https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-62920969

The interesting thing is the things not being reversed.

These include the changes to Stamp Duty (to keep the housing market on the move), tightening the rules on Universal Credit (more people needing regularly meet a Work Coach, which of course more Work Coaches needed) and right at the bottom lifting the cap on bonuses for bankers.

From what I've heard about universal credit, it's already some kind of dystopian nightmare, so making it worse... But of course the people it will impact aren't voting, mostly.

edit : also apparently the energy thing has been cut, it's guaranteed only up to next April.

wow 45% for top earners. That is quite a steep one. Does that include the health insurance or no?

Worse, the 40% rate kicks in at USD 57,000, which is higher than any US rate. The 45% rate starts at USD 171,000-ish and you lose the personal, untaxed allowance of USD 14,000. It’s expensive.

https://www.gov.uk/income-tax-rates

Your tax-free Personal Allowance
The standard Personal Allowance is £12,570, which is the amount of income you do not have to pay tax on.

Your Personal Allowance may be bigger if you claim Marriage Allowance or Blind Person’s Allowance. It’s smaller if your income is over £100,000.

Income Tax rates and bands
The table shows the tax rates you pay in each band if you have a standard Personal Allowance of £12,570.

Income tax bands are different if you live in Scotland.

Band Taxable income Tax rate
Personal Allowance Up to £12,570 0%
Basic rate £12,571 to £50,270 20%
Higher rate £50,271 to £150,000 40%
Additional rate over £150,000 45%
You can also see the rates and bands without the Personal Allowance. You do not get a Personal Allowance on taxable income over £125,140.

I will let you convert to $.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Worse, the 40% rate kicks in at USD 57,000, which is higher than any US rate. The 45% rate starts at USD 171,000-ish and you lose the personal, untaxed allowance of USD 14,000. It’s expensive.

Yes it is and a cause to actually to work less to reduce your taxable income or move it offshore then governments receive little to no revenue from it

A101 wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Worse, the 40% rate kicks in at USD 57,000, which is higher than any US rate. The 45% rate starts at USD 171,000-ish and you lose the personal, untaxed allowance of USD 14,000. It’s expensive.

Yes it is and a cause to actually to work less to reduce your taxable income or move it offshore then governments receive little to no revenue from it

I wonder how people work less to reduce their taxable income given it means reducing their 'real' income as well.

Who's the idiot who designed that banding? Must be a lot of people and employers making sure income hits a ceiling at £50,190.

Well, one can certainly avoid hitting the next bracket or work off the books somehow. Raise marginal tax rates high enough and the value of working versus leisure tips toward not working. Adding my Federal marginal rate of 22% and 12.4% for FICA plus state rate of 5%, my total marginal rate in “semi-retirement” is 39.4%, I can’t itemize so I’m paying all my state tax. I’m seeing it less and less worthwhile. My wife quit once she understood her income while I was full-time was getting hit with about 45% marginal rate AND she’d receive SS on my income, nothing on her’s.

bennett123 wrote:

A101 wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Worse, the 40% rate kicks in at USD 57,000, which is higher than any US rate. The 45% rate starts at USD 171,000-ish and you lose the personal, untaxed allowance of USD 14,000. It’s expensive.

Yes it is and a cause to actually to work less to reduce your taxable income or move it offshore then governments receive little to no revenue from it

I wonder how people work less to reduce their taxable income given it means reducing their 'real' income as well.

That exactly what some people do. They drop extra OT which has the tax bite that takes a fair portion of the extra hours worked to be really not much better off. It’s a trade off they might say bugger it. I have seen it happen

Aaron747 wrote:

Who's the idiot who designed that banding? Must be a lot of people and employers making sure income hits a ceiling at £50,190.

The same idiots who put in place, and then lowered, the pension fund life time allowance, which is why a lot of older doctors are retiring from the NHS early - because if they dont, they can get hit with a huge tax bill.

The life time allowance is the maximum amount you are allowed to accrue in your pension fund before you receive a tax bill - this is separate from the tax you have to pay when drawing down on the fund during retirement, and it can leave people with a sudden and unexpected tax bill in the tens or even hundreds of thousands of GBP.

This life time allowance is currently set at £1,073,000. Which actually isnt all that much to accrue when you consider a working life of 50 years and good fund management.

The tax bill is triggered in one of several ways:

- you start drawing down on your pension
- you reach the age of 75, regardless of whether you are drawing down on your pension
- taking a lump sum from your pension
- transferring your pension over seas
- you die

When the tax is triggered, you have to pay either 55% of the excess (so a pension pot of £1,250,000 will see you with a tax bill of ~ £100,000) or 25% of the excess plus any normal income taxation if you take the excess as income (so if you take the £200,000 excess as income, then you pay the higher rate tax on it plus an additional 25%). The average tax bill for people in this situation is a £40,000 lump sum.

As being part of the NHS pension scheme is a contractual requirement for NHS doctors, and as the government control both the pension contribution rate and the pension fund itself, the only way you can avoid the issue is by working less or not working at all - as you are required to have either a second state pension (SERPS) or an equivalent, then any work will contribute to the total pension fund that the lifetime allowance applies to.

This is causing huge issues in the NHS as older doctors are retiring well before they should, causing staff shortages across the board. And theres no end in sight.

Also of note is that the NHS doctors pension fund is vastly profitable, with the UK Treasury taking in excess of £6Billion a year from it in rebates. So the government is taxing the pension holder several times over... They get you coming, and they get you going.

A101 wrote:

bennett123 wrote:

A101 wrote:

Yes it is and a cause to actually to work less to reduce your taxable income or move it offshore then governments receive little to no revenue from it

I wonder how people work less to reduce their taxable income given it means reducing their 'real' income as well.

That exactly what some people do. They drop extra OT which has the tax bite that takes a fair portion of the extra hours worked to be really not much better off. It’s a trade off they might say bugger it. I have seen it happen

Wouldn’t that then mean the the overtime was more likely to be worked by someone else who was at the lower threshold and this provide more balance in the system overall ?

No, I haven’t seen anyone turn down a pay rise because they move in to a marginal higher band on the earnings over 50k (seeing as they still get more cash in their pocket) it needs to be noted too that it’s also the same salary that NI reduced, conveniently not mentioned when it doesn’t suit agendas though… . Its just like I don’t see people suddenly stop earning when they go over the 12.7k threshold too. I also only know 2 people who earn over 50k/annum who have the ability to work overtime, one works on the rigs and the other down a potash mine, neither of them complain about the higher tax band. It’s only internet trolls I’ve seen who do…

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Aaron747 wrote:

Who's the idiot who designed that banding? Must be a lot of people and employers making sure income hits a ceiling at £50,190.

My understanding is that the tax rate takes effect only beyond the floor value of the bracket. So, for example a taxable income of £80,000 does not incur a tax of £32,000, but:

£0 on the first £ 12,570, plus

£7,540 on the next (50,270 - 12,570) = 37,700 at 20%, plus

£11,892 on the last (80,000 - 50,270) = 29,730 at 40%

Total, £19,432

At least it works like this here in Malaysia, with different brackets and tax percentages of course.

Pampot70 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Who's the idiot who designed that banding? Must be a lot of people and employers making sure income hits a ceiling at £50,190.

My understanding is that the tax rate takes effect only beyond the floor value of the bracket. So, for example a taxable income of £80,000 does not incur a tax of £32,000, but:

£0 on the first £ 12,570, plus

£7,540 on the next (50,270 - 12,570) = 37,700 at 20%, plus

£11,892 on the last (80,000 - 50,270) = 29,730 at 40%

Total, £19,432

At least it works like this here in Malaysia, with different brackets and tax percentages of course.

That's how it works in the UK as well...

Pampot70 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Who's the idiot who designed that banding? Must be a lot of people and employers making sure income hits a ceiling at £50,190.

My understanding is that the tax rate takes effect only beyond the floor value of the bracket. So, for example a taxable income of £80,000 does not incur a tax of £32,000, but:

£0 on the first £ 12,570, plus

£7,540 on the next (50,270 - 12,570) = 37,700 at 20%, plus

£11,892 on the last (80,000 - 50,270) = 29,730 at 40%

Total, £19,432

At least it works like this here in Malaysia, with different brackets and tax percentages of course.

Yes, that’s how it works in the uk too.
We also add to that under 12570 pays 0 National insurance, between 12570 and 50260 pay 13.25% and then above this pay 3.25%.

In effect the tax + NI rate is 0% below ~12500, 33.25% between ~12500 and ~50500, then 43.25% on earnings between ~50500 and finally 48.25% above 150000.

Because of the NI contribution change at the ~50k mark the jump isn’t as extreme as painted here.

The national insurance pretends to be about paying for your state pension but in reality it just goes to the big bank account that pays for everything else.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

flipdewaf wrote:

A101 wrote:

bennett123 wrote:

I wonder how people work less to reduce their taxable income given it means reducing their 'real' income as well.

That exactly what some people do. They drop extra OT which has the tax bite that takes a fair portion of the extra hours worked to be really not much better off. It’s a trade off they might say bugger it. I have seen it happen

Wouldn’t that then mean the the overtime was more likely to be worked by someone else who was at the lower threshold and this provide more balance in the system overall ?

That depends on the company and how they pay there staff. The people I am talking about the workers are all on the same entitlements, do all of the knock back OT nope but there are people who do because of the reason I said above. The extra work done and the extra take home pay they have said no to the OT as it was not worth it

flipdewaf wrote:

No, I haven’t seen anyone turn down a pay rise because they move in to a marginal higher band on the earnings over 50k (seeing as they still get more cash in their pocket) it needs to be noted too that it’s also the same salary that NI reduced,

Did I say anything about knocking back a pay rise?

flipdewaf wrote:

conveniently not mentioned when it doesn’t suit agendas though… . Its just like I don’t see people suddenly stop earning when they go over the 12.7k threshold too.

Nothing has been conveniently left out because I am not in the NI so my conversation is about England. And we are talking about those that are in the second highest tax rate not lowest

flipdewaf wrote:

I also only know 2 people who earn over 50k/annum who have the ability to work overtime, one works on the rigs and the other down a potash mine, neither of them complain about the higher tax band. It’s only internet trolls I’ve seen who do…

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well if you only know of two people out of how many million will be on the tax rate then how do you know of others situation and it does not happen.

I have personally know that it happens

A101 wrote:

bennett123 wrote:

A101 wrote:

Yes it is and a cause to actually to work less to reduce your taxable income or move it offshore then governments receive little to no revenue from it

I wonder how people work less to reduce their taxable income given it means reducing their 'real' income as well.

That exactly what some people do. They drop extra OT which has the tax bite that takes a fair portion of the extra hours worked to be really not much better off. It’s a trade off they might say bugger it. I have seen it happen

With the obvious caveat of Moo's comments about the £1.073M LTA earlier, the answer to avoid paying a higher band of tax is to increase your pension contributions, which are Tax and NI relieved.
Another option that's not available to all, but will be to many, is to make or increase contributions to a SIP (Share Incentive Plan). Most major emplyers have them.
Not only are these tax exempt, but employers usually match your contribution up to a max of £75 per month.
A 20% rate taxpayer can get £150 of share per month for £60
A 40% rate taxpayer can get £150 of shares per month for £45

Rgds

Those fine people at Led By Donkeys do another public art and education service, on a street where the climate activists the usual suspects are being moaned about on another thread, might it has to be said, be more useful in making their protests, still this will do for now;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRDLIOME47c&t=14s

A101 wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

A101 wrote:

That exactly what some people do. They drop extra OT which has the tax bite that takes a fair portion of the extra hours worked to be really not much better off. It’s a trade off they might say bugger it. I have seen it happen

Wouldn’t that then mean the the overtime was more likely to be worked by someone else who was at the lower threshold and this provide more balance in the system overall ?

That depends on the company and how they pay there staff. The people I am talking about the workers are all on the same entitlements, do all of the knock back OT nope but there are people who do because of the reason I said above. The extra work done and the extra take home pay they have said no to the OT as it was not worth it

A very narrow band of consequence though. Someone earning over 60k would take home more for each additional hour than someone on 50k. It is only those between 50 and 60k that get less an astonishing 5% of the earners! I would argue that if you aren't taking home enough then you ought to pull yourself up by your boot straps and get above that 60k figure.

A101 wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

No, I haven’t seen anyone turn down a pay rise because they move in to a marginal higher band on the earnings over 50k (seeing as they still get more cash in their pocket) it needs to be noted too that it’s also the same salary that NI reduced,

Did I say anything about knocking back a pay rise?

flipdewaf wrote:

conveniently not mentioned when it doesn’t suit agendas though… . Its just like I don’t see people suddenly stop earning when they go over the 12.7k threshold too.

Nothing has been conveniently left out because I am not in the NI so my conversation is about England. And we are talking about those that are in the second highest tax rate not lowest

NI = National Insurance... a tax in all but name and the principle applies equally to the 12.7k band as someone earning 13k will take home less in overtime than someone earning 12k per hour.

A101 wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

I also only know 2 people who earn over 50k/annum who have the ability to work overtime, one works on the rigs and the other down a potash mine, neither of them complain about the higher tax band. It’s only internet trolls I’ve seen who do…

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well if you only know of two people out of how many million will be on the tax rate then how do you know of others situation and it does not happen.

I have personally know that it happens

And each person can make their own judgements that can be an aside from the initial overiding judgement, Much like the current economic decisions having nothing to do with brexit

Fred

Aaron747 wrote:

Who's the idiot who designed that banding? Must be a lot of people and employers making sure income hits a ceiling at £50,190.

It's a marginal rate, the end result is still progressive.

If you chart tax paid for every 1000£ more earned it won't be that noticeable. Or simply look at effective rate. At 50K you're paying 14,9% in income tax, and at 55K you're paying 17,1%.

Also there is the national insurance tax that tapers off at that level of income.

moo wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Who's the idiot who designed that banding? Must be a lot of people and employers making sure income hits a ceiling at £50,190.

The same idiots who put in place, and then lowered, the pension fund life time allowance, which is why a lot of older doctors are retiring from the NHS early - because if they dont, they can get hit with a huge tax bill.

The life time allowance is the maximum amount you are allowed to accrue in your pension fund before you receive a tax bill - this is separate from the tax you have to pay when drawing down on the fund during retirement, and it can leave people with a sudden and unexpected tax bill in the tens or even hundreds of thousands of GBP.

This life time allowance is currently set at £1,073,000. Which actually isnt all that much to accrue when you consider a working life of 50 years and good fund management.

The tax bill is triggered in one of several ways:

- you start drawing down on your pension
- you reach the age of 75, regardless of whether you are drawing down on your pension
- taking a lump sum from your pension
- transferring your pension over seas
- you die

When the tax is triggered, you have to pay either 55% of the excess (so a pension pot of £1,250,000 will see you with a tax bill of ~ £100,000) or 25% of the excess plus any normal income taxation if you take the excess as income (so if you take the £200,000 excess as income, then you pay the higher rate tax on it plus an additional 25%). The average tax bill for people in this situation is a £40,000 lump sum.

As being part of the NHS pension scheme is a contractual requirement for NHS doctors, and as the government control both the pension contribution rate and the pension fund itself, the only way you can avoid the issue is by working less or not working at all - as you are required to have either a second state pension (SERPS) or an equivalent, then any work will contribute to the total pension fund that the lifetime allowance applies to.

This is causing huge issues in the NHS as older doctors are retiring well before they should, causing staff shortages across the board. And theres no end in sight.

Also of note is that the NHS doctors pension fund is vastly profitable, with the UK Treasury taking in excess of £6Billion a year from it in rebates. So the government is taxing the pension holder several times over... They get you coming, and they get you going.

Quite a few doctors from India who went there in 1980s and 1990s returned about a month back citing some of the tax issues. And these are people who have worked almost 30-40 years in NHS and they worked on mental health . And this was before this debacle happened.

Chancellor of the Month:





On a more serious note, the PM has apologized, so I guess that's more than her predecessor ever did.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-63293891

Who is really in charge? It's far from certain, as discussed here;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cdp97HkmN2M

And now the pensions triple lock has been scrapped, they can’t even afford to keep hold of the old racist brexiteer voters. The next election is truly lost now.

Triple lock: Liz Truss ditches pledge to raise pensions with inflation https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-63303880

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

flipdewaf wrote:

The next election is truly lost now.

Just one of the many reasons Im selling my UK house as soon as possible (willing to take a bit of a discount on it from market at this point), feeling a little bit of guilt as its currently got a good tenant in it but I simply cannot afford it any more - the rent is less than the mortgage on the property, and I never intended on being a landlord in the first place.

Given some of the proposals from Labour about tenancies in the past, I just can't take the risk any more, the house is rapidly becoming a liability - and I would be voting for Labour in any up coming election.

The house is my last physical tie with the UK, once its gone and the money is transferred, I no longer have to worry about this clown show.

So, you’re voting for the “clown show” but cannot take the risk their proposals come to fruition? Hmmm…

A101 wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Worse, the 40% rate kicks in at USD 57,000, which is higher than any US rate. The 45% rate starts at USD 171,000-ish and you lose the personal, untaxed allowance of USD 14,000. It’s expensive.

Yes it is and a cause to actually to work less to reduce your taxable income or move it offshore then governments receive little to no revenue from it

The people who move income offshore aren't those on a salary earning up to £150k, it's people who own business or are investors that can hide money, it's very hard to hide a salary.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

So, you’re voting for the “clown show” but cannot take the risk their proposals come to fruition? Hmmm…

Labor couldn't be any worse than the clowns running the UK at the moment. It's definitely time for a change in government, just the same as the clowns running NZ right now also need to be given a good kicking at the next election.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

So, you’re voting for the “clown show” but cannot take the risk their proposals come to fruition? Hmmm…

“Would be”, not “am”.

Voted Lib Dems last time.

Couldnt care less what happens in the UK once the house is sold. Pensions and all other assets are already transferred, do my NZ citizenship ceremony next month.

When satire comes closer to reportage;
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... eremy-hunt

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -name-only

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZxPBCDwe5o

The dismal path that got us here;
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... nment-mess

GDB wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZxPBCDwe5o

A pork market museum.

Kiwirob wrote:

A101 wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Worse, the 40% rate kicks in at USD 57,000, which is higher than any US rate. The 45% rate starts at USD 171,000-ish and you lose the personal, untaxed allowance of USD 14,000. It’s expensive.

Yes it is and a cause to actually to work less to reduce your taxable income or move it offshore then governments receive little to no revenue from it

The people who move income offshore aren't those on a salary earning up to £150k, it's people who own business or are investors that can hide money, it's very hard to hide a salary.

True, that salary with investments afterwards can be moved

Liz "U-turn" Truss replies at PMQs that she is committed to raising State Pension in line with inflation. This goes directly against suggestions given by No 10 spokesperson earlier this week that the much lauded "Pension triple lock" would be scrapped by the Government in its now desperate attempts to save money.

It's no wonder she, and her government, are an absolute laughing stock.

Source: watching PMQs live on BBC.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Worse, the 40% rate kicks in at USD 57,000, which is higher than any US rate. The 45% rate starts at USD 171,000-ish and you lose the personal, untaxed allowance of USD 14,000. It’s expensive.

If you find those percentages worse, take a look at what I have here in the Netherlands:

< €70,000: 39,1%
> €70,000: 49,5%

Housing policy is broken in the UK (and about everywhere else) so changing it is a good idea. Not wanting to be a landlord when that happens is smart, especially if you're halfway around the world.

moo wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

So, you’re voting for the “clown show” but cannot take the risk their proposals come to fruition? Hmmm…

“Would be”, not “am”.

Voted Lib Dems last time.

Couldnt care less what happens in the UK once the house is sold. Pensions and all other assets are already transferred, do my NZ citizenship ceremony next month.

So you moved out of the frying pan and into the fire. NZ is a complete shit show as well.

Lets hope the vote on fracking passes tonight.

Is there a potential well near your home ?

Not living near a site or perhaps you enjoy everything shaking.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... ctive-site

Aesma wrote:

Is there a potential well near your home ?

As an emissary from the real world, the answer to disappoint anyone from fantasy island;
https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... confidence

After a performance in the Commons that was, even for Brexit Tory standard, extraordinary in it's sheer Daily Mail/Piers Morgan scrapbook offensive stupidity, the Home Secretary has gone it seems, after a few weeks in the job;
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -liz-truss

With this;
ttps://news.sky.com/video/home-secretar ... i-12723989

However Yvette Cooper made short work of her nonsense,now Braverman is gone likely due to her adding to the chaos;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORccNMT2UE

If Fracking is so great, why is scientific, business (including the CEO of the only firm to ever get a licence), constituents (watch out Rees Mogg), opinion all against it?
Why do Tory MP's, rather like fracking, quake at the mention of it?
Why did they feel compelled to put it in their last manifesto?
Basic rule, if Rees Mogg is in favour, it's wrong, as he is not bright and only where he because of his father (who as Editor of The Times, was long mocked for writing Op Ed pieces that were reliably wrong headed), that school.

Aesma wrote:

Is there a potential well near your home ?

Fracking is banned in the country I live in and that won’t change regardless of tonights vote. So little chance of that happening.

Even better....

Arion640 wrote:

Aesma wrote:

Is there a potential well near your home ?

Fracking is banned in the country I live in and that won’t change regardless of tonights vote. So little chance of that happening.

So perhaps you can entertain us by explaining your reasons for your original post on the subject?

In case anyone thought this clown-show of a government couldn't possible get any worse...

The Home Secretary resigns over breaching government security rules having sent official government communications from her personal email account. She left no doubts about her view of the government's performance in her resignation letter.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-63309400

It also emerges the government hadn't even briefed the Bank of England about the disastrous "Mini Budget".
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-63319567

The government did not tell the Bank of England about its tax cut plans before the mini-budget, one of its deputy governors has said.

In the event, the mini-budget sparked market turmoil, with the Bank having to step in to stabilise pension funds.

The Bank could have advised the government on the possible market reaction, Sir Jon Cunliffe said.

Having jumped off the Empire State you are heard to say "so far so good" on the way down.

An entertaining piece in the Economist:

Mr Hunt’s task is clear, if difficult. After the blunders of Mr Kwarteng and Ms Truss, Britain now pays a “moron risk premium” on its debt, in the words of Dario Perkins, a strategist at TS Lombard. Mr Hunt’s job is to remove it, and perhaps win a technocrat discount.

https://www.economist.com/britain/2022/ ... in-britain

Tugg
(I also posted this in the other thread)

scbriml wrote:

In case anyone thought this clown-show of a government couldn't possible get any worse...

The Home Secretary resigns over breaching government security rules having sent official government communications from her personal email account. She left no doubts about her view of the government's performance in her resignation letter.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-63309400

It also emerges the government hadn't even briefed the Bank of England about the disastrous "Mini Budget".
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-63319567

The government did not tell the Bank of England about its tax cut plans before the mini-budget, one of its deputy governors has said.

In the event, the mini-budget sparked market turmoil, with the Bank having to step in to stabilise pension funds.

The Bank could have advised the government on the possible market reaction, Sir Jon Cunliffe said.

American politicians breach security rules and it’s no big deal IF of the correct political bent

scbriml wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

Aesma wrote:

Is there a potential well near your home ?

Fracking is banned in the country I live in and that won’t change regardless of tonights vote. So little chance of that happening.

So perhaps you can entertain us by explaining your reasons for your original post on the subject?

Because I want fracking for the UK….Or at least part of it.

Before the Braverman departure, when PMQ's already had the stink of governmental decay about it, after the reek of corruption and lawbreaking under Johnson is far from expunged, (and surveys are showing that the Tory members who voted in Truss now want him back);
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8AxEXyX_2s

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

American politicians breach security rules and it’s no big deal IF of the correct political bent

I know, it annoys me to no end that the Republicans seem to approve of this. I almost can't believe how much things have changed.

Tugg