Best Of

How much you need to earn, to net take home 10k a month

🇬🇧 United Kingdom £205,000

🇮🇹 Italy £198,000

🇫🇷 France £172,000

🇺🇸 United States £165,000

🇨🇳 China £161,000

🇦🇪 United Arab Emirates (Dubai) £120,000

No wonder so many people are leaving the U.K. for Dubai
https://x.com/robprogressive/status/1979438750737346981

I've no idea if the figures are accurate or even representative. What struck me is the cluster of France, USA & China, and the higher 2-node cluster of Britain and Italy.

It's a load of bollocks.

In the various debunkings I've seen online, the most interesting was that the UK median worker pays less in tax than a US median earner. A bit of a mindfuck given the narrative around tax at the moment:

https://x.com/DanNeidle/status/1979580442237170080

The UK in recent years has shifted to taxing the rich more and middle income earners less.

Yes. We have a remarkably progressive system of taxation of income, though coupled with a regressive tax on housing (council tax).

We have a very regressive system of taxation at the low end when you include UC taper and NICs.

Our tax rate is quite U bend shaped.

The real problem with our tax system is NI which warps the whole thing atrociously. There should be no reduced rate over £50K and it should apply to all income, earned and unearned even after retirement.

In the spirit of Peter the Punter, £11K a month after tax and 60 years old. I am one who would end up paying a huge amount more if my own suggestions were adopted.

How much you need to earn, to net take home 10k a month

🇬🇧 United Kingdom £205,000

🇮🇹 Italy £198,000

🇫🇷 France £172,000

🇺🇸 United States £165,000

🇨🇳 China £161,000

🇦🇪 United Arab Emirates (Dubai) £120,000

No wonder so many people are leaving the U.K. for Dubai
https://x.com/robprogressive/status/1979438750737346981

I've no idea if the figures are accurate or even representative. What struck me is the cluster of France, USA & China, and the higher 2-node cluster of Britain and Italy.

It seems entirely unsourced and an exaggerated claim as far as I can see, which is the guys Twitter habit.

And he's leaving out minor factors such as UK healthcare and other costs being from taxes as compared to take home such as say the USA, never mind currency conversions.

I'd say it's not worth debunking time.

@Gabriel_Pogrund
EXCLUSIVE w/
@ManuMidolo


Nigel Farage’s partner is embroiled in a criminal fraud investigation

Lauren Ferrari ran a eurosceptic group, which, auditors said, spent up to €200K in public funds in breach of rules

“Serious irregularities” were passed to OLAF, EU anti-fraud office, which launched a parallel probe into a sister entity of which Farage was member

Now, it can be revealed, OLAF secretly passed the case involving the groups to law enforcement

A Brussels court will deliver a judgement on the case within weeks

https://x.com/Gabriel_Pogrund/status/1979653548850721004

Sssshhh!

Some consistent problems for Farage- questionable funding. Doubt we'll see a GBN investigation on this any time soon. However NF has quite the form here, who knows if it were to come out, at an inconvenient moment...

Betting positions should be factoring in the What Happens If of Farage not being a political figure by the next election. It could be health, it could be his back story. 5 and 6 will both have chunky dossiers, accessible by the Government.

Anyone really think Tice is going to inherit his mantle? If not and by the election Reform is on 3% rather than 30%, the world of domestic politics is almost unfathomable this far out.

While Reform is Farage and Farage is Reform, have a look at how the LibDems organise. If they lost Ed Davey (and one can only hope) the LD ground game will continue as they are very effective locally. Reform's success or failure will depend on what kind of organisation they can build locally and all eyes should be on how they cope with the 11 Counties they have under their control. Don't write them off yet.

Half of LibDem MP's have seats in the top decile (IMD measure). They dominate that decile having as many MP's as the other parties put together. That's incredible targeting.

As we saw in the local elections in Surrey heath and Guildford last Thursday, once the Lib Dems get in, they quickly turn their electoral inroads into fortresses. The size of the majorities of Lib Dem MPs are on average substantially higher than the Tories- yes, bad as 2024 was for Sunak, it could have been so much worse. So its an asymmetrical fight on the Lib Dem/Conservative axis- easier for Lib Dems to take more Tory seats than Tories to recover seats from the Lib Dems, especially if RefUK are stealing more Tory votes.

I do not think that RefUK are going to come anywhere close to a majority, the combination of lurking scandal, tactical voting against them and the "capricious" nature of the leadership are head winds that they will find extremely difficult to overcome,. The vagaries of FPTP notwithstanding, I think it more likely that the Conservatives recover enough to cancel RefUK gains in most places outside Lincs and the former Red Wall. With the Lib Dems set to hold and maybe even make gains, the conundrum is what happens to Labour, and that is not yet clear- still years from the next election and many courses open to them. Then the return of twenty or even thirty SNP MPs also confuses the maths still more. The rise of the Greens is interesting too. The Corbyn chaos of "your" party will not, in my judgement be so significant- Corbyn will be almost 80 at the next GE.

I am not sure either punters or the politicos are factoring in this increasingly higher chance for No Overall Control at Westminster, and that could be very interesting. If the numbers for a Con/RefUk coalition do not add up, and Labour/Green/Nat do not add up, then with a big block of MPs behind him, Ed Davey might not just be Kingmaker, but maybe even King. So all those rushing in to back a 320 seat gain for RefUK should take note that such a surge has *never* happened, and the maths in each seat has to fall exactly right- and their record high poll has only been 35%. Winning a majority on a third of the vote is possible- Labour just did it- but is is a fluke when it happens. I don't think RefUK can do it, especially when we see the amateurish way they run councils and themselves.

More and more, therefore, I think the numbers speak to a hung Parliament, and one which will find it extremely difficult to construct a government. We may look back with nostalgia on this current time in British politics as the calm before the storm.

Prince Andrew tried to smear his teenage sex abuse accuser by passing her confidential information to police, it has been claimed.

The Prince asked his taxpayer-funded police bodyguard to investigate Virginia Giuffre and passed him her date of birth and social security number, a leaked email revealed.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2025/10/18/prince-andrew-tried-to-dig-up-dirt-on-giuffre/

Or, two adults over the age of consent freely engaged in intercourse. The lack of consent seems to be vague. Dirty old man, clearly, but teenage sex abuser seems a stretch.

The issue with that suggestion is that however we look at it, Giuffre had been trafficked. Which changes the equation with regard to consent.

It also said abuse accuser, as opposed to abuser. Making it clear it was an accusation not a fact.

Oh, the Creepy Old Duke of York
He had ten thousand women
He marched them up to the top of his hill
And he marched them down again

And while they were there he was up
And when they were gone he was down.
And when he was only halfway up
He sent for a teenage girl because he was a fucking clown.

The Grand Old Duke of York
He said he didn’t sweat,
So, why did he pay 12 million quid,
To a girl he’d never met!

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DFu8P7teOt8

Well

Prince Andrew tried to smear his teenage sex abuse accuser by passing her confidential information to police, it has been claimed.

The Prince asked his taxpayer-funded police bodyguard to investigate Virginia Giuffre and passed him her date of birth and social security number, a leaked email revealed.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2025/10/18/prince-andrew-tried-to-dig-up-dirt-on-giuffre/

Or, two adults over the age of consent freely engaged in intercourse. The lack of consent seems to be vague. Dirty old man, clearly, but teenage sex abuser seems a stretch.

The issue with that suggestion is that however we look at it, Giuffre had been trafficked. Which changes the equation with regard to consent.

It also said abuse accuser, as opposed to abuser. Making it clear it was an accusation not a fact.

Oh, the Creepy Old Duke of York
He had ten thousand women
He marched them up to the top of his hill
And he marched them down again

And while they were there he was up
And when they were gone he was down.
And when he was only halfway up
He sent for a teenage girl because he was a fucking clown.

The Grand Old Duke of York
He said he didn’t sweat,
So, why did he pay 12 million quid,
To a girl he’d never met!

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DFu8P7teOt8

On the "No Kings" protest: When the Loser came on the political scene, I quickly noticed that he was a monarchist at heart. He cozied up to the Saudis, to North Korea's Kim, and to the UK's monarchs. These three nations have little in common, but they are all monarchies of a sort.

And his promotion of his children is almost universal in monarchies.

So, by attacking him with "No Kings", they are attacking a central part of his thinking -- such as it is.

(Moreover, as your Walter Bagehot observed, monarchies are often attractive to low-information voters.)

Most kings are highly constrained and aren't nearly as despotic as Trump. But I guess "No tinpot dictators" lacks the resonance of "No Kings"

"No Kings" is a really stupid slogan, because as you say it completely ignores the existence of constitutional monarchies, and anyway Trump has never claimed to be a king. Presidential systems tend naturally towards dictatorships, and America (or France for that matters) would actually be better as a constitutional monarchy with a Parliamentary system, but then they'd basically be Canada or Australia, and have to question the whole revolution thing.

What they actually mean is "No Dictators", which I think we can all sign up to. Trump has actually said he'd be a dictator, albeit only on Day One, which was a transparent lie, so I think it makes much more sense as a slogan, even though it has a three syllable word, which is probably at the limits of most Americans' comprehension.

No Kings is an utterly brilliant slogan. It's a slogan not analysis, they don't need to worry about constitutional monarchies or whatever. The proof that it's doing it right is that they've just mobilized the biggest nationwide demonstration since the Vietnam War and kept it almost entirely peaceful.

1. It references the founding myth of the nation
2. It allows for fun fancy dress
3. It negatively polarizes the other side into saying "Yes, we want Trump to be King" which is a good thing to have out on the table