|
|
Post by batman on Jan 26, 2023 19:37:31 GMT
I used to get them all the time. About 18 months or so ago, they just stopped. they may have seen your profile pic & thought you were in fact His Majesty the King as he now is. |
|
|
|
Post by manchesterman on Jan 27, 2023 0:24:22 GMT
There is a fundamental difference between fraud and carelessness. I thought we'd all learned over the last few days that 'carelessness' in tax matters is most definitely not the same as 'carelessness' in general terms. And it is not different to fraud, it's just a category of it. Indeed. I was refraining from saying too much about the aspects of the "penalty" as I was wary of breaching any internal confidentiality rules, but Jim Harra has publicly explained today that penalties are never imposed for a first offence "innocent error". I still dont want to reveal too much but I will say there are 6 Tiers of "non-compliance" ranging from one-time innocent error [no penalty, just pay the tax due]through to "egregious and repeated false declarations" [which often lead to criminal proceedings].
Also to clarify as Govt ministers (and some on here) keep spouting the lines that "HMRC found it to be carelessness". No we didnt, as there would have been no penalty! As explained in another thread, I suspect Zahawi's accountants claimed it to be thus, and the burden of proof would be on HMRC to prove it wasnt [which is bloody hard to do!] so they probably reluctantly agreed to the lower-end of the scale punishment but, although I have no idea who worked on the case, I can be damn sure that they fully believed it to be deliberate for it to have got that far, but that it couldnt - on balance- be proved in a tribunal or indeed a court.
|
|
|
|
YouGov
Jan 27, 2023 12:38:30 GMT
via mobile
Post by aargauer on Jan 27, 2023 12:38:30 GMT
I thought we'd all learned over the last few days that 'carelessness' in tax matters is most definitely not the same as 'carelessness' in general terms. And it is not different to fraud, it's just a category of it. Indeed. I was refraining from saying too much about the aspects of the "penalty" as I was wary of breaching any internal confidentiality rules, but Jim Harra has publicly explained today that penalties are never imposed for a first offence "innocent error". I still dont want to reveal too much but I will say there are 6 Tiers of "non-compliance" ranging from one-time innocent error [no penalty, just pay the tax due]through to "egregious and repeated false declarations" [which often lead to criminal proceedings].
Also to clarify as Govt ministers (and some on here) keep spouting the lines that "HMRC found it to be carelessness". No we didnt, as there would have been no penalty! As explained in another thread, I suspect Zahawi's accountants claimed it to be thus, and the burden of proof would be on HMRC to prove it wasnt [which is bloody hard to do!] so they probably reluctantly agreed to the lower-end of the scale punishment but, although I have no idea who worked on the case, I can be damn sure that they fully believed it to be deliberate for it to have got that far, but that it couldnt - on balance- be proved in a tribunal or indeed a court.
Im Just amazed you did anything. I'm still waiting for a response to a request I sent via letter 4 months ago which could and should be sortable online. |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,916
|
YouGov
Jan 29, 2023 10:06:46 GMT
Post by The Bishop on Jan 29, 2023 10:06:46 GMT
Who here is on the YouGov panel? Have you been receiving surveys lately? I used to get maybe two or three a week but I haven't had one for about two weeks. They usually slow down a bit when you're close to the £50 reward but not this much. I've been on the YouGov panel for six years now. Frequency of surveys varies, though I have also started getting some "quickie" efforts recently. |
|
|
|
Post by batman on Jan 29, 2023 16:45:23 GMT
Who here is on the YouGov panel? Have you been receiving surveys lately? I used to get maybe two or three a week but I haven't had one for about two weeks. They usually slow down a bit when you're close to the £50 reward but not this much. I've been on the YouGov panel for six years now. Frequency of surveys varies, though I have also started getting some "quickie" efforts recently. Mazel Tov my boy |
|
|
|
Post by andrewp on Feb 5, 2023 14:55:06 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by andrewp on Feb 11, 2023 12:55:22 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by andrewp on Feb 22, 2023 11:41:54 GMT
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,916
|
Post by The Bishop on Feb 22, 2023 13:56:49 GMT
Well, the big question when Sunak took over - "will his decent ratings lift the Tories higher, or will that party's inherent toxicity drag his downwards?" - seems to be being pretty definitively answered at present.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2023 15:30:44 GMT
We appear to be moving from "Tories could get below 30% at an election" to "Tories will struggle to get 30% at an election" territory.
The Tory vote appears to be distributed more evenly than Labour's which has helped them in the past few elections but could really hurt them if they actually do poll at this kind of level
|
|
|
|
YouGov
Feb 22, 2023 17:37:27 GMT
Post by batman on Feb 22, 2023 17:37:27 GMT
Almost all polls currently are on either a level or downward trajectory for the Tories. Settling some of the industrial disputes could steady them a little bit perhaps. The policy of toughing them out is not working. Now the public finances are unexpectedly better Sunak can do that, surely.
|
|
|
|
Post by mattbewilson on Feb 22, 2023 18:18:52 GMT
I'm popping my head above the parapet here but the Tories will recover. If labour could get 33% in their worst election defeat since 1935 you'd expect the same for the Tories
|
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Feb 22, 2023 18:23:10 GMT
I'm popping my head above the parapet here but the Tories will recover. If labour could get 33% in their worst election defeat since 1935 you'd expect the same for the Tories I don't think that's at all unreasonable. It would be incredible if the Tories polled below 30%. |
|
Sibboleth
Labour
'Sit on my finger, sing in my ear, O littleblood.'
Posts: 16,028
|
Post by Sibboleth on Feb 22, 2023 18:30:18 GMT
I'm popping my head above the parapet here but the Tories will recover. If labour could get 33% in their worst election defeat since 1935 you'd expect the same for the Tories But that was in an election with an usual degree of two-party polarization due to it being An Issue Election, so... |
|
|
|
YouGov
Feb 22, 2023 18:34:57 GMT
via mobile
Post by mattbewilson on Feb 22, 2023 18:34:57 GMT
I'm popping my head above the parapet here but the Tories will recover. If labour could get 33% in their worst election defeat since 1935 you'd expect the same for the Tories But that was in an election with an usual degree of two-party polarization due to it being An Issue Election, so... I preferred finso response... |
|
|
|
YouGov
Feb 22, 2023 19:11:37 GMT
via mobile
Post by aargauer on Feb 22, 2023 19:11:37 GMT
Well, the big question when Sunak took over - "will his decent ratings lift the Tories higher, or will that party's inherent toxicity drag his downwards?" - seems to be being pretty definitively answered at present. Or: his own policy platform drags his own ratings down and stops the Party recovering from very low figures. You simply can't govern in a centre right party in this manner, especially with a moderate opposition and if they go into an election like this I expect high 20s, maybe 30 and losing by 15 points. |
|
bigfatron
Lib Dem
Posts: 1,960
Member is Online
|
Post by bigfatron on Feb 22, 2023 20:01:58 GMT
I'm popping my head above the parapet here but the Tories will recover. If labour could get 33% in their worst election defeat since 1935 you'd expect the same for the Tories Labour got 31% in 1987 and only 27.5% in 1983, so 2019 was not anywhere near their worst defeat since 1935... Also the Tories got only 31% in both 1997 and 2001, and 32% in 2005; even 'successful' elections like 2010 and 2015 were delivering 36% for the Tories, so I could see them getting nowhere near 33%. It really depends on how many people will be willing to vote for such a tired and tarnished government when push comes to shove, and how many instead stay at home, tick 'Reform' or - for the more centrist wing - vote Lib Dem where they are the primary challengers. But nothing is automatic in today's politics, not even minimum levels of vote for the Tories! |
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Feb 22, 2023 20:13:13 GMT
I'm popping my head above the parapet here but the Tories will recover. If labour could get 33% in their worst election defeat since 1935 you'd expect the same for the Tories Labour got 31% in 1987 and only 27.5% in 1983, so 2019 was not anywhere near their worst defeat since 1935... Also the Tories got only 31% in both 1997 and 2001, and 32% in 2005; even 'successful' elections like 2010 and 2015 were delivering 36% for the Tories, so I could see them getting nowhere near 33%. It really depends on how many people will be willing to vote for such a tired and tarnished government when push comes to shove, and how many instead stay at home, tick 'Reform' or - for the more centrist wing - vote Lib Dem where they are the primary challengers. But nothing is automatic in today's politics, not even minimum levels of vote for the Tories! I think 'worst' in matt's post is number of seats rather than percentage. I always think that people view these things too much from their own perspective; "God, I hate them why doesn't everybody else!". |
|
Sibboleth
Labour
'Sit on my finger, sing in my ear, O littleblood.'
Posts: 16,028
|
Post by Sibboleth on Feb 22, 2023 20:15:58 GMT
Labour got 31% in 1987 and only 27.5% in 1983, so 2019 was not anywhere near their worst defeat since 1935... It's seats that count, as you should know from bitter experience. That aside, the nature of FPTP elections makes it very different to meaningfully compare vote percentages across elections when something fundamentally shifts in the party system, as FPTP forces electoral choices to be made at a constituency rather than national level. Otherwise you're left insisting that the 1931 election was no worse for Labour than the 1923 election, which is just absurd. |
|
|
|
YouGov
Feb 22, 2023 20:20:40 GMT
via mobile
Post by mattbewilson on Feb 22, 2023 20:20:40 GMT
Labour got 31% in 1987 and only 27.5% in 1983, so 2019 was not anywhere near their worst defeat since 1935... It's seats that count, as you should know from bitter experience. That aside, the nature of FPTP elections makes it very different to meaningfully compare vote percentages across elections when something fundamentally shifts in the party system, as FPTP forces electoral choices to be made at a constituency rather than national level. Otherwise you're left insisting that the 1931 election was no worse for Labour than the 1923 election, which is just absurd. it's a good thing they didn't have twitter in 1934 |
|
