Best Of

Back to his lawyerly brilliance:

“Every time I go to pull a lever, there are a whole bunch of regulations, consultations, arms-length bodies that mean the action from pulling the lever to delivery is longer than I think it ought to be"

https://x.com/politlcsuk/status/2000594550599864781

If only he was the PM with a large majority, who might be in a position to actually do something about the regulatory and bureaucratic overload?

Having a large majority doesn't free you from public law obligations around due process, consultation, taking full account of objections and so on.

Now, you could loosen some of those constraints - but that in itself is a project that detracts from your main agenda. Further, rather like the filibuster in the US, a sensible politician realises majorities come and go, and reducing friction for yourself today does so for your opponent tomorrow.

Having a large majority gives you the power to change the law.

If the law is broken (and it is) change it.

Yes, it pays to be very careful about how you do it, but reducing regulatory or consultation burdens need not mean full and fair decision-making cannot take place.

Some people act like any reduction in statutory or regulatory requirements opens up a complete free for all, but there is a sliding scale on these matters, we can toggle it back in places without unleashing anarchy.

Back to his lawyerly brilliance:

“Every time I go to pull a lever, there are a whole bunch of regulations, consultations, arms-length bodies that mean the action from pulling the lever to delivery is longer than I think it ought to be"

https://x.com/politlcsuk/status/2000594550599864781

If only he was the PM with a large majority, who might be in a position to actually do something about the regulatory and bureaucratic overload?

Having a large majority doesn't free you from public law obligations around due process, consultation, taking full account of objections and so on.

Now, you could loosen some of those constraints - but that in itself is a project that detracts from your main agenda. Further, rather like the filibuster in the US, a sensible politician realises majorities come and go, and reducing friction for yourself today does so for your opponent tomorrow.

Per Telegraph:
"Benefit claimants could receive free television licences under sweeping BBC reforms being considered by Lisa Nandy, the Culture Secretary."
So the actual license payer will not just be stumping up for Trump's amour propre

Why not just give everyone a free TV licence?

That's the 'fund from general taxation' option. Then like schools, hospitals etc it's free at the point of delivery.

The BBC themselves want a digital tax. On ISPs.

Because that way the tax will be hidden from the public. Whose bills for internet connections will go up, of course.

Then all the BBC has to do is ask for more free money every year.

That sounds ok. But I think I prefer general taxation. Or do I? Not sure. So long as we don't lose the BBC. I value it highly.

The basic problem is - why a digital tax?

That’s a tax on every business or person online.

@George_Osborne
Hi, some personal news - I’m changing job. I recently asked myself the question: what’s the most exciting and promising company in the world right now? The answer I believe is OpenAI. So it’s a privilege to be going to work for OpenAI as managing director and head of OpenAI for countries, based here in London. In my conversations with Sam Altman, Brad Lightcap, and other senior colleagues, it’s clear they are exceptionally impressive leaders and that they care very deeply about their mission to ensure the power of artificial intelligence is developed responsibly, and the benefits are felt by all. That’s exactly what the OpenAI for Countries initiative intends to achieve, helping societies around the world share the opportunity this powerful technology brings. Am honorored to join the team.

Narrator: Last week Osborne failed to secure the chairmanship of HSBC.

Just to be clear, we used to get this man's skills and efforts for about £200k a year. Theresa May did a lot of incredibly stupid and damaging things but driving Osborne out of politics was arguably the most damaging.

You OK, hun?

That can be chalked up as a Brexit benefit!
So that makes... 1

Back to his lawyerly brilliance:

“Every time I go to pull a lever, there are a whole bunch of regulations, consultations, arms-length bodies that mean the action from pulling the lever to delivery is longer than I think it ought to be"

https://x.com/politlcsuk/status/2000594550599864781

If only he was the PM with a large majority, who might be in a position to actually do something about the regulatory and bureaucratic overload?

Having a large majority doesn't free you from public law obligations around due process, consultation, taking full account of objections and so on.

Now, you could loosen some of those constraints - but that in itself is a project that detracts from your main agenda. Further, rather like the filibuster in the US, a sensible politician realises majorities come and go, and reducing friction for yourself today does so for your opponent tomorrow.

Having a large majority gives you the power to change the law.

If the law is broken (and it is) change it.