The Conservative Party

gingerprince said:
Only reason Rishi is in the job is because 1922 committee set the rules on election for min 100 nominations on the basis the new PM would have to be in place before the fiscal statement at the end of the month, thus depriving the members of a vote. Its farcical that now Sunak in situ, the fiscal statement at the end ofthe month is now not important..Tories new Rishi would lose a membership vote versus Mordaunt so engineered a way that Rishi wouldn't have to face them.
Tories knew the Party would look even more helpless with a new leader, new pm without having the backing of majority mp
Click to expand...
Be fair. That's the most efficient thing I've heard for a while. They're obviously the natural party of government.
 
gingerprince said:
Only reason Rishi is in the job is because 1922 committee set the rules on election for min 100
nominations on the basis the new PM would have to be in place before the fiscal statement at
the end of the month, thus depriving the members of a vote. Its farcical that now Sunak in situ,
the fiscal statement at the end ofthe month is now not important..Tories new Rishi would lose
a membership vote versus Mordaunt so engineered a way that Rishi wouldn't have to face them.
Tories knew the Party would look even more helpless with a new leader, new pm without having
the backing of majority mp
Click to expand...
Can we have less of this affectionate first name stuff please? We had “Boris”, “Trent” and now “Rishi”. These are not national treasures.
 
Didsbury Dave said:
Can we have less of this affectionate first name stuff please? We had “Boris”, “Trent” and now “Rishi”. These are not national treasures.
Click to expand...


If you read the posts on social media you'll see that the usual Tory supporters (Grimes, Pierce, Corcoran etc) refer to him him as 'Sunak' and not by his first name, as they did with Johnson and Truss.


Funny that ..... wonder why that is?
 
The headlines in the FT are suggesting that Shell (and presumably other oil/gas companies) are expecting to pay more tax in the near future. Interestingly the shares of Shell and BP are up by around 5% and 3% respectively, far outperforming most of the rest of the market today. Seems Truss got it wrong (again) when she was adamant that a windfall tax would impact investment in these companies. Looks like the market thinks differently.
How did we end up with these completely clueless idiots running the country?
 
west didsblue said:
The headlines in the FT are suggesting that Shell (and presumably other oil/gas companies) are expecting to pay more tax in the near future. Interestingly the shares of Shell and BP are up by around 5% and 3% respectively, far outperforming most of the rest of the market today. Seems Truss got it wrong (again) when she was adamant that a windfall tax would impact investment in these companies. Looks like the market thinks differently.
How did we end up with these completely clueless idiots running the country?
Click to expand...

BP execs and Shell execs have said the same.

It makes no sense for them not to - the budgeting was based on expected income. This would be a tax on excess in an industry who need to cosy up to leaders at the moment - any company should only have one public view on this type of thing.
 
west didsblue said:
The headlines in the FT are suggesting that Shell (and presumably other oil/gas companies) are expecting to pay more tax in the near future. Interestingly the shares of Shell and BP are up by around 5% and 3% respectively, far outperforming most of the rest of the market today. Seems Truss got it wrong (again) when she was adamant that a windfall tax would impact investment in these companies. Looks like the market thinks differently.
How did we end up with these completely clueless idiots running the country?
Click to expand...
Truth is though, they don’t actually pay ANY tax in the UK.

Shell said that because it had made large investments in the UK, it meant it had made no profit here.
It also does not expect to start paying windfall taxes until early next year.

The 25% tax is applied only to UK profits which, for most oil and gas companies, is a small part of their operations.
Oil and gas firms operating in the North Sea are taxed differently to other firms. They pay 30% corporation tax on their profits as well as a supplementary 10% rate. On top of that, they pay the windfall tax taking their total tax rate to 65%.
However, firms have been able to reduce the amount of tax they pay by factoring in losses or spending on things like decommissioning North Sea oil platforms. It means that in recent years, the likes of BP and Shell have paid almost no tax in the UK.
The Energy Profits Levy also has a measure that allows energy companies to apply for tax savings worth 91p of every £1 invested in fossil fuel extraction in the UK.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-63409687
 
west didsblue said:
The headlines in the FT are suggesting that Shell (and presumably other oil/gas companies) are expecting to pay more tax in the near future. Interestingly the shares of Shell and BP are up by around 5% and 3% respectively, far outperforming most of the rest of the market today. Seems Truss got it wrong (again) when she was adamant that a windfall tax would impact investment in these companies. Looks like the market thinks differently.
How did we end up with these completely clueless idiots running the country?
Click to expand...
You voted for them……
No wait! You didn’t, the Tory membership did, didn’t they? Or was it Russian bots and media mogul shills? I’m lost.

It’s great to live in a democracy though. Isn’t it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top