Best Of

Another interference story: Labour linked group plans to “kill Musk’s Twitter”.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/labour-linked-censorship-group-plans-to-kill-musks-twitter/

Why is that interference ?

Twitter is the American town square. Foreigners trying to kill it is basically an act of war.

Twitter is Musk's plaything. Musk is an anti-British Putinist. It's an act of patriotism to seek to destabilise him and reduce his influence.

How is Musk anti-British?

He seeks to undermine our courts and our democracy. He thinks we are on the verge of civil war.

His platform certainly could have helped us to tip us over the edge in August, had not Starmer done a good job at that time.

His platform is currently crawling with anti-semitic and literally neo-Nazi propaganda and imagery, as I've posted and referenced to several times, and nothing is being done.

Apparently we should be licking his arse because he is a great engineer.

No we should be courting his companies because he's got $400bn to spend. Labour doing the opposite harms the nation.

Lots of people have lots of money to spend. A sensible government makes sure that we are not beholden to despots and tyrants who seek to harm the UK, or their close friends. Rolling out the carpet to Putinists is not a great idea.

And yet we're happy to go the extra mile to court money from the middle east which is covered in blood. Either we're consistent and don't give a fuck about the source of funding, as we do with middle eastern money, or we tell both Elon Musk and middle eastern governments to get fucked.

I like the principle. In practice, though, the Saudis and Qataris are not actively seeking to destabilise us. Musk is.

Saudi Arabia and Qatar which have previously and currently fund Islamist terror groups which have previously successful carried out terrorist attacks in the UK and continue to want to do so? We put up with this because we want their money. Apparently a few mean words from Elon Musk is worse than Qatar funding terrorist groups who actually killed people though. Get real, you don't like Musk because you disagree with his politics, not because he's a "danger" to the UK.

Another interference story: Labour linked group plans to “kill Musk’s Twitter”.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/labour-linked-censorship-group-plans-to-kill-musks-twitter/

Why is that interference ?

Twitter is the American town square. Foreigners trying to kill it is basically an act of war.

Twitter is Musk's plaything. Musk is an anti-British Putinist. It's an act of patriotism to seek to destabilise him and reduce his influence.

How is Musk anti-British?

He seeks to undermine our courts and our democracy. He thinks we are on the verge of civil war.

His platform certainly could have helped us to tip us over the edge in August, had not Starmer done a good job at that time.

His platform is currently crawling with anti-semitic and literally neo-Nazi propaganda and imagery, as I've posted and referenced to several times, and nothing is being done.

Apparently we should be licking his arse because he is a great engineer.

Are you drunk? This is embarrassing

You are. I am not.

Then you are simply embarrassing. Which is worse

You used to be sane and often quite articulate

Hopefully this is a temporary aberration

I am afraid I do not share your affection for supporters of the far-right, however good they are at engineering. If you find that embarrassing, so be it.

Labour single out the public sector for special treatment again:

"Public-sector workers will be shielded from Rachel Reeves’s plans to mount a tax raid on employers’ pension contributions, while those in the private sector face lower wages and less money in retirement.

It would cost the government an estimated £5 billion, which means that the rise will fall entirely on businesses and, ultimately, private-sector workers. Experts said that employees would have less generous pensions and companies could also absorb costs by reducing future pay rises."


https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/rachel-reeves-to-protect-public-sector-workers-from-tax-raid-0n25hxkgg

Who gives a fuck? I thought you would support measures that would save the public sector money - what is the point of the Government levying taxes on itself?

I give a fuck. I'm entirely unimpressed by the government putting all tax rises on private sector workers and pensions, whilst shielding the impact for those who work for the State.

It's outrageous.

Why? It would otherwise be taxing itself. Which costs money in pointless admin.

Do you think public sector employees should pay tax?

Labour single out the public sector for special treatment again:

"Public-sector workers will be shielded from Rachel Reeves’s plans to mount a tax raid on employers’ pension contributions, while those in the private sector face lower wages and less money in retirement.

It would cost the government an estimated £5 billion, which means that the rise will fall entirely on businesses and, ultimately, private-sector workers. Experts said that employees would have less generous pensions and companies could also absorb costs by reducing future pay rises."


https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/rachel-reeves-to-protect-public-sector-workers-from-tax-raid-0n25hxkgg

Who gives a fuck? I thought you would support measures that would save the public sector money - what is the point of the Government levying taxes on itself?

Public sector pensions are also of course different in that they are paid from income (ie tax) not from an accrued pension pot.

That being said, that could be considered an even better argument for not taxing pension contributions. In a field of stiff competition, that was surely Gordon Brown's worst mistake even if he managed to deflect much of the blame.

Good article:

https://www.fidelity.co.uk/markets-insights/personal-finance/personal-finance/the-unintended-consequences-of-fiddling-around-with-taxes/

On Brown's raid: "Worse still, the reduced incentive for UK pension funds to invest in British companies means that they and other institutional investors now own just 4% of UK-quoted shares compared with half of them in 1997."

It certainly was a disastrous blunder, but I'm not even sure it was his worse as there are so many to choose from.

There was also his windfall tax on privatised utilities, which incentivised their executives to focus on paying dividends rather than investment, since they never knew when the taxman would demand more again.

And the sale of our gold reserves when gold was at its cheapest, presignalling that this was the intention.

And the staggeringly complacent and incompetent approach to financial regulation which helped give us the financial crisis.

And the diversion of money from the enterprising and productive private sector to unproductive, unreformed public sector unions.

And his arrogant and completely mad assumption that he had ended the economic cycle.

In fact, Gordon Brown's time as chancellor was one blunder after another, at least once he stopped following Conservative economic policies after a couple of years. Most of the economic problems we face today are due to him. And his time as PM was as bad if not worse.

Oh I see, we are still doing this...it seems clear some in the media really want(ed) this to be the UK George Floyd.

Chris Kaba verdict leaves community traumatised

Black communities in south London are "really traumatised" and feel they have been "denied justice" after a police officer was cleared of murdering Chris Kaba, community leaders have said.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3dvdmzxz82o

How much worse would Kaba's record have to be to make you think it was the correct decision? I mean he was only the prime suspect (in that car) of 3 shootings in the months leading up to the stop alone.

Few will shed tears for Chris Kaba. Most will be sympathetic to a police officer who had to decide in an instant whether to shoot.

The point is that Kaba's record should be irrelevant. The police shot dead an unarmed Black man. That Kaba was armed the day and week before, and would have been armed the week afterwards, is not justification for killing him. And aiui the police did not know it was Kaba in the car anyway.

He was not unarmed. He was armed with a car. Furthermore, the reason armed police had been deployed is that the car had been involved in a firearms incident the day before.

They did not know who was driving. They did not know if they were armed or not.

Millions of armed folk roaming the streets every day! Scary stuff..

In a way it is.

"In reported road collisions in Great Britain in 2023 there were an estimated:

1,645 fatalities, a decline of 4% compared to 2022
29,643 killed or seriously injured (KSI) casualties, little change compared to 2022
132,063 casualties of all severities, a decline of 3% compared to 2022"

A car is a very lethal device.

In a way, it is a bit like the situation with guns in Switzerland. Swiss have more guns than the US. The reason that this isn't a major problem, is not that the ammo for the military weapons is kept sealed. You can buy the ammo at gun ranges. It is because of culture.

Yes, we have a bit of road rage. However, the number of deliberate attempts to use a vehicle to kill is fortunately quite low.

Society depends on humans being decent, nearly all the time.

I did chemistry - I look at the cleaning products in DIY stores and smile at the panic politicians would be in, if they knew.

The reason appalling events do not happen more often, is simply that nearly everyone does not want to commit horrific acts.

Oh I see, we are still doing this...it seems clear some in the media really want(ed) this to be the UK George Floyd.

Chris Kaba verdict leaves community traumatised

Black communities in south London are "really traumatised" and feel they have been "denied justice" after a police officer was cleared of murdering Chris Kaba, community leaders have said.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3dvdmzxz82o

How much worse would Kaba's record have to be to make you think it was the correct decision? I mean he was only the prime suspect (in that car) of 3 shootings in the months leading up to the stop alone.

Few will shed tears for Chris Kaba. Most will be sympathetic to a police officer who had to decide in an instant whether to shoot.

The point is that Kaba's record should be irrelevant. The police shot dead an unarmed Black man. That Kaba was armed the day and week before, and would have been armed the week afterwards, is not justification for killing him. And aiui the police did not know it was Kaba in the car anyway.

He was not unarmed. He was armed with a car. Furthermore, the reason armed police had been deployed is that the car had been involved in a firearms incident the day before.

They did not know who was driving. They did not know if they were armed or not.

Millions of armed folk roaming the streets every day! Scary stuff..

Some irony that a tightening up of the law in regard to vehicular violence might come about because a police officer shot someone.

We cyclists have been trying to tell you lot for ages! Indeed, a recent alleged murder in Paris involved a SUV driver running over a cyclist.

Funnily enough, British drivers kill fewer cyclists than in the Netherlands, often taken as the pinnacle of cycle-friendly design. And of the British cyclists who are killed, most die on country roads, not in the towns where people campaign for cycle lanes and LTNs.

But is that simply because there are far more cyclists in the Netherlands?

Labour single out the public sector for special treatment again:

"Public-sector workers will be shielded from Rachel Reeves’s plans to mount a tax raid on employers’ pension contributions, while those in the private sector face lower wages and less money in retirement.

It would cost the government an estimated £5 billion, which means that the rise will fall entirely on businesses and, ultimately, private-sector workers. Experts said that employees would have less generous pensions and companies could also absorb costs by reducing future pay rises."


https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/rachel-reeves-to-protect-public-sector-workers-from-tax-raid-0n25hxkgg

Who gives a fuck? I thought you would support measures that would save the public sector money - what is the point of the Government levying taxes on itself?

Labour single out the public sector for special treatment again:

"Public-sector workers will be shielded from Rachel Reeves’s plans to mount a tax raid on employers’ pension contributions, while those in the private sector face lower wages and less money in retirement.

It would cost the government an estimated £5 billion, which means that the rise will fall entirely on businesses and, ultimately, private-sector workers. Experts said that employees would have less generous pensions and companies could also absorb costs by reducing future pay rises."


https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/rachel-reeves-to-protect-public-sector-workers-from-tax-raid-0n25hxkgg

Who gives a fuck? I thought you would support measures that would save the public sector money - what is the point of the Government levying taxes on itself?

Public sector pensions are also of course different in that they are paid from income (ie tax) not from an accrued pension pot.

That being said, that could be considered an even better argument for not taxing pension contributions. In a field of stiff competition, that was surely Gordon Brown's worst mistake even if he managed to deflect much of the blame.

Good article:

https://www.fidelity.co.uk/markets-insights/personal-finance/personal-finance/the-unintended-consequences-of-fiddling-around-with-taxes/

On Brown's raid: "Worse still, the reduced incentive for UK pension funds to invest in British companies means that they and other institutional investors now own just 4% of UK-quoted shares compared with half of them in 1997."

It certainly was a disastrous blunder, but I'm not even sure it was his worse as there are so many to choose from.

There was also his windfall tax on privatised utilities, which incentivised their executives to focus on paying dividends rather than investment, since they never knew when the taxman would demand more again.

And the sale of our gold reserves when gold was at its cheapest, presignalling that this was the intention.

And the staggeringly complacent and incompetent approach to financial regulation which helped give us the financial crisis.

And the diversion of money from the enterprising and productive private sector to unproductive, unreformed public sector unions.

And his arrogant and completely mad assumption that he had ended the economic cycle.

In fact, Gordon Brown's time as chancellor was one blunder after another, at least once he stopped following Conservative economic policies after a couple of years. Most of the economic problems we face today are due to him. And his time as PM was as bad if not worse.

You damage some good points, or at least some arguable ones, by blaming Gordon Brown for the Global Financial Crisis. He did not cause it, and led the international response to it.

Brown's biggest error was using PFI for public sector investment.

I would say "overusing" rather than "using" - PFI can occasionally work under very specific conditions. But Brown didn't use it to private public services more efficiently. He never gave a damn about that. He was desperate to get the debt off the Treasury's books, and that allowed companies like Serco to take the taxpayer for a ride every time.

He did not cause the global financial crisis. Not through competence, however - just because our financial sector isn't big enough by itself to do so.

He caused our domestic financial crisis. Our financial sector was in trouble long before the collapse of Lehman Brothers - in particular Northern Rock. And that was because the regulatory authorities that Gordon Brown had set up just weren't up to the job, and the appointments he made, in particular Masters of Disaster like Lord Turner and Callum McCarthy were lazy, spineless, complacent and fundamentally clueless about the industries they were supposed to oversee.