Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

Started by Josquius, February 20, 2016, 07:46:34 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

How would you vote on Britain remaining in the EU?

British- Remain
12 (12%)
British - Leave
7 (7%)
Other European - Remain
21 (21%)
Other European - Leave
6 (6%)
ROTW - Remain
34 (34%)
ROTW - Leave
20 (20%)

Total Members Voted: 98

Sheilbh

Quote from: garbon on June 02, 2023, 11:58:52 AMI do sort of like that Boris just handed over his whatsapp messages directly himself after the recent drama.
I'm not surprised - since the story came out a lot of the comments and briefing seemed to me more civil service than political. I wouldn't be surprised if the person who really doesn't want those WhatsApps to come out is Simon Case.

His fingerprints seem all over a lot of disasters. Also fundamentally I think it's a bad sign that I'm aware of who he is because I feel like I wouldn't have been able to tell you who any of the previous cabinet secretaries were at the time they were in office.

Given his performance here I feel slightly alarmed he was once in a senior position in GCHQ - he seems far better suited to his previous senior role at the palace <_<
Let's bomb Russia!

Josquius

In actual news. The mayor of north of Tyne has been blocked from running to be mayor of an upgraded north east (that still keeps the term mayor quite ridiculously).

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/jun/02/labour-block-jamie-driscoll-from-north-east-mayoralty-contest

I can't find any explanation yet. Very dodgy no matter your views on the guy. No sign of him doing anything wrong.
██████
██████
██████

HVC

What should the person be called if not mayor? :unsure:
Being lazy is bad; unless you still get what you want, then it's called "patience".
Hubris must be punished. Severely.

Sheilbh

Apparently the issue from Labour HQ was that he hosted an "in conversation" event with Ken Loach, which was condemned by the local Jewish Labour Movement (for Loach's past issues) and refused to apologise.

My suspicion is that's probably a pretext and they want rid because he's on the left.

I've been thinking I should post something about this but there's not really been a big enough story. But it's been the case all the way through selections for metro-mayors and also MPs, Starmer is being incredibly ruthless and getting rid of the Labour left. There's always a bit of a fix going on with Labour selections but this level (Michael Crick has been reporting on this from the MP perspective) seems unprecedented. The last count I saw from Crick was that of all target seats, the left candidate had only won one (and she was the candidate in 2019). It's largely being achieved by party HQ not even allowing people to get onto the long list.

Similar examples include the regional chair of Labour in the North-West (and close ally of Rayner) who wasn't selected for a seat neighbouring Rayner.

Apparently a lot of it is being driven by Labour's Campaign Director, Morgan McSweeney (from Cork), who came up through some very factional battles in South London local government - weirdly also what Peter Mandelson was doing before he got moved into the leader's office :hmm: :lol:

I'm not convinced all the candidates of the left are that good. But from what I've read a lot of the candidates being picked by the leadership are overwhelmingly local councillors - I'm sure they'll work hard for their constituencies, but it also sounds like a lot of lobby fodder which is probably not great for Labour in the long run. It seems like the priorities are that they're a local candidate, that they've no association with the left and that they've experience following a party line. I could be wrong, but it feels like that's not going to produce many future cabinet ministers.

This is the sort of thing that moderates feared the left would do (and some were pushing for) when Corbyn was in charge - but the left were out-organised in a way that Starmer hasn't been. They're taking it as well as you'd expect. There's a part of me that is almost impressed at the ruthlessness of Starmer in ditching all of his leadership pledges and wiping out the Labour left but....also not.

I'm not that sympathetic to a lot of the left of Labour but this and Starmer's general rigging of selections (same happened in the constituency I used to live in) seems like it's at ridiculous levels - especially Driscoll who, from all I've seen, is a pretty decent mayor. Also if the left ever win control of the leadership again, they're definitely going to try to purge the centrists.
Let's bomb Russia!

Richard Hakluyt


Josquius

So it is just naked stabbiness then? They're not even going to attempt an excuse?
I see that technically it's not accepting his application for a new position rather than kicking out an incumbent so they can be technically in the clear... But still smells rather off - and I say this as someone who isn't a corbynista and has zero feelings on driscoll.

I got a call from labour the other day that I sadly missed. I wonder whether they were researching for this.


Quote from: HVC on June 02, 2023, 04:21:41 PMWhat should the person be called if not mayor? :unsure:

There's a bunch of better terms alas most ruined by being used for other things.

Mayor has this problem too and totally incorrect associations of covering just a town.

This leads to fucked up situations where you've city region mayors whose regions contain cities with mayors of their own.

At least at a Grand to the Mayor. Something along the lines of speaker considering what the job involves?
██████
██████
██████

Duque de Bragança

Quote from: HVC on June 02, 2023, 04:21:41 PMWhat should the person be called if not mayor? :unsure:
Quote from: HVC on June 02, 2023, 04:21:41 PMWhat should the person be called if not mayor? :unsure:

Oberbürgermeister/Burgomeister

- Majordomo
- Grand Mayor
- Great(er) Mayor
- Arch-Mayor

Alternatively, Municipal Council President.  :P

garbon

Quote from: Josquius on June 03, 2023, 02:55:16 AM
Quote from: HVC on June 02, 2023, 04:21:41 PMWhat should the person be called if not mayor? :unsure:

There's a bunch of better terms alas most ruined by being used for other things.

Mayor has this problem too and totally incorrect associations of covering just a town.

This leads to fucked up situations where you've city region mayors whose regions contain cities with mayors of their own.

At least at a Grand to the Mayor. Something along the lines of speaker considering what the job involves?

Feels like a lost game at this point. London has many mayors of its boroughs that are certianly not the same as the Mayor of London.
"I've never been quite sure what the point of a eunuch is, if truth be told. It seems to me they're only men with the useful bits cut off."

I drank because I wanted to drown my sorrows, but now the damned things have learned to swim.

Sheilbh

And until last month Liverpool had three mayors - Lord Mayor, Mayor of Liverpool, Metro-Mayor of the Liverpool City Region.

The council went against a local referendum and have decided to abolish the Mayor of Liverpool and return to a council leader model.

I think Metro-Mayor maybe works for most of them - only London and maybe Manchester buck the trend because of a very strong, common identity. The others are all very clearly of a metropolitan area which is more than just the city.
Let's bomb Russia!

Sheilbh

From Economist British politics correspondent - of the Telegraph (paywall so I can't get in) :lol:
QuoteMatthew Holehouse
@mattholehouse
Alan Bennett could not have written it better. Deep, deep England.


The voice I imagine reading this is Hyacinth Bucket worrying about Sheridan.

Also a great example of why English trust law emerged. The tangled but deeply felt desires to pass your wealth onto your descendents, use it to control them and to avoid tax :lol: :bleeding:
Let's bomb Russia!

HVC

The problem doesn't appear to inheritance tax, but that there's a loophole of passing assets while still alive at a more favourable rate then once you're dead.
Being lazy is bad; unless you still get what you want, then it's called "patience".
Hubris must be punished. Severely.

Sheilbh

Quote from: HVC on June 04, 2023, 11:05:18 AMThe problem doesn't appear to inheritance tax, but that there's a loophole of passing assets while still alive at a more favourable rate then once you're dead.
There's a push against inheritance tax at the minute and it is an unpopular tax. Ben Ansell who's an Oxford professor who specialises in inequality says he thinks it's the issue where there's the biggest gulf between the opinion of the general public and left/liberal-ish types like me who think it's good.

It's not a loophole per se - it's more when do you include gifts in someone's estate. You're allowed to get a certain amount of gifts tax free. But if you get the gift in the seven years before someone dies then and it's above the threshold, then, on their death, it gets added back into their estate for inheritance tax (40% headline rate). Although there's a taper over those 7 years, so if you got it six years before someone dies you only pay 8% on that gift.

If a gift is property and there's a difference in value now compared to what it cost to buy, then you need to pay capital gains tax on the gains.

I may be talking nonsense as this is just from my memory of law school where for some reason, regardless of the type of law you were planning to work in, everyone had to do a unit on wills which included lots of working out which gifts were subject to which taxes :lol:
Let's bomb Russia!

HVC

Quote from: Sheilbh on June 04, 2023, 11:22:33 AM
Quote from: HVC on June 04, 2023, 11:05:18 AMThe problem doesn't appear to inheritance tax, but that there's a loophole of passing assets while still alive at a more favourable rate then once you're dead.
There's a push against inheritance tax at the minute and it is an unpopular tax. Ben Ansell who's an Oxford professor who specialises in inequality says he thinks it's the issue where there's the biggest gulf between the opinion of the general public and left/liberal-ish types like me who think it's good.

it's one of those areas where the rich have tricked the poor and middle class. Like corporate tax cuts.


QuoteIt's not a loophole per se - it's more when do you include gifts in someone's estate. You're allowed to get a certain amount of gifts tax free. But if you get the gift in the seven years before someone dies then and it's above the threshold, then, on their death, it gets added back into their estate for inheritance tax (40% headline rate). Although there's a taper over those 7 years, so if you got it six years before someone dies you only pay 8% on that gift.

If a gift is property and there's a difference in value now compared to what it cost to buy, then you need to pay capital gains tax on the gains.

I may be talking nonsense as this is just from my memory of law school where for some reason, regardless of the type of law you were planning to work in, everyone had to do a unit on wills which included lots of working out which gifts were subject to which taxes :lol:

But I still don't get why a gift would be taxed differently than inheritance. The asset is the same. I mean it'd be dumb to tax grams giving someone a few hundred, or even a few grand, but if the amount is large enough to track for 7 years why is it taxed differently?
Being lazy is bad; unless you still get what you want, then it's called "patience".
Hubris must be punished. Severely.

The Brain

Seems easiest to just scrap inheritance tax and gift tax.
Women want me. Men want to be with me.

Sheilbh

Quote from: HVC on June 04, 2023, 11:37:46 AMBut I still don't get why a gift would be taxed differently than inheritance. The asset is the same. I mean it'd be dumb to tax grams giving someone a few hundred, or even a few grand, but if the amount is large enough to track for 7 years why is it taxed differently?
I think the norm is that gifts (below a certain amount and not subject to CGT) aren't taxed. It's more that if it's within 7 years then it's possibly tax avoidance so gets pulled into inheritance tax. I think it's an attempt to distinguish between a legit gift - someone in middle age giving their kid money to start a business, buy a house, have a wedding etc - v someone giving gifts when they know they're dying to try and avoid inheritance tax.

The reason for treating gifts and inheritances differently, I suspect, is that it's probably seen as good to have those assets that are gifted out in the economy than just storing up in someone estate.
Let's bomb Russia!