NPR

The faux incredulity and whataboutery is astounding.

Industry figures buy things for politicians so that they can get close enough to influence them. That's not how politics should work and everyone posting on here knows it.

Latest example:

NEW: While in opposition, Environment Secretary Steve Reed accepted £1,786 for a football match ticket and hospitality from bosses linked to a polluting water company

[@Telegraph]

There is absolutely no reason for the environment secretary to be going on a paid for jolly with the Execs of water companies. None. It stinks of the effluent they're currently pumping into our rivers and hoping to continue pumping in when the Environment Secretary has a more favourable opinion of how fun they all are at the football.

Not as bad as the Tories. No they aren't getting as much for their influence as the Tories but they're snouts are in the trough that can't be denied.

It's worth noting that MPs don't have to declare gifts, and the Tories usually didn't. Labour are doing the opposite.


As for Reed's hospitality ticket to a football match, the telegraph's weasel words ("bosses linked to a polluting water company") speak volumes. The donor was actually Hutchison 3G UK Limited. Let's not swallow everything thrown out by a paper that has spent the last four years soiling itself in public on behalf of Boris and his chums.

_Os_ wrote: Wed Sep 25, 2024 6:55 pm Guys like Brandon Lewis were getting £25k from the wife of Putin's deputy finance minister and another £23k from a Russian arms company. It is interesting how the right wing media have suddenly developed exceptionally high standards now they're not supporting a right wing government, to the point where the PM cannot go to a sporting event (something the leader of a country often does in many countries) without paying for it personally.

A bit more on this, so you can see the extent of the double standards.

Lewis has been Tory party chairman as well as holding different cabinet positions. He used to appear in the media a lot because of this. These donations were from Russians who obtained British nationality through the Tier One investment route (they bought British passports), which has now been scraped as it’s a security risk (because of exactly these sorts of people buying the passport).

In 2014 Lewis received £10k from Offshore Group Newcastle, its vice chairman was Alexender Temerko. In 2016 Temerko personally donated £7k to Lewis at a fundraising auction, and £5k later in 2017. Around £22k given to Lewis personally.

Temerko is critical of Putin, but he worked for Yeltsin and Putin in the defence ministry and made his money in the Russian arms industry. He was also deputy chairman of Yukos. None of that happens unless you were in Putin’s inner circle at one time, an entrepreneur (who err worked in the defence ministry) doesn’t get wealthy in the Russian arms industry without Putin’s approval, just like no one gets anywhere near Yukos without that. He has donated millions to the Tories and backed 40+ Tory MPs.

Temerko is also a director of Aquind (which also donates to the Tories) a UK cabling company owned by Viktor Fedotov (who also donates to the Tories). It’s been reported that Fedotov has made money from Russian companies funnelling money into offshore structures. Aquid wants to build a power interconnector between Portsmouth and Normandy.

Lubov Chernukhin (the same person who paid £140k to play Tennis with Big Dog and Cameron, she throws millions at the Tory party, the biggest female political donor in UK history) gave Lewis £5.5k in 2019 and another £4k bidding on a raffle. Another £5k and £10k were provided up to 2021. Nearly £25k, direct to Lewis not the Tory party.

Putin made her husband chairman of a Russian state bank, which gave loans to former-state owned companies (in other words he was one of the bank managers oligarchs went to when they wanted more money). That bank, VEB.R was sanctioned by the UK after the 2022 full scale invasion of Ukraine. Her husband was known as “Putin’s Protege” and was given multiple positions by Putin (state companies, deputy finance minister, etc). He and his wife then bought British passports. The Pandora Papers showed her husband has a vast offshore empire (much of it in territories ultimately controlled by the UK), some of that being connected to Suleyman Kerimov who was sanctioned by the US in 2018 for “advancing Russia’s malign activities”. This opens many questions about where the millions being funnelled into the Tory party, both the party itself and individuals like Lewis, by Chernukhin is ultimately coming from.

In 2023 Lubov Chernukhin continued to have her donations to the Tory party and individual MPs accepted. Long after Russia’s full scale invasion of Ukraine and mass war crimes. At the start of 2023 she gave Lewis £10k and a further £34k via auction prizes. Another £44k to Lewis personally, on top of the £25k she had already given Lewis.

At the end of 2023 Lewis takes up a fifth job with LetterOne earning a reported £100k per year (he was still an MP on £87k, he was also paid £60k per year by Thakeham Homes, £60k per year by FM Conway, £30k per year by Civitas Investment Management). LetterOne is 49% owned by two Russian oligarchs Mikhail Fridman and Petr Aven. Fridman is one of Russia’s richest men and has been described by the EU as one of the oligarchs closest to Putin’s inner circle. Both of them were sanctioned by the UK after the 2022 full scale invasion of Ukraine. The miniscule amount of reporting on this at the time, pointed out there were potential conflicts of interest regarding LetterOne’s court action against the government over the forced sale of LetterOne’s UK fibre business Upp on national security grounds.

The timeline just for Lewis alone is:
2014: £10k
2016: £12k
2019: £9.5k
2021: £15k
2023: £44k and employment with LetterOne on £100k per year.

This timeline matches Russian connected donations to the Tories increasingly massively after 2018/Sergei Skripal and still continuing after the 2022 full scale invasion of Ukraine and mass war crimes. The Tories never seem to turn down any of it.

None of this is reported on much. There’s the rare article in the Guardian, maybe something on a local news site in the constituency the MP represents, activist organisations like Good Law Project or Open Democracy, very maybe the Daily Mail or Times may run something online (they’re not always one sided).

Through this entire period Russia was a hostile foreign state committing crimes within the UK. It’s not just Litvinenko in 2006 and the Skripal attempt in 2018.

US intelligence in 2017 stated it had moderate to high certainty at that time there were at least 14 assassinations carried out in the UK by the Russian state. Among people who follow this stuff the deaths of Alexander Perepilichnyy (mysteriously died jogging in Surrey alone aged 44)/Scott Young (mysteriously died alone when he jumped/fell out of the window of a London flat)/Berezovsky (mysteriously died alone via ligature around his neck in Berkshire), all look suspicious. It would be embarrassing for the UK if Russia was bumping off people in the UK at will, unless literal nuclear waste or nerve agent are used the deaths don’t make headlines. In 2018 a coroner ruled that Nikolai Glushkov was “unlawfully killed” (he was killed the week after the Skripal attempt), he had been strangled to death in his London home and it had been made to look like suicide … it was barely reported on.

It would be surprising if no one had ever tapped on the shoulder of one of these Tories and said "maybe do not take this money old chap".

Most of the UK media spent more time basely claiming Corbyn supported Russia, that was one of the their main narratives after Skripal, than where on earth the millions being pumped into the Tories ultimately comes from. The total amount was around £4m by 2019.

… got to keep tabs on a British businessman from Croydon who is a Labour peer in the house of Lords, in other words someone that already has maximum influence within the Labour party, and their gift of £5k of clothes to Starmer’s wife. A British Labour supporter who has a history of involvement with clothing retailers = FUCKING CORRUPTION AND TREASON, GIVE THIS WALL TO WALL COVERAGE.

If we’re going to throw out there the Tories were essentially in Putin’s pocket, we have to address their Ukraine policy which was robust from the moment of invasion, more so than our neighbours and went above and beyond what was needed to tick the box. I.e. a pro Putin Tory government could have stalled things, send everything through the usual nonsense civil service red tape, refused to send anything but defensive weapons a la the Germans for some time etc etc.

Willing to take money without asking too many questions? No doubt, and as we see they are hardly unique in that. The Putin fifth column stuff is obvious bollocks, provably so through government action, and shouldn’t be taken anywhere near as seriously as it is.

Personally I don't particularly believe that the Tories are Russian puppets.

But I do think that Russia deliberately back whatever will lead to the most chaos/instability.

By funding the Tory party, in fairness they were bang on in that regard.

C T wrote: Thu Sep 26, 2024 2:26 pm Personally I don't particularly believe that the Tories are Russian puppets.

But I do think that Russia deliberately back whatever will lead to the most chaos/instability.

By funding the Tory party, in fairness they were bang on in that regard.

As we’ve seen their master plan to blitzkrieg Ukraine in a few days turn into years of trench warfare reminiscent of the 20th century, I think we need to reassess just how machiavellian and all-influencing a nation that is considerably poorer than us actually is over our politics.

Basically, yes they’d like chaos, I think their ability to cause it is wildly overstated. The amount of times ‘Russian bots’ have turned out to be ordinary people with bad grammar and radical views is amusingly high

C T wrote: Thu Sep 26, 2024 2:26 pm Personally I don't particularly believe that the Tories are Russian puppets.

But I do think that Russia deliberately back whatever will lead to the most chaos/instability.

By funding the Tory party, in fairness they were bang on in that regard.

Let's be fair they funded the dumb factions of the Tory party to great success. They didn't need to direct them to be useless because they were inherently useless. I have lots of time for Ben Wallace who I suspect just went ahead and did things without really asking.

Paddington Bear wrote: Thu Sep 26, 2024 2:12 pm If we’re going to throw out there the Tories were essentially in Putin’s pocket, we have to address their Ukraine policy which was robust from the moment of invasion, more so than our neighbours and went above and beyond what was needed to tick the box. I.e. a pro Putin Tory government could have stalled things, send everything through the usual nonsense civil service red tape, refused to send anything but defensive weapons a la the Germans for some time etc etc.

Willing to take money without asking too many questions? No doubt, and as we see they are hardly unique in that. The Putin fifth column stuff is obvious bollocks, provably so through government action, and shouldn’t be taken anywhere near as seriously as it is.

You've defended the Russian money before on the basis "they all do it". Russia is a hostile foreign state that commits serious crimes on UK soil, it's obviously qualitatively different from some businessman from Croydon. It looks quantitively different too. It's millions upon millions with a ball's hair of separation from Putin.

I fear you're going to be defending this for sometime to come. Once Russia starts an influence operation, if that's what is happening, they dig in for decades. There's examples of it even being multi generational (they groom the father then the son). Once the Russian's commit to a target they've shown the ability to keep going through different leaders and even through multiple eras (a lot of the networks created during the USSR keep popping up in modern times). But I'm sure Lewis got about £200k in cash that we know of, for good reasons and it definitely wasn't part of a larger Kremlin influence operation I'm in no way saying that. The timeline of Lewis isn't uncommon in other European countries, also definitely not anything to do with an influence operation.

Russia's end goal is someone like Trump who they don't necessarily control, but is very much known to them and supports all their positions. Lots of Putin connected money has found a home in London and the UK's offshore structures. They like how they can buy positions and power in the UK that they cannot elsewhere, they can even buy national newspapers and become Lords. They like that Yevgeny Prigozhin could drag a UK journalist through the UK courts for years, for writing that he was the Wagner boss, err when he was the Wagner boss. It's one of the reasons there's limited reporting of all this.

If they're allowed to keep doing it and the Tories keep taking the money, eventually he who pays the piper calls the tune. Part of the reason they over extended and launched the full scale invasion of Ukraine was precisely because there had been little to no pushback to everything they had done, including the UK's reaction to events inside the UK and outside the UK, up to that point.

But you know, Corbyn, and something something Labour.

Paddington Bear wrote: Thu Sep 26, 2024 2:31 pm

C T wrote: Thu Sep 26, 2024 2:26 pm Personally I don't particularly believe that the Tories are Russian puppets.

But I do think that Russia deliberately back whatever will lead to the most chaos/instability.

By funding the Tory party, in fairness they were bang on in that regard.

As we’ve seen their master plan to blitzkrieg Ukraine in a few days turn into years of trench warfare reminiscent of the 20th century, I think we need to reassess just how machiavellian and all-influencing a nation that is considerably poorer than us actually is over our politics.

Basically, yes they’d like chaos, I think their ability to cause it is wildly overstated. The amount of times ‘Russian bots’ have turned out to be ordinary people with bad grammar and radical views is amusingly high

Now yes but not in the era when people didn't realise. From like 2013-17 it did work. After that you've got a concerted effort to shut it down and unsurprisingly stupid real people sounding similar to russian trolls is because they spent a fair amount of time in the same environment. On the concerted effort part I went from daily friend requests from attractive young women who loved Brexit on Facebook throughout 2016 to zero requests over night. I had about 3 (all male over the age of 50 - none of them were political but they all became ardent Brexit supporters) work colleagues who shared and forwarded this shit from the attractive young women relentlessly in 2016. Without them I would have received none of it. The attractive young women typically had about 500 friends who were mostly distinctly gammony-i initially found this very funny.

_Os_ wrote: Thu Sep 26, 2024 2:48 pm

Paddington Bear wrote: Thu Sep 26, 2024 2:12 pm If we’re going to throw out there the Tories were essentially in Putin’s pocket, we have to address their Ukraine policy which was robust from the moment of invasion, more so than our neighbours and went above and beyond what was needed to tick the box. I.e. a pro Putin Tory government could have stalled things, send everything through the usual nonsense civil service red tape, refused to send anything but defensive weapons a la the Germans for some time etc etc.

Willing to take money without asking too many questions? No doubt, and as we see they are hardly unique in that. The Putin fifth column stuff is obvious bollocks, provably so through government action, and shouldn’t be taken anywhere near as seriously as it is.

You've defended the Russian money before on the basis "they all do it". Russia is a hostile foreign state that commits serious crimes on UK soil, it's obviously qualitatively different from some businessman from Croydon. It looks quantitively different too. It's millions upon millions with a ball's hair of separation from Putin.

I fear you're going to be defending this for sometime to come. Once Russia starts an influence operation, if that's what is happening, they dig in for decades. There's examples of it even being multi generational (they groom the father then the son). Once the Russian's commit to a target they've shown the ability to keep going through different leaders and even through multiple eras (a lot of the networks created during the USSR keep popping up in modern times). But I'm sure Lewis got about £200k in cash that we know of, for good reasons and it definitely wasn't part of a larger Kremlin influence operation I'm in no way saying that. The timeline of Lewis isn't uncommon in other European countries, also definitely not anything to do with an influence operation.

Russia's end goal is someone like Trump who they don't necessarily control, but is very much known to them and supports all their positions. Lots of Putin connected money has found a home in London and the UK's offshore structures. They like how they can buy positions and power in the UK that they cannot elsewhere, they can even buy national newspapers and become Lords. They like that Yevgeny Prigozhin could drag a UK journalist through the UK courts for years, for writing that he was the Wagner boss, err when he was the Wagner boss. It's one of the reasons there's limited reporting of all this.

If they're allowed to keep doing it and the Tories keep taking the money, eventually he who pays the piper calls the tune. Part of the reason they over extended and launched the full scale invasion of Ukraine was precisely because there had been little to no pushback to everything they had done, including the UK's reaction to events inside the UK and outside the UK, up to that point.

But you know, Corbyn, and something something Labour.

I’m not reading all of that. ‘Russian’ money and ‘Putin’ money are two separate things. Neither is likely to be entirely above board, admittedly. The Tories being in Putin’s pocket is provable bollocks based on their very anti-Putin stance in office, which went above and beyond what was required of them.

You mention Corbyn - what his attitude in office towards Putin would have been is of course unknowable. What we do know is that he sided with the Russian interpretation when there was a chemical attack on British soil, is generally in step with Stop the War who have been Kremlin apologists, and tends to see the British military and its private sector suppliers as the bad guys. It’s not a stretch to say he may well have offered Ukraine significantly less than the Wallace led effort did. The man was and is a disgrace, not everything thrown at him was a dark money smear

Paddington Bear wrote: Thu Sep 26, 2024 3:02 pm

_Os_ wrote: Thu Sep 26, 2024 2:48 pm

Paddington Bear wrote: Thu Sep 26, 2024 2:12 pm If we’re going to throw out there the Tories were essentially in Putin’s pocket, we have to address their Ukraine policy which was robust from the moment of invasion, more so than our neighbours and went above and beyond what was needed to tick the box. I.e. a pro Putin Tory government could have stalled things, send everything through the usual nonsense civil service red tape, refused to send anything but defensive weapons a la the Germans for some time etc etc.

Willing to take money without asking too many questions? No doubt, and as we see they are hardly unique in that. The Putin fifth column stuff is obvious bollocks, provably so through government action, and shouldn’t be taken anywhere near as seriously as it is.

You've defended the Russian money before on the basis "they all do it". Russia is a hostile foreign state that commits serious crimes on UK soil, it's obviously qualitatively different from some businessman from Croydon. It looks quantitively different too. It's millions upon millions with a ball's hair of separation from Putin.

I fear you're going to be defending this for sometime to come. Once Russia starts an influence operation, if that's what is happening, they dig in for decades. There's examples of it even being multi generational (they groom the father then the son). Once the Russian's commit to a target they've shown the ability to keep going through different leaders and even through multiple eras (a lot of the networks created during the USSR keep popping up in modern times). But I'm sure Lewis got about £200k in cash that we know of, for good reasons and it definitely wasn't part of a larger Kremlin influence operation I'm in no way saying that. The timeline of Lewis isn't uncommon in other European countries, also definitely not anything to do with an influence operation.

Russia's end goal is someone like Trump who they don't necessarily control, but is very much known to them and supports all their positions. Lots of Putin connected money has found a home in London and the UK's offshore structures. They like how they can buy positions and power in the UK that they cannot elsewhere, they can even buy national newspapers and become Lords. They like that Yevgeny Prigozhin could drag a UK journalist through the UK courts for years, for writing that he was the Wagner boss, err when he was the Wagner boss. It's one of the reasons there's limited reporting of all this.

If they're allowed to keep doing it and the Tories keep taking the money, eventually he who pays the piper calls the tune. Part of the reason they over extended and launched the full scale invasion of Ukraine was precisely because there had been little to no pushback to everything they had done, including the UK's reaction to events inside the UK and outside the UK, up to that point.

But you know, Corbyn, and something something Labour.

I’m not reading all of that. ‘Russian’ money and ‘Putin’ money are two separate things. Neither is likely to be entirely above board, admittedly. The Tories being in Putin’s pocket is provable bollocks based on their very anti-Putin stance in office, which went above and beyond what was required of them.

You mention Corbyn - what his attitude in office towards Putin would have been is of course unknowable. What we do know is that he sided with the Russian interpretation when there was a chemical attack on British soil, is generally in step with Stop the War who have been Kremlin apologists, and tends to see the British military and its private sector suppliers as the bad guys. It’s not a stretch to say he may well have offered Ukraine significantly less than the Wallace led effort did. The man was and is a disgrace, not everything thrown at him was a dark money smear

Eh the Tories did not have a strong reaction at all to the Salisbury incident, or any of the other state sponsored murder the Russians have carried out in Britain, or that the oligarchs used the city of London as their defacto base. And the russia report is never to be released because of how damning it will be. Their response to Ukraine was of course very strong (and also Johnson used it as a story to cover himself more than once as he saw it as his Churchill moment).

JM2K6 wrote: Thu Sep 26, 2024 12:05 pm It's worth noting that MPs don't have to declare gifts, and the Tories usually didn't. Labour are doing the opposite.


As for Reed's hospitality ticket to a football match, the telegraph's weasel words ("bosses linked to a polluting water company") speak volumes. The donor was actually Hutchison 3G UK Limited. Let's not swallow everything thrown out by a paper that has spent the last four years soiling itself in public on behalf of Boris and his chums.

Hutchison 3G who owns CK Hutchison who owns Cheung Kong Infrastructure who owns Northumbrian Water. So yes the actual owners of Northumbrian Water? Doesn't matter what corporate structure they're using to hide ownership.

There's only one reason the group who owns a water utility want to go to the football with an incoming environment secretary...

Following parliamentary procedure on lobbying just means you're ticking the boxes whilst selling influence. There really is no reason for MPs to be getting gifts at all. Especially from people they're regulating. Declared or not, it's corruption.

Paddington Bear wrote: Thu Sep 26, 2024 3:02 pm

_Os_ wrote: Thu Sep 26, 2024 2:48 pm

Paddington Bear wrote: Thu Sep 26, 2024 2:12 pm If we’re going to throw out there the Tories were essentially in Putin’s pocket, we have to address their Ukraine policy which was robust from the moment of invasion, more so than our neighbours and went above and beyond what was needed to tick the box. I.e. a pro Putin Tory government could have stalled things, send everything through the usual nonsense civil service red tape, refused to send anything but defensive weapons a la the Germans for some time etc etc.

Willing to take money without asking too many questions? No doubt, and as we see they are hardly unique in that. The Putin fifth column stuff is obvious bollocks, provably so through government action, and shouldn’t be taken anywhere near as seriously as it is.

You've defended the Russian money before on the basis "they all do it". Russia is a hostile foreign state that commits serious crimes on UK soil, it's obviously qualitatively different from some businessman from Croydon. It looks quantitively different too. It's millions upon millions with a ball's hair of separation from Putin.

I fear you're going to be defending this for sometime to come. Once Russia starts an influence operation, if that's what is happening, they dig in for decades. There's examples of it even being multi generational (they groom the father then the son). Once the Russian's commit to a target they've shown the ability to keep going through different leaders and even through multiple eras (a lot of the networks created during the USSR keep popping up in modern times). But I'm sure Lewis got about £200k in cash that we know of, for good reasons and it definitely wasn't part of a larger Kremlin influence operation I'm in no way saying that. The timeline of Lewis isn't uncommon in other European countries, also definitely not anything to do with an influence operation.

Russia's end goal is someone like Trump who they don't necessarily control, but is very much known to them and supports all their positions. Lots of Putin connected money has found a home in London and the UK's offshore structures. They like how they can buy positions and power in the UK that they cannot elsewhere, they can even buy national newspapers and become Lords. They like that Yevgeny Prigozhin could drag a UK journalist through the UK courts for years, for writing that he was the Wagner boss, err when he was the Wagner boss. It's one of the reasons there's limited reporting of all this.

If they're allowed to keep doing it and the Tories keep taking the money, eventually he who pays the piper calls the tune. Part of the reason they over extended and launched the full scale invasion of Ukraine was precisely because there had been little to no pushback to everything they had done, including the UK's reaction to events inside the UK and outside the UK, up to that point.

But you know, Corbyn, and something something Labour.

I’m not reading all of that. ‘Russian’ money and ‘Putin’ money are two separate things. Neither is likely to be entirely above board, admittedly. The Tories being in Putin’s pocket is provable bollocks based on their very anti-Putin stance in office, which went above and beyond what was required of them.

You mention Corbyn - what his attitude in office towards Putin would have been is of course unknowable. What we do know is that he sided with the Russian interpretation when there was a chemical attack on British soil, is generally in step with Stop the War who have been Kremlin apologists, and tends to see the British military and its private sector suppliers as the bad guys. It’s not a stretch to say he may well have offered Ukraine significantly less than the Wallace led effort did. The man was and is a disgrace, not everything thrown at him was a dark money smear

It’s only four paragraphs for fuck’s sake.

I like neeps wrote: Thu Sep 26, 2024 4:37 pm

JM2K6 wrote: Thu Sep 26, 2024 12:05 pm It's worth noting that MPs don't have to declare gifts, and the Tories usually didn't. Labour are doing the opposite.


As for Reed's hospitality ticket to a football match, the telegraph's weasel words ("bosses linked to a polluting water company") speak volumes. The donor was actually Hutchison 3G UK Limited. Let's not swallow everything thrown out by a paper that has spent the last four years soiling itself in public on behalf of Boris and his chums.

Hutchison 3G who owns CK Hutchison who owns Cheung Kong Infrastructure who owns Northumbrian Water. So yes the actual owners of Northumbrian Water? Doesn't matter what corporate structure they're using to hide ownership.

There's only one reason the group who owns a water utility want to go to the football with an incoming environment secretary...

Following parliamentary procedure on lobbying just means you're ticking the boxes whilst selling influence. There really is no reason for MPs to be getting gifts at all. Especially from people they're regulating. Declared or not, it's corruption.

CK Hutchison holdings owns Hutchison 3G uk, not the other way round. Hutchison 3G doesn’t have subsidiary holdings in the water industry. If they want to influence govt at the moment it’s about their proposed merger with Vodafone.

But don’t let actual facts get in the way.

I like neeps wrote: Thu Sep 26, 2024 4:37 pm

JM2K6 wrote: Thu Sep 26, 2024 12:05 pm It's worth noting that MPs don't have to declare gifts, and the Tories usually didn't. Labour are doing the opposite.


As for Reed's hospitality ticket to a football match, the telegraph's weasel words ("bosses linked to a polluting water company") speak volumes. The donor was actually Hutchison 3G UK Limited. Let's not swallow everything thrown out by a paper that has spent the last four years soiling itself in public on behalf of Boris and his chums.

Hutchison 3G who owns CK Hutchison who owns Cheung Kong Infrastructure who owns Northumbrian Water. So yes the actual owners of Northumbrian Water? Doesn't matter what corporate structure they're using to hide ownership.

There's only one reason the group who owns a water utility want to go to the football with an incoming environment secretary...

Following parliamentary procedure on lobbying just means you're ticking the boxes whilst selling influence. There really is no reason for MPs to be getting gifts at all. Especially from people they're regulating. Declared or not, it's corruption.

I gotta agree with Spudhead here, this one stinks!

Biffer wrote: Thu Sep 26, 2024 8:58 pm

Paddington Bear wrote: Thu Sep 26, 2024 3:02 pm

_Os_ wrote: Thu Sep 26, 2024 2:48 pm
You've defended the Russian money before on the basis "they all do it". Russia is a hostile foreign state that commits serious crimes on UK soil, it's obviously qualitatively different from some businessman from Croydon. It looks quantitively different too. It's millions upon millions with a ball's hair of separation from Putin.

I fear you're going to be defending this for sometime to come. Once Russia starts an influence operation, if that's what is happening, they dig in for decades. There's examples of it even being multi generational (they groom the father then the son). Once the Russian's commit to a target they've shown the ability to keep going through different leaders and even through multiple eras (a lot of the networks created during the USSR keep popping up in modern times). But I'm sure Lewis got about £200k in cash that we know of, for good reasons and it definitely wasn't part of a larger Kremlin influence operation I'm in no way saying that. The timeline of Lewis isn't uncommon in other European countries, also definitely not anything to do with an influence operation.

Russia's end goal is someone like Trump who they don't necessarily control, but is very much known to them and supports all their positions. Lots of Putin connected money has found a home in London and the UK's offshore structures. They like how they can buy positions and power in the UK that they cannot elsewhere, they can even buy national newspapers and become Lords. They like that Yevgeny Prigozhin could drag a UK journalist through the UK courts for years, for writing that he was the Wagner boss, err when he was the Wagner boss. It's one of the reasons there's limited reporting of all this.

If they're allowed to keep doing it and the Tories keep taking the money, eventually he who pays the piper calls the tune. Part of the reason they over extended and launched the full scale invasion of Ukraine was precisely because there had been little to no pushback to everything they had done, including the UK's reaction to events inside the UK and outside the UK, up to that point.

But you know, Corbyn, and something something Labour.

I’m not reading all of that. ‘Russian’ money and ‘Putin’ money are two separate things. Neither is likely to be entirely above board, admittedly. The Tories being in Putin’s pocket is provable bollocks based on their very anti-Putin stance in office, which went above and beyond what was required of them.

You mention Corbyn - what his attitude in office towards Putin would have been is of course unknowable. What we do know is that he sided with the Russian interpretation when there was a chemical attack on British soil, is generally in step with Stop the War who have been Kremlin apologists, and tends to see the British military and its private sector suppliers as the bad guys. It’s not a stretch to say he may well have offered Ukraine significantly less than the Wallace led effort did. The man was and is a disgrace, not everything thrown at him was a dark money smear

It’s only four paragraphs for fuck’s sake.

It’s five paragraphs, if this is the route we’re planning on going down. I don’t necessarily always have time to read c.400 word responses, consider it and then respond in kind during the working day.

I like neeps wrote: Thu Sep 26, 2024 4:25 pm

Paddington Bear wrote: Thu Sep 26, 2024 3:02 pm

_Os_ wrote: Thu Sep 26, 2024 2:48 pm
You've defended the Russian money before on the basis "they all do it". Russia is a hostile foreign state that commits serious crimes on UK soil, it's obviously qualitatively different from some businessman from Croydon. It looks quantitively different too. It's millions upon millions with a ball's hair of separation from Putin.

I fear you're going to be defending this for sometime to come. Once Russia starts an influence operation, if that's what is happening, they dig in for decades. There's examples of it even being multi generational (they groom the father then the son). Once the Russian's commit to a target they've shown the ability to keep going through different leaders and even through multiple eras (a lot of the networks created during the USSR keep popping up in modern times). But I'm sure Lewis got about £200k in cash that we know of, for good reasons and it definitely wasn't part of a larger Kremlin influence operation I'm in no way saying that. The timeline of Lewis isn't uncommon in other European countries, also definitely not anything to do with an influence operation.

Russia's end goal is someone like Trump who they don't necessarily control, but is very much known to them and supports all their positions. Lots of Putin connected money has found a home in London and the UK's offshore structures. They like how they can buy positions and power in the UK that they cannot elsewhere, they can even buy national newspapers and become Lords. They like that Yevgeny Prigozhin could drag a UK journalist through the UK courts for years, for writing that he was the Wagner boss, err when he was the Wagner boss. It's one of the reasons there's limited reporting of all this.

If they're allowed to keep doing it and the Tories keep taking the money, eventually he who pays the piper calls the tune. Part of the reason they over extended and launched the full scale invasion of Ukraine was precisely because there had been little to no pushback to everything they had done, including the UK's reaction to events inside the UK and outside the UK, up to that point.

But you know, Corbyn, and something something Labour.

I’m not reading all of that. ‘Russian’ money and ‘Putin’ money are two separate things. Neither is likely to be entirely above board, admittedly. The Tories being in Putin’s pocket is provable bollocks based on their very anti-Putin stance in office, which went above and beyond what was required of them.

You mention Corbyn - what his attitude in office towards Putin would have been is of course unknowable. What we do know is that he sided with the Russian interpretation when there was a chemical attack on British soil, is generally in step with Stop the War who have been Kremlin apologists, and tends to see the British military and its private sector suppliers as the bad guys. It’s not a stretch to say he may well have offered Ukraine significantly less than the Wallace led effort did. The man was and is a disgrace, not everything thrown at him was a dark money smear

Eh the Tories did not have a strong reaction at all to the Salisbury incident, or any of the other state sponsored murder the Russians have carried out in Britain, or that the oligarchs used the city of London as their defacto base. And the russia report is never to be released because of how damning it will be. Their response to Ukraine was of course very strong (and also Johnson used it as a story to cover himself more than once as he saw it as his Churchill moment).

Correct, Neeps. And the fact that Russian money and Putin are always closely linked. Russia is a not a liberal democracy, there is no centre of power outside the regime. Anyone that makes it big there can only do so with the approval of the regime. Any Russians (and some British people too) Putin doesn't like in the UK who really do oppose the regime, has either died mysteriously or been killed by a literal death squad that rocks up in the UK, or fears their mysterious death is coming.

Tories could make all this go away by not taking Russian money, but even after the 2022 full scale invasion they're still taking Russian money. They don't seem to care that people with close connections to Putin can pull out millions from sources unknown.

I really do think this discounts a lot of the Tory moaning about donations. What the Tories continue to do would've been completely unimaginable not long ago.

_Os_ wrote: Thu Sep 26, 2024 2:48 pm Russia's end goal is someone like Trump who they don't necessarily control, but is very much known to them and supports all their positions.

Right on cue the big mouth speaks and parrots a Russian position, that Ukraine doesn't exist. The same Trump that has been publicly backed by: former PM Truss, former PM Big Dog, favourite to be next Tory leader and therefore opposition leader Jenrick, Braverman, Frog Face Farage. Cannot recall former PMs publicly backing candidates in US elections before this.

Really not unthinkable that the UK ends up with some moron parroting Russian lines if the Tories keep making excuses and do not change. Russians don't stop once they get their claws in, they'll go for decades if they're allowed.

Biffer wrote: Thu Sep 26, 2024 9:01 pm

I like neeps wrote: Thu Sep 26, 2024 4:37 pm

JM2K6 wrote: Thu Sep 26, 2024 12:05 pm It's worth noting that MPs don't have to declare gifts, and the Tories usually didn't. Labour are doing the opposite.


As for Reed's hospitality ticket to a football match, the telegraph's weasel words ("bosses linked to a polluting water company") speak volumes. The donor was actually Hutchison 3G UK Limited. Let's not swallow everything thrown out by a paper that has spent the last four years soiling itself in public on behalf of Boris and his chums.

Hutchison 3G who owns CK Hutchison who owns Cheung Kong Infrastructure who owns Northumbrian Water. So yes the actual owners of Northumbrian Water? Doesn't matter what corporate structure they're using to hide ownership.

There's only one reason the group who owns a water utility want to go to the football with an incoming environment secretary...

Following parliamentary procedure on lobbying just means you're ticking the boxes whilst selling influence. There really is no reason for MPs to be getting gifts at all. Especially from people they're regulating. Declared or not, it's corruption.

CK Hutchison holdings owns Hutchison 3G uk, not the other way round. Hutchison 3G doesn’t have subsidiary holdings in the water industry. If they want to influence govt at the moment it’s about their proposed merger with Vodafone.

But don’t let actual facts get in the way.

It's extremely silly. A minister goes to a football match with hospitality where some people involved with the donor company are also involved with another and it's being treated like a bung. This is brain dead shit being flung by people who, deep down, do not actually care about corruption and instead want to put the boot into those they believe are the enemy or get "revenge" for their side being called out for wild abuses of power and obvious kickbacks.

A scandal isn't just when the telegraph can do the crazy person drawing connections with red string meme in their reporting.

JM2K6 wrote: Thu Sep 26, 2024 10:06 pm

Biffer wrote: Thu Sep 26, 2024 9:01 pm

I like neeps wrote: Thu Sep 26, 2024 4:37 pm

Hutchison 3G who owns CK Hutchison who owns Cheung Kong Infrastructure who owns Northumbrian Water. So yes the actual owners of Northumbrian Water? Doesn't matter what corporate structure they're using to hide ownership.

There's only one reason the group who owns a water utility want to go to the football with an incoming environment secretary...

Following parliamentary procedure on lobbying just means you're ticking the boxes whilst selling influence. There really is no reason for MPs to be getting gifts at all. Especially from people they're regulating. Declared or not, it's corruption.

CK Hutchison holdings owns Hutchison 3G uk, not the other way round. Hutchison 3G doesn’t have subsidiary holdings in the water industry. If they want to influence govt at the moment it’s about their proposed merger with Vodafone.

But don’t let actual facts get in the way.

It's extremely silly. A minister goes to a football match with hospitality where some people involved with the donor company are also involved with another and it's being treated like a bung. This is brain dead shit being flung by people who, deep down, do not actually care about corruption and instead want to put the boot into those they believe are the enemy or get "revenge" for their side being called out for wild abuses of power and obvious kickbacks.

A scandal isn't just when the telegraph can do the crazy person drawing connections with red string meme in their reporting.

Yeah, it’s very ‘AaAaAaArGh SoCiAliSm’

Christ, the post-Budget screaming tantrums can't come soon enough.

Reports in that shockingly the Treasury have pointed out that taxing non-doms will likely cost money rather than raise it and the plans are likely to be watered down, truly no one could have foreseen this

Paddington Bear wrote: Fri Sep 27, 2024 9:19 am Reports in that shockingly the Treasury have pointed out that taxing non-doms will likely cost money rather than raise it and the plans are likely to be watered down, truly no one could have foreseen this

The number of non-doms in the UK has dropped by around 50% in the last dozen years or so to circa sixty five thousand individuals. Also, Hunt announced an end to non-dom status in his March budget this year, so it's nothing new.

I wonder what benefit these people bring to any country they pitch up in? Presently they can relocate to Ireland, Switzerland and maybe ( because they are changing their rules soon I believe) Portugal.

Paddington Bear wrote: Fri Sep 27, 2024 9:19 am Reports in that shockingly the Treasury have pointed out that taxing non-doms will likely cost money rather than raise it and the plans are likely to be watered down, truly no one could have foreseen this

Shockingly enough, that's not what they've actually said though is it

Tichtheid wrote: Fri Sep 27, 2024 9:39 am

Paddington Bear wrote: Fri Sep 27, 2024 9:19 am Reports in that shockingly the Treasury have pointed out that taxing non-doms will likely cost money rather than raise it and the plans are likely to be watered down, truly no one could have foreseen this

The number of non-doms in the UK has dropped by around 50% in the last dozen years or so to circa sixty five thousand individuals. Also, Hunt announced an end to non-dom status in his March budget this year, so it's nothing new.

I wonder what benefit these people bring to any country they pitch up in? Presently they can relocate to Ireland, Switzerland and maybe ( because they are changing their rules soon I believe) Portugal.

They pay a surprising amount of tax still, tend to invest in the places they are resident to some degree or another and spend a fair amount of money because they have a lot of it to spend. Other countries are not trying to attract them because they’re lovely people to spend time with

JM2K6 wrote: Fri Sep 27, 2024 9:50 am

Paddington Bear wrote: Fri Sep 27, 2024 9:19 am Reports in that shockingly the Treasury have pointed out that taxing non-doms will likely cost money rather than raise it and the plans are likely to be watered down, truly no one could have foreseen this

Shockingly enough, that's not what they've actually said though is it

From noted right wing rag the Guardian:

Rachel Reeves is rethinking parts of Labour’s crackdown on non-dom tax status over concerns that the plans will not raise any money.

The chancellor is reassessing the government’s manifesto promise to close loopholes in the non-domiciled tax regime.

The Guardian revealed this week that Treasury officials feared the spending watchdog was due to conclude the policy would fail to raise any money, because of the impact of super-rich non-domiciles leaving the UK.

Reeves is now reconsidering the plans, according to reports. A government official told the Financial Times: “We are looking at the details of our proposals. We will be pragmatic, not ideological. We won’t press on regardless, but we are not going to abandon this completely.”

Unelected plutocracy dictating terms to elected Government shocker...

Paddington Bear wrote: Fri Sep 27, 2024 11:44 am

JM2K6 wrote: Fri Sep 27, 2024 9:50 am

Paddington Bear wrote: Fri Sep 27, 2024 9:19 am Reports in that shockingly the Treasury have pointed out that taxing non-doms will likely cost money rather than raise it and the plans are likely to be watered down, truly no one could have foreseen this

Shockingly enough, that's not what they've actually said though is it

From noted right wing rag the Guardian:

Rachel Reeves is rethinking parts of Labour’s crackdown on non-dom tax status over concerns that the plans will not raise any money.

The chancellor is reassessing the government’s manifesto promise to close loopholes in the non-domiciled tax regime.

The Guardian revealed this week that Treasury officials feared the spending watchdog was due to conclude the policy would fail to raise any money, because of the impact of super-rich non-domiciles leaving the UK.

Reeves is now reconsidering the plans, according to reports. A government official told the Financial Times: “We are looking at the details of our proposals. We will be pragmatic, not ideological. We won’t press on regardless, but we are not going to abandon this completely.”

Where do they say it will likely cost money?

If you read the detail on this reporting it's clear that the treasury simply can't predict whether it will bring in money or not, because non-doms change their status regularlyc and forecasting is extremely difficult.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c04pe3653k7o

Paddington Bear wrote: Fri Sep 27, 2024 11:44 am

JM2K6 wrote: Fri Sep 27, 2024 9:50 am

Paddington Bear wrote: Fri Sep 27, 2024 9:19 am Reports in that shockingly the Treasury have pointed out that taxing non-doms will likely cost money rather than raise it and the plans are likely to be watered down, truly no one could have foreseen this

Shockingly enough, that's not what they've actually said though is it

From noted right wing rag the Guardian:

Rachel Reeves is rethinking parts of Labour’s crackdown on non-dom tax status over concerns that the plans will not raise any money.

The chancellor is reassessing the government’s manifesto promise to close loopholes in the non-domiciled tax regime.

The Guardian revealed this week that Treasury officials feared the spending watchdog was due to conclude the policy would fail to raise any money, because of the impact of super-rich non-domiciles leaving the UK.

Reeves is now reconsidering the plans, according to reports. A government official told the Financial Times: “We are looking at the details of our proposals. We will be pragmatic, not ideological. We won’t press on regardless, but we are not going to abandon this completely.”

Where does it say it will cost money? If it’s zero sum, then morally I reckon you do it anyway.

JM2K6 wrote: Fri Sep 27, 2024 1:25 pm

Paddington Bear wrote: Fri Sep 27, 2024 11:44 am

JM2K6 wrote: Fri Sep 27, 2024 9:50 am

Shockingly enough, that's not what they've actually said though is it

From noted right wing rag the Guardian:

Rachel Reeves is rethinking parts of Labour’s crackdown on non-dom tax status over concerns that the plans will not raise any money.

The chancellor is reassessing the government’s manifesto promise to close loopholes in the non-domiciled tax regime.

The Guardian revealed this week that Treasury officials feared the spending watchdog was due to conclude the policy would fail to raise any money, because of the impact of super-rich non-domiciles leaving the UK.

Reeves is now reconsidering the plans, according to reports. A government official told the Financial Times: “We are looking at the details of our proposals. We will be pragmatic, not ideological. We won’t press on regardless, but we are not going to abandon this completely.”

Where do they say it will likely cost money?

If you read the detail on this reporting it's clear that the treasury simply can't predict whether it will bring in money or not, because non-doms change their status regularlyc and forecasting is extremely difficult.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c04pe3653k7o

From the fascists at the FT:

“That would go a long way to stop the exodus,” said Rachel de Souza, a partner at accountancy firm RSM. “With so many of them fleeing the country, there is a real risk that these changes will result in lower net revenues.”


Agreed it is challenging to forecast but would suggest it is blindingly obvious it would never raise that much and hyper mobile people would leave. Not to mention I’m sure the government have an ear to the ground in the city where any of us could have told you the exodus is absolutely happening

Paddington Bear wrote: Fri Sep 27, 2024 1:53 pm

JM2K6 wrote: Fri Sep 27, 2024 1:25 pm

Paddington Bear wrote: Fri Sep 27, 2024 11:44 am

From noted right wing rag the Guardian:

Rachel Reeves is rethinking parts of Labour’s crackdown on non-dom tax status over concerns that the plans will not raise any money.

The chancellor is reassessing the government’s manifesto promise to close loopholes in the non-domiciled tax regime.

The Guardian revealed this week that Treasury officials feared the spending watchdog was due to conclude the policy would fail to raise any money, because of the impact of super-rich non-domiciles leaving the UK.

Reeves is now reconsidering the plans, according to reports. A government official told the Financial Times: “We are looking at the details of our proposals. We will be pragmatic, not ideological. We won’t press on regardless, but we are not going to abandon this completely.”

Where do they say it will likely cost money?

If you read the detail on this reporting it's clear that the treasury simply can't predict whether it will bring in money or not, because non-doms change their status regularlyc and forecasting is extremely difficult.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c04pe3653k7o

From the fascists at the FT:

“That would go a long way to stop the exodus,” said Rachel de Souza, a partner at accountancy firm RSM. “With so many of them fleeing the country, there is a real risk that these changes will result in lower net revenues.”


Agreed it is challenging to forecast but would suggest it is blindingly obvious it would never raise that much and hyper mobile people would leave. Not to mention I’m sure the government have an ear to the ground in the city where any of us could have told you the exodus is absolutely happening

Two questions

1) what's all this shit about right wing rags and fascists

2) is someone at a firm that isn't part of the treasury saying there's a risk of lower net revenue the same thing as the treasury saying it's likely, or is it speculation of a possibility by a 3rd party? Because you claimed the treasury said it would likely cost money. It looks to me like you made that up.

JM2K6 wrote: Fri Sep 27, 2024 2:39 pm

Paddington Bear wrote: Fri Sep 27, 2024 1:53 pm

JM2K6 wrote: Fri Sep 27, 2024 1:25 pm

Where do they say it will likely cost money?

If you read the detail on this reporting it's clear that the treasury simply can't predict whether it will bring in money or not, because non-doms change their status regularlyc and forecasting is extremely difficult.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c04pe3653k7o

From the fascists at the FT:

“That would go a long way to stop the exodus,” said Rachel de Souza, a partner at accountancy firm RSM. “With so many of them fleeing the country, there is a real risk that these changes will result in lower net revenues.”


Agreed it is challenging to forecast but would suggest it is blindingly obvious it would never raise that much and hyper mobile people would leave. Not to mention I’m sure the government have an ear to the ground in the city where any of us could have told you the exodus is absolutely happening

Two questions

1) what's all this shit about right wing rags and fascists

2) is someone at a firm that isn't part of the treasury saying there's a risk of lower net revenue the same thing as the treasury saying it's likely, or is it speculation of a possibility by a 3rd party? Because you claimed the treasury said it would likely cost money. It looks to me like you made that up.

Fair enough, I’ve extrapolated from ‘won’t raise any revenue, let’s ask the OBR’s opinion’ that ‘won’t raise any revenue’ is likely to become ‘costs money’ soon enough. Also applying a healthy dose of common sense as to the habits of the hyper mobile class and from what I pick up around and about. Do it for moral reasons as Biffer says if you want, but we appear to be deciding that we don’t want millionaires, oil and gas and steel for variations on that theme, at a time when we have the highest industrial energy costs in the world - what are we planning on making money from? Vibes?

As for the rest, I’m just having some fun. This thread is already leaning into the right wing smear angle as to why Starmer is heading for Truss-esque approval ratings, may as well have some fun with it

Paddington Bear wrote: Fri Sep 27, 2024 2:55 pm

JM2K6 wrote: Fri Sep 27, 2024 2:39 pm

Paddington Bear wrote: Fri Sep 27, 2024 1:53 pm

From the fascists at the FT:

“That would go a long way to stop the exodus,” said Rachel de Souza, a partner at accountancy firm RSM. “With so many of them fleeing the country, there is a real risk that these changes will result in lower net revenues.”


Agreed it is challenging to forecast but would suggest it is blindingly obvious it would never raise that much and hyper mobile people would leave. Not to mention I’m sure the government have an ear to the ground in the city where any of us could have told you the exodus is absolutely happening

Two questions

1) what's all this shit about right wing rags and fascists

2) is someone at a firm that isn't part of the treasury saying there's a risk of lower net revenue the same thing as the treasury saying it's likely, or is it speculation of a possibility by a 3rd party? Because you claimed the treasury said it would likely cost money. It looks to me like you made that up.

Fair enough, I’ve extrapolated from ‘won’t raise any revenue, let’s ask the OBR’s opinion’ that ‘won’t raise any revenue’ is likely to become ‘costs money’ soon enough. Also applying a healthy dose of common sense as to the habits of the hyper mobile class and from what I pick up around and about. Do it for moral reasons as Biffer says if you want, but we appear to be deciding that we don’t want millionaires, oil and gas and steel for variations on that theme, at a time when we have the highest industrial energy costs in the world - what are we planning on making money from? Vibes?

As for the rest, I’m just having some fun. This thread is already leaning into the right wing smear angle as to why Starmer is heading for Truss-esque approval ratings, may as well have some fun with it

Even "won't raise any revenue" is wrong. The point is the uncertainty, and you're acting like there's certainty. What you pick up out and about isn't the same thing.

JM2K6 wrote: Fri Sep 27, 2024 6:02 pm

Paddington Bear wrote: Fri Sep 27, 2024 2:55 pm

JM2K6 wrote: Fri Sep 27, 2024 2:39 pm

Two questions

1) what's all this shit about right wing rags and fascists

2) is someone at a firm that isn't part of the treasury saying there's a risk of lower net revenue the same thing as the treasury saying it's likely, or is it speculation of a possibility by a 3rd party? Because you claimed the treasury said it would likely cost money. It looks to me like you made that up.

Fair enough, I’ve extrapolated from ‘won’t raise any revenue, let’s ask the OBR’s opinion’ that ‘won’t raise any revenue’ is likely to become ‘costs money’ soon enough. Also applying a healthy dose of common sense as to the habits of the hyper mobile class and from what I pick up around and about. Do it for moral reasons as Biffer says if you want, but we appear to be deciding that we don’t want millionaires, oil and gas and steel for variations on that theme, at a time when we have the highest industrial energy costs in the world - what are we planning on making money from? Vibes?

As for the rest, I’m just having some fun. This thread is already leaning into the right wing smear angle as to why Starmer is heading for Truss-esque approval ratings, may as well have some fun with it

Even "won't raise any revenue" is wrong. The point is the uncertainty, and you're acting like there's certainty. What you pick up out and about isn't the same thing.

You can, in fairness, say that about any policy in relation to anything. We’ll see, like with everything, but tbh I think the consequences of this policy are obvious and it’s one for which there isn’t really an undo button. Once they’re gone we’ll find it very hard to get them back and whilst we might find their money distasteful, there isn’t an obvious replacement for it.

Not this government’s fault, but something they’ll need to deal with. Southern Water looking at shipping in water from Norway in the event of any disruption of service/drought. Utterly comical stuff, time to start building this sort of thing with emergency legislation

Paddington Bear wrote: Fri Sep 27, 2024 6:32 pm Not this government’s fault, but something they’ll need to deal with. Southern Water looking at shipping in water from Norway in the event of any disruption of service/drought. Utterly comical stuff, time to start building this sort of thing with emergency legislation

We run everything lean in this country. This is super lean and agile from southern water. They should be commended for innovation. Very innovative company. The savings from not treating sewage even when there is no rain is very innovative.

petej wrote: Fri Sep 27, 2024 7:05 pm

Paddington Bear wrote: Fri Sep 27, 2024 6:32 pm Not this government’s fault, but something they’ll need to deal with. Southern Water looking at shipping in water from Norway in the event of any disruption of service/drought. Utterly comical stuff, time to start building this sort of thing with emergency legislation

We run everything lean in this country. This is super lean and agile from southern water. They should be commended for innovation. Very innovative company. The savings from not treating sewage even when there is no rain is very innovative.

Today's innovation. I have had several days of southern water innovation flowing through me in the form of gastroenteritis.

Paddington Bear wrote: Fri Sep 27, 2024 11:43 am

Tichtheid wrote: Fri Sep 27, 2024 9:39 am

Paddington Bear wrote: Fri Sep 27, 2024 9:19 am Reports in that shockingly the Treasury have pointed out that taxing non-doms will likely cost money rather than raise it and the plans are likely to be watered down, truly no one could have foreseen this

The number of non-doms in the UK has dropped by around 50% in the last dozen years or so to circa sixty five thousand individuals. Also, Hunt announced an end to non-dom status in his March budget this year, so it's nothing new.

I wonder what benefit these people bring to any country they pitch up in? Presently they can relocate to Ireland, Switzerland and maybe ( because they are changing their rules soon I believe) Portugal.

They pay a surprising amount of tax still, tend to invest in the places they are resident to some degree or another and spend a fair amount of money because they have a lot of it to spend. Other countries are not trying to attract them because they’re lovely people to spend time with

There aren't that many countries trying to attract them, as I said there are one or two, but not that many. If I recall correctly, David Beckham donated all of his salary at a French club (PSG?) to charity because if he didn't he'd be subject to French tax, which includes world-wide income, he would have had to pay tonnes more to the French exchequer if he had accepted a salary in France - what a shitshow of a circumstance

Tichtheid wrote: Fri Sep 27, 2024 8:42 pm

Paddington Bear wrote: Fri Sep 27, 2024 11:43 am

Tichtheid wrote: Fri Sep 27, 2024 9:39 am


The number of non-doms in the UK has dropped by around 50% in the last dozen years or so to circa sixty five thousand individuals. Also, Hunt announced an end to non-dom status in his March budget this year, so it's nothing new.

I wonder what benefit these people bring to any country they pitch up in? Presently they can relocate to Ireland, Switzerland and maybe ( because they are changing their rules soon I believe) Portugal.

They pay a surprising amount of tax still, tend to invest in the places they are resident to some degree or another and spend a fair amount of money because they have a lot of it to spend. Other countries are not trying to attract them because they’re lovely people to spend time with

There aren't that many countries trying to attract them, as I said there are one or two, but not that many. If I recall correctly, David Beckham donated all of his salary at a French club (PSG?) to charity because if he didn't he'd be subject to French tax, which includes world-wide income, he would have had to pay tonnes more to the French exchequer if he had accepted a salary in France - what a shitshow of a circumstance

I won’t pretend to have an exhaustive list (alas I am not in that wealth class). However, I know as a fact that France, Portugal and Italy are aiming to directly attract former British non-doms. Then factor in the Middle Eastern states and your more traditional tax havens (Switzerland, Channel Islands etc). Plenty of places to live really quite a nice life and not miss London too much.