Unprecedented political chaos over here!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news
Quote from: vandermolen on October 20, 2022, 04:39:57 AM
Unprecedented political chaos over here!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news
???
And already?!
PD
The lettuce won!
https://www.youtube.com/v/Sm-RE95lKJ0
Quote from: vandermolen on October 20, 2022, 04:39:57 AM
Unprecedented political chaos over here!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news
Just anotheeer maaaaniiic Thursdaaaaay....
I like the following from the BBC News website:
"The second shortest serving PM was George Canning, who served for 119 days after dying in 1827."
Hadn't anyone noticed? Or perhaps that's the answer - at least a dead PM would have less ability to cause chaos.
Edit - they've now amended it to "before" - rotten spoilsports.
Quote from: DaveF on October 20, 2022, 04:56:57 AM
I like the following from the BBC News website:
"The second shortest serving PM was George Canning, who served for 119 days after dying in 1827."
Hadn't anyone noticed? Or perhaps that's the answer - at least a dead PM would have less ability to cause chaos.
Edit - they've now amended it to "before" - rotten spoilsports.
(* chortle *)
The Tories need to call an election as soon as possible so that they can slink off to a corner, figure out their position, and blame everything that happens on Labour for a while.
I saw the value of the pound shot up this morning.
Quote from: Brian on October 20, 2022, 05:25:06 AM
The Tories need to call an election as soon as possible so that they can slink off to a corner, figure out their position, and blame everything that happens on Labour for a while.
I saw the value of the pound shot up this morning.
Of course ir did. A defect PM is better than a functioning Tory one.
Boris Johnson will stand.
Quote from: Brian on October 20, 2022, 05:25:06 AM
The Tories need to call an election as soon as possible so that they can slink off to a corner, figure out their position, and blame everything that happens on Labour for a while.
I saw the value of the pound shot up this morning.
Turkeys voting for Christmas? Not a chance!
Quote from: DaveF on October 20, 2022, 04:56:57 AM
I like the following from the BBC News website:
"The second shortest serving PM was George Canning, who served for 119 days after dying in 1827."
Hadn't anyone noticed? Or perhaps that's the answer - at least a dead PM would have less ability to cause chaos.
Edit - they've now amended it to "before" - rotten spoilsports.
Very funny!
Quote from: vandermolen on October 20, 2022, 04:39:57 AM
Unprecedented political chaos over here!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news
It was clear from the start that she can't be the PM for long. She is power-hungry, but clueless, entitled, dumb and incompetent. She was worse option than Sunak who would have been also bad. At the moment there are only bad options for the UK. It is a limbo that will continue until the next election. :(
Too late, the damage has been done, it will take years to recover... :blank:
🤠😎
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on October 20, 2022, 07:57:12 AM
Too late, the damage has been done, it will take years to recover... :blank:
🤠😎
Somehow even we Americans cannot gloat, since the idea of a leader resigning when they fail is inconceivable in the USA. :(
So who will replace Ms Truss? Given the trainwreck of BoJo and Truss this year, can things get worse? Never, ever say things can't get worse. See Liz Truss.
Is there any mechanism for forcing a general election? Or does the UK have to stumble through a chain of Tory politicians because the Tory MPs figure the party is already at rock bottom and the longer they can delay an election, the better for them.
Quote from: JBS on October 20, 2022, 08:20:33 AM
Is there any mechanism for forcing a general election?
As I understand it, a government can only be ejected from office if it loses a vote of confidence in the Commons. Given that the current government enjoys something like a 70-seat majority, as well as having the support of the Irish Unionist parties, this can't realistically happen, and has only worked in the past when minority administrations have been in place.
(https://ecp.yusercontent.com/mail?url=https%3A%2F%2Fimage.e.economist.com%2Flib%2Ffe8d13727c650c7976%2Fm%2F7%2Fdfe80633-3d24-4042-84b7-dcb116bea9fd.jpg&t=1666289532&ymreqid=057d9035-e841-1d74-1c39-840c02011100&sig=C_ski5Nw6QEOPijklh0Qnw--~D)
Quote from: Brian on October 20, 2022, 08:04:21 AM
Somehow even we Americans cannot gloat, since the idea of a leader resigning when they fail is inconceivable in the USA. :(
Balls. Nixon resigned, l watched him do so on live TV in August 1974. ( Granted, his " failure " was in avoiding responsibility and he was far from contrite at the time. )
At least the UK have never endured a Donald Trump as PM. As embarrassing as Johnson may have been at times, he ultimately respected the succession process and hasn't been whining about it.
I don't know what's in store for the British, but l have no doubt they'll eventually attain normalcy. ;)
Quote from: Todd on October 20, 2022, 08:09:24 AM
So who will replace Ms Truss? Given the trainwreck of BoJo and Truss this year, can things get worse? Never, ever say things can't get worse. See Liz Truss.
Boris is running again!
Quote from: Todd on October 20, 2022, 10:14:30 AM
(https://ecp.yusercontent.com/mail?url=https%3A%2F%2Fimage.e.economist.com%2Flib%2Ffe8d13727c650c7976%2Fm%2F7%2Fdfe80633-3d24-4042-84b7-dcb116bea9fd.jpg&t=1666289532&ymreqid=057d9035-e841-1d74-1c39-840c02011100&sig=C_ski5Nw6QEOPijklh0Qnw--~D)
The Italians are very upset about this artwork. Corriere ran an indignant editorial.
Quote from: LKB on October 20, 2022, 10:45:48 AM
Balls. Nixon resigned, l watched him do so on live TV in August 1974.
That, alas, was almost 50 years ago and a very different era.
Quote from: Brian on October 20, 2022, 10:48:49 AMThe Italians are very upset about this artwork. Corriere ran an indignant editorial.
They'll get over it in less than forty-four days.
Back to the UK:
(https://media-exp1.licdn.com/dms/image/C4E22AQHlL6HyUHwFUg/feedshare-shrink_800/0/1666288806670?e=1669248000&v=beta&t=FBHxg9d4tiG36aEZkt3byD38u53SwTlkIlYpDHHFDr0)
The Hall of Fame!
Quote from: JBS on October 20, 2022, 08:20:33 AM
Is there any mechanism for forcing a general election?
No, not as far as I know.
Quote from: Brian on October 20, 2022, 10:48:49 AM
Boris is running again!
And he may well be very popular with the Conservative Party paid up members, the people who will be asked to choose if there are two candidates with more than 100 nominations from conservative MPs. For this reason, I would be surprised if he gleaned 100 nominations.
In my opinion whoever gets chosen will muddle through for a year or even two. But the important thing will be next year, when a new party will emerge to replace the moribund conservatives. Dominic Cummings at the helm quite possibly.
Well that was quick! :o
Wonder if there's a Maggie-in-the-wings?
Quote from: Brian on October 20, 2022, 08:04:21 AM
Somehow even we Americans cannot gloat, since the idea of a leader resigning when they fail is inconceivable in the USA. :(
I was thinking that exact thought. You was stuck with Trump. It says something for the unwritten British constitution that if a PM is dishonest (Johnson) or inept (Truss) they are disposed of without delay.
Quote from: Mandryka on October 20, 2022, 11:14:24 AM
And he may well be very popular with the Conservative Party paid up members, the people who will be asked to choose if there are two candidates with more than 100 nominations from conservative MPs. For this reason, I would be surprised if he gleaned 100 nominations.
Never write Boris off, but I agree. I think the 1922 committee have attempted to stich it up so he won't win. Not accidental, I wager, that this has blown up and a very short time-scale with Johnson out of the country.
Quote from: Mandryka on October 20, 2022, 11:18:28 AM
In my opinion whoever gets chosen will muddle through for a year or even two. But the important thing will be next year, when a new party will emerge to replace the moribund conservatives. Dominic Cummings at the helm quite possibly.
What is it about next year?
PD
Quote from: Pohjolas Daughter on October 21, 2022, 01:37:24 AM
What is it about next year?
PD
Well, there will be an election in 2024 at the latest. The establishment of a new party in 2023 would give it time to win the confidence of the public, that's all.
Quote from: Mandryka on October 21, 2022, 02:14:54 AM
Well, there will be an election in 2024 at the latest. The establishment of a new party in 2023 would give it time to win the confidence of the public, that's all.
Thanks.
PD
Quote from: Mandryka on October 21, 2022, 02:14:54 AM
Well, there will be an election in 2024 at the latest.
Well, let's see how much is left of the UK at that point. Next winter will crush the brits (energy crisis etc.) brutally...
Quote from: 71 dB on October 21, 2022, 07:03:14 AM
Well, let's see how much is left of the UK at that point. Next winter will crush the brits (energy crisis etc.) brutally...
No, I think you exaggerate. Stiff upper lip and all that, old chap.
Any Brits here care to explain how all this happened to a completely ignorant but curious American?
the short answer is, she was unprepared/unqualified for the job - her ideas caused the market to go wonky
one of the reasons the American constitution was set up differently from a parliamentary system was to allow the general public to examine and make decisions about their head of executive functions - which hopefully avoids the built-in potential issues from parliamentary democracies - but if all the functionaries are twee, then what have you?
Quote from: Scion7 on October 22, 2022, 08:31:17 AM
the short answer is, she was unprepared/unqualified for the job - her ideas caused the market to go wonky
one of the reasons the American constitution was set up differently from a parliamentary system was to allow the general public to examine and make decisions about their head of executive functions - which hopefully avoids the built-in potential issues from parliamentary democracies - but if all the functionaries are twee, then what have you?
What were these ideas?
Quote from: vers la flamme on October 22, 2022, 10:12:15 AM
What were these ideas?
Tax cuts for the rich and corporations - making the UK more like the US. (More for corporations I think - they had scrapped and then unscrapped a plan to raise corporate tax rates from 19 to 25%.)
In the UK, unlike here, paying your tax is seen as a responsible patriotic duty. The comedian Jimmy Carr was busted for using loopholes to score an effective 1% tax rate a decade ago, and he still gets roasted by other comedians for it regularly. Last week we watched the game show episode he hosted/filmed the day after the scandal broke, where he was forced to apologize on air for avoiding tax, and then everyone insulted him for a half hour. It was funny and also a sign of a very different society.
Quote from: vers la flamme on October 22, 2022, 07:27:20 AM
Any Brits here care to explain how all this happened to a completely ignorant but curious American?
The thing you need to know is that The Conservative Party is factional. It is a disparate collection of groups characterised by different post-Brexit policy ideas. She did not have the strength to impose her will. This made it practically impossible for her to work with parliament.
There was also a budget which was badly received. But the real fundamental problem was a leadership one - she was not able to get her party to follow her.
This was the same reason that Boris Johnson left office - he was forced to throw in the towel after almost 60 government ministers had resigned their position, saying they could not work with him. They effectively made him impotent, it was impossible for him to do anything because so much of his party refused to toe the line.
I think the next leader will have the same problems that Boris Johnson and Liz Truss had.
I believe that what we are witnessing in Britain is the death of the governing party, the Conservative Party. This is why I believe that a new party will be formed.
Quote from: Mandryka on October 23, 2022, 12:15:39 AM
The thing you need to know is that The Conservative Party is factional. It is a disparate collection of groups characterised by different post-Brexit policy ideas. She did not have the strength to impose her will. This made it practically impossible for her to work with parliament.
There were also a budget which was badly received. But the real fundamental problem was a leadership one - she was not able to get her party to follow her.
This was the same reason that Boris Johnson left office - he was forced to throw in the towel after almost 60 government ministers had resigned their position, saying they could not work with him. They effectively made him impotent, it was impossible for him to do anything because so much of his party refused to toe the line.
I think the next leader will have the same problems as Boris Johnson and Liz Truss had.
I believe that what we are witnessing in Britain is the death of the governing party, the Conservative Party. This is why I believe that a new party will be formed.
This makes good sense to me although I blame the stupid Brexit Referendum for much of our problems as that, whatever your view, it divided the country, and it remains divided. We elect the government to govern and not to introduce divisive referendums, something I associate more with Nazi Germany.
Reactionary conservatives used Brexit as a tool to hijack the Conservative Party and the country. Boris just jumped on for the ride to become prime minster.
Just like the US before Biden, Britain is ruled by a minority within a party supported by a minority of the electorate.
You don't need a new party, you need a new system.... If not, your current system will crack - something that has been in the making for a long time now.
PS What if HM refuses the next Tory candidate as PM to force new elections? 8)
Quote from: Que on October 23, 2022, 12:32:35 AM
PS What if HM refuses the next Tory candidate as PM to force new elections? 8)
If you were British you would just know that it is an unthinkable idea.
I very much doubt Boris Johnson will get 100 nominations. If he does, it is over. Party members will have to choose between Sunak and Johnson and they will choose Johnson.
Quote from: Mandryka on October 23, 2022, 12:38:08 AM
If you were British you would just know that it is an unthinkable idea.
But I know. ;) But then again, the late Queen prorogued parliament which turned out to be wholly unconstitional.
QuoteI very much doubt Boris Johnson will get 100 nominations. If he does, it is over. Party members will have to choose between Sunak and Johnson and they will choose Johnson.
I think you're right.
Quote from: vers la flamme on October 22, 2022, 10:12:15 AM
What were these ideas?
Just one,
Growth. She thought by simply cutting taxes for the rich (not the poor mind you) or in the case of corporation tax dispensing with it altogether the business world would up-sticks and flock to the UK in droves.
As every living ex PM, Truss will receive a pension of a hundred and fifteen thousand pounds a year for the rest of her life.
I'm not sure that the Party members would vote overwhelmingly for Johnson now.
Quote from: Que on October 23, 2022, 12:32:35 AM
You don't need a new party, you need a new system....
Politically less ignorant/illiterate people would also help. A lot of people don't seem to know the difference of marginal and effective tax rates for example. People should know that politicians who offer easy solutions to complex problems are fishing for their vote to have power. Those who offer complex solutions and admit the complexity and difficulty are more honest and trying to improve things for people. Those who are in the politics only for themselves use fear-monger tactics to gain power, while those who want better tomorrow for everyone are talking about courage and hope to achieve great things.
We worship money and success too much. We should always ask what did a rich person do to become rich? Did he/she do morally questionable things? Even illegal things? Or did he/she work hard and use their talent with some luck to achieve success? What has Richie Sunak for example done to be wealthy? My sister pointed out a week ago how elite schools make people feel entitled and special. That doesn't make one to have empathy.
The rich in the UK don't want a new system. They have the system they want. The one that keeps them safely on the top of the societal hierarghy and everyone else far below. All they need to do is to fear-monger and bamboozle the politically ignorant part of the population to vote against their own best and the first-past-the-post system will ensure the power won't go to "wrong hands." The media is owned by rich people. That's why media is always right leaning. Any left leaning media is marginal and reach only those who are leftist to beging with while the right leaning media keeps brainwashing people to think giving more money to rich people is good while giving money to poor people is bad. In the UK this has lead to the current situation where the rich got too much even for themselves with the Tory power and Brexit. They have the power to give massive tax cuts to the rich, except it would crash the economy! Oops! In the US you can do that (and is regularly done), but the UK isn't that strong economy. They don't use dollar. The UK can't buy oil with pounds.
In the UK people can vote the Tories out by supporting the Labour party, but even that isn't the answer. Extensive societal changes are needed to dismantle the class system and to make the society more equal. It is not easy and is something that takes decades. At the moment the brits need to survive the next winter. At least they will learn what years of Tory power brings them (answer: austerity).
Quote from: Irons on October 23, 2022, 01:39:59 AM
Just one, Growth. She thought by simply cutting taxes for the rich (not the poor mind you) or in the case of corporation tax dispensing with it altogether the business world would up-sticks and flock to the UK in droves.
As every living ex PM, Truss will receive a pension of a hundred and fifteen thousand pounds a year for the rest of her life.
I saw something online claiming that's really to maintain an office with staff, and she'll be required to show she's actually spending the money.
Though why an ex-PM needs an office eludes me. For fan mail, perhaps? "Dear Ms. Truss, I loved how you tanked the government and the party all in one go!"
Quote from: vandermolen on October 23, 2022, 01:56:33 AM
I'm not sure that the Party members would vote overwhelmingly for Johnson now.
Unless Sunak's brown skin is enough to make them choose Johnson. You have to remember that the people who vote are the sort of people who have
paid to be Tory.
Quote from: Mandryka on October 23, 2022, 04:26:30 AM
Unless Sunak's brown skin is enough to make them choose Johnson. You have to remember that the people who vote are the sort of people who have paid to be Tory.
It will be hilarious if BoJo takes power again.
Quote from: Mandryka on October 23, 2022, 04:26:30 AM
Unless Sunak's brown skin is enough to make them choose Johnson. You have to remember that the people who vote are the sort of people who have paid to be Tory.
Good point.
Quote from: vandermolen on October 23, 2022, 08:11:07 AM
Good point.
If he's chosen by the party members but the MPs don't want him, how will he manage the situation?
Boris has just confirmed that he won't be standing.
Quote from: DaveF on October 23, 2022, 12:18:34 PM
Boris has just confirmed that he won't be standing.
Well that's a relief!
Quote from: Mandryka on October 23, 2022, 09:29:01 AM
If he's chosen by the party members but the MPs don't want him, how will he manage the situation?
That's probably one reason why he withdrew from the competition.
Quote from: Brian on October 20, 2022, 08:04:21 AM
Somehow even we Americans cannot gloat, since the idea of a leader resigning when they fail is inconceivable in the USA. :(
No lie!
Quote from: LKB on October 20, 2022, 10:45:48 AM
Balls. Nixon resigned, l watched him do so on live TV in August 1974. ( Granted, his " failure " was in avoiding responsibility and he was far from contrite at the time. )
Yes, but that was when the Republican Party still honored the Oath of their Office.
Brian means, given our era's bad-faith Christo-fascist actors, there is no expectation of their resigning.
Rishi Sunak to become the next UK prime minister as rivals quit race (https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/sunak-looks-set-become-next-uk-pm-after-johnson-quits-race-2022-10-24/)
Third time's a charm?
Very good news about Sunak becoming PM. We need someone hard-working competent and not a charlatan (Johnson) or an incompetent ideologue (Truss) as one commentator put it.
Quote from: vandermolen on October 24, 2022, 05:41:30 AM
Very good news about Sunak becoming PM. We need someone hard-working competent and not a charlatan (Johnson) or an incompetent ideologue (Truss) as one commentator put it.
Very good.
Until Truss' resignation and the floating of Boris Johnson as returning primer minister I hadn't realized that Boris Johnson was still a member of parliament. I has assumed he had resigned that post along with the prime ministership. That's what I would have expected based on what happens when a house speaker or Senate Majority leader is forced out.
Quote from: Spotted Horses on October 24, 2022, 06:43:43 AM
Until Truss' resignation and the floating of Boris Johnson as returning primer minister I hadn't realized that Boris Johnson was still a member of parliament. I has assumed he had resigned that post along with the prime ministership. That's what I would have expected based on what happens when a house speaker or Senate Majority leader is forced out.
He couldn't have become PM unless he was an MP. In the past that may have been different as a Member of the House of Lords (Lord Salisbury for example) could have become PM.
Quote from: vandermolen on October 24, 2022, 05:41:30 AM
Very good news about Sunak becoming PM. We need someone hard-working competent and not a charlatan (Johnson) or an incompetent ideologue (Truss) as one commentator put it.
I agree that Sunak is more competent to be the PM than Johnson and Truss (who were very incompetent, so that is not saying much), but he has near impossible task ahead of him trying to get the UK back on track.
Quote from: 71 dB on October 24, 2022, 07:32:45 AM
I agree that Sunak is more competent to be the PM than Johnson and Truss (who were very incompetent, so that is not saying much), but he has near impossible task ahead of him trying to get the UK back on track.
That's true. However, I feel an immense sense of relief this evening.
Quote from: vandermolen on October 24, 2022, 08:01:50 AM
That's true. However, I feel an immense sense of relief this evening.
It certainly could be worse... :P
Quote from: vandermolen on October 24, 2022, 05:41:30 AM
Very good news about Sunak becoming PM. We need someone hard-working competent and not a charlatan (Johnson) or an incompetent ideologue (Truss) as one commentator put it.
A clever man and an economist seems like the right recipe, they should have picked him in the first place.
He married into a millionaire family, but of humble background himself. And he persuaded his wife to pay taxes in the UK. 8)
Quote from: 71 dB on October 24, 2022, 07:32:45 AM
I agree that Sunak is more competent to be the PM than Johnson and Truss (who were very incompetent, so that is not saying much), but he has near impossible task ahead of him trying to get the UK back on track.
The UK's economy was not in a good state before, but leaving the EU and cutting off most economic ties didn't help matters much.
Sunak could start with reopening Brexit negotiations and slowly but surely move its goal to rejoining the internal marktet (which is not the same as rejoining the EU).
Quote from: Que on October 24, 2022, 08:24:43 AM
A clever man and an economist seems like the right recipe, they should have picked him in the first place.
He married into a millionaire family, but of humble background himself. And he persuaded his wife to pay taxes in the UK. 8)
The UK's economy was not in a good state before, but leaving the EU and cutting off most economic ties didn't help matters much.
Sunak could start with reopening Brexit negotiations and slowly but surely move its goal to rejoining the internal marktet (which is not the same as rejoining the EU).
Let's not kid ourselves. The little clip that shows RS getting mixed up about how to use a debit card doesn't make him look like a regular guy who just got lucky.
Quote from: vandermolen on October 24, 2022, 05:41:30 AM
Very good news about Sunak becoming PM. We need someone hard-working competent and not a charlatan (Johnson) or an incompetent ideologue (Truss) as one commentator put it.
Boy, that was fast! Amazed also at how quickly Johnson was "in" and then "out"...what a day or two? Or did he officially declare himself in or was that just rumors?
Nice to know that about needing to be a MP to be able to enter the running too.
What do you think the chances are that during the general election, that enough people will vote for Sunak?
PD
Quote from: Pohjolas Daughter on October 24, 2022, 10:06:07 AM
What do you think the chances are that during the general election, that enough people will vote for Sunak?
PD
The elephant in the room is this: will his brown skin repel so many traditional Conservative Party voters that they will tank in 2024? And will that be so obvious before 2024 that they will be jittery about going to the country with Sunak at the helm?
Quote from: Herman on October 24, 2022, 09:45:51 AM
Let's not kid ourselves. The little clip that shows RS getting mixed up about how to use a debit card doesn't make him look like a regular guy who just got lucky.
Perfect fit for the Conservatives then... ;)
Quote from: Pohjolas Daughter on October 24, 2022, 10:06:07 AM
Boy, that was fast! Amazed also at how quickly Johnson was "in" and then "out"...what a day or two? Or did he officially declare himself in or was that just rumors?
Nice to know that about needing to be a MP to be able to enter the running too.
What do you think the chances are that during the general election, that enough people will vote for Sunak?
PD
Under Johnson or Truss, I think that they were zero (Johnson grossly overestimated how popular he was with 'The British Public' after 'Partygate' and all the lies). He imagined, erroneously, that he would be welcomed with open arms after jetting back from his Caribbean holiday to 'save' the country. With Sunak I think that they have a chance (and I speak as someone who has never voted Conservative). My wife and I both agree that we both experienced a huge wave of relief knowing that Sunak is our new PM. My wife actually said, 'I feel safe'.
Another great thing is that the fact that he is the first British-Asian and Hindu to become PM is not really a story here at all. It depends on how successful he is at managing the economy. And yes, it would be naive to suggest that he will not encounter 'Little England racism' along the way.
Good luck to him.
Quote from: Que on October 24, 2022, 08:24:43 AMbut of humble background himself.
According to his bio, he went to Winchester College and then attended Oxford before working at Goldman Sachs. His parents are both medical professionals, if online information is correct. I understand that income for doctors and pharmacists in the UK may not match that in the US, but in the US, anyone who comes from such a household is not said to come from a humble background. Such a person comes from the top decile of earners at least, and typically something closer to the top 1%. Mr Sunak married into extraordinary wealth, but he does not appear to be a man of the people who comes from humble beginnings. I do admit that I do not know UK history very well, so perhaps UK posters can point out which PMs came from a working class background, or if Mr Sunak is viewed as a regular bloke.
Quote from: Todd on October 25, 2022, 04:53:50 AM
According to his bio, he went to Winchester College and then attended Oxford before working at Goldman Sachs. His parents are both medical professionals, if online information is correct. I understand that income for doctors and pharmacists in the UK may not match that in the US, but in the US, anyone who comes from such a household is not said to come from a humble background. Such a person comes from the top decile of earners at least, and typically something closer to the top 1%. Mr Sunak married into extraordinary wealth, but he does not appear to be a man of the people who comes from humble beginnings. I do admit that I do not know UK history very well, so perhaps UK posters can point out which PMs came from a working class background, or if Mr Sunak is viewed as a regular bloke.
Apparently, he's wealthier than the King!
(https://i.imgur.com/9ma0aKv.jpg)
Let's give him a kicking, not only a brown skin, young, wealthy and Tory :o! How very much dare he!!
A bit of Sunak history. His Grandmother arrived in the UK with nothing leaving her husband and family in India. She worked non-stop and eventually the rest of the family came over and opened a pharmacy in Southampton. All profits invested in kid's education. Sure, Rishi has married vast wealth, so what? His siblings didn't and they too are top of the tree of their chosen professions.
Quote from: Irons on October 25, 2022, 07:45:01 AMSure, Rishi has married vast wealth, so what?
He's a British John Kerry as far as I can see.
How long will he serve as PM?
Quote from: vandermolen on October 25, 2022, 03:41:18 AM
Under Johnson or Truss, I think that they were zero (Johnson grossly overestimated how popular he was with 'The British Public' after 'Partygate' and all the lies). He imagined, erroneously, that he would be welcomed with open arms after jetting back from his Caribbean holiday to 'save' the country. With Sunak I think that they have a chance (and I speak as someone who has never voted Conservative). My wife and I both agree that we both experienced a huge wave of relief knowing that Sunak is our new PM. My wife actually said, 'I feel safe'.
Another great thing is that the fact that he is the first British-Asian and Hindu to become PM is not really a story here at all. It depends on how successful he is at managing the economy. And yes, it would be naive to suggest that he will not encounter 'Little England racism' along the way.
Good luck to him.
I don't get all this "brown skin" stuff. Fully aware you need to be on the wrong end of racism to recognise it and being an old white bloke not the best to comment. But I would like to think that huge strides have been made in the UK in combatting the worst forms. Our new PM is part of that.
Quote from: Todd on October 25, 2022, 07:52:20 AM
He's a British John Kerry as far as I can see.
How long will he serve as PM?
Don't know. Never heard of him.
More deep analysis from the Peanut Gallery.
Quote from: Irons on October 25, 2022, 08:06:40 AM
Don't know. Never heard of him.
You've never heard of Sunak?
Quote from: Herman on October 24, 2022, 09:45:51 AM
Let's not kid ourselves. The little clip that shows RS getting mixed up about how to use a debit card doesn't make him look like a regular guy who just got lucky.
I'm upset -
of course I know how to use a debit card..... its just that there is no money in the account to go with it.......................................................
Quote from: Irons on October 25, 2022, 08:05:23 AM
I don't get all this "brown skin" stuff. Fully aware you need to be on the wrong end of racism to recognise it and being an old white bloke not the best to comment. But I would like to think that huge strides have been made in the UK in combatting the worst forms. Our new PM is part of that.
I sincerely hope you are correct, but much the same thing was said and written by many regarding the US after Obama's election as President. Many here saw Obama's election as a sign that the country had finally managed to make serious progress on questions of race, that we were finally going to see things move in a more positive direction after so many years; alas, things have not quite turned out that way...
Quote from: Irons on October 25, 2022, 08:06:40 AM
Don't know. Never heard of him.
John Kerry is an American politician who married into the Heinz ketchup corporation fortune.
Quote from: Brian on October 25, 2022, 09:00:04 AM
John Kerry is an American politician who married into the Heinz ketchup corporation fortune.
In international terms, he was for Hillary Clinton's successor as Secretary of State, and the Democratic nominee who lost to GWB in 2004. His main acheivement [if you can say it was an acheivement] was the JCPOA with Iran.
From the little bit that I've read, it sounds, like Irons said, that he comes from a hard-working family whose grandparents emigrated to the UK and worked hard and tried their best to see that their children received the best education possible and (from the attached link) also were involved in their community. I don't know much about Metro News, but here's the link:
https://metro.co.uk/2022/08/02/meet-rishi-sunaks-family-as-the-race-to-lead-number-10-continues-17100119/
Hoping the best for his administration and the UK.
PD
Quote from: Irons on October 25, 2022, 08:05:23 AM
I don't get all this "brown skin" stuff. Fully aware you need to be on the wrong end of racism to recognise it and being an old white bloke not the best to comment. But I would like to think that huge strides have been made in the UK in combatting the worst forms. Our new PM is part of that.
Actually just a few days ago I was in a discussion about Oldham, and I came across this video. Listen to what the gentleman, an old white bloke, says at around 1 minute in.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQCn-6N9hng&ab_channel=SkyNews
Polling by YouGov found that 60% of Tory members believe Islam "is generally a threat to western civilisation"; 45% believe the racist lie about 'no go areas' for non-Muslims, and 43% don't want a Muslim PM.
https://twitter.com/owenjones84/status/1485354604103622665
How reliable this survey is, I don't know. Neither do I know how far it extends into the people who vote Tory who aren't party members, and to the population as a whole. But the survey has to give pause for thought. There's a bit of discussion about it on p.125 here
https://hopenothate.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/state-of-hate-2020-final.pdf
And of course, institutional racism in the Metropolitan Police has been well documented, and largely ignored by the institution as far as I know. if you Google "institutional racism" you'll find a very big official report saying that the Met suffers from institutional racism, and lots of further comments from insiders and academics asserting that nothing has changed since the report. It's basically uncontested.
Quote from: j winter on October 25, 2022, 08:44:59 AM
I sincerely hope you are correct, but much the same thing was said and written by many regarding the US after Obama's election as President. Many here saw Obama's election as a sign that the country had finally managed to make serious progress on questions of race, that we were finally going to see things move in a more positive direction after so many years; alas, things have not quite turned out that way...
Ah, those "happier" times when the bigotry had not yet returned to the mainstream ....
Quote from: vandermolen on October 25, 2022, 05:04:45 AM
Apparently, he's wealthier than the King!
Meaning he is totally disconnected from the struggles of the less fortuned.
Quote from: Irons on October 25, 2022, 08:05:23 AM
I don't get all this "brown skin" stuff. Fully aware you need to be on the wrong end of racism to recognise it and being an old white bloke not the best to comment. But I would like to think that huge strides have been made in the UK in combatting the worst forms. Our new PM is part of that.
I very much agree Lol.
Quote from: Todd on October 25, 2022, 04:53:50 AM
According to his bio, he went to Winchester College and then attended Oxford before working at Goldman Sachs. His parents are both medical professionals, if online information is correct. I understand that income for doctors and pharmacists in the UK may not match that in the US, but in the US, anyone who comes from such a household is not said to come from a humble background. Such a person comes from the top decile of earners at least, and typically something closer to the top 1%. Mr Sunak married into extraordinary wealth, but he does not appear to be a man of the people who comes from humble beginnings. I do admit that I do not know UK history very well, so perhaps UK posters can point out which PMs came from a working class background, or if Mr Sunak is viewed as a regular bloke.
Mrs Thatcher's father was a shop-keeper. I don't think that John Major came from a particularly wealthy background but not really working class either.
https://www.quora.com/Has-the-UK-ever-had-a-prime-minister-from-a-working-class-background
Quote from: vandermolen on October 25, 2022, 01:58:49 PM
Mrs Thatcher's father was a shop-keeper. I don't think that John Major came from a particularly wealthy background but not really working class either.
So, every once in a while, a person with truly humble beginnings becomes PM. Mostly, though, that does not appear to be the case. It is not the case with Mr Sunak. Which is fine.
Quote from: Todd on October 25, 2022, 02:01:16 PM
So, every once in a while, a person with truly humble beginnings becomes PM. Mostly, though, that does not appear to be the case. It is not the case with Mr Sunak. Which is fine.
Did you read the article that I had linked to? Curious as to what you think?
PD
Quote from: Pohjolas Daughter on October 25, 2022, 02:12:51 PM
Did you read the article that I had linked to? Curious as to what you think?
PD
No, but I read two other quick bios. As I wrote before, he came from a household where both parents were medical professionals and he went to posh schools and landed a posh gig out of Oxford. He's no Bill Clinton.
Quote from: Todd on October 25, 2022, 02:01:16 PM
So, every once in a while, a person with truly humble beginnings becomes PM. Mostly, though, that does not appear to be the case. It is not the case with Mr Sunak. Which is fine.
That I agree with. I will always try to judge a person by what they are not where they came from, their wealth (or lack of it) or the colour of their skin.
Quote from: Mandryka on October 25, 2022, 09:45:59 AM
Polling by YouGov found that 60% of Tory members believe Islam "is generally a threat to western civilisation"; 45% believe the racist lie about 'no go areas' for non-Muslims, and 43% don't want a Muslim PM.
Sunak is Hindu, not Muslim.
Quote from: absolutelybaching on October 26, 2022, 01:51:52 AM
My problem with Sunak is not his brown skin, nor his Hinduism.
Brown skin & Hinduism alone shouldn't be problems for
anyone.
Quote from: absolutelybaching on October 26, 2022, 01:51:52 AMIt's the fact that until extremely recently, whilst he was still Chancellor of the Exchequer, he had a green card for potential emigration to the US, and his wife didn't pay taxes in the country he was part of the team running. I think they refer to it as 'carpetbagging': the willingness to traipse from city to city, country to country, with no great affection or commitment to any of them, but a willingness to make a buck or two where ever it's convenient to do so.
He also raised taxes for others while making a loophole his wife was able to use to avoid taxes (as if someone with 800+ million can't afford paying their fair share). I wonder how much all of this is within the spirit of Hinduism... ...my guess is not much.
Quote from: absolutelybaching on October 26, 2022, 01:51:52 AMThat said, he seems the best of a fairly mediocre bunch, so good luck to him.
Good luck is certainly needed...
Quote from: absolutelybaching on October 26, 2022, 01:51:52 AM
".... whilst he was still Chancellor of the Exchequer, he had a green card for potential emigration to the US, and his wife didn't pay taxes in the country he was part of the team running. I think they refer to it as 'carpetbagging': the willingness to traipse from city to city, country to country, with no great affection or commitment to any of them, but a willingness to make a buck or two where ever it's convenient to do so.
My other beef with how this whole business has been handled, since the time BoJo went, is the amount of constitutional innovation that has happened without anyone apparently noticing. Back in my day (somewhere around 1868, I think!), the Prime Minister resigned and was replaced that same day. Now, thanks to party rules that have nothing to do with the British constitution, we have a lame-duck Prime Minister for weeks on end whilst a party sorts out who it wants its leader to be. Even Truss stuck it out for several days until her party's rules finally gifted us a new party leader. Whence this sudden dichotomy between party leader and Prime Minister? I cannot recall when, previously, the job of running the country became subordinate to matters of party internal governance.
I will concede that I exaggerate slightly: Thatcher was lame duck for 6 days until Major took over. I still think it a deplorable development. If the Prime Minister of the day is not up to the job, for whatever reason, immediately appoint a caretaker PM until such time as party shenanigans are sorted out.
Quote from: 71 dB on October 26, 2022, 04:06:52 AM
He also raised taxes for others while making a loophole his wife was able to use to avoid taxes (as if someone with 800+ million can't afford paying their fair share).
I didn't know that about him having a green card to the US. And what is the story about his wife not needing to pay taxes?
PD
Quote from: 71 dB on October 26, 2022, 04:06:52 AM
He also raised taxes for others while making a loophole his wife was able to use to avoid taxes (as if someone with 800+ million can't afford paying their fair share).
Something akin to a Romanian Health Minister sending his relatives abroad for medical treatment, or a Romanian Education Minister sending his offspring abroad for university-level study (both real cases).
Quote from: Florestan on October 26, 2022, 01:06:06 AM
Sunak is Hindu, not Muslim.
Well spotted, but I have a feeling that these people don't distinguish too much. The Conservative Party is a racist party, Britain's institutions are racist and lots of British people are racist.
Quote from: Pohjolas Daughter on October 26, 2022, 06:39:55 AM
I didn't know that about him having a green card to the US. And what is the story about his wife not needing to pay taxes?
PD
He has a home in the US, PD. We are having not before time the downstairs cloakroom (toilet) renovated. I phoned this very morning my financial guy asking how I can extract money from investments without paying 20% tax. Does that make me a bad person?
Quote from: Mandryka on October 26, 2022, 06:58:09 AM
Well spotted, but I have a feeling that these people don't distinguish too much. The Conservative Party is a racist party, Britain's institutions are racist and lots of British people are racist.
I see your edit is
"lots". Good move because I would take great exception of you calling me that.
Sunak is a regular bloke.
Quote from: Irons on October 26, 2022, 06:59:58 AM
He has a home in the US, PD. We are having not before time the downstairs cloakroom (toilet) renovated. I phoned this very morning my financial guy asking how I can extract money from investments without paying 20% tax. Does that make me a bad person?
Thanks for the info. I honestly don't know much about g.c.s.
And good point, no, I think that that is being wise at your end. But, that said, did he really create a loophole for his wife (and probably also for other extremely wealthy people) as db said?
PD
Quote from: absolutelybaching on October 26, 2022, 07:07:01 AM
Funnily enough, none of us knew about it until it "came out"!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-61044847
Anyone who is not "domiciled" in a particular tax 'environment' needn't pay taxes in that environment, even if their habitation is there; they pay taxes where they're domiciled. Note that 'domiciled' doesn't mean 'where you live': it's where you say you heart is, and where you're likely to live, and where you habitually live (and usually it just magically happens that where you are domiciled normally has much lower taxes than where you actually spend your days!) I'm being cynical, but Sunak's wife had (may still have for all I know) non-domiciled status as far as paying UK taxes on her income earned overseas: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-61045825
She has apparently "volunteered" to pay taxes on that income now, but she went years without doing so -and I don't imagine she's volunteering to make up the difference!
Thank you for the additional info. I'll read your links....after some morning coffee. :)
PD
Quote from: Irons on October 26, 2022, 07:05:19 AM
I see your edit is "lots". Good move because I would take great exception of you calling me that.
Quote from: absolutelybaching on October 26, 2022, 07:11:49 AM
+1.
+2. I would have great exception to me calling me that, whether it's true or not is not for me to say obviously. But really, it's not the point, the point is that racism is significant in this country, I'd say very.
Quote from: Mandryka on October 26, 2022, 08:01:12 AM
+2. I would have great exception to me calling me that, whether it's true or not is not for me to say obviously. But really, it's not the point, the point is that racism is significant in this country, I'd say very.
I see it as poetic justice that an Indian, albeit a UK-born one, should become UK's prime-minister.
Quote from: Florestan on October 26, 2022, 08:13:07 AM
I see it as poetic justice that an Indian, albeit a UK-born one, should become UK's prime-minister.
I agree that from a postcolonial point of view it's poetic, as you say.
The point I keep trying to make is just this: he has not been elected PM. And, if and when he does face the people, so many tories may look at him and think racist things that the party will lose out big time. I hope that happens, because I think the conservative party are bad for the country. But the real problem is that the party may see it coming and create hurdles for him. I think that'll be good, the more they tear each other apart and implode, the more likely it is that we'll all finally be shot of them.
Quote from: Mandryka on October 26, 2022, 08:30:54 AMI think that'll be good, the more they tear each other apart and implode, the more likely it is that we'll all finally be shot of them.
As I understand it, the next general election will take place in January 2025 unless Sunak calls an election or loses a confidence vote. What are the odds of the last two items occurring before January 2025? I don't follow UK politics, but it seems unlikely that the Tories can recover from the last few months in a short period of time, unless an economic miracle happens. And such miracles don't happen.
Quote from: Mandryka on October 26, 2022, 08:30:54 AM
The point I keep trying to make is just this: he has not been elected PM.
Errmmm, remind me: who was the last elected British PM? ;D
Quote from: Florestan on October 26, 2022, 09:47:50 AM
Errmmm, remind me: who was the last elected British PM? ;D
In Britain, Great Britain, the people elect a party, and the party's leader is Prime Minister. In 2019 the Great British people elected The Conservative Party, who was led by Boris Johnson. When he resigned, the Conservative Members of Parliament chose two contenders to replace him, and the paid up members of the conservative party chose Liz Truss (I think there are about 180K paid up members.) When Liz Truss resigned Rishi Sunak got the job by default -- no-one else stood, because (probably) no-one else had enough supporters to stand.
Quote from: Pohjolas Daughter on October 26, 2022, 06:39:55 AM
And what is the story about his wife not needing to pay taxes?
PD
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/apr/07/rishi-sunaks-wife-says-its-not-relevant-to-say-where-she-pays-tax-overseas
Quote from: absolutelybaching on October 26, 2022, 10:38:50 AM
Oh dear. We are not Washington. No-one, ever, has ever elected a PM.
Either you understand and subscribe to the Westminster system, or you don't. But you don't get to bleat about "electing a PM" without demonstrating a profound misunderstanding between electing a legislature and electing an executive.
I have never bleated in my entire life.
Quote from: Mandryka on October 26, 2022, 10:20:12 AM
In Britain, Great Britain, the people elect a party, and the party's leader is Prime Minister. In 2019 the Great British people elected The Conservative Party, who was led by Boris Johnson. When he resigned, the Conservative Members of Parliament chose two contenders to replace him, and the paid up members of the conservative party chose Liz Truss (I think there are about 180K paid up members.) When Liz Truss resigned Rishi Sunak got the job by default -- no-one else stood, because (probably) no-one else had enough supporters to stand.
So, the last elected (so to speak) PM was BoJo. Interesting. ;D
Quote from: Florestan on October 26, 2022, 08:13:07 AM
I see it as poetic justice that an Indian, albeit a UK-born one, should become UK's prime-minister.
Indeed.
Quote from: absolutelybaching on October 26, 2022, 12:31:54 PM
You just did.
Never mentione "electing a PM". We don't do that in the UK, and never have.
This is silly. I said he has
not been elected PM! But there's nothing to be argued about.
Quote from: Mandryka on October 26, 2022, 10:20:12 AM
In Britain, Great Britain, the people elect a party, and the party's leader is Prime Minister. In 2019 the Great British people elected The Conservative Party, who was led by Boris Johnson. When he resigned, the Conservative Members of Parliament chose two contenders to replace him, and the paid up members of the conservative party chose Liz Truss (I think there are about 180K paid up members.) When Liz Truss resigned Rishi Sunak got the job by default -- no-one else stood, because (probably) no-one else had enough supporters to stand.
Pardon, but now I'm confused...so who gets to choose the next PM? I had thought (by what I read re voting and needing a certain number that it was only MPs who could vote and that it was by the party in power)?
PD
Quote from: Pohjolas Daughter on October 26, 2022, 01:47:00 PM
Pardon, but now I'm confused...so who gets to choose the next PM? I had thought (by what I read re voting and needing a certain number that it was only MPs who could vote and that it was by the party in power)?
PD
If the next PM is chosen after the Conservatives call a general election, the electorate will have the opportunity to vote for a party to represent their region in the House of Commons - an MP. We have a first past the post system here, so the leader of the party with the most MPs will be PM.
If the next PM is chosen because something happens to Sunak or because he resigns - then the tories will have to chose another leader, who will be PM until parliament eventually dissolves. They may use the system which resulted in Sunak's election or they may change it. How they chose their leader is their business.
Quote from: Pohjolas Daughter on October 26, 2022, 01:47:00 PM
Pardon, but now I'm confused...so who gets to choose the next PM? I had thought (by what I read re voting and needing a certain number that it was only MPs who could vote and that it was by the party in power)?
PD
It was your earlier comment about "the paid up members" that confused me. I do understand about general elections.
PD
Quote from: Pohjolas Daughter on October 26, 2022, 03:20:42 PM
It was your earlier comment about "the paid up members" that confused me. I do understand about general elections.
PD
Oh, when they choose a leader they define their own process. In the case of Liz Truss, the paid up members decided, after the MPs whittled down the candidates to two.
Quote from: Mandryka on October 26, 2022, 08:13:18 PM
Oh, when they choose a leader they define their own process. In the case of Liz Truss, the paid up members decided, after the MPs whittled down the candidates to two.
And what is a paid up member?
Quote from: Spotted Horses on October 26, 2022, 08:25:58 PM
And what is a paid up member?
A paid up member is someone who has paid the Tory party an annual fee to demonstrate their support. Here's the application website.
https://www.conservatives.com/join
Quote from: absolutelybaching on October 27, 2022, 03:06:49 AM
General elections are where people get to vote for their local MP. End of story.
True enough: MPs are (usually) members of a party, and parties elect (by whatever mechanism they decide to construct) their leaders, and the leader of the party with the largest number of MPs (usually) becomes PM. (Not always: see Lloyd George).
But it is a very indirect process, and deliberately so.
It's not that indirect, actually. People do know in advance who is the leader of the party they vote for and that, should that party win the elections, he or she will become PM, so their vote results not only in an MP being elected for their constituency but also in the leader of the party becoming PM.
Quote from: absolutelybaching on October 27, 2022, 04:04:54 AM
It is exactly that indirect. And no, people don't necessarily know who the leader of the party will be the day after election night.
Now, having just won a thumping election victory, it is of course incredibly unlikely that a party would vote out the guy/gal who led them on election night: he or she would have a convincing air of authority about them that winning elections always bestows. But there is absolutely nothing to stop them doing so -and, the more important point, there is no constitutional impropriety in them doing so.
Anyone who votes for party X because it's currently led by Mr. Y, expecting Mr. Y to become PM if his party gains a majority is, once again, quite simply misunderstanding how the Westminster system works. It s fundamental underpinning is the understanding that you're voting for your local MP, not for a government nor for a Prime Minister, and that has been the case for centuries.
You are just assuming that people can't think one step ahead.
Quote from: Mandryka on October 26, 2022, 08:13:18 PM
Oh, when they choose a leader they define their own process. In the case of Liz Truss, the paid up members decided, after the MPs whittled down the candidates to two.
This is still unclear, and I see no mention of the system in then press articles I have read. Are you saying that the Conservative MPs agreed to vote for whoever prevailed in some sort of poll of "paid-up members?"
Quote from: Mandryka on October 26, 2022, 08:36:21 PM
A paid up member is someone who has paid the Tory party an annual fee to demonstrate their support. Here's the application website.
https://www.conservatives.com/join
£25 per year for a regular membership. That's more than twice the annual membership to the AARP. What benefits do members receive?
Quote from: absolutelybaching on October 27, 2022, 04:42:47 AMThe choice of PM is actually his alone to make.
A silly anachronism.
Quote from: absolutelybaching on October 27, 2022, 04:42:47 AMBut them's the actual rules in that pesky unwritten constitution of ours.
An unwritten constitution is no substitute for the real thing.
Quote from: Pohjolas Daughter on October 26, 2022, 01:47:00 PM
Pardon, but now I'm confused...so who gets to choose the next PM? I had thought (by what I read re voting and needing a certain number that it was only MPs who could vote and that it was by the party in power)?
PD
A daft system. When the position of Party leader (not PM, which is causing confusion on this thread) becomes available hopefuls put themselves forward. That goes to a ballot and the one with the least votes drops out. This process is repeated until only two are left standing. Then selection is taken out of the hands of MPs and the final vote goes to the Party membership.
A flawed process as recent events have proved. I think they will change the rules.
Quote from: absolutelybaching on October 26, 2022, 07:18:46 AM
No-one will quibble, I think, at sound tax planning and there's absolutely nothing illegal about tax avoidance.
Furthermore, I don't think anyone is accusing Mrs. Sunak of doing anything illegal. I fully expect what she did to be entirely legal -and she probably paid a pretty penny to ensure that it was.
The complaint is that she arranged her tax minimisation strategies despite being married to the guy who was Chancellor of the Exchequer and thus in charge of taxing us all.
I think the phrase is 'Caesar's wife must be above suspicion'.
So yes, she is a bad person for doing exactly what you or I would try to do (minimise taxes). It's one of the paradoxes of 'the public life' that what the little person does legally and morally becomes legal and scented with the stench of the highly immoral when the great and good do it.
Edited to add: Even if you want to be morally consistent about it, and thus absolve her for doing nothing more than you or I would do, the complaint is still that he should have had more sense than to allow his wife to get 'tax canny'. He's supposed to understand the political optics of the spouse of 'the tax guy' minimising her taxes to the extent of several hundred million pounds. It just looks clumsy.
Everyone in Australia will know this episode from a media mogul's interview at Parliament: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e97kq2XflKE
Some in Australia regard that as a smart man being honest and straightforward, especially when the parliamentarian waffles on about 'breaking the spirit of the law', which is oxymoronic.
Quite a few think, however, that a multi-billionaire shouldn't be quite so smug about it.
Yes, unfair as it may be, standards in public life should be higher although they seldom are. That I agree with. Rishi Sunak only become a member of parliament in 2015 when I would have imagined Mrs Sunak's tax arrangements had long been arranged. I very much doubt it crossed Rishi's mind to have a conversation with his wife to pay millions more of tax in case he reached high government office. Being wise after the event, he wished he did have.
Quote from: Irons on October 28, 2022, 12:09:04 AM
Yes, unfair as it may be, standards in public life should be higher although they seldom are. That I agree with. Rishi Sunak only become a member of parliament in 2015 when I would have imagined Mrs Sunak's tax arrangements had long been arranged. I very much doubt it crossed Rishi's mind to have a conversation with his wife to pay millions more of tax in case he reached high government office. Being wise after the event, he wished he did have.
Sunak DID become the PM so why would he regret anything? The problems he will encounter as the PM will have nothing to do with his wife's taxes and everything to do with the fact that Brexit has put the country on a downward spiral.
Quote from: absolutelybaching on October 28, 2022, 04:58:22 AM
Likewise with his US immigration status. He held a green card from the early 2000s until 2021: surrendering it was also a year too late.
This seems at odds with rules associated with permanent resident status (green card). It can't just be "held." When you apply for a green card you cannot leave the U.S. during the lengthy approval process, otherwise the application is considered abandoned. Your permanent resident status is also considered abandoned if you leave the U.S. for an extended period of time. When ever you leave you have to file papers with the INS explaining your absence and why it does not conflict with your intention of remaining a permanent resident of the U.S. If you ever file U.S. taxes as a nonresident permanent residency is also automatically revoked.
If he held a U.S. green card he was signing documents telling the U.S. INS that he considers himself a resident of the U.S. and no other country and that his absences were temporary.
Quote from: Spotted Horses on October 28, 2022, 07:06:14 AM
This seems at odds with rules associated with permanent resident status (green card). It can't just be "held." When you apply for a green card you cannot leave the U.S. during the lengthy approval process, otherwise the application is considered abandoned. Your permanent resident status is also considered abandoned if you leave the U.S. for an extended period of time. When ever you leave you have to file papers with the INS explaining your absence and why it does not conflict with your intention of remaining a permanent resident of the U.S. If you ever file U.S. taxes as a nonresident permanent residency is also automatically revoked.
If he held a U.S. green card he was signing documents telling the U.S. INS that he considers himself a resident of the U.S. and no other country and that his absences were temporary.
Quote from: absolutelybaching on October 28, 2022, 07:40:34 AM
I don't pretend to know the ins and outs of US immigration law, but your last sentence would appear to be exactly what the problem here is: namely, that he was an elected MP for 6 years and Chancellor of the Exchequer for a year whilst holding US permanent residency, and that holding that status must have involved him telling the US authorities that he considered the USA his home... when, clearly, it wasn't.
From The Guardian: (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/apr/10/from-non-dom-to-green-card-questions-still-facing-rishi-sunak)
The green card: why did Sunak cling on to a US "permanent resident" card even when UK chancellor? There has still not been an adequate explanation as to why Sunak kept his US green card for six years while an MP, including 19 months as chancellor. It does not seem that the move gave him tax advantages, but it does suggest he was keeping his options open in terms of a move back to the US in case his political career did not work out. US lawyers, though, have queried how he would have presented himself to US immigration officials when returning to his Santa Monica apartment in California, questioning whether they would have been misled about his true residence while a British MP. It is also understood that his wife gave up her green card before Sunak became chancellor, so it is not clear why he did not do so earlier.
And from National World: (https://www.nationalworld.com/news/politics/rishi-sunak-tax-scandal-green-card-non-dom-status-controversy-explained-pm-net-worth-3649278)
The [green card/permanent resident] status generally requires you to pay US tax on your worldwide income and to make a legal pledge to one day make the USA your permanent residence. According to international tax experts Lesperance Associates, there is a way of holding the immigration status while living abroad so long as US taxes are paid on US income. Sunak's spokesperson confirmed he had filed US tax returns while he had the status "but specifically as a non-resident, in full compliance with the law". They also said he had only used the green card for travel purposes and had returned it ahead of his first official visit to the US in line with guidance from the US authorities. But, living away from the US indefinitely and using the green card solely for travel raises issues with his holding the status in the first place, and suggests Sunak may have broken US immigration laws when re-entering the country to visit his California home.
I mean, any way you slice it, it would appear to be a bit of a moral quagmire.
It does seem very strange.
A question for you AB,
You had said something earlier about according to UK law that one's permanent residency doesn't have to do with where one lived the preponderance of the time, but where one's heart was (if I'm recalling correctly) which to me is rather baffling particularly considering the kind of work that he has been doing at least over the past few years. I'm certainly not an immigration and/or tax expert however.
PD
Quote from: absolutelybaching on October 28, 2022, 04:58:22 AM
Well, I certainly wouldn't expect him to prospectively change his (and his spouse's) tax affairs. But the minute he was appointed Chancellor of the Exchequer, in February 2020, he should have done so, for propriety's sake. His wife only agreed to pay UK taxes on her global income in April 2022, which is around 2 years too late in my opinion.
Likewise with his US immigration status. He held a green card from the early 2000s until 2021: surrendering it was also a year too late.
In a perfect world, yes. But like spending someone else's money it is far easier taking the moral high ground with someone else's tax affairs. As we have found out in no uncertain terms long before Rishi came along expecting our politicians to be whiter then white is in practice not on. If they take the piss, as Johnson did more then once, then they are out, quite right too. I recall the expense scandal of a few years ago. As we were discover they were all at it but it is not realistic to judge politicians on standards we do not apply to ourselves.
Quote from: absolutelybaching on October 28, 2022, 08:07:12 AM
No, that was "domicile". That is, and over-simplifying greatly, you can be resident in the UK, but pay taxes in (say) France: you would be a UK resident, but domiciled in France.
Basically, your normal place of residence doesn't govern (necesarily) your place of domicile for tax purposes -but it's a very complex area of tax law that I don't pretend to understand well.
This indeed was the problem with Sunak's wife: she is an Indian citizen (and won't give it up, because she apparently intends to live in India in the future, looking after her parents and India doesn't allow dual citizenship). So her 'heart' is in India whil t her corporeal presence is in swanky country homes in the UK! So she's a resident of the UK, but domiciled in India for tax purposes -that makes her a "non-dom" in UK parlance. She has, of course, since changed that status, so she pays everything in the UK now, but that was her position until earlier this year.
Ah, o.k. thanks. That makes sense now.
PD
Quote from: Irons on October 28, 2022, 08:08:26 AM
it is not realistic to judge politicians on standards we do not apply to ourselves.
Agreed. Furthermore, politicians are not coming from Mars. They are the product of, and a reflection on, our societies and cultures. Dishonest, corrupt and stupid politicians are the representatives of a dishonest, corrupt and stupid society and culture.
It's not so much a question of morality. If you are electing someone to the highest political office, don't you want that to be a person who has an absolute personal commitment to the country. Not someone who is holding on to immigration status in other countries because he wants the option to bug off if things go south in the U.K?
Quote from: Spotted Horses on October 28, 2022, 11:47:52 AM
It's not so much a question of morality. If you are electing someone to the highest political office, don't you want that to be a person who has an absolute personal commitment to the country. Not someone who is holding on to immigration status in other countries because he wants the option to bug off if things go south in the U.K?
In Theresa May's words: he is a citizen of nowhere.... (See quote below) A cornerstone of the nationalist ideology behind Brexit! Don't you love the double standards in politics? :D
"Today, too many people in positions of power behave as though they have more in common with international elites than with the people down the road, the people they employ, the people they pass on the street ... but if you believe you are a citizen of the world, you are a citizen of nowhere. You don't understand what citizenship means."
Quote from: Spotted Horses on October 28, 2022, 11:47:52 AM
It's not so much a question of morality. If you are electing someone to the highest political office, don't you want that to be a person who has an absolute personal commitment to the country. Not someone who is holding on to immigration status in other countries because he wants the option to bug off if things go south in the U.K?
Quote from: absolutelybaching on October 28, 2022, 11:53:12 PM
Precisely. That's what carpetbagging is: extracting what you can from a location as a matter of personal, opportunistic convenience, rather than because you feel a commitment to, or genuine care for, it in the long-run.
There's still a moral dimension to that sort of behaviour, of course.
But yes, it is also a very practical matter: when the proverbial hits the fan, you ought to be able to rely on your political leaders to be 100% with you for the fight, not having split loyalties or a tendency to run to sunnier (wealthier) climes when it seems opportune to do so. Entirely as you say, in fact.
Fair points. Oddly, the green card thing hardly caused a ripple in the UK Press. His extreme wealth and his wife's tax status deemed far more important.
To use a beacon of morality as an example. A sitting President of the USA buys a golf course in Scotland. Doubt he would rather live there then Florida but you never know. ;)
Quote from: absolutelybaching on October 27, 2022, 04:42:47 AM
If people foolishly think they are voting for PM, I can't stop them being that foolish. But they need to understand that their perception of reality and actual reality are two distinct things.
There is technically nothing to stop the King asking Brenda Davenport, backbench MP for Shornditchford, to become Prime Minister, regardless of what party wins the election and who's running it. The choice of PM is actually his alone to make. Convention (and commonsense) suggests the King would be unwise to ask Brenda to step up, given that she cannot command an absolutely majority in the House of Commons: she'd lose a vote of confidence three minutes after taking up her appointment, triggering the need to find a new PM. But them's the actual rules in that pesky unwritten constitution of ours.
I'm not so sure. Canada too has the "Westminster" parliamentary system. In practice, (if not "technically"), our Governor General, (surrogate for the
Queen King), is constrained to appoint as PM the person who (a) leads the party with the most MPs, or (b) can otherwise show evidence that he/she has the support of a majority of MPs. To not do so would surely precipitate a constitution crisis, (though this part of the Canadian constitution is also unwritten).
The latter, above, (b), would be the leader of a declared coalition. That came close to being the situation in 2008 when a potential coalition of other parties threatened to defeat the Conservative Party minority government under Stephen Harper. However Harper dodge the problem by proroguing, (suspending), Parliament until the potential coalition dissolved. Canada has never had a coalition government though it has had a number of minority governments.
Are the green card and tax minimization things enough to derail Sunak, or are they just noise?
It looks like Sunak is taking some heat for skipping the UN climate thingy, but it looks like his majesty is skipping as well. Is that just more noise?
Quote from: absolutelybaching on October 29, 2022, 06:31:21 AM
the case of Churchill in 1940.
That was an exceptional case in exceptional times, don't you think? How many times did the case repeat itself after 1945?
Quote from: Todd on October 29, 2022, 04:50:12 AM
Are the green card and tax minimization things enough to derail Sunak, or are they just noise?
It looks like Sunak is taking some heat for skipping the UN climate thingy, but it looks like his majesty is skipping as well. Is that just more noise?
Noise. Boris is planning to go to the climate thingy.
Sunak is about to hammer trans rights. That should distract people from his cuts to public services.
Quote from: Mandryka on October 29, 2022, 01:40:27 PM
Noise. Boris is planning to go to the climate thingy.
Sunak is about to hammer trans rights. That should distract people from his cuts to public services.
Huh? I wouldn't have thought that Boris would have been invited? Thought that it was just for current heads?
And I'm not certain what you mean by "hammer"...against?
PD
Quote from: Todd on October 29, 2022, 04:50:12 AM
Are the green card and tax minimization things enough to derail Sunak, or are they just noise?
It looks like Sunak is taking some heat for skipping the UN climate thingy, but it looks like his majesty is skipping as well. Is that just more noise?
Noise.
King Charles is not going because his government told him not to.
Quote from: Pohjolas Daughter on October 29, 2022, 02:26:22 PM
Huh? I wouldn't have thought that Boris would have been invited? Thought that it was just for current heads?
And I'm not certain what you mean by "hammer"...against?
PD
Boris can't bear to be out of the limelight. That's the only explanation.
Quote from: vandermolen on October 30, 2022, 10:16:02 AM
Boris can't bear to be out of the limelight. That's the only explanation.
Or wanting to be reimbursed and getting a free trip to Egypt and visiting with some "old pals" from his former days in power? :-\
I did just run across this interesting article stating basically that there will be a kind of pre-summit get together hosted by the King at B.P. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-63447714
PD
Quote from: vandermolen on October 30, 2022, 10:16:02 AM
Boris can't bear to be out of the limelight. That's the only explanation.
Neither Trump nor Boris can bear the fact of their irrelevancy.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 30, 2022, 10:41:10 AM
Neither Trump nor Boris can bear the fact of their irrelevancy.
I wish Trump were irrelevant.
Quote from: absolutelybaching on October 29, 2022, 06:31:21 AM
You are correct that the monarch (or his representative) exercising choice in apparent defiance of the popular will would be a quick route to a constitutional disaster.
But it's happened!
I cited earlier the case of Churchill in 1940.
I could also cite Alex Douglas Home, who the queen appointed PM because Macmillan sort-of recommended her to do so, despite almost everyone in the party thinking that Rab Butler should have got the job.
I would then also cite Gough Whitlam, Australian PM who was sacked by a governor general because he couldn't get his budget through the Senate ...and sacking a democratically elected PM has annoyed the heck out of Aussies ever since.
So your point about constitutional trouble if these perogative powers are exercised is entirely conceded as valid. Nevertheless, they exist and can (and have) been exercised in the not-so distant past.
Thank you for pointing out to me these rare instances.
The circumstance were also unusual and thus the monarch and viceroy didn't act in entirely arbitrary ways though not necessarily as everyone thought they should.
I'm just old enough to remember and being a bit interested in the Douglas-Home instance. In that case, (without looking deeply into the matter), it seems to me that there was no clear Conservative Party-agreed leader to replace MacMillan, so MacMillan's suggestion was arguably as good as any.
I don't know anything about the Australian Senate but, perhaps, if a PM cannot get a bill past the Senate, then it is tantamount to vote of no confidence which, if it happened in the Commons, would require that the PM resign.
Quote from: absolutelybaching on October 30, 2022, 11:48:57 AM
Irrelevant. Of course the times were exceptional, but they were met by the exercise of prerogative powers which are definitely *not* exceptional. They exist, persist, and need to be taken into account by anyone that thinks they know how the constitution actually works or expresses an opinion on how they think it ought to work.
So, the monarch may, in theory, nominate
any MP for the office of PM. Now, the question is: may s/he, in theory, nominate a non-MP? Actually, may the monarch, in theory, nominate whichever person they please?
Even if the monarch nominates the wrong person, that person still has to form a government and wind a vote of confidence in order to become prime minister. That is the point of nominating an MP from the majority party.
Quote from: absolutelybaching on October 31, 2022, 08:16:22 AM
...
The point of the Australian story is that the normal convention if a government can't get an important bill through the Senate (especially a budget, which is what 1975 was about), is the PM does indeed go to the Governor General and ask for an election. Except in 1975, the Governor General didn't let the PM request an election, but sacked him before the request could be made. He immediately appointed the Leader of the Opposition as PM, on the promise that he'd pass a budget and immediately call a new election. The new PM moved so fast to pass the budget through the lower house that the dismissed PM's MPs didn't know what was happening and didn't know to vote it down. So, the new PM got the budget through the lower house which he didn't control -and then was able to walk it through the Senate, which he did control. Again, the point is that the monarch (or her representative) dismissed and appointed a Prime Minister as a matter of the exercise of the royal prerogative, rather than taking account of 'who had the majority, who was democratically elected' and so on. Australians have generally hated this pointed reminder of the existence of royal prerogative powers ever since!
So I suppose the 2008-09 situation in Canada is a bit of a contrast on account of what the Governor General, Michelle Jean,
did and did not do. In December of '08 the Liberal Party and New Democratic Party agreed,with support from the Quebec-base Bloc Québécois, to defeat the Conservative Party by a vote of no-confidence on the Budget, and ask the GG to recognize the Liberal Party leader as PM.
The Conservative leader and PM, Stephen Harper cynically avoided the no-confidence vote by asking the GG to prorogue Parliament to be reconvened towards the end of January '09, which the GG did. In the interval the Liberal Party leader changed and the putative coalition dissolved; the Conservatives made a few concessions on the Budget which passed on account of the abstention of a few Liberal MPs.
What the potential coalition did actually not request and what the GG did not do, was recognize the coalition merely because it was declare. On the other hand what the GG
did do was grant the prorogation. The GG acted appropriately in the constitutional sense: she gave no consideration to the coalition ahead a defeat of the government by a no-confidence vote, but granted the PM's request for prorogation because she felt she must acquiesce to an undefeated PM's request.
Quote from: absolutelybaching on October 31, 2022, 08:21:35 AM
the idea of appointing a private individual PM would be ludicrous: the PM has to get his or her programme of government through Parliament, and sitting in it somewhere is generally regarded as a prerequisite for doing that job effectively. Were the monarch to appoint a private individual as PM, you'd expect the new PM to have to get elected to the Commons in pretty short order!
Quote from: Spotted Horses on October 31, 2022, 07:45:32 AM
Even if the monarch nominates the wrong person, that person still has to form a government and wind a vote of confidence in order to become prime minister. That is the point of nominating an MP from the majority party.
Yes and this is exactly my point: although in theory the monarch may do as he pleases, in practice this power is greatly circumscribed by pragmatism and common-sense. There is no reason to suppose that Charles III will ever nominate as PM anyone elsse than the leader of the majoritarian party. That in theory he may do otherwise is, well, irrelevant.
Quote from: absolutelybaching on October 31, 2022, 08:16:22 AM
the PM is, in fact, created by the monarch, not by popular vote.
Techincally yes but it's not created
ex nihilo. The result of the popular vote plays a very important role in the process.
Quote from: absolutelybaching on November 02, 2022, 12:59:04 AM
No-one is denying that, in the UK at least, elections have a very large part to play in deciding who becomes PM. But, the entire discussion kicked off when someone up-thread mentioned a 'popularly-elected Prime Minister' or 'no-body voted for her to be Prime Minister'. And we see variations on this sort of thing all the time, when Labour and other MPs say things like 'Sunak should call an election, as he has no mandate'.
Pointing out that he does have a mandate, since he leads the largest party in the Commons; or that no-one ever has, nor ever will, democratically elect a Prime Minister -these are not "technicalities". They are how the constitution of this country works.
Well, this is how the constitution of parliamentarian and semi-presidential republics works too. Nobody becomes PM in Italy, Germany or Romania because people voted him/her for that position: they are nominated by the President. But everybody, from the last voter to the President themselves, knows that in 99% of the cases the leader of the majoritarian party or coalition will be nominated as PM, even though the Constitution, in all three cases, does not expressly require them to do so.
Quote from: absolutelybaching on November 02, 2022, 02:52:08 AM
I don't know what you're apparently trying to continue to argue about then.
Not arguing about anything, just pointing out that the UK is not exceptional in this respect. AFAIK,there is no country in the world where the PM is elected directly by the people.
QuoteThe point was merely to detonate the complaints made by others up-thread that 'Grrr! No-one elected Sunak/Truss as PM; it's a democratic outrage!!'.
As in "Correct, no-one voted them in as PM because no-one ever votes in a PM; and it's not a democratic outrage, because that's how the constitution works".
Can we agree that point has been made?!
Yes. I don't see what is un-democratic in a PM being selected from within, or by, the leadership of the party which won the latest elections.
Quote from: absolutelybaching on November 02, 2022, 03:19:44 AM
The point in these pages was not to determine or declare whether it was democratic or undemocratic. It was merely to explain what the procedures are.
My response was to this bit you quoted:
'Grrr! No-one elected Sunak/Truss as PM; it's a democratic outrage!!'. Ummm, no, it's not.
We're basically on the same side of the fence so let's agree to agree and move on.
Quote from: Florestan on November 02, 2022, 02:17:21 AM
Well, this is how the constitution of parliamentarian and semi-presidential republics works too. Nobody becomes PM in Italy, Germany or Romania because people voted him/her for that position: they are nominated by the President. But everybody, from the last voter to the President themselves, knows that in 99% of the cases the leader of the majoritarian party or coalition will be nominated as PM, even though the Constitution, in all three cases, does not expressly require them to do so.
This is the essence of the matter. Would it help a country's constitution
required the President/Monarch to do this? Maybe, or maybe just a little flexibility desirable in some circumstances.
BTW, when you say "majoritarian" I presume you mean the party with majority of MPs
OR at least the party with
plurality of MPs based on the expectation that they will receive some additional support from parties with fewer MPs, with or without a declared coalition.
Quote from: Fëanor on November 02, 2022, 06:17:46 AM
This is the essence of the matter. Would it help a country's constitution required the President/Monarch to do this? Maybe, or maybe just a little flexibility desirable in some circumstances.
I think that flexibility is necessary and beneficial. For instance, a few years ago the leader of the Romanian Social-Democratic Party (which had just won the elections) was such a divisive and controversial person that he refrained himself from being PM and suggested another person to the President. Had the latter been required to nominate the SDP boss the situation would have been really explosive.
QuoteBTW, when you say "majoritarian" I presume you mean the party with majority of MPs OR at least the party with plurality of MPs based on the hope that they will receive some additional support from parties with fewer MPs, with or without a declared coalition.
Precisely. Is there another, better term for such a party?