Best Of

There's a real danger in conflating two positions here.

If you ask Britons if anything was the "right" decision in hindsight they are unlikely to say yes, unless it was something like 'standing up to Hitler in WWII'. We had some very strong figures on the death penalty only this week. And, within this, there could be buried all sorts of thinking, including from many Brexiteers that it hasn't succeeded in controlling immigration properly rather than the lazy assumption, as far too many believe out of confirmation bias, that it's a hankering for at least the single market and, fingers crossed, full reversal.

Pro-Brexit parties (Reform plus the Conservatives) are now regularly clocking a combined 50%+ in the polls, and are very able to strip away Starmer's majority and kick him very clearly into opposition.

It'd be a very brave move on his part to think that just because it was a psychodrama the first time round that people want an overturn to the status quo ante bellum and that'd make both them happy and him popular.

Dems should let RFK pass but on condition he really does come after the fructose industry.

Watching the hearing, the Dem Senators really, really don’t like RFK.

Maybe it’s because he’s a turncoat, a Dem who backed Trump and bought a few supporters along for the ride, or maybe it’s that Big Ag and Big Pharma have thrown millions in lobbying and campaign contributions behind stopping his confirmation.

There’s also a lot of his supporters such as Nicole Shanahan and Elon Musk making very thinly veiled threats in the other direction, to fund primaries against those who don’t support him. This is a more public version of what George Soros, Bill Gates etc have been doing for years.

Favourite Twitter comment from last night was that Senators should wear jackets like NASCAR driver overalls, coverered in the logos of the companies that sponsor them.

He’s definitely a controversial character, and possibly the most devisive of all Trump’s picks. He was very sceptical of the technology behind the Covid vaccines, and wants to see manufacturers of vaccines not be immune from injuries they cause. On the other hand, he does come across as really wanting to go after crappy American food standards and the whole healthcare industry, wants to see the drugs ads removed from TV.

If confirmed, Trump will need to keep him on a very tight leash. The vote is probably going to be 50-50, with Vance getting him through on the tie-break.

Or, more likely, it's because JFK Jr is a conspiracy-theorist little shit who has already cost many lives with his false claims about medicine?

You know, stuff that *matters*?

Growth latest:

Higher level maths support programme cut by government.

It cost a massive £6m a year.

I genuinely find some of these decisions by the government just weird. They bang on and on and on about growth, AI, etc, then cancel a super computer that would provide unique capabilities and funding for up-skilling kids in a crucial subject all that costs absolute peanuts. Its really illogical.

In comparison, they announced they would send additional money to UNHRC today that is worth than this cut.

When Sunak’s maths scheme was announced, the response here was largely derision. Now it’s being cut, it was a central plank of the UK’s future growth.

The derision came from the media and we know most of the media are absolute innumerate morons. It isn't central plank, but its cheap scheme that has got more kids doing A-Level maths seems like a sensible thing given the future is more AI / ML, which requires a good understanding of maths.

The government should be going further, for example we need more STEM PhDs, which will enable growth. I would be putting money into higher stipends as they have been seriously whacked by inflation. Compared to 20 years ago, they have been massively devalued.

Brains trust question:

I need to find a keynote speaker for a conference. Someone relatively famous in the business or economics world, likely to be on the books of a speakers’ agency, and ideally not an active politician or partisan blogger. And someone known internationally because the audience is international. Last year we booked George Osborne for the same event.

We had Mark Carney lined up but for obvious reasons he’s no longer able to do it. I have so far suggested Christine Lagarde and Tim Harford (who’s known surprisingly widely). Flirted with the idea of Liz Truss for the lols. Considering Yannis Varoufakis. Any other suggestions?

If you want a lecturer on elections and political betting, I'll do it (publication list and lecture list available on request, anonymity required if unsuccessful)

Only on PB! I shall start making a list, with prices.

When is the conference?

June

Happy to do it for free (the exposure would do me good) Would a lecture on the US election (runup, modelling, polls, betting, in real time, aftermath) suit? I could repurpose it for statistical publications/conferences

@TimS
I'll do it for free, I'll pay my own transport and accommodation to anywhere in the world, I can fill any length from 20mins to three hours, I guarantee to hit it to the minute, I can provide an abstract beforehand, and I'll give you a sandwich*1. Serious offer. Publication list and lecture list available on request, anonymity required if unsuccessful.

@TimS

I should probably warn you that @viewcode is Liz Truss.

If the police were universally honest, then opposition to the death penalty would simply be on moral grounds. One either believed or did not believe the State has the right to take a life.

But the police lie. Occasionally it is because they are criminals themselves. More often they do it to protect the good name of the police. Or because they are convinced they have the right person. And sometimes they do it because they believe they are good people and the lie serves the greater good.

Bear in mind too, that reimposing the death penalty would result in more police lying, not less. The pressure to cover up the (bound to happen) fact that the wrong person had been executed would be enormous.

So, no, we can't have the death penalty.

To my mind it's also a bit pointless. Even advocates for bringing it back only say for the most heinous, full life term crimes - i.e. those committed by monsters or the irretrievably damaged for whom the death penalty isn't a deterrent - and in some cases might be an incentive.

So really we're talking about punishment - and unless you're convinced of a religious disposition and want to parcel someone off to hell as soon as possible - is being locked away for life with the scum of the Earth really a lesser punishment?

You could say it saves on cost but it's a tiny number of people compared to the prison estate as a whole and savings might be largely swallowed up by the additional hoops you'd have to jump through to get a death sentence confirmed, even in fairly clear cut cases of guilt.

Is it really worth abolishing the moral high ground can use to try and persuade states who use the death penalty in appalling ways to give it up?

The argument that we must abolish the death penalty because it gives us something we can hector other states about doesn't strike me as morally serious.

"A majority of the public think that the UK should bring back the death penalty, with the strongest support among millennials, a poll has found." (£)

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/law/article/majority-britons-support-death-penalty-poll-scw7glncg

If you go back to the second world war, public support for the death penalty has been pretty consistently above 50%, with dips below whenever there are obvious miscarriages of justice. Imagine if we'd hanged the Guilford Four, for example.

Just imagine if we'd hanged the people who commited these murders:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/06/25/one-murder-a-week-committed-by-offenders-probation-service/

More than 750 killings since 2010 carried out by criminals on probation

Unless I am misunderstanding you mean we should have hanged them for the initial offence so they wouldn't have committed the murders on probation? Nearly all were on probation for offenses other than murder when they committed the murders - only 20 were out on licence having served the minimum custodial element for life sentences. So I think you're suggesting we apply the death penalty pre-emptively for less serious offences, unless you meant something else, which is quite the step.

The point is that the ledger has two sides when considering the risks to innocent people, but it's true that there's no reason why murder should be the only capital offence, unless you believe in a strict 'eye for an eye' policy.

Take Singapore's policy of executing people for drug trafficking for example:

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

"This is not a matter discussed between the chancellor and me. Its a Singapore issue. We have stated our position clearly. We take a very serious view of drug trafficking - the penalty is death. In this case it was an enormous amount of drugs being trafficked. Its nearly 400 grammes of pure heroin, which is equivalent to 26,000 doses of heroin if you do it shot by shot. Which means untold misery and suffering to hundreds if not thousands of addicts and their families. The man was charged, convicted, appealed, dismissed. He put up a clemency petition. The clemency petition was considered all factors were taken into account including petitions and letters from Australian leaders. Finally the government decided the law had to take its course. And the law will have to take its course."

Christ almighty that set you off on one.

Home Secretary, shit Defence Barrister and hanger and flogger David Waddington would have been happy to see his innocent client Stefan Kizsko swing. That case alone is enough for me. Perhaps when you rid the nation of dodgy cops and shit Defence Lawyers perhaps you can revisit.*

* There will always be bent coppers.

Ok not saying I support the death penalty as I don't

However NICE hands hand death penalties all the time because its not cost effective to keep you alive on QALY terms....I think from memory its about 20k per each year of life....I can understand why people get upset when convicted people on a full life term...ie the worst cost 50k plus a year.

If I am 30 for example and kill 7 or 8 people I probably get a full life term....even if let out in 40 years and live 10 years after that is 2 million cost whereas I won't get treatment that costs more that 500k a year to live to 80

Are you answering someone elses question? I didn't mention cost savings. My point was an innocent man would have been recommended for hanging by his incompetent defence barrister who later became a pro hanging Home Secretary.

If you hang 100 men ten of which are innocent, but it saves 110 lives that would have been taken by those men (obviously not the innocent ones) its a gain of 10 innocent lives

Just as a matter of interest, how much lower are murder rates in countries with the death penalty?

you make the mistake as most do that the point of the death penalty would be to reduce the murder rate. It is more to reduce the costs of keeping someone for 50 years....and yes you will go on about appeals....one appeal within a month then get on with it

So you would have strung up Letby then?

I would have let her appeal within a few months

Don't forget however as I pointed out I don't favour the death penalty I am merely pointing out two 30 years olds one kills 7 people, one has a disease but they can keep him alive till 75 at a cost of 40k a year but will otherwise die within 2 years....the governement and tax payers only pay for the one that killed 7 people even though it costs more. I am saying thats the argument people are seeing....the guy who did nothing wrong condemned to an early death because of costs....the guy who destroyed lives kept at a higher cost for a lifetime

Her appeal was refused on insufficient grounds.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/oct/24/lucy-letby-refused-permission-to-appeal-against-attempted-conviction?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

So should she be killed by the state?

So what do you say to the wage earner and father of two who is told his treatment isn't value for money so he has about 2 years to go when he asks why there is 50k a year to keep her in prison but you cant afford half that to keep him alive

The NHS budget and the Prisons budget are seperate things.

Should we spend the money on the father of two, or a training sortie of an F35?

If we do that sort of comparison the Health Service would be much better funded!

Don't be dense....both costs are of keeping people alive....you prefer to spend on keeping letby alive than someone who has done nothing wrong even though keeping him alive would be half the cost.

Isn't the RAF supposed to keep us alive too?

Do you think we should euthanase people with expensive long term conditions so that we can spend the NHS budget on cheaper patients?

That's me done for then!

(Actually tbf, because of the expensive NHS investment in me 45 years ago I am confident I have been a significant net contributor to the tax coffers overall. But it wouldn't have looked likely back in 1979.)

I am glad they kept you alive, however every year people are denied treatment because it costs more than the guidelines. I am just pointing out it is often a lesser figure than keeping a serial killer locked up and that to me seems unjust. I don't see that as an unreasonable question to ask as to why we are prepared to pay more for a letby than a joe bloggs who just happens to have a condition that costs more than half what she costs to keep jailed

It's not an unreasonable question. My reasonable answer is that killing people is just wrong, two wrongs don't make a right, and mistakes happen which would be irretrievable in this case.

As I said I do not support the death penalty personally, I am merely highlighting the state hands them out all the time due to cost even though it makes Foxy squirm

Don't worry it doesn't make me squirm.

I just make a distinction between state sanctioned killing and health economics that you seem to be unable to see.

Someone dying because the state refuses to give them something that would prolong their lives is state sanctioned killing whether you like it or not. You just don't want to see it that way as you participate

If the state said no more food banks allowed, no more welfare state due to cost. You would be first inline screaming the state is killing people, you know it, I know it, everyone knows it....you certainly wouldn't be here arguing its just economics

You clearly don't know me very well.

Indeed I don't know you very well, as I am surprised that you want the government to have the power of life and death over healthy citizens that it finds inconvenient. That sounds to me an extremely bad power for a state to have. What if Mr Starmer took a dislike to you?

I have said several times I don't agree with the penalty....I just object to murderers like letby having more spent on them a year to keep them inside than an innocent person will get based on qaly.

For someone who doesn't believe in it you seem very enthusiastic to implement it.

I have not once argued to implement it, I have argued the economics should be equal. We should not value the life of a letby over the life of joe bloggs who hasn't killed anyone. You do I accept and I don't understand why

I think most people just don’t think the state should had the power to kill its citizens, and particularly don’t like the idea of it killing innocent citizens (which inevitably it would).

As I commented before, the death penalty is the non sequitur to end all non sequiturs. It has no utility except as a tool to sate the bloodlust of the mob.

The state kills its citizens stochastically all the time. When people are murdered by asylum seekers, the state is complicit.

Exceedingly few people are killed by asylum seekers. It’s possibly smaller than the number of people killed by cows.

Certainly cows kill more people than are shot dead by the police in the UK.

To be fair to cows, they probably feel more than justified in the odd human death, given the reciprocal.

Brains trust question:

I need to find a keynote speaker for a conference. Someone relatively famous in the business or economics world, likely to be on the books of a speakers’ agency, and ideally not an active politician or partisan blogger. And someone known internationally because the audience is international. Last year we booked George Osborne for the same event.

We had Mark Carney lined up but for obvious reasons he’s no longer able to do it. I have so far suggested Christine Lagarde and Tim Harford (who’s known surprisingly widely). Flirted with the idea of Liz Truss for the lols. Considering Yannis Varoufakis. Any other suggestions?

Burn-Murdoch?

Not my fave, but FT so international, and his fans are enthusiastic.

I would say one of the 17 most recent Conservative Chancellors, but you have done Osborne already.

I’m free. I set out my bio below for consideration-

“ Doug Seal’s rise to infamy began humbly enough, in the quiet fishing village of Porthcall, nestled on the rugged Cornish coast. Born Douglas Sealy to a family of crabbers, he grew up with saltwater in his veins and a chip on his shoulder. Doug was a peculiar child, obsessed not with the ocean’s beauty, but with its terrifying power. While other kids collected seashells, Doug built elaborate traps for crabs and delighted in watching them struggle.

His parents chalked it up to harmless mischief until the day Doug disappeared at sea.

At the age of twelve, Doug piloted his father’s rusted fishing boat into a brewing storm, determined to prove himself against the sea. His family searched for him for weeks, but the boat washed ashore empty. Doug was presumed dead—until he returned months later, his skin pale and his demeanor unnervingly calm.

Doug claimed he had been taken by "the Deep," a mysterious undersea organization. According to his tale, they were a cabal of exiled marine biologists, rogue oil tycoons, and disgraced submarine captains who lived in a secret aquatic city beneath the mid-Atlantic Ridge. They taught Doug the ways of the ocean: its secrets, its weaknesses, and how it could be weaponized. Doug emerged with a new vision—one where the land-dwellers would pay for their exploitation of the sea.

Over the years, Doug amassed a fortune in marine salvage, starting with stolen wrecks and escalating to hijacking submarines and deep-sea oil rigs. His base of operations, Nautilus Prime, was an enormous semi-sentient vessel powered by geothermal energy, hidden in the Mariana Trench. It served as a mobile fortress and research lab where Doug developed terrifying oceanic weaponry—venomous jellyfish drones, tidal wave generators, and even genetically engineered “krakens.”

But Doug’s most infamous creation was the "Seal-Suit," a biomechanical exoskeleton designed to make him a living weapon. Clad in sleek black armor resembling a seal, complete with webbed fingers and a harpoon tail, Doug was as deadly as he was ridiculous. His ability to slip in and out of enemy territory—both on land and underwater—earned him the codename “The Kraken.”

Doug Seal’s ultimate plan? Flood the world's coastal cities and turn humanity into a race of aquatic slaves, ruled by him as the self-proclaimed “Lord of the Abyss.”
Today, Doug is a sought after commenter on Internet politics forums.”

Anyway - drop me a message if you’re interested.