Best Of

Of course, all those sectors and jobs are for the bright graduates- and do nothing for the 80% - but they do pay all the tax revenue that pays for everything else.

How does the UK build strength in depth? Good jobs for everyone, including those not educated to tertiary level?

We could copy the German and Swiss (and to a lesser extent Norwegian and Danish) educational system, that ensures that people reach adulthood with practcal, marketable, valuable skills?

And we could -perhaps- combine that with changing the tax and benefits system, to move to a more contributory system (say no benefits until at least three years of NI contributions), while simultaneously ensuring that marginal tax rates never exceed 50%.

I would also suggest the government cease trying to do 'deals', and instead sets up the business and regulatory systems to minimze friction. Basically, less government rather than more.

We could then combine this with properly funding the criminal justice system, and focusing again on crimes that affect peoples' day-to-day lives (like shoplifting and scrotes on illegal ebikes).

Finally, we should get rid of the absurd stamp duty system tthat discourages the market from clearing, and replace it with a property tax. (Yes, I know that's going to be unpopular with some people, but sorry.)

So Donald Trump, on his way to the Charlie Kirk memorial event, says he's looking at this as "a time for healing". Exactly the sentiment a president ought to be putting out.

Let's see what he does with his speech, shall we. Let's see if that is the tone of it. If it is I'll be surprised and happy to be so.

Fresh from telling everyone that they shouldn’t feel sorry for Biden with his advanced cancer cos he’s a SOB. Trump really has no redeeming feature, I would actually enjoy giving him a really hard kick in the baws.

https://x.com/rpsagainsttrump/status/1969611068218442133?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q

That's what's always struck me. Not that he's so awful in so many different ways - you get people like that - but that there are zero redeeming qualities. Not a single one. That is extremely rare in a human being.

Stride and Davey both affirm commitment to the triple lock

They are both wrong and how on earth are we to get out of this mess with politicians inability to do the right thing

The downside of democracy: governing in the national interest may result in electorally damaging actions.

Many opt to damage the national interest instead.

The triple lock is an interesting phenomenon - it's relatively new but is now allocated the same kind of national emulation as the NHS.

Removing it does not save the government much money in the short/medium term, nor does would affect current pensioners particularly badly. It's a long term fiscal issue that carries gigantic short-term political risk, so there is no chance of it removed by any party.

The triple lock is hated on social media as a sign politicians are in thrall to boomer pensioners who vote to impoverish workers and the young. My belief is this came originally from Russian trolls but we are where we are.

Depends which social media - on Facebook it would appear the Russian trolls have worked very hard to persuade boomers that getting rid of the triple lock would amount to geronticide, and therefore have undermined the UK's public finances.

Well, for a start, one clue is the use of the word boomers. We do not really use that term, and if we did, then our baby boom was later than the American one, so our boomers are not quite of pensionable age. It all smacks of some KGB analyst in Madeupgrad combining memes from the wrong side of the Atlantic rather than an organic, homegrown movement.

Surely the triple lock is of great importance to people "not quite of pensionable age" as they will be planning their retirements or even early retired and waiting for their company pension to be topped up by the state pension. So will have made decisions/will be making decisions based on the known financial environment.

Although, to be honest, tax treatment of pensions is probably much more important.

not much more tax they can put on pensions without just stealing the lot

Pensioners don’t pay NI whilst being the biggest users of the NHS, which (at least originally!) was supposed to be funded out of NI payments.

But yes, the more you tax pensioners the less incentive there is to save via pensions - not much point if you’re not getting the tax benefits.

Not clear to me why there should be higher rate pensions relief though?

Because pensions are deferred income. People are taxed when they take their pension, not when paying in.

I doubt that the countries financial situation would be improved by taxing people saving for their retirement.

A flat rate of relief for everyone, higher than the 20% basic rate, would encourage ordinary people to save.

Meanwhile it’s another super hot day up here in the mountains:

OK, so I wasn't glued to the news all day yesterday, but all I saw of the LibDem conference was Sir Ed Davey leading an Orange Order flute band around a park. Or something like that.

I suppose there might be a 30 second mention when they vote to legalise pot, in time-honoured fashion.

The problem for the LibDems is that they are generally being ignored as an irrelevance.

The problem for the LibDems is they are an irrelevance and Ed Davey seems determined to keep them that way.

I don't know why you think it's a problem. If the national media largely ignore you but you still pick up seats then that's the best position to be in. I was arguing this to a Lib Dem friend who was moaning about lack of coverage on the BBC. The Lib Dems win seats by ruthlessly targeting local opportunities. The one time they tried to run a properly national campaign in 2019 ended in disappointment.

Yes, LibDems are NOTA. Trouble is, they are being outflanked even as NOTA.

We'll only be able to tell that after the next election. The only evidence we have thus far is that the Lib Dems have been remarkably good at translating their support into actually winning seats and that Reform are remarkably bad at it

And keeping seats.

PB demonstrating again that it struggles with theory of mind. The idea, for someone not naturally sympathetic to the Lib Dems that other people might actually want to vote for them for reasons other than the usual lazy tropes (NOTA! NIMBYs! Waitrose party!) is just too difficult to grasp.

It’s not actually that hard if you try. If you’re internationalist, liberal, environmentally conscious without wearing the hairshirt, fiscally responsible, believe in the market and free trade, don’t like kowtowing to Trump, are unhappy with Israel’s behaviour in Gaza without queuing up to join Hamas, believe in meaningful devolution and electoral reform, and think Britain’s place is in the EU, then the home for you is in the Lib Dems.

Those are not motherhood and apple pie, they’re Lib Dem positions which some will agree with and others despise. But those who don’t adhere to these beliefs seem to assume that nobody does.

My main thought of Starmer at the moment is: "What a waste!"

He got power with a massive majority and a fundamentally weakened opposition. He had the opportunity to make massive changes to the UK. I may not have agreed with those changes, but the opportunity was there.

Yet he has squandered that inheritance. The government seems as rudderless and immune to ideas as one that has been in power for a decade or more; not one that has been ruling for just a year.

Labour need to get rid of him and replace him with someone who has ideas and can sell those ideas; or at least can develop a team to sell those ideas. But who? And is it too late?

Yes, I agree with this

What A Waste. Yes they had a shit hand, yes we are an ageing country, but still. They had FOURTEEN YEARS to prepare. To have bright ideas for the NHS, Social Care, Defence, the EU, anything. They could have come in on Day 1 and said Shit, it's bad, we've got to raise income tax, but we have brilliant ideas for this this and this, so cheer up, it's going to get better. The voters would have accepted that stance

Yet no. They had literally No Plans. Nothing. And they appointed two of the worst politicians in living memory to do the two most important jobs

What a waste

An example of the angry madness infesting the Left and Centre, perhaps


"We need to be very clear about this.
Rising Christian nationalism is a threat to us all."

https://x.com/theAliceRoberts/status/1968953193771016434

This is a reputable BBC presenter. She thinks the gravest threat to the nation is.... Christians. With their coffee mornings

Thw particularly American kind of Puritan raducalism we're beginning to import isn't coffee mornings and bring-and-buy sales, though.

It's Jimmy Swaggart, Pat Buchanan, tele-evangelists, and manifest destiny, in the general style seen at Tommy's rally.

Just on Alice Roberts: she seems to have a particular atheist axe to grind. Her Domination book reportedly is more about personal opinion and pushing that agenda than historical facts.

Other views are allowed in history.

Much of the western history of the last 2000 years has been written by the 'winning' side, i.e. Christianity. Many of the early 'facts' - as we know them - were written down by Christian scribes, and push their agenda over historical facts.

Christian history tends to write the history of Christianity in a somewhat favourable light; ignoring many abuses and excusing others.

AIUI her latest book looks at the negatives rather more heavily. Which is just as biased, but in another direction. I expect there is a fair amount that can be learnt from it. As ever, the truth might be somewhat in the middle.

(As an aside, it is interesting how many different versions there are of the Anglo-Saxon chronicles, and how they all have differences, some of which are significant. Not all of these differences are down to copying mistakes, and show how different monasteries may have wanted to alter perception of, or remove knowledge of, certain events.)

Funny you mention the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, I just finished re-reading Marc Morris' The Norman Conquest which looks at various differences between C, D, and E versions, among other sources.

And yes, different views are of course 'allowed'. But they still need grounding in facts and reasonable conclusions drawn from available evidence. When someone's revisions to history coincide perfectly with their own personal opinion it's legitimate to wonder whether this is simple bias.

That's the point I'm making: many of the revisions to history coincided perfectly with the personal opinions of the monks that wrote them. And those opinions would be favourable to their church, their patrons, and their wide religion. In other words, simple bias.

Yet now most of us see that as acceptable. Fact, in fact.

Everyone has a bias, but propagandist history is not good history. And, there have always been writers of history who are reasonably objective, and honest. One can usually see through the fabrications of monks who attribute the downfall of those that they loathe to the will of God.

Alice fecking Roberts does not compare to Tom Holland

Tom H (I know him vaguely) writes brilliant books, at his best. Genuinely important histories

She's a pretty glib and trivial TV presenter