Best Of

550 jobs to go at National Trust.

They are blaming employers NI rise.

In the farming world there was always a special pity for the "National Trust Tenant" farming for a landlord who was clueless as to how to manage its own property.

Not just clueless but clueless and unwilling to listen because their incorrect knowledge was correct no matter how many people tried to correct it

A friend is exiting the charitable sector - her career so far has been watching utterly clueless fools with 6 figure salaries playing with charities like 4 year olds with Big Lego. The people who get hurt often are those who the charities are supposed to help. And the actual workers in the charities.

'A surgeon banned from working for a private healthcare company, following an investigation into patient safety, continues to work in the NHS, the BBC has learned.

Nuffield Health has stopped Marc Lamah from working in their hospitals, but he is still operating on patients for the University Hospitals Sussex NHS Foundation Trust.'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cev0n2r0d2yo

Does a ban in one sector automatically mean a ban in the other?

No, if you read the article the complication rate in the NHS is within the normal range.

The article also talks about the investigation into goings on in the department of General Surgery and Neurosurgery at the Trust.

The Nuffield can cancel his practicing privileges at no cost other than possible loss of business, the Trust would have to pay him during suspension and need a robust case to sack him as unfair dismissal cases for such high earners are very expensive, often millions.

On the topic:


‪Sam Freedman‬
‪@samfr.bsky.social‬

For as long as the Tory/Reform split continues the Lib Dems are more or less guaranteed to hold their local and Westminster seats (and add more).

https://bsky.app/profile/samfr.bsky.social/post/3ltoisjolqa2n

'More or less guaranteed'
Hmmmmmm.

He's probably right, though.

Forty percent right-of-centre vote in one box wins in lots of places. Split it into two boxes, twenty-five and fifteen, and it wins in very few places. Substitute "left" for "right", and you have the political story of much of the twentieth century.

RefCon have got two choices, neither of them that agreeable. One is to continue the fight until only one stands, and hope that the winner doesn't lose too many limbs in the process. The other is to come to some sort of under-the-desk implicit understanding, of the sort that LibLab had in the runup to 2024. However rational that would be, personal ambition would make it difficult.

In the meantime, Lib Dems make hay in nice seats, and Labour probably do OK in default seats by default. FPTP rewards "least bad" exactly as much as "best".

The problem with RefCon doing a LibLab style of understanding (if one existed) is that while Libs were mostly chasing Con seats, that's also largely the case for Reform. Also, while Libs would have had a realistic ceiling on expectations - no chance of ousting or being bigger than Lab, Reform may well feel they can eclipse Con. For it to work, one of Con and Ref need to accept they're number 2 in that possible alliance.

Who could have predicted that the Chancellor dramatically increasing taxes in April on employment could cause a recession with declines in April and May?

Apart from anyone who understands anything about Economics that is.

Do you know anyone on here who understands anything about Economics? Maybe Robert, but I can't think of anyone else.

There are several. You haven't been paying attention

I discount anyone who believes the voodoo Laffer Curve works in a real world context. Only genuine economists need apply.

Your obsession with the Laffer Curve is weird.

All Economics is subject to debate on how it works in a real world context. Any economist worth their salt would always place caveats onw what they're saying.

The Laffer Curve is abused, but the theory is perfectly reasonable economics that does work in a real world context as well as any other theory.

There are countless examples retold here on a regular basis on how people change their behaviour at the cliff-edges especially. People who won't work more than 16 hours as if they do they'll lose benefits at such a rate they'll earn no extra money. People who won't earn beyond the 100k threshold as if they do they'll be worse off. Etc, etc, etc

What is that if not the Laffer Curve working on a real world context.

Anyone who says we should cut from 47% to 45% "because Laffer" doesn't have a clue what they're talking about. Anyone who says we should deal with the 100% cliff edges "because Laffer" does.

The general principle that tax can drive behaviour is perfectly sound. The nonsense is the "Curve" descriptor - which bestows a false sense of numerical certainty and precision to it.

Would you object to a 'Laffer correlation'? A 'Laffer vague trend'?

Ooh, Root 100. Hurray.

I find it a rather obvious and not massively useful insight. So I'd go for the Laffer Chestnut.

You may find it obvious that reducing taxes induces more work to be done but unfortunately many do not.

That's not our boy Laffer though. It's about the tax take and the conceit is you can use the Curve to pitch tax at an 'optimum' rate to maximise the take.

I've looked at it and I get 64%. So there's plenty of scope - if the Curve is right - for some chunky rises. I don't know why SKS and RR are angsting so much about it.

The population of this country has been increasing fast in recent years, and growth is -0.1%. The theory that we need more people in order for economic growth doesn't seem to be working very well.

It’s a bit worse than “not working very well”

It is visibly destroying the cohesion of the country, creating grave anger and stark urban decline, and we aren’t even getting growth

I don’t like to harp on these depressing themes, but the anger out there is off-the-dial. Reform might just be a holding position before darker forces encroach

If Jenrick takes over I think the Tories could regain the lead in the polls.

With a Reform copy act? Maybe... I think the Tories would do better attacking Reform than agreeing with them. Pound them for their fantasy spending plans.