Classic UK press language. ‘Sparked fury’ (i.e. in these offices and we hope we can spread that), £100k painting (huh? Says who? Could be more or less. A bit Dr Evil this, huh huh One hundred thousands pounds). Man moves old stuff in new office around would have done it.
In other news, one thing I've noticed quite a bit this past couple of weeks is an unusual obsession among the GB News / Daily Mail / Telegraph etc in highlighting Starmer's approval rating. I've only spotted it because the Edge browser on my work computer opens MSN as it's default page and there's a news aggregator thing on there. They keep writing hysterical stories with breathless headlines about his rating 'plummeting', hitting a 'record low' or whatever. Starmer had a small bounce after the election when very much unlike almost every other politician he limped into net positive. It was obviously never going to last but it's still pretty 'meh' rather than strongly favourable or otherwise. It's also completely and utterly irrelevant outside of an election or a leadership challenge. It's obviously political wishcasting rather than proper reporting and yet again they're trying to whip up a sentiment rather than report it. It's interesting because some pretty mainstream polls show people are generally more positive about Starmer's response to the riots than disapproving. Even the smoking thing announced yesterday got more people in favour than against in a YouGov poll.
I think this is a new normal. Right wingers on social media are quite hysterical about Starmer already and we’ve not even got Parliament back for them to make any laws. There’s an attempt to forge an enduring image of Starmer's character, rather in the way that reality TV builds an image of a person to like or dislike on Big Brother or Lurv Island. Starmer is to be the authoritarian killjoy, a desiccated soulless, Stalinist bureaucrat. Of course, to some extent the same was done for Johnson and Truss. That’s why I describe it as the ‘new normal.’ Two sides delineated completely, with nothing in common but antipathy for each other’s representatives. You can certainly argue that Truss and Johnson bought large amounts of it on themselves with their grossly irresponsible behaviour. You are right enough though. Most won’t care until an election and as much as there is terrible whingeing about the courts and free speech, the racist rioters couldn’t win nor can hate go unchallenged. People will mostly see that.
It's yet another tactic sourced from the US right wing media. Unfortunately it seems like the worst excesses of US right wing coverage continue to be imported into the UK. Of course, given that the PM isn't directly elected by the public it's an utterly meaningless statistic, instead of an almost completely useless one like in the US.
Yeah. I think it's a fair shout to highlight the other side did much the same with successive Tory leaders. But of course they're usually limited to shouting from the sidelines on social media or the like, rather than dominating a chunk of the news agenda. I suppose part of it is about the newspapers and GB News trying to make their readers feel better too. Helps their hurty feels if they're told bad ol' Starmer is a rotten stinker and no one likes him after all. It just annoys me as we know this sort of drivel from the right wing media sock puppets is only a step away from the Beeb solemnly reporting on Starmer's popularity on the 10 o'clock news after 'debate in various newspapers over the weekend' or whatever. Hopefully they see it for what it is but recent history makes me more than sceptical.
Over 900 healthcare workers gave their lives battling COVID under the most difficult and trying conditions says the inquiry. And in return we got a little green badge and some doorstep clapping. But this news must make way at the top of the news for a very lengthy and detailed report about some princess who had been ill, but is now feeling much better. Gord bless yer ma'am. So just rejoice at that news. REJOICE!
I like a bit of Euro-politique as much as the next person but am the only one finding the slightly breathless and high profile coverage of the French government's woes slightly odd? I studied French constitutional law for my degree and even I'd struggle to write too much that's interesting about Art. 49.3 of the French constitution. Yet here we are, wall to wall coverage by old Auntie. Live text running, interviews with the key players, multiple analysis articles... I mean it's France. When is their government not in disgrace or about to collapse?
Meanwhile over in Telegraphland https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/12/05/muhammad-overtakes-noah-as-top-baby-boy-name-for-boys/ They don’t remind their teeth sucking readers that in that culture Muhammad is chosen around 90% of the time as a first or second name whereas Christians have a much thicker book to choose from. Noah might get a boost again next year now that Gregg is off the selection list
Since he turned his fire away from saintly Jess Philips and took aim at Farage, Musk appears to have gone from a puffed up American moron who has no right to comment on British politics and should mind his own bloody business and get on with trying to sell a few of his hugely overpriced cars, to an influential maverick who we'll just have to learn to get along with as he's going to play a key role in Trump's government.
I'm really not seeing that at all but maybe my echo chamber is different to yours! The greatest irony was the Reform types who have sovereignty written through them like a stick of Blackpool rock suddenly deciding sovereignty was over-rated, closing their eyes to foreign interference from a South African-Canadian-American who owns and shapes the biggest media platform in the world to his own whims. Then watching as their hero Nigel got bitten too. But hey, that's free speech, folks!
I don't think anyone see's Nigel as a Hero, he is seen for what he is. They just dislike the choice there is from the two main protagonists. And it's anyone but them. I've voted Tory and Labour in last 30 years but I would of voted Reform even if Ghengis Khan or Pol Pot was leader this time, nowt to do with Nige, he's run his course, got the Brexit Bandwagon rolling, been irrelevant for 5 years now.
That seems a smart play. Reform is a private company – majority shareholder Nigel Farage, minority shareholder Richard Tice. So even if Pol Pot were leader, the two shareholders are the ones who stand to gain. You can keep an eye on the company's profits and how the reserve accounts look on the Companies House website to give yourself an idea of just how well they're doing for themselves. In the most recent accounts the directors loan account shows a deficit of a million quid. So, the directors have 'lent' themselves a million quid's worth of the company's money. They've got their supporters on strings while they run their company for their own interests. Many of their voters won't care and will comfort themselves by saying that Labour and the Tories are worse, which is just what Farage and Tice want them to think.
Is this a genuine and verifiable FACT? If so, it deserves to be given far more publicity than has been the case so far - unless I missed it.......
Records on Companies House website here: https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/11694875/filing-history Click on most recent accounts filed on 30 Sept 2024. Point 8: Creditors, says: "There is a Directors loan to the party outstanding at 31 December 2023 for £1,083,000." It was owed the previous year, too. If you go back to 2019 you can see the reserve account was £1.6 million in arrears. I am not an accountant so in a quick scan of the documents available in the public domain I can't see how or when the money became owed but when a directors loan account goes into the negative it's usually because directors have lent the money to themselves without it becoming taxable income. It stays on the books as a debt until it's paid back. I would be very interested to hear from any accountants what they make of it. Either way, the accounts make interesting reading.
I like a bonkers conspiracy theory as much as the next fruitcake but I'm sure Farage's / Reform's financial affairs are under constant scrutiny and anything even slightly iffy would set the media bloodhounds running. And what you're suggesting he and Tice might have done would be more than 'slightly iffy'!
The stuff about Reform being a limited company seems like a red herring to me. They seem to be regularising a lot of it now anyway: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0r8q99vx1ko Though maybe that article explains why Nigel’s so keen to drive the membership higher:
It’s not iffy for directors to loan or borrow money from their companies. It’s legal as long as it’s declared and accounted properly, which appears to be the case. But the point is, it’s a private company owned by Farage and Tice.
I am an accountant. The accounts show that the directors have lent money TO the company. In fact this is quite widely known to be Tricky ****y Tice. Who presumably would like it back at some point, so is naturally quite happy that so many new marks are signing up, as otherwise he'd not have a chance of seeing it again. I don't believe Farage has risked much, if any, of his own cash. Another small point of accounting nicety - although directors borrowing money FROM a company do not pay tax on it, the COMPANY pays 25% tax on the overdrawn balance and only gets it back when the overdrawn balance is repaid by the directors.
No your point was that there had been some creative accounting going on. "In the most recent accounts the directors loan account shows a deficit of a million quid. So, the directors have 'lent' themselves a million quid's worth of the company's money." Whereas the accounts actually show the opposite to your summary. That it is money lent to the company by Tice during startup and for ongoing cash flow. It's held in the accounts as a loan to be paid back to him. He has not included interest on the initial loan and has not declared a repayment date. That is kind of standard stuff when you set up a company. You've paid tax on your money already, if you loan it, you get it back without paying tax, though you'd pay it on the interest if you charge it. Companies only pay tax on profit not income, a repayable loan whether from a financial institution or a director isn't profit.
Thanks for the clarification. Happy to be corrected – and very glad to see that Reform UK Party Ltd is a private company running its affairs correctly in the interests of its shareholders, as all companies should! One question: am I right thinking the accounts on Companies House don't appear to include the company's turnover?
Depends on categorisation of business. A small company can file abridged accounts; these do not include any P&L details, just balance sheet. The criteria for being a small company are: For accounting periods beginning on or after 1 January 2016, a small company must meet at least 2 of the following conditions: annual turnover must be not more than £10.2 million the balance sheet total must be not more than £5.1 million the average number of employees must be not more than 50 Even smaller companies qualify as micro entities (whose filed accounts can be practically opaque) the qualification for which is: A micro-entity must meet at least 2 of the following conditions: turnover must be not more than £632,000 the balance sheet total must be not more than £316,000 the average number of employees must be not more than 10 This information brought to you as a public service by Welbourne, Endean and Scullion LLP.
Sorry, I thought you were suggesting that Farage and his mate had taken a chunk of dough out of Reform and dressed it up as a loan which while not illegal (I believe) would no doubt leave them open to accusations that they are in it for personal gain - although if he put his mind to it I'm sure Farage could think of easier ways of earning a crust than starting a political party!
I see that the ginger duke has settled his court case with the Sun. He did manage to squeeze an apology as well as a likely £10M plus settlement out of them, but I thought it was all about the principle? or is it ex-principle?
TBF it was a civil not criminal case. So there was only one outcome: damages. Harry has managed to get an acknowledgement of wrongdoing out of them all all the other out of court settlements have had no admission of liability nor wrongdoing. What I did find interesting was that Alan Yentob was interviewed about this as it was widely known that he had settled with the Mirror over hacking. Turns out he had also settled with Murdoch - I wonder if his admission of this is covered in his settlement agreement... Still, getting Murdoch to state that there was wrongdoing at the Sun may have some repercussions - although I imagine that all the other settlements were 'watertight' with respect to all of Murdoch's rags...
Somebody has replaced Alister Heath (Telegraph)'s increasingly deranged headlines with those from the Sunday Sport and he sounds less deranged.
Good article here showing how nonsense from Tice about Net Zero and Heathrow got spun into a day’s worth of stories by the Telegraph: https://bylines.cymru/politics-and-society/right-wing-disinformation-loop/
