Best Of

Pb should just accept on private schools it’s like the only remotely popular thing the government has done. Let it go.

Why?

It's a terrible policy that's going to damage the education sector overall, raise costs for taxpayers and damage our ability to train our future workforce.

Populism can take place at any part on the political spectrum, and that's what this is.

Having said that, I wouldn't have done this policy and made state schools so good, private schools would close down.

This doesn't work. What private schools sell is not primarily education, it is social polish and access to privilege.

Pb should just accept on private schools it’s like the only remotely popular thing the government has done. Let it go.

Why?

It's a terrible policy that's going to damage the education sector overall, raise costs for taxpayers and damage our ability to train our future workforce.

Populism can take place at any part on the political spectrum, and that's what this is.

Having said that, I wouldn't have done this policy and made state schools so good, private schools would close down.

This doesn't work. What private schools sell is not primarily education, it is social polish and access to privilege.

That’s a very sneering view. I’d argue that they offer excellent education, small group teaching, allowing pupils to greater attainment than they would likely get at the local state school AND social polish and access to privilege.

I asked yesterday how the YouTube ban would work when you don't need to log in or have any type of account to watch a YouTube video. Nobody responded - presumably as the Govt did nothing to make the position clear.

After a fair bit of googling, it appears the ban is actually going to be on under 16s having a YouTube account.

So under 16s will still be able to watch a YouTube video. But under 16s won't be able to subscribe, comment, like etc.

Is this in line with everyone's understanding?

I've no idea what the government has against YouTube. They ought to pay for YouTube Premium for every schoolchild, given the amount of educational content on there. Making it impossible for under-16s to comment achieves nothing useful I can think of. I hope YouTube will be quietly dropped from the verboten list.

Otherwise, on general cybersecurity grounds, government advice used to be to shield one's identity. Now it wants us – grandparents and grandchildren alike – to upload passports, headshots and inside leg measurements to any number of sketchy, foreign-owned sites.

Listened to Al Carns resignation speech and he was very impressive and took aim at the persecution of our soldiers from the Irish troubles

I would just say that if Starmer refuses to go, a fight between Starmer, Burnham, Streeting and Carns would be quite an event

I'm a very long way from convinced that Carns is yet PM material. But at least he's displaying an awareness of some of the MoD bullshit that the rest of the defence ministers seem captured by.

He's resigned over MOD spending being limited despite acknowledging that the MOD are incredibly wasteful.
Surely the first step on that path is to limit the money going to the MOD?
Not unlike Thames Water wanting desalination plants because their pipes leak.

We've effectively tried that approach over the last two decades, and it didn't work.

Literally everything the MoD does is underfunded. The only solution to that is to cut entire programs or capabilities and concentrate on the absolutely essential.

As we have the 6th highest military budget in the world, if everything is underfunded then there are really only a few possibilities:

1) our military is massively inefficient by being both spendthrift and on a shoestring.

2) everyone else is underfunded and incapable too.

If 2) we shouldn't worry too much. If 1) we should sort that out before chucking good money after bad.

Yes, but bear in mind that ever since Osborne, our military budget is bigger on paper after the Treasury added new line items to hide reductions in spending on things that go bang, principally the nuclear deterrent, pensions, and most recently intelligence services. ETA similarly the overseas aid budget is now spent on British 4-star hotels.

Yep, the defence budget is stuffed with things not related to the ability of the armed forces to break things and kill people. Add the cost of the nuclear deterrent and the money available to fund the conventional military isn't generous.

Isn't it true of most countries that military budgets are largely wasted on bloated prestige arms and cosy if not corrupt relationships between military and suppliers? It is a great British tradition too to send ships to sea with rotten biscuits and rancid meat.

The exceptions are mostly those countries actually fighting for their existence like Ukraine or Israel.

I think it highly likely that any increased funds will be spaffed up the wall exactly the same way. Same old, same old.

After all,,the biggest threat to the security of us and our allies isn't a large number of Russian soldiers seeking to occupy physical space. It's Russian agents in St Petersburg basements seeking to occupy online and mental spaces.

And nobody has really worked out what to do about that problem.

Listened to Al Carns resignation speech and he was very impressive and took aim at the persecution of our soldiers from the Irish troubles

I would just say that if Starmer refuses to go, a fight between Starmer, Burnham, Streeting and Carns would be quite an event

I'm a very long way from convinced that Carns is yet PM material. But at least he's displaying an awareness of some of the MoD bullshit that the rest of the defence ministers seem captured by.

He's resigned over MOD spending being limited despite acknowledging that the MOD are incredibly wasteful.
Surely the first step on that path is to limit the money going to the MOD?
Not unlike Thames Water wanting desalination plants because their pipes leak.

Thames Water must be the best argument against private sector efficiency

Lets compare the water quality in the Thames today to pre-privatisation to make a like-for-like comparison.

Thames Water are a good advert for a free market needing to include failure.

Let them go bust, see the creditors and bondholders wiped out, then move on, stop trying to insist good money is thrown after bad to avoid failure.

I think water quality would have improved even if it had been publicly owned the entire time.

What evidence underpins that assumption.

The fact is that laws requiring the nationalised water firms not to pollute already existed pre-privatisation, but they were routinely ignored.

If the nationalised water firms polluted there was not much that could be done. Theoretically fines could be issued, but since it was nationalised, the fine was meaningless and nobody paid much mind.

There was a rapid and immediate improvement in accountability and enforcement post-privatisation as all of a sudden fines for pollution had teeth. There became a very real cost to shareholders that if you pollute and get a fine then that comes out of your profitability. That only happened thanks to privatisation.

Are there any nationalised water companies in the UK we could look at?

The prior history of nationalised industry is about as poor as it can get. There are glimmers of hope - Air Traffic Control seems to have done well before any hints of privitisation.

Listened to Al Carns resignation speech and he was very impressive and took aim at the persecution of our soldiers from the Irish troubles

I would just say that if Starmer refuses to go, a fight between Starmer, Burnham, Streeting and Carns would be quite an event

I'm a very long way from convinced that Carns is yet PM material. But at least he's displaying an awareness of some of the MoD bullshit that the rest of the defence ministers seem captured by.

He's resigned over MOD spending being limited despite acknowledging that the MOD are incredibly wasteful.
Surely the first step on that path is to limit the money going to the MOD?
Not unlike Thames Water wanting desalination plants because their pipes leak.

Thames Water must be the best argument against private sector efficiency

Lets compare the water quality in the Thames today to pre-privatisation to make a like-for-like comparison.

Thames Water are a good advert for a free market needing to include failure.

Let them go bust, see the creditors and bondholders wiped out, then move on, stop trying to insist good money is thrown after bad to avoid failure.

I think water quality would have improved even if it had been publicly owned the entire time.

What evidence underpins that assumption.

The fact is that laws requiring the nationalised water firms not to pollute already existed pre-privatisation, but they were routinely ignored.

If the nationalised water firms polluted there was not much that could be done. Theoretically fines could be issued, but since it was nationalised, the fine was meaningless and nobody paid much mind.

There was a rapid and immediate improvement in accountability and enforcement post-privatisation as all of a sudden fines for pollution had teeth. There became a very real cost to shareholders that if you pollute and get a fine then that comes out of your profitability. That only happened thanks to privatisation.

Listened to Al Carns resignation speech and he was very impressive and took aim at the persecution of our soldiers from the Irish troubles

I would just say that if Starmer refuses to go, a fight between Starmer, Burnham, Streeting and Carns would be quite an event

I'm a very long way from convinced that Carns is yet PM material. But at least he's displaying an awareness of some of the MoD bullshit that the rest of the defence ministers seem captured by.

He's resigned over MOD spending being limited despite acknowledging that the MOD are incredibly wasteful.
Surely the first step on that path is to limit the money going to the MOD?
Not unlike Thames Water wanting desalination plants because their pipes leak.

We've effectively tried that approach over the last two decades, and it didn't work.

Literally everything the MoD does is underfunded. The only solution to that is to cut entire programs or capabilities and concentrate on the absolutely essential.

As we have the 6th highest military budget in the world, if everything is underfunded then there are really only a few possibilities:

1) our military is massively inefficient by being both spendthrift and on a shoestring.

2) everyone else is underfunded and incapable too.

If 2) we shouldn't worry too much. If 1) we should sort that out before chucking good money after bad.

Yes, but bear in mind that ever since Osborne, our military budget is bigger on paper after the Treasury added new line items to hide reductions in spending on things that go bang, principally the nuclear deterrent, pensions, and most recently intelligence services. ETA similarly the overseas aid budget is now spent on British 4-star hotels.

Yep, the defence budget is stuffed with things not related to the ability of the armed forces to break things and kill people. Add the cost of the nuclear deterrent and the money available to fund the conventional military isn't generous.

Listened to Al Carns resignation speech and he was very impressive and took aim at the persecution of our soldiers from the Irish troubles

I would just say that if Starmer refuses to go, a fight between Starmer, Burnham, Streeting and Carns would be quite an event

I'm a very long way from convinced that Carns is yet PM material. But at least he's displaying an awareness of some of the MoD bullshit that the rest of the defence ministers seem captured by.

He's resigned over MOD spending being limited despite acknowledging that the MOD are incredibly wasteful.
Surely the first step on that path is to limit the money going to the MOD?
Not unlike Thames Water wanting desalination plants because their pipes leak.

Thames Water must be the best argument against private sector efficiency

Or against inept regulators

Both, but profit maximisation doesn't sit well with the provision of clean water and sewage treatment.
There's no argument that the private owners didn't extract £bns from Thames Water by borrowing against the assets and cash flow that could have been spent on investment or not borrowed.

It should also be noted two years ago - long after this highly illegal behaviour had come to light - Macquarie acquired 100% of the National Grid, where it is clearly planning to do exactly the same thing.

Previously, it had owned 80%, which was bad enough.

Why is it we as a nation are not learning from very basic mistakes?

(Unless it was a highly Machiavellian plot to keep large sums of Macquarie's assets in the country so they could be seized to make up for previous frauds, but candidly that seems unlikely.)

Listened to Al Carns resignation speech and he was very impressive and took aim at the persecution of our soldiers from the Irish troubles

I would just say that if Starmer refuses to go, a fight between Starmer, Burnham, Streeting and Carns would be quite an event

I'm a very long way from convinced that Carns is yet PM material. But at least he's displaying an awareness of some of the MoD bullshit that the rest of the defence ministers seem captured by.

He's resigned over MOD spending being limited despite acknowledging that the MOD are incredibly wasteful.
Surely the first step on that path is to limit the money going to the MOD?
Not unlike Thames Water wanting desalination plants because their pipes leak.

Thames Water must be the best argument against private sector efficiency

Or against inept regulators