Best Of

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.

As someone who uses zero BBC services I would object vehemently to such a tax unless it was strictly to fund a limited set of core BBC services; news reporting, public service program making, etc. If the beeb want to continue making soap operas and game shows they should sell subscriptions or advertising to fund them.

Carry on. Object vehemently. Should I object vehemently to university subsidies as I use zero university services? Or adult social services which we fortunately don't use?

Taxation doesn't work like that.

Nothing to stop you objecting though.

Universities and social services benefit the country as a whole. BBC game shows do not.

Educate, inform and entertain

The US threatens to make life hard for EU companies in retaliation for the EU targetting US businesses:

https://x.com/USTradeRep/status/2000990028835508258

The European Union and certain EU Member States have persisted in a continuing course of discriminatory and harassing lawsuits, taxes, fines, and directives against U.S. service providers. U.S. services companies provide substantial free services to EU citizens and reliable enterprise services to EU companies, and they support millions of jobs and more than $100 billion in direct investment in Europe. The United States has raised concerns with the EU for years on these matters without meaningful engagement or basic acknowledgement of U.S. concerns.

In stark contrast, EU service providers have been able to operate freely in the United States for decades, benefitting from access to our market and consumers on a level playing field. Some of the largest EU service providers that have hitherto enjoyed this expansive market access include, among others:

— Accenture
— Amadeus
— Capgemini
— DHL
— Mistral
— Publicis
— SAP
— Siemens
— Spotify

If the EU and EU Member States insist on continuing to restrict, limit, and deter the competitiveness of U.S. service providers through discriminatory means, the United States will have no choice but to begin using every tool at its disposal to counter these unreasonable measures. Should responsive measures be necessary, U.S. law permits the assessment of fees or restrictions on foreign services, among other actions. The United States will take a similar approach to other countries that pursue an EU-style strategy in this area.

The US regularly fines European companies billions of dollars when they breach US law. Now Trump U.S. saying Europe isn't allowed to do the same thing.

There is no "discrimination" here.
Trump is simply trying to impose US fiat on its former allies - while cozying up to Russia.

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.