Best Of

Meanwhile, this being a Labour government, UK unemployment continues to rise: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c98nqe0m008o

And sometimes words just fail me:

"Annual average earnings growth was 3.9% for the private sector and 7.6% for the public sector, across the three-month period."

Isn't it the case that public sector wages lag private sector wages - pay settlements tend to be based on historic rates of inflation. In fact, you can see that quite clearly here in Figure 4/5, with public sector wages well behind private sector during the post-COVID period: https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/bulletins/averageweeklyearningsingreatbritain/december2025

add pension contributions , cushy number , conditions etc and it is the opposite.

I think it very much depends where you are. In most of Scotland public sector pay is actually substantially ahead of what the private sector is offering. So, for example, a one year qualified solicitor in the private sector will earn somewhere between £40 and £50k outside the most demanding areas. A procurator fiscal with the same qualifications will be paid £52-54K plus the extras that come from the public sector such as pension rights, more holidays, better sick pay, greater security of employment etc.

This is a problem for the private firms and more generally it is a real problem for the economy since the cream of the crop are tempted to the public sector where their skills are not necessarily fully utilised. This makes growing businesses in Scotland, and in other areas with depressed earnings, much more difficult and removes potential innovators or entrepreneurs from the scene.

In contrast, in more affluent areas we see the public sector really struggling to get qualified staff at all because they cannot compete with what is on offer.

The combination of these effects are to depress growth, entrepreneurship and investment in our poorer areas and to increase these in the richer ones. This is one of the major reasons so much money invested in "levelling up" , regional investment funds etc has simply not worked. Ironically, given this money is public sector driven, it can aggravate the problem rather than address it. Do you want a safe, secure, well paid job in some "enterprise company" or take your chances with a dodgy start up?

I think it is a major factor in our economic performance because we create this huge drag factor. Only existing hot spots can create the opportunities and employment needed for growth. Everywhere else the dead hand of an overheavy, over paid public sector destroys growth.

The trouble is the solution doesn't work either - it's incredibly difficult to get doctors to move to the Highlands for example - my partner turned down a £20k golden handshake. You can also argue that the public sector underpins much economic demand in poorer/rural areas, because those teachers/doctors/lawyers are spending money in the local economy.

And the inverse is true in somewhere like Edinburgh - if you boosted salaries here relative to Glasgow all you'd do is concentrate even more economic demand on the east coast.

The real problem of the left behind towns is brain drain to the bright lights of the big city. Worsening pay for public sector workers there (and presumably boosting it in London) would only worsen this.

If a bright kid goes off to Manchester, Liverpool, Newcastle etc and gets a good degree then what is there for them any more in Reformville?

The way to improve the attractiveness to businesses in such places is to think throygh why people do not want to live there and tackle these. Think of transport links, infrastructure investment, university research campuses etc. Pretty much the sort of thing that has ground to a halt in recent years.

Ukraine starting to lose German and French voter support which is pretty concerning. I suspect we shall get a bad peace deal in 2026, which will give the global economy a temporary boost but at the expense of emboldening Putin and might is right generally.

https://www.politico.eu/article/french-and-germans-lean-toward-dialing-back-ukraine-support-new-international-politico-poll-shows/

We won’t, Zelensky will only accept a ceasefire on current lines and Putin will only accept a ceasefire with Russia getting given more Ukrainian territory

A settlement on current lines wouldn't be good for VVP. Odessa might just make it all worth it. It was the Kulkovye Polye protests/massacre and subsequent firestorm of disinformation from both sides in 2014 that so inflamed Russian ire and germinated the conflict. Getting Katherine's city back would be the sort of sentimental symmetry that nourishes the Slavic psyche.

I see Big Z has now given up on joining NATO so you can sort of see the hazy outlines of a deal that could emerge. Russia will need more though.

Given the state of the Russian Black Sea fleet, Odessa looks unattainable.

Russian navy down one submarine, taken out by Ukranian suicide drone sub while in port at Novorossiysk.

https://x.com/girkingirkin/status/2000583441344028779

Stand by for a few more Ukranian drone subs heading for Novorossiysk in the coming days and weeks.

I was watching video of that yesterday. The drone rounded several ships and harbour fittings before hitting the submarine. It was seriously impressive but also a bit scary. I really wonder if the RN would have fared any better if facing such an attack.

Very scary. This new drone is basically a navigable torpedo that can go anywhere.

One assumes that the Royal Navy takes port security a little more seriously than the Russians, and can spot an enemy vessel approaching!

That's the rational for the sea drones the RN is testing. But it would require an awful lot of them, and I doubt the MoD has the money.

They surely need satellites to navigate and I imagine in a big war scenario those satellites will be gone in minutes?

There’s probably an inertia/star chart/object recognition/local radio towers based solution that doesn’t need satellites.

Some combination of INS and sea bed mapping.

Whatever this was, it wasn't a Sea Baby/Magura 5 as they 6m long surface vessels and there is nothing like that on the video.

The Ukranians were obviously active inside the port because they had that camera feed so it might be covert mine laying marketed as a new wonder drone for PR purposes.

A submersible drone is not really a massive advance on previously deployed technology, but it's definitely +1 for Ukraine that there's one less submarine to launch Kalibr cruise missiles.

In all the previous sea drone attacks, they used Starlink to control them.

It’s not hard to imagine a submersible drone that runs inertially, then comes up for orders.

The mini-Starlink dishes are pretty small now and the quality of the “lock” is crazy. In the US, the standard land based ones were getting popular with private pilots, before SpaceX clamped down on max speed) and there is a thing for mounting them for off road motorcycle races.

There’s rumours around of SpaceX spinning off Starlink with in IPO next year, potentially valued at $500bn. It’s a crazy technology and they’re years ahead of their competition in this space.

Not rumours - and they're not spinning off Starlink.

Musk is talking about taking the whole thing public - but only selling 2% of the (non-voting) shares to the public.

So he will still have 80% of the voting stock.

Meanwhile, this being a Labour government, UK unemployment continues to rise: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c98nqe0m008o

And sometimes words just fail me:

"Annual average earnings growth was 3.9% for the private sector and 7.6% for the public sector, across the three-month period."

Isn't it the case that public sector wages lag private sector wages - pay settlements tend to be based on historic rates of inflation. In fact, you can see that quite clearly here in Figure 4/5, with public sector wages well behind private sector during the post-COVID period: https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/bulletins/averageweeklyearningsingreatbritain/december2025

add pension contributions , cushy number , conditions etc and it is the opposite.

I think it very much depends where you are. In most of Scotland public sector pay is actually substantially ahead of what the private sector is offering. So, for example, a one year qualified solicitor in the private sector will earn somewhere between £40 and £50k outside the most demanding areas. A procurator fiscal with the same qualifications will be paid £52-54K plus the extras that come from the public sector such as pension rights, more holidays, better sick pay, greater security of employment etc.

This is a problem for the private firms and more generally it is a real problem for the economy since the cream of the crop are tempted to the public sector where their skills are not necessarily fully utilised. This makes growing businesses in Scotland, and in other areas with depressed earnings, much more difficult and removes potential innovators or entrepreneurs from the scene.

In contrast, in more affluent areas we see the public sector really struggling to get qualified staff at all because they cannot compete with what is on offer.

The combination of these effects are to depress growth, entrepreneurship and investment in our poorer areas and to increase these in the richer ones. This is one of the major reasons so much money invested in "levelling up" , regional investment funds etc has simply not worked. Ironically, given this money is public sector driven, it can aggravate the problem rather than address it. Do you want a safe, secure, well paid job in some "enterprise company" or take your chances with a dodgy start up?

I think it is a major factor in our economic performance because we create this huge drag factor. Only existing hot spots can create the opportunities and employment needed for growth. Everywhere else the dead hand of an overheavy, over paid public sector destroys growth.

The trouble is the solution doesn't work either - it's incredibly difficult to get doctors to move to the Highlands for example - my partner turned down a £20k golden handshake. You can also argue that the public sector underpins much economic demand in poorer/rural areas, because those teachers/doctors/lawyers are spending money in the local economy.

And the inverse is true in somewhere like Edinburgh - if you boosted salaries here relative to Glasgow all you'd do is concentrate even more economic demand on the east coast.

What is needed is much more flexibility in pay structures more related to the local market. So in Edinburgh, for example, local authorities probably need to pay more to get half decent staff, but in most areas, Dundee for example, they should be paying significantly less. I take the point about that money keeping the local economy alive but it does so at a tremendous hidden cost that condemns those areas to long term failure.

Anyone need a recently graduated physicist? My eldest is struggling to find anything except very occasional short term temp jobs.

Hopefully things will pick up for him, but it’s very demoralising to be stuck in your parents home.

What part of the UK ?

Oxfordshire. He had mixed A-levels (ABCC) & ended up going to Swansea where he got his head down & was given a first (yes, I know a first isn’t hat it used to be, but still) & the prize for best experimental thesis in his year.

He’s never going to be the first pick for the plum jobs - those will go to the Oxbridge/London grads with impeccable CVs - but he’s just getting nothing at all. Any suggestions that I can point him to are most gratefully received - he’s personable & does the work, but he can’t demonstrate that if no one will even interview him.

I’m sure something will turn up eventually, but leads are a bit thin on the ground.

He's not doing anything silly like listing the A level grades on his CV is he?

He probably is. If he cuts them out won’t employers draw the obvious conclusion?

Most won't care what A-levels he has but by including them, he forces them to take notice. It's the latest score that counts. He has a First, which is good, so he should not dilute it. What is he looking for, in an ideal world?

If you can, check his cv. Proof-read it thoroughly. Be ruthless. If he talks about ‘attention to detail’ then as sure as night follows day, his dates will be inconsistently formatted or some such. His summary should be one line: who he is and what he wants (tailored to each application, of course) and not a full paragraph of vacuous drivel. If he is on LinkedIn, make sure his details there match because people will check.

Anyone need a recently graduated physicist? My eldest is struggling to find anything except very occasional short term temp jobs.

Hopefully things will pick up for him, but it’s very demoralising to be stuck in your parents home.

What part of the UK ?

Oxfordshire. He had mixed A-levels (ABCC) & ended up going to Swansea where he got his head down & was given a first (yes, I know a first isn’t hat it used to be, but still) & the prize for best experimental thesis in his year.

He’s never going to be the first pick for the plum jobs - those will go to the Oxbridge/London grads with impeccable CVs - but he’s just getting nothing at all. Any suggestions that I can point him to are most gratefully received - he’s personable & does the work, but he can’t demonstrate that if no one will even interview him.

I’m sure something will turn up eventually, but leads are a bit thin on the ground.

He's not doing anything silly like listing the A level grades on his CV is he?

So the BBC is going to fight - fight like hell - and I'll be there with them. They should crowdfund the cost of the case. Allow people to contribute if they are so inclined. Put me down for £500. I'll give up nuts for a year. It's a no brainer.

There was some stuff from Newsmax on the BBC this morning saying both that the BBC couldn't afford to fight the case (£50m plus) versus settling (maybe £10-15m) .. and that they would be embarrassed by the discovery process.

I'm with you in saying bollocks to that.
The BBC's own right to discovery is likely to be very interesting in what it might turn up. And I'm happy to help pay to defend such a transparently nonsense lawsuit.

It's important, I think. People talk a lot about "British values" and if not giving in to extortion by malevolent foreigners isn't one of them it jolly well should be. I also like the calculus of it. IMO the potential damage to Donald Trump of having this litigated in open court in the US is greater than that to the BBC.

I'm on the side of freedom of speech here, and in that case that means I'm 100% behind the BBC in this case.

US law should be on their side here too - far more than if the case was going to be heard in the libel capital of the world, London...

They should not settle, Trump has an extraordinarily high bar to pass in the US court system. And any halfway competent attorney ought to be able to defend them quite honestly.

Newsmax guy agreed that it was a weak case, but seemed to think we'd just settle on pragmatic (ie monetary) grounds, since a successful defence might still cost £50m plus.
I guess someone working for Newmax places very little value on journalistic independence, so he might even have been commenting honestly.

BBC v Trump

Like Neil Hamilton v Al Fayed.

Can’t they both lose ?

However anything that undermines the license fee is all well and good.

Just for you.

https://x.com/EdwardJDavey/status/2000850649064546505
Keir Starmer needs to stand up for the BBC against Trump's outrageous $5bn lawsuit and protect licence fee payers from being hit in the pocket.

Trump wants to interfere in our democracy and undermine our national broadcaster. We cannot let him.

I reckon the US looking disinterested in Ukraine increases the risk of the war between nuclear superpowers that nobody in their right mind wants. What stops this is Russia knowing that if they attack a NATO country the US will respond. Therefore the line isn't crossed. But what if thinking shifts and they decide the US will probably *not* respond? They are more likely to do it now, aren't they? And then - here's the thing - what if it turns out they were wrong and the US do in fact unleash a response? Oh dear. Point is, it's about deterring the first step on the escalator and I'd say the level of deterrence has gone down by a considerable amount under this Trump/Vance administration.

I am worried enough about Russia, but the real worry is China and how this affects their calculus with respect to an attempt to conquer Taiwan.