Best Of
Re: Starmer once again displays his lawyerly brilliance – politicalbetting.com
Having a large majority gives you the power to change the law.Back to his lawyerly brilliance:Having a large majority doesn't free you from public law obligations around due process, consultation, taking full account of objections and so on.
“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?
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.
If the law is broken (and it is) change it.
Re: Starmer once again displays his lawyerly brilliance – politicalbetting.com
"The UK sent out 9,900 students and trainees to other countries as part of the scheme that year, while 16,100 came the other way.
Glasgow, Bristol and Edinburgh were the three universities to send the most students, with Spain, France and Germany being the most popular destinations for UK students.
In the 2024/25 academic year, the Turing scheme had £105m of funding, external, which paid for 43,200 placements, with 24,000 of those being in higher education, 12,100 in further education and 7,000 in schools."
BBC on relative scale of Turing and Erasmus schemes.
Glasgow, Bristol and Edinburgh were the three universities to send the most students, with Spain, France and Germany being the most popular destinations for UK students.
In the 2024/25 academic year, the Turing scheme had £105m of funding, external, which paid for 43,200 placements, with 24,000 of those being in higher education, 12,100 in further education and 7,000 in schools."
BBC on relative scale of Turing and Erasmus schemes.
Re: Starmer once again displays his lawyerly brilliance – politicalbetting.com
I've been such a fool, Vassili. Man will always be a man. There is no new man. We tried so hard to create a society that was equal, where there'd be nothing to envy your neighbour. But there's always something to envy. A smile, a friendship, something you don't have and want to appropriate. In this world, even a Soviet one, there will always be rich and poor. Rich in gifts, poor in gifts. Rich in love, poor in love.Brexit is like Communism. It only appears to have failed because it has never been tried properly.Ah I see. So we're just waiting for the right government to come along and it's lift off. Right you are. That's good. It has the benefit of being repeatable forever more.Fanciful or otherwise, you do seem to have had difficulty understanding it. Let me be more prosaic. With some obvious 'workaday', exceptions like the absence of membership fees (not exactly chump change when Reeves' hasn't got two pennies to bless herself with), Brexit restored a fairly large arsenal of competencies to the UK Government. Competencies only become benefits if one decides to use them. And deciding not to use them at all was not an outcome that anyone, from the most ardent Brexit supporter to the most passionate remainer, predicted.I thought it was like having a baby? Certainly it seems to lend itself to fanciful analogy in lieu of any mundane workaday benefits.Standard drivel.Brexit was just a spiteful destruction of opportunity voted for by people who'd had their time and had no plan for the aftermath.@PippaCrerarIs this where we give the EU what they want and they fuck us up the ass.
EXCL: An agreement to rejoin Erasmus – the EU’s student exchange programme – set to be announced on Wednesday as part of UK government’s drive towards closer relations with Brussels.
https://x.com/PippaCrerar/status/2000992877443231788?s=20
SKS would pay full price for a Dominos pizza
It's been left to the people who voted against it to make the best of the mess left behind, turns out that means trying to recover the benefits at greater cost as was said at the time.
Suck it up.
Brexit opened doors. Doors can allow you to leave the house, have fun, get a job, or meet the love of your life. Or you can stand at the threshold in the stiff breeze rooted to the spot, reminiscing about how great it was when the door was closed.
Re: Starmer once again displays his lawyerly brilliance – politicalbetting.com
I don't, the BBC is shite so I don't pay for the licence fee.We do, in our licence feeIf you want entertainment, then pay for it.Educate, inform and entertainUniversities and social services benefit the country as a whole. BBC game shows do not.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?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.The BBC themselves want a digital tax. On ISPs.That's the 'fund from general taxation' option. Then like schools, hospitals etc it's free at the point of delivery.Per Telegraph:Why not just give everyone a free TV licence?
"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
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.
Taxation doesn't work like that.
Nothing to stop you objecting though.
It is not a social good that taxes should pay for.
Means I can't get Sky Sports anymore legally, but why should the BBC be funded in order to subscribe to Sky.
If you want entertainment as the mandate, then the BBC should be voluntary subscriptions of those who want it, no different to Netflix or Sky or any other entertainment rival.
Re: Starmer once again displays his lawyerly brilliance – politicalbetting.com
If you want entertainment, then pay for it.Educate, inform and entertainUniversities and social services benefit the country as a whole. BBC game shows do not.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?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.The BBC themselves want a digital tax. On ISPs.That's the 'fund from general taxation' option. Then like schools, hospitals etc it's free at the point of delivery.Per Telegraph:Why not just give everyone a free TV licence?
"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
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.
Taxation doesn't work like that.
Nothing to stop you objecting though.
It is not a social good that taxes should pay for.
Re: Starmer once again displays his lawyerly brilliance – politicalbetting.com
My heart bleeds purple piss.Brexit was just a spiteful destruction of opportunity voted for by people who'd had their time and had no plan for the aftermath.@PippaCrerarIs this where we give the EU what they want and they fuck us up the ass.
EXCL: An agreement to rejoin Erasmus – the EU’s student exchange programme – set to be announced on Wednesday as part of UK government’s drive towards closer relations with Brussels.
https://x.com/PippaCrerar/status/2000992877443231788?s=20
SKS would pay full price for a Dominos pizza
It's been left to the people who voted against it to make the best of the mess left behind, turns out that means trying to recover the benefits at greater cost as was said at the time.
Suck it up.
2
Re: Starmer once again displays his lawyerly brilliance – politicalbetting.com
If Starmer tried to block Burnham via lawyerly dicking about it would show him to be very frit and remove what little credibility he has left.
That would be signing his own careers death warrant, not a lawyerly masterstroke.
That would be signing his own careers death warrant, not a lawyerly masterstroke.
Re: Starmer once again displays his lawyerly brilliance – politicalbetting.com
Paternalistic ... patriarchal is someone else (the odd presenter aside).I honestly don't mind them being a bit patriarchal and making what they want to make. I just wish it was also less shit.The more you spread the cost the easier it is to pretend that it isn’t actually that big and that we’re all funding it and watching together. They seem to believe that if they wish hard enough and wait long enough all of their opponents will somehow just drop dead and that they won’t have to actually think about what people want to watch rather than what they want to make.But why tax people online, rather than an extra tax on retired accountants?Because subscription rates are dropping along with use rates.The basic problem is - why a digital tax?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 BBC themselves want a digital tax. On ISPs.That's the 'fund from general taxation' option. Then like schools, hospitals etc it's free at the point of delivery.Per Telegraph:Why not just give everyone a free TV licence?
"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
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’s a tax on every business or person online.
The latter would cause a lesser reduction in economic activity.
Somewhere in my fevered imagination - there is a great big Terry Gilliam-style angry 'Zardoz-meets-Lord-Reith' head being asked to approve any simpering, feeble-minded project from a 'commissioning editor' about their latest pet idea. Zapped with lasers at the first hint of an eye-roll from the god-head.
I'd pay good money to watch that, now that I think about it. Any commissioning editors around?
2
Re: Starmer once again displays his lawyerly brilliance – politicalbetting.com
Woah, woah, living on a prayer.He is halfway there.BREAKING:Maybe he’s transitioning and wants to now be known as Cunteta Trump !
Kaitlan Collins
@kaitlancollins
President Trump says he'll be addressing the nation tomorrow night at 9 p.m. ET.
https://x.com/kaitlancollins/status/2000995956700143628
1
Re: Starmer once again displays his lawyerly brilliance – politicalbetting.com
I honestly don't mind them being a bit patriarchal and making what they want to make. I just wish it was also less shit.The more you spread the cost the easier it is to pretend that it isn’t actually that big and that we’re all funding it and watching together. They seem to believe that if they wish hard enough and wait long enough all of their opponents will somehow just drop dead and that they won’t have to actually think about what people want to watch rather than what they want to make.But why tax people online, rather than an extra tax on retired accountants?Because subscription rates are dropping along with use rates.The basic problem is - why a digital tax?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 BBC themselves want a digital tax. On ISPs.That's the 'fund from general taxation' option. Then like schools, hospitals etc it's free at the point of delivery.Per Telegraph:Why not just give everyone a free TV licence?
"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
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’s a tax on every business or person online.
The latter would cause a lesser reduction in economic activity.
Somewhere in my fevered imagination - there is a great big Terry Gilliam-style angry 'Zardoz-meets-Lord-Reith' head being asked to approve any simpering, feeble-minded project from a 'commissioning editor' about their latest pet idea. Zapped with lasers at the first hint of an eye-roll from the god-head.
I'd pay good money to watch that, now that I think about it. Any commissioning editors around?
ohnotnow
1

