves haven’t denied the tax rises and it’s what every Labour government does. By fear, if you mean fear of paying more…see what odds you get at the bookmakers 
If I'm asked to pay an extra 5% of my total income in tax - it won't break me.
But yeah, us middle income PAYE people will be first in the fireing line whoever wins, as always.
I'd actually like to see governments working to extract maximum tax revenue from the best possible rates, whilst maintaining fairness - in other words set rates at the peak of the laffer curve.
I hate this idea of taking people out of income tax altogether. Everybody should pay, albeit proportional to their income/wealth.
I would scrap ALL allowances (IHT, CGT, Income Tax) and lower the rates - but not flat rate them.
oyster said:
BikeBikeBIke said:
oyster said:
carlo996 said:
markh1973 said:
As opposed to those using the politics of fear and making up Labour's policies for them.
Try again, Labour themselves haven’t denied the tax rises and it’s what every Labour government does. By fear, if you mean fear of paying more…see what odds you get at the bookmakers If I'm asked to pay an extra 5% of my total income in tax - it won't break me.
But yeah, us middle income PAYE people will be first in the fireing line whoever wins, as always.
I'd actually like to see governments working to extract maximum tax revenue from the best possible rates, whilst maintaining fairness - in other words set rates at the peak of the laffer curve.
I hate this idea of taking people out of income tax altogether. Everybody should pay, albeit proportional to their income/wealth.
I would scrap ALL allowances (IHT, CGT, Income Tax) and lower the rates - but not flat rate them.
Literally none of them have said a word about that.
Middle income PAYE-rs will lose a bit in real term from drag on allowances (which are probably too high anyway as you suggest). Where they should be more worried (unless they work in the public sector) is changes to the tax regimes around pensions either on contribution, tax free cash or some kind of LTA. That and restrictions on ISAs
You probably won't feel the pain of those yet if you are some way off retirement but when you get there you will realise that, just like Brown did, Starmer and Reeves have done a Dick Turpin-esque runner with a good chunk of your retirement funds.
The other thing they ought to be doing is closing all public sector DB pension schemes to new entrants and putting everyone on the same footing with market average rates of employer contributions to DC schemes.
Problem with that is obviously breaking the vicious circle where new contributions go straight out the door to paying existing pensioners, but we can't sustain the ever-increasing deficits that these schemes have. Brown and Prescott bottled that (while raping everyyone else's pensions) , it needs sorting out.
Wombat3 said:
I'd like to see governments working to extract the maximum possible value from the money they already take before they even look at changing taxation.
Literally none of them have said a word about that.
Rachel Reeves has talked endlessly about improving delivery. Whether you believe her or not is up to you but it's not true none of them have said nothing. No idea about Hunt, who listens to him?Literally none of them have said a word about that.
President Merkin said:
Wombat3 said:
I'd like to see governments working to extract the maximum possible value from the money they already take before they even look at changing taxation.
Literally none of them have said a word about that.
Rachel Reeves has talked endlessly about improving delivery. Whether you believe her or not is up to you but it's not true none of them have said nothing. No idea about Hunt, who listens to him?Literally none of them have said a word about that.
Mr Penguin said:
Making the public sector more efficient sounds good but if it was easy (given funding, existing systems, workforce etc) why have their predecessors not already done it?
TBF, and this applies nowhere more than in planning, if anyone can force reform onto the public sector, then a Labour government with a decent majority can.Mr Miata said:
London424 said:
Have you not noticed how much politicians make once they leave?
Consultancies, advisors, think tanks, book deals, speaking engagements etc etc.
Nick Clegg makes millions every year!
The biggest joke has to be Tony Blair being the Middle East Peace Envoy. Consultancies, advisors, think tanks, book deals, speaking engagements etc etc.
Nick Clegg makes millions every year!
Oh the irony.
As London 424 says, when even that miscalculated fart Clegg is coining it in, then there's hope for Sunak yet.
isaldiri said:
Which he will no longer be able to do and given the crushing defeat certain to be suffered, will not be able to have any influence on those who now are able to do so. Past favours count for little if he’s not able to be useful in that kind of company as they aren’t particularly prone to mere gratitude I’d say.
You're wrong. All you have to do is look at others who have left office in a similar situation. It's nothing to do with gratitude, and everything to do with money, which he knows, and has plenty. Digga said:
TBF, and this applies nowhere more than in planning, if anyone can force reform onto the public sector, then a Labour government with a decent majority can.
I'm talking more about things like the inefficiencies in healthcare provision - not just scanning those paper documents as mentioned but also things like making a more efficient "production line" or scheduling/training for operations.Someone mentioned clinical staff having to be involved in everything but I bet there is a good chance that a director of warehouse operations can bring in some improvements by looking at it from the point of view of a logistical operation which needs healthcare rather than healthcare which needs logistics.
But doctors have a powerful union and historically have tended to be quite insular and not very self-critical as a profession (I think the last part is changing).
Here is an example of the NHS trying to learn from other industries and benefiting from it. This would be extremely hard to do if you don't have a team of people who are willing to try and it and see where it goes and too many people are wary of efficiency because they think it will lead to redundancies. Even if you have the right people, it has to be done around maintaining a service.
Mr Penguin said:
Making the public sector more efficient sounds good but if it was easy (given funding, existing systems, workforce etc) why have their predecessors not already done it?
Because its easier to extract more taxation. Besides that sorting out the public sector now would be like trying to nail jelly to a wall.
Rivenink said:
Been a while since we've had a democratic change of Prime Minister... so please remind me
If the predicted happens, do we have to suffer Sunak whining at a podium in front of Downing Street before he goes off to the King to get his p45?
Ideally not. If the predicted happens, do we have to suffer Sunak whining at a podium in front of Downing Street before he goes off to the King to get his p45?
In any case it looks like rain in London tomorrow morning and maybe afternoon, but that's just a weather forecast. Déja vu,
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff