Back in 1997, Blair was himself stunned by the surprise of the majority - he expected a 30-50 seat win not a 179 seat majority. His manifesto was predicated on a small win and the ability to make only limited changes to what was in effect the Thatcher Revolution.
Starmer has a similar dilemma. He can't be seen to be too radical for fear of frightening the ex-Tories back to the blue team yet there is clear anger at where the country has got to and radical solutions might get more of an audience.
I recall on the evening ahead of the results I and a few friends had a stake on what the size of the majority would be (we all thought Labour would win despite the memory of 1992). I won the pool as I came closest with my prediction of a 70 seat majority.
I was working in a Con-LD marginal and was surprised by the strength of the Labour vote which I feared would allow the Conservatives to hold the seat.
It didn't happen. The Conservative vote collapsed by a third but the Labour vote rose nearly as much as the LD vote and I'm sure that cost the LD seats and saved some Conservatives elsewhere.
We were watching the results in west Sheffield. Sheffield Hallam was up until then a safe Tory seat, and it was with incredulity that we saw it taken by the LDs. Harrogate too, which declared shortly afterwards - who can forget the expression on ‘Badger’ Lamont’s face!
Back in 1997, Blair was himself stunned by the surprise of the majority - he expected a 30-50 seat win not a 179 seat majority. His manifesto was predicated on a small win and the ability to make only limited changes to what was in effect the Thatcher Revolution.
Starmer has a similar dilemma. He can't be seen to be too radical for fear of frightening the ex-Tories back to the blue team yet there is clear anger at where the country has got to and radical solutions might get more of an audience.
I recall on the evening ahead of the results I and a few friends had a stake on what the size of the majority would be (we all thought Labour would win despite the memory of 1992). I won the pool as I came closest with my prediction of a 70 seat majority.
I was working in a Con-LD marginal and was surprised by the strength of the Labour vote which I feared would allow the Conservatives to hold the seat.
It didn't happen. The Conservative vote collapsed by a third but the Labour vote rose nearly as much as the LD vote and I'm sure that cost the LD seats and saved some Conservatives elsewhere.
Incidentally, I think one of the Tories saved in 1997 for the reason you state was Michael Howard in Folkestone.
Back in 1997, Blair was himself stunned by the surprise of the majority - he expected a 30-50 seat win not a 179 seat majority. His manifesto was predicated on a small win and the ability to make only limited changes to what was in effect the Thatcher Revolution.
Starmer has a similar dilemma. He can't be seen to be too radical for fear of frightening the ex-Tories back to the blue team yet there is clear anger at where the country has got to and radical solutions might get more of an audience.
I recall on the evening ahead of the results I and a few friends had a stake on what the size of the majority would be (we all thought Labour would win despite the memory of 1992). I won the pool as I came closest with my prediction of a 70 seat majority.
I was working in a Con-LD marginal and was surprised by the strength of the Labour vote which I feared would allow the Conservatives to hold the seat.
It didn't happen. The Conservative vote collapsed by a third but the Labour vote rose nearly as much as the LD vote and I'm sure that cost the LD seats and saved some Conservatives elsewhere.
We were watching the results in west Sheffield. Sheffield Hallam was up until then a safe Tory seat
And now it's becoming a safeish Labour seat (it was close last time, but if they didn't lose it after O'Mara, despite Clegg holding it in 2015, it's going nowhere), so a rather interesting journey.
Any discussion about the balance of taxation needs to differentiate between the business incentives/disincentives side of things (does the tax system encourage the right investment decisions) and the consumer behavioural incentives/disincentives (does it encourage people to save for retirement / spend on the high street / choose fuel efficient vehicles / buy healthy food etc), different taxes do different things.
In corporate tax the jury really is out on whether tax rates influence investment more or less than incentive regimes, or deduction rules or other oddities of the CT system. There’s been a general trend away from favouring low headline rates in the Northern European style to higher rates but bigger incentives in the traditional US or French style (though both have dropped rates recently). There’s also a difference between what businesses “want” or “like” and what induces investment, and a difference between what will encourage an existing UK based company to invest vs what will attract a foreign investor.
The action in terms of consumer behaviour is generally in indirect tax, though income tax levels do affect life choices especially savings decisions.
Finally, what’s good for one country in one phase of its development may be bad for another in a different phase. Low employers social security is an example: in a country with high unemployment and an inflexible labour market this may help tweak the incentives for businesses to hire staff. In a country with full employment but low wages and productivity it may disincentivise investment in technology and automation.
The relationship between tax and economics is really complex. I’ve been trying to get to the bottom of it as it’s my job (and I hopefully have an article out on it next week) but it’s tough to find any compelling evidence one way or the other despite many studies. Too many variables.
We shall only know when they get into office, of course.
There are two, and only two, things to pay real attention to in the next Labour manifesto: the balance of taxation (assets vs incomes) and the pension triple lock. If Labour won't shift the tax burden to assets and won't bin the triple lock then everything else they claim they want to do will just be tinkering around the edges, or managing the same exhausted and useless system less incompetently than the Conservatives (in which case, there's little point in even bothering to turn up and vote TBH.)
Ideally we'll get both, but one out of two would at least represent some measure of progress.
Can't see the point of undoing the triple lock, much though I disapprove of it - it gives the Tories a weapon to shore up their base, and the financial gain in the short term would be trivial, assuming the pension still rises with inflation. But shifting the tax base towards assets, in particular higher council tax bands and an end to the various ways people avoid tax on unearned income would be pretty uncontroversial.
If anyone wnats to see the biggest cheat in Horse Racing watch the riding of Kraken Power in the 3.20 at Newcastle today. Paul Mulrennan should be banned for life.
As someone who has no knowledge and no interest in horse racing I decided that I should watch the video expecting to see some blatant cheating. Watched the video and from my perspective with no knowledge I couldn't see anything wrong. Read the summary and whilst I know I am reading English I do not understand it. I know understand again why I have no interest in horse racing.
It doesn't look good to me. He backs right off and then gets going again but it's too late to catch the leaders.
In my 40 years of following horse racing this is the worse I have seen, With 2 furlongs to go he was in 3rd and cantering, with 1 furlong to go he had pulled the horse back to be 2 lengths last. When all chance had gone he let the horse run and it came flying through. Its the most obvious cheat I have ever seen.
Mulrennan's mistake was to get caught behind two weakening outsiders at a key moment - the two he tracked (who finished last and last but one) fell back as the rest of the field moved forward leaving Mulrennan trapped at the back. That was poor judgement but calling it a "cheat" is a bit of a stretch.
Horse racing may not be as honest as Pro Wrestling but it's a lot cleaner than football or cricket (perhaps).
Pro wrestling has no pretensions of being an honest contest though.
But it can be great entertainment.
Is your profile name a nod to the Human Suplex Machine?
I do love pro-wrestling, a much-misunderstood form of storytelling. It’s the real working class ballet (and not a coincidence that Aronofsky’s Black Swan and The Wrestler make for a great double bill).
My username certainly is a nod to him. Yes.
Pro wrestling is great. Don’t watch it nearly as much as I used to in the old WWF v WCW days but I still like to watch it when I can. I especially love all the shoot videos on YouTube.
Jim Cornette is really entertaining.
The legitimate tough guys were usually the ones who made mid card at best. Haku, Paul Orndorff, Bob Holly etc etc.
Haku/Meng genuinely sounds like one of the most terrifying men to have ever lived.
Cornette is entertaining (and as far as shoot videos go, is up there with New Jack in candid recollection). His memory is extraordinary. He could probably do with lightening up on the dafter stuff though; silliness also has its place in the squared circle.
The story about Meng biting a guys nose off in a bar !! And everyone on these shoots says he’s the loveliest, nicest guy you could ever hope to meet.
Cornette really doesn’t like anything that he sees as devaluing the trade. Stuff like the Fingerpoke of Doom and his contempt for that absolutely I get. I agree the silly stuff also has a place too, he’s a little too old school at times. But always entertaining.
I’ve not watched any New Jack shoots. I’ll have to find them. Be interested to see his take on the Mass Transit blading. He’s not someone who has a great reputation it seems but there was something fabulous about ECW in the nineties.
Have you caught any of the dark side of wrestling ? They are on YouTube.
Thing that strikes my ear in all these House roll call votes, is the number of Spanish surnames, among members of both parties and all sections of the US.
Certainly WAY more than when I first began noticing the existence of the Congress of the United States back in the 1960s.
Testimony to the Great Migration of Latinos to the United States in the past six decades.
Also more Asian names, but its the Spanish ones that catch my ear.
We shall only know when they get into office, of course.
There are two, and only two, things to pay real attention to in the next Labour manifesto: the balance of taxation (assets vs incomes) and the pension triple lock. If Labour won't shift the tax burden to assets and won't bin the triple lock then everything else they claim they want to do will just be tinkering around the edges, or managing the same exhausted and useless system less incompetently than the Conservatives (in which case, there's little point in even bothering to turn up and vote TBH.)
Ideally we'll get both, but one out of two would at least represent some measure of progress.
Can't see the point of undoing the triple lock, much though I disapprove of it - it gives the Tories a weapon to shore up their base, and the financial gain in the short term would be trivial, assuming the pension still rises with inflation. But shifting the tax base towards assets, in particular higher council tax bands and an end to the various ways people avoid tax on unearned income would be pretty uncontroversial.
I quite agree re triple-lock, Labour should and will keep it.
Extending NI to all income, would balance offset the increase in pensions - hitting the wealthier pensioners whilst allowing the triple-lock to help the poorer ones.
(Of course the very poorest pensioners don't benefit from the triple-lock because there total income is dictated by the Pension Credit 'Standard Amount', which is not triple-locked.)
The same inability to act by dint of a block of hardline right wingers handicaps the Tories; this speaker vote is notable because it has brought the reality out into the open
Warmed over socialism, which will end up where socialism always ends up: with everyone worse off
But we have to endure this, the Tories have failed, and so we must go through the same process of experimenting with the left until it is proven that it does not work
Did Britain do something very bad to deserve all this?
I keep trying to warn about this, particularly those tempted by Starmer on the basis "things couldn't possibly be worse".
Of course, there are those who might be attracted by such a radical prospectus, but it's going to be very expensive, probably a drag on business & consumption, and thus growth, and we're all going to be paying an awful lot more tax.
I’m not sure what you are warning of here. This is a really promising policy offer, much of which is constantly demanded on here by left and right wing posters.
Shift taxes toward wealth.
Create a sovereign wealth fund and support domestic industry to reduce the balance of trade deficit.
Devolve power and second power to beefed up local government.
Improve R&D and capital investment to peer economy levels.
Maintain a balanced budget across the cycle.
Dismissing this as reheated 70s Labour or whatever is the sign of not paying attention.
Collective bargaining and action, and large extension of workers rights, is what worries me.
Also, the cost commitments they are listing there are vast, and current planned tax rises won't do it, so it will all put a huge burden on the economy.
I don’t think the cost commitments are vast and in any case nobody is now looking at the UK economy without diagnosing a chronic lack of investment.
I await the detail on collective bargaining. I would certainly welcome a modest tipping of the scales from capital to labour, though.
I think there's a huge amount buried in that with all sorts of things to come, including property and land taxes for ordinary homeowners and pension reliefs going.
What's been laid out there is probably £100bn+ pa of extra public spending.
The spending is necessary.
Britain feels highly taxed but that’s because the weight is on income rather than capital; it’s at the lower end of tax per GDP.
Housing and childcare reform to lower the costs of both would make a massive, massive impact. Tertiary fees, too.
Tax isn't a free lunch. It crowds out consumption and private investment, and we'd do well to remember that. It's also quite easy to make a long list of things that'd be solved by more spending and quite another to raise the funds.
I think we'd get high income and capital tax without the results.
I want to see government cutting back on drags like pensions and investing in things that raise productivity and grow the pie, and that includes competitive taxes. We can then afford more stuff.
No we would not do well to remember that. It’s not borne out at the macro level, as far as I know.
Of course there are harmful taxes that disincentivise things we want, there may also be a correlation between high tax and dirigiste economic policy, but to just say, oh high tax is harmful is belied by the global data.
I could just as easily say low tax is bad and point to the shocking fate of the worst off in the USA, or the economic piss-poverty of the UK today.
Whatever the problems of the UK, they can't fairly be said to be the result of low tax. Because that would assume we have low tax.
The UK is (still) a low tax economy by western standards.
You seem to think there's an easy answer: to tax the UK into prosperity.
That's so much bullshit, as decades of economic experience from countries that have tried to do the same will attest to.
The Scandinavian nations are prosperous
"Scandinavia" is the Godwin's law of the tax debate.
They exist though, and so does Germany, Austria, the Netherlands, etc etc etc.
Wishing them away doesn’t get you anywhere.
Germany, Austria and the Netherlands don't tax anything like Scandinavian levels.
European taxes average at about 41.1%, not much higher than us. And we are mid-range.
The idea there is some vast tax goldmine here that's untapped is laughable.
From those 2019 figures, if we taxed at the same rate as France the UK could have had an extra £145bn of tax revenue (6.5% GDP) that year and run a surplus of £100bn rather than a deficit, or ran a surplus of say £50bn and invested in £50bn in hospital, school and transport infrastructure.
France includes social security contributions in its figures.
That's a fair comparison though surely. We include NI.
They hastened its demise. I remain unconvinced it was a model that was ever going to survive in the long run. I am not saying they helped matters.
It's lasted for 75 years. To put it in political context, that's longer than the Liberals were a party of government, even taking the most generous possible dates for that. It's a bit much to say it hasn't survived 'in the long run' because it already has. Whether it has an equally long future may be a different question.
They hastened its demise. I remain unconvinced it was a model that was ever going to survive in the long run. I am not saying they helped matters.
Ultimately though all universal systems of health care are redistributive. Healthy working people pay more but use less, sicker retired or poor people contribute little in funds but are heavy users. This was the objection to Obama care in the USA as making the plans more inclusive put up bills for those insured.
The way to keep costs down and allow consumer choice by freeing up capacity is by ending universal free access. I am not sure we are ready to go there, but that was how it worked here until 1948.
The same inability to act by dint of a block of hardline right wingers handicaps the Tories; this speaker vote is notable because it has brought the reality out into the open
There's going to be two years of this. The rest of the GOP daren't face the right down by doing a deal with the Dems, as they know that's a one-way road to being declared RINO and primaried, so a handful of GOP extremists is all it will take to block everything.
Warmed over socialism, which will end up where socialism always ends up: with everyone worse off
But we have to endure this, the Tories have failed, and so we must go through the same process of experimenting with the left until it is proven that it does not work
Did Britain do something very bad to deserve all this?
I keep trying to warn about this, particularly those tempted by Starmer on the basis "things couldn't possibly be worse".
Of course, there are those who might be attracted by such a radical prospectus, but it's going to be very expensive, probably a drag on business & consumption, and thus growth, and we're all going to be paying an awful lot more tax.
I’m not sure what you are warning of here. This is a really promising policy offer, much of which is constantly demanded on here by left and right wing posters.
Shift taxes toward wealth.
Create a sovereign wealth fund and support domestic industry to reduce the balance of trade deficit.
Devolve power and second power to beefed up local government.
Improve R&D and capital investment to peer economy levels.
Maintain a balanced budget across the cycle.
Dismissing this as reheated 70s Labour or whatever is the sign of not paying attention.
Collective bargaining and action, and large extension of workers rights, is what worries me.
Also, the cost commitments they are listing there are vast, and current planned tax rises won't do it, so it will all put a huge burden on the economy.
I don’t think the cost commitments are vast and in any case nobody is now looking at the UK economy without diagnosing a chronic lack of investment.
I await the detail on collective bargaining. I would certainly welcome a modest tipping of the scales from capital to labour, though.
I think there's a huge amount buried in that with all sorts of things to come, including property and land taxes for ordinary homeowners and pension reliefs going.
What's been laid out there is probably £100bn+ pa of extra public spending.
The spending is necessary.
Britain feels highly taxed but that’s because the weight is on income rather than capital; it’s at the lower end of tax per GDP.
Housing and childcare reform to lower the costs of both would make a massive, massive impact. Tertiary fees, too.
Tax isn't a free lunch. It crowds out consumption and private investment, and we'd do well to remember that. It's also quite easy to make a long list of things that'd be solved by more spending and quite another to raise the funds.
I think we'd get high income and capital tax without the results.
I want to see government cutting back on drags like pensions and investing in things that raise productivity and grow the pie, and that includes competitive taxes. We can then afford more stuff.
No we would not do well to remember that. It’s not borne out at the macro level, as far as I know.
Of course there are harmful taxes that disincentivise things we want, there may also be a correlation between high tax and dirigiste economic policy, but to just say, oh high tax is harmful is belied by the global data.
I could just as easily say low tax is bad and point to the shocking fate of the worst off in the USA, or the economic piss-poverty of the UK today.
Whatever the problems of the UK, they can't fairly be said to be the result of low tax. Because that would assume we have low tax.
The UK is (still) a low tax economy by western standards.
You seem to think there's an easy answer: to tax the UK into prosperity.
That's so much bullshit, as decades of economic experience from countries that have tried to do the same will attest to.
The Scandinavian nations are prosperous
"Scandinavia" is the Godwin's law of the tax debate.
They exist though, and so does Germany, Austria, the Netherlands, etc etc etc.
Wishing them away doesn’t get you anywhere.
Germany, Austria and the Netherlands don't tax anything like Scandinavian levels.
European taxes average at about 41.1%, not much higher than us. And we are mid-range.
The idea there is some vast tax goldmine here that's untapped is laughable.
From those 2019 figures, if we taxed at the same rate as France the UK could have had an extra £145bn of tax revenue (6.5% GDP) that year and run a surplus of £100bn rather than a deficit, or ran a surplus of say £50bn and invested in £50bn in hospital, school and transport infrastructure.
And given that the algorithm for house prices is "whatever you can afford plus a bit", I suspect that a fair bit of that £145 billion ended up in house price inflation.
Which is an investment of sorts, I suppose.
Yet it is house price inflation that has been the principal driver of growing inequality, with property ownership increasingly concentrated among the older and more wealthy, inexorably undoing the progress made during the last century
We have less wealth inequality than Germany for instance in part because most own their own homes and the value of them. We have more income inequality than Germany however
And so comes the motion to adjourn….. but just until the evening. Agreed. Resume 8pm local time
Do the rebels gain any benefit to dragging it out to another day? I'm sure they can squeeze something more out to wrap things up.
Question is what do they want? There seems to be mixed messaging. One I’ve heard is a change to house rules to allow a single member to bring a VONC in the Speaker. McCarthy might go for that, but he must know it’s a recipe for potential disaster. Someone like Boebert will be bringing them all the time, and it will undermine his leadership each time.
He potentially buys them off with more committee appointments etc. But the big question mark here is what all this is about. There are some reports that this is less about perks and more about personalities - there are enough rebels who simply don’t want McCarthy as Speaker and won’t enable it. If that remains the case after negotiations, he will have to consider his position.
And so comes the motion to adjourn….. but just until the evening. Agreed. Resume 8pm local time
Do the rebels gain any benefit to dragging it out to another day? I'm sure they can squeeze something more out to wrap things up.
Question is what do they want? There seems to be mixed messaging. One I’ve heard is a change to house rules to allow a single member to bring a VONC in the Speaker. McCarthy might go for that, but he must know it’s a recipe for potential disaster. Someone like Boebert will be bringing them all the time, and it will undermine his leadership each time.
He potentially buys them off with more committee appointments etc. But the big question mark here is what all this is about. There are some reports that this is less about perks and more about personalities - there are enough rebels who simply don’t want McCarthy as Speaker and won’t enable it. If that remains the case after negotiations, he will have to consider his position.
But there's presumably more members who don't like them, so this current game, while very funny, won't really result in a Speaker more inclined to do any more than McCarthy would. In which case the possibility of standoffs is not reduced by giving them anything further, and since they are not making progress in getting more to turncoat, will it still be fun for them tomorrow?
They hastened its demise. I remain unconvinced it was a model that was ever going to survive in the long run. I am not saying they helped matters.
Ultimately though all universal systems of health care are redistributive. Healthy working people pay more but use less, sicker retired or poor people contribute little in funds but are heavy users. This was the objection to Obama care in the USA as making the plans more inclusive put up bills for those insured.
The way to keep costs down and allow consumer choice by freeing up capacity is by ending universal free access. I am not sure we are ready to go there, but that was how it worked here until 1948.
I disagree. Plenty of other first world countries have universal health care and they run miles better than our system. The problem is not with universal health care - which is, to my mind, the sign of a mature, progressive society. The problem is our version of universal health care which is unfit for purpose and has been for decades.
I’ve just been watching an old archive programme on iplayer, “People of Paradise”. A young David Attenborough travels around the Western Pacific in 1960.
One of the most fascinating TV series I’ve watched in years. Highly recommended.
Incidentally the young and middle aged Attenborough will clearly be acted by Hugh Grant in the biopic of his life.
I’ve just been watching an old archive programme on iplayer, “People of Paradise”. A young David Attenborough travels around the Western Pacific in 1960.
One of the most fascinating TV series I’ve watched in years. Highly recommended.
Incidentally the young and middle aged Attenborough will clearly be acted by Hugh Grant in the biopic of his life.
I am afraid the not so young or even middle aged Hugh Grant - 62 - is now too old to play Attenborough in those phases of his life.
Are there no limits to the powers of this EEVVVVVILLLLL Tory scum government?
Interestingly, the Mirror fingers almost everyone there (before settling on the EVUL TORIES), except the Department of Health and the NHS. It really is bizarre how little scrutiny there is of the civil service and quangocracy in the media.
They hastened its demise. I remain unconvinced it was a model that was ever going to survive in the long run. I am not saying they helped matters.
Ultimately though all universal systems of health care are redistributive. Healthy working people pay more but use less, sicker retired or poor people contribute little in funds but are heavy users. This was the objection to Obama care in the USA as making the plans more inclusive put up bills for those insured.
The way to keep costs down and allow consumer choice by freeing up capacity is by ending universal free access. I am not sure we are ready to go there, but that was how it worked here until 1948.
I disagree. Plenty of other first world countries have universal health care and they run miles better than our system. The problem is not with universal health care - which is, to my mind, the sign of a mature, progressive society. The problem is our version of universal health care which is unfit for purpose and has been for decades.
All health care systems have evolved out of the economic, historical and social developments in their particular counties, including the NHS.
While we can learn from other countries, we cannot just shift to a German system rooted in the Bismarkian system without the physical as well as the socio-political infrastructure of that system over a period of more than a century.
We have different history, culture and politics. It isn't impossible to change these to a more European way of doing things, but that is something that we have moved against in recent years, to a backward, nostalgic autarky.
If we want to change to such a system then some home truths need to be told to the voters that put this government in power in the Red Wall and Saxon shore, and there is no sign of either Blue or Red Party being willing to touch that electoral kryptonite. The NHS may well be a corpse but both parties are chained to it.
The alternative is to try to make an obsolete system function better by slow evolution, which is the British way. We are not a revolutionary people.
Are there no limits to the powers of this EEVVVVVILLLLL Tory scum government?
Interestingly, the Mirror fingers almost everyone there (before settling on the EVUL TORIES), except the Department of Health and the NHS. It really is bizarre how little scrutiny there is of the civil service and quangocracy in the media.
It's not bizarre at all, especially in a Labour-supporting paper, as I doubt there are many Tories in the NHS quangocracy or the Department of Health (and I worked for almost a year in the NHS quangocracy so I have some knowledge of people's political opinions and personal biases there).
I’ve just been watching an old archive programme on iplayer, “People of Paradise”. A young David Attenborough travels around the Western Pacific in 1960.
One of the most fascinating TV series I’ve watched in years. Highly recommended.
Incidentally the young and middle aged Attenborough will clearly be acted by Hugh Grant in the biopic of his life.
I am afraid the not so young or even middle aged Hugh Grant - 62 - is now too old to play Attenborough in those phases of his life.
Based on Death to 2020/2021 he's gearing up to play David Starkey.
I’ve just been watching an old archive programme on iplayer, “People of Paradise”. A young David Attenborough travels around the Western Pacific in 1960.
One of the most fascinating TV series I’ve watched in years. Highly recommended.
Incidentally the young and middle aged Attenborough will clearly be acted by Hugh Grant in the biopic of his life.
I am afraid the not so young or even middle aged Hugh Grant - 62 - is now too old to play Attenborough in those phases of his life.
They hastened its demise. I remain unconvinced it was a model that was ever going to survive in the long run. I am not saying they helped matters.
Ultimately though all universal systems of health care are redistributive. Healthy working people pay more but use less, sicker retired or poor people contribute little in funds but are heavy users. This was the objection to Obama care in the USA as making the plans more inclusive put up bills for those insured.
The way to keep costs down and allow consumer choice by freeing up capacity is by ending universal free access. I am not sure we are ready to go there, but that was how it worked here until 1948.
I disagree. Plenty of other first world countries have universal health care and they run miles better than our system. The problem is not with universal health care - which is, to my mind, the sign of a mature, progressive society. The problem is our version of universal health care which is unfit for purpose and has been for decades.
All health care systems have evolved out of the economic, historical and social developments in their particular counties, including the NHS.
While we can learn from other countries, we cannot just shift to a German system rooted in the Bismarkian system without the physical as well as the socio-political infrastructure of that system over a period of more than a century.
We have different history, culture and politics. It isn't impossible to change these to a more European way of doing things, but that is something that we have moved against in recent years, to a backward, nostalgic autarchy.
If we want to change to such a system then some home truths need to be told to the voters that put this government in power in the Red Wall and Saxon shore, and there is no sign of either Blue or Red Party being willing to touch that electoral kryptonite. The NHS may well be a corpse but both parties are chained to it.
The alternative is to try to make an obsolete system function better by slow evolution, which is the British way. We are not a revolutionary people.
That again is simply not true. The adoption of the NHS and the Welfare State was a revolutionary act in itself. And most revolutions happen not through careful planning but through immediate necessity. The revolution in health care in the UK is now a necessity but it won't be done by the ending of universal health care. There is nothing to stop us adopting more European ways of doing things - it just takes force of will combined with necessity. We have the latter. We just need someone with the former.
I’ve just been watching an old archive programme on iplayer, “People of Paradise”. A young David Attenborough travels around the Western Pacific in 1960.
One of the most fascinating TV series I’ve watched in years. Highly recommended.
Incidentally the young and middle aged Attenborough will clearly be acted by Hugh Grant in the biopic of his life.
I am afraid the not so young or even middle aged Hugh Grant - 62 - is now too old to play Attenborough in those phases of his life.
62 is early middle age
Hmm. I suspect that if you believe that you are no where near there yet - though of course I might be wrong. It certainly doesn't feel like early middle age as you approach it.
Sack workers in a sector with unfillable vacancies. Sounds like a plan... Plus. Legal minimum service levels aren't being hit when no one is on strike. Such as Cross Country Trains. Who gets sued when they cancel a third of trains?
I’ve just been watching an old archive programme on iplayer, “People of Paradise”. A young David Attenborough travels around the Western Pacific in 1960.
One of the most fascinating TV series I’ve watched in years. Highly recommended.
Incidentally the young and middle aged Attenborough will clearly be acted by Hugh Grant in the biopic of his life.
I am afraid the not so young or even middle aged Hugh Grant - 62 - is now too old to play Attenborough in those phases of his life.
It's indicative of how far this country has sunk in the last decade that the things Sunak is promising are all basically things that we used to take for granted.
Are there no limits to the powers of this EEVVVVVILLLLL Tory scum government?
Interestingly, the Mirror fingers almost everyone there (before settling on the EVUL TORIES), except the Department of Health and the NHS. It really is bizarre how little scrutiny there is of the civil service and quangocracy in the media.
It's not bizarre at all, especially in a Labour-supporting paper, as I doubt there are many Tories in the NHS quangocracy or the Department of Health (and I worked for almost a year in the NHS quangocracy so I have some knowledge of people's political opinions and personal biases there).
Tbf, everyone looks biased to the left to you though.
They hastened its demise. I remain unconvinced it was a model that was ever going to survive in the long run. I am not saying they helped matters.
Ultimately though all universal systems of health care are redistributive. Healthy working people pay more but use less, sicker retired or poor people contribute little in funds but are heavy users. This was the objection to Obama care in the USA as making the plans more inclusive put up bills for those insured.
The way to keep costs down and allow consumer choice by freeing up capacity is by ending universal free access. I am not sure we are ready to go there, but that was how it worked here until 1948.
I disagree. Plenty of other first world countries have universal health care and they run miles better than our system. The problem is not with universal health care - which is, to my mind, the sign of a mature, progressive society. The problem is our version of universal health care which is unfit for purpose and has been for decades.
All health care systems have evolved out of the economic, historical and social developments in their particular counties, including the NHS.
While we can learn from other countries, we cannot just shift to a German system rooted in the Bismarkian system without the physical as well as the socio-political infrastructure of that system over a period of more than a century.
We have different history, culture and politics. It isn't impossible to change these to a more European way of doing things, but that is something that we have moved against in recent years, to a backward, nostalgic autarchy.
If we want to change to such a system then some home truths need to be told to the voters that put this government in power in the Red Wall and Saxon shore, and there is no sign of either Blue or Red Party being willing to touch that electoral kryptonite. The NHS may well be a corpse but both parties are chained to it.
The alternative is to try to make an obsolete system function better by slow evolution, which is the British way. We are not a revolutionary people.
That again is simply not true. The adoption of the NHS and the Welfare State was a revolutionary act in itself. And most revolutions happen not through careful planning but through immediate necessity. The revolution in health care in the UK is now a necessity but it won't be done by the ending of universal health care. There is nothing to stop us adopting more European ways of doing things - it just takes force of will combined with necessity. We have the latter. We just need someone with the former.
No the history of the origins of the NHS are more interesting and less revolutionary than that. The complex system of private, charitable and local authority hospitals that existed in the 1930s was essentially nationalised as a war time measure. By 1948 nearly all British doctors had been working for the government for the best part of a decade, either in khaki or in civies.
Obviously the national desire and landslide victory of Attlees Labour for a comprehensive welfare state was part of its genesis, but in many ways the NHS was created by formalising and continuing the war time nationalisation.
Doesn't sound like a good idea to me, certainly not politically right now, but I have a suspicion that it would be perfectly possible for Parliament to decide there is no fundamental right to strike, and make such a plan legal.
I’ve just been watching an old archive programme on iplayer, “People of Paradise”. A young David Attenborough travels around the Western Pacific in 1960.
One of the most fascinating TV series I’ve watched in years. Highly recommended.
Incidentally the young and middle aged Attenborough will clearly be acted by Hugh Grant in the biopic of his life.
I am afraid the not so young or even middle aged Hugh Grant - 62 - is now too old to play Attenborough in those phases of his life.
62 is early middle age
Hmm. I suspect that if you believe that you are no where near there yet - though of course I might be wrong. It certainly doesn't feel like early middle age as you approach it.
It's indicative of how far this country has sunk in the last decade that the things Sunak is promising are all basically things that we used to take for granted.
I think it's more of an indication of the absolute poverty of ambition at the heart of the Sunak Government than it is about the country.
It's indicative of how far this country has sunk in the last decade that the things Sunak is promising are all basically things that we used to take for granted.
I heard the next big thing is to announce that no longer will people need to fear being eaten alive by rabid wolverines.
I’ve just been watching an old archive programme on iplayer, “People of Paradise”. A young David Attenborough travels around the Western Pacific in 1960.
One of the most fascinating TV series I’ve watched in years. Highly recommended.
Incidentally the young and middle aged Attenborough will clearly be acted by Hugh Grant in the biopic of his life.
I am afraid the not so young or even middle aged Hugh Grant - 62 - is now too old to play Attenborough in those phases of his life.
62 is early middle age
Hmm. I suspect that if you believe that you are no where near there yet - though of course I might be wrong. It certainly doesn't feel like early middle age as you approach it.
6 months off
Fair enough. I can only assume you have looked after yourself better than I have.
"The prime minister said that people would hear more details about the government’s approach “in coming days” and suggested that public sector workers could be awarded a significant pay increase this year in an attempt to break the deadlock."
This is the obvious face saving way out. The 22-23 FY award stands, but the 23-24 FY award is 10% or so, so a net 14%ish settlement over two years, and everyone can get back to work.
It's indicative of how far this country has sunk in the last decade that the things Sunak is promising are all basically things that we used to take for granted.
I heard the next big thing is to announce that no longer will people need to fear being eaten alive by rabid wolverines.
I predict a 10pt rise off the back of that.
Right up until 1 person gets eaten, then all bets are off...
And so comes the motion to adjourn….. but just until the evening. Agreed. Resume 8pm local time
Do the rebels gain any benefit to dragging it out to another day? I'm sure they can squeeze something more out to wrap things up.
Question is what do they want? There seems to be mixed messaging. One I’ve heard is a change to house rules to allow a single member to bring a VONC in the Speaker. McCarthy might go for that, but he must know it’s a recipe for potential disaster. Someone like Boebert will be bringing them all the time, and it will undermine his leadership each time.
He potentially buys them off with more committee appointments etc. But the big question mark here is what all this is about. There are some reports that this is less about perks and more about personalities - there are enough rebels who simply don’t want McCarthy as Speaker and won’t enable it. If that remains the case after negotiations, he will have to consider his position.
My reading is that the rebels have got a personal grudge against McCarthy and will fold if someone like McCarthy who isn't actually the man himself is proposed.
Definition of an out of touch elite. Threatening to sack folk whose colleagues are all spending their spare time investigating better paying roles. Sainsbury's £11 ph today. Why would you be a teaching assistant?
I’ve just been watching an old archive programme on iplayer, “People of Paradise”. A young David Attenborough travels around the Western Pacific in 1960.
One of the most fascinating TV series I’ve watched in years. Highly recommended.
Incidentally the young and middle aged Attenborough will clearly be acted by Hugh Grant in the biopic of his life.
I am afraid the not so young or even middle aged Hugh Grant - 62 - is now too old to play Attenborough in those phases of his life.
62 is early middle age
Hmm. I suspect that if you believe that you are no where near there yet - though of course I might be wrong. It certainly doesn't feel like early middle age as you approach it.
6 months off
Fair enough. I can only assume you have looked after yourself better than I have.
Nope. Just today told an NHS nurse how much I drink, divided by about 3, and got some serious tooth sucking disapproval.
Are there no limits to the powers of this EEVVVVVILLLLL Tory scum government?
Interestingly, the Mirror fingers almost everyone there (before settling on the EVUL TORIES), except the Department of Health and the NHS. It really is bizarre how little scrutiny there is of the civil service and quangocracy in the media.
It's not bizarre at all, especially in a Labour-supporting paper, as I doubt there are many Tories in the NHS quangocracy or the Department of Health (and I worked for almost a year in the NHS quangocracy so I have some knowledge of people's political opinions and personal biases there).
Tbf, everyone looks biased to the left to you though.
Not true, I've worked in places that seemed to me to have a much more right-wing bias, particularly in the US. But the part of the NHS where I worked definitely wasn't one of them. Nor will it ever be - its culture and economic incentives determine that.
Sack workers in a sector with unfillable vacancies. Sounds like a plan... Plus. Legal minimum service levels aren't being hit when no one is on strike. Such as Cross Country Trains. Who gets sued when they cancel a third of trains?
They hastened its demise. I remain unconvinced it was a model that was ever going to survive in the long run. I am not saying they helped matters.
Ultimately though all universal systems of health care are redistributive. Healthy working people pay more but use less, sicker retired or poor people contribute little in funds but are heavy users. This was the objection to Obama care in the USA as making the plans more inclusive put up bills for those insured.
The way to keep costs down and allow consumer choice by freeing up capacity is by ending universal free access. I am not sure we are ready to go there, but that was how it worked here until 1948.
I disagree. Plenty of other first world countries have universal health care and they run miles better than our system. The problem is not with universal health care - which is, to my mind, the sign of a mature, progressive society. The problem is our version of universal health care which is unfit for purpose and has been for decades.
All health care systems have evolved out of the economic, historical and social developments in their particular counties, including the NHS.
While we can learn from other countries, we cannot just shift to a German system rooted in the Bismarkian system without the physical as well as the socio-political infrastructure of that system over a period of more than a century.
We have different history, culture and politics. It isn't impossible to change these to a more European way of doing things, but that is something that we have moved against in recent years, to a backward, nostalgic autarchy.
If we want to change to such a system then some home truths need to be told to the voters that put this government in power in the Red Wall and Saxon shore, and there is no sign of either Blue or Red Party being willing to touch that electoral kryptonite. The NHS may well be a corpse but both parties are chained to it.
The alternative is to try to make an obsolete system function better by slow evolution, which is the British way. We are not a revolutionary people.
That again is simply not true. The adoption of the NHS and the Welfare State was a revolutionary act in itself. And most revolutions happen not through careful planning but through immediate necessity. The revolution in health care in the UK is now a necessity but it won't be done by the ending of universal health care. There is nothing to stop us adopting more European ways of doing things - it just takes force of will combined with necessity. We have the latter. We just need someone with the former.
No the history of the origins of the NHS are more interesting and less revolutionary than that. The complex system of private, charitable and local authority hospitals that existed in the 1930s was essentially nationalised as a war time measure. By 1948 nearly all British doctors had been working for the government for the best part of a decade, either in khaki or in civies.
Obviously the national desire and landslide victory of Attlees Labour for a comprehensive welfare state was part of its genesis, but in many ways the NHS was created by formalising and continuing the war time nationalisation.
I think that's right. In many ways the grandfather of the NHS was Neville Chamberlain and the Conservative governments of the 1920s, who as Minister of Health greatly developed (not cerated as I thought) the cottage hospital system, which Labour basically nationalised after the war. And the Conservatives would almost certainly have introduced something similar, if not quite as statist, had they won the 1945 election.
They hastened its demise. I remain unconvinced it was a model that was ever going to survive in the long run. I am not saying they helped matters.
Ultimately though all universal systems of health care are redistributive. Healthy working people pay more but use less, sicker retired or poor people contribute little in funds but are heavy users. This was the objection to Obama care in the USA as making the plans more inclusive put up bills for those insured.
The way to keep costs down and allow consumer choice by freeing up capacity is by ending universal free access. I am not sure we are ready to go there, but that was how it worked here until 1948.
I disagree. Plenty of other first world countries have universal health care and they run miles better than our system. The problem is not with universal health care - which is, to my mind, the sign of a mature, progressive society. The problem is our version of universal health care which is unfit for purpose and has been for decades.
All health care systems have evolved out of the economic, historical and social developments in their particular counties, including the NHS.
While we can learn from other countries, we cannot just shift to a German system rooted in the Bismarkian system without the physical as well as the socio-political infrastructure of that system over a period of more than a century.
We have different history, culture and politics. It isn't impossible to change these to a more European way of doing things, but that is something that we have moved against in recent years, to a backward, nostalgic autarchy.
If we want to change to such a system then some home truths need to be told to the voters that put this government in power in the Red Wall and Saxon shore, and there is no sign of either Blue or Red Party being willing to touch that electoral kryptonite. The NHS may well be a corpse but both parties are chained to it.
The alternative is to try to make an obsolete system function better by slow evolution, which is the British way. We are not a revolutionary people.
That again is simply not true. The adoption of the NHS and the Welfare State was a revolutionary act in itself. And most revolutions happen not through careful planning but through immediate necessity. The revolution in health care in the UK is now a necessity but it won't be done by the ending of universal health care. There is nothing to stop us adopting more European ways of doing things - it just takes force of will combined with necessity. We have the latter. We just need someone with the former.
No the history of the origins of the NHS are more interesting and less revolutionary than that. The complex system of private, charitable and local authority hospitals that existed in the 1930s was essentially nationalised as a war time measure. By 1948 nearly all British doctors had been working for the government for the best part of a decade, either in khaki or in civies.
Obviously the national desire and landslide victory of Attlees Labour for a comprehensive welfare state was part of its genesis, but in many ways the NHS was created by formalising and continuing the war time nationalisation.
And yet those same doctors opposed the formation of the NHS by 10:1 and some in the BMA compared its foundation to Hitler's Germany.
"I have examined the Bill and it looks to me uncommonly like the first step, and a big one, to national socialism as practised in Germany.
The medical service there was early put under the dictatorship of a "medical fuhrer" The Bill will establish the minister for health in that capacity."
It's indicative of how far this country has sunk in the last decade that the things Sunak is promising are all basically things that we used to take for granted.
I heard the next big thing is to announce that no longer will people need to fear being eaten alive by rabid wolverines.
I predict a 10pt rise off the back of that.
Rulers back in the 12th century took credit for that - being an island and being able to eliminate wolves, helped along by ever increasing royal bounties for handing in dead ones - was possibly the biggest single contributor to England’s wealth in the Middle Ages, allowing sheep farming on a scale that wasn’t feasible in Europe until centuries later.
I’ve just been watching an old archive programme on iplayer, “People of Paradise”. A young David Attenborough travels around the Western Pacific in 1960.
One of the most fascinating TV series I’ve watched in years. Highly recommended.
Incidentally the young and middle aged Attenborough will clearly be acted by Hugh Grant in the biopic of his life.
I am afraid the not so young or even middle aged Hugh Grant - 62 - is now too old to play Attenborough in those phases of his life.
62 is early middle age
Hmm. I suspect that if you believe that you are no where near there yet - though of course I might be wrong. It certainly doesn't feel like early middle age as you approach it.
6 months off
Fair enough. I can only assume you have looked after yourself better than I have.
Nope. Just today told an NHS nurse how much I drink, divided by about 3, and got some serious tooth sucking disapproval.
Ah that's the answer then You have pickled yourself
Are there no limits to the powers of this EEVVVVVILLLLL Tory scum government?
Interestingly, the Mirror fingers almost everyone there (before settling on the EVUL TORIES), except the Department of Health and the NHS. It really is bizarre how little scrutiny there is of the civil service and quangocracy in the media.
It's not bizarre at all, especially in a Labour-supporting paper, as I doubt there are many Tories in the NHS quangocracy or the Department of Health (and I worked for almost a year in the NHS quangocracy so I have some knowledge of people's political opinions and personal biases there).
Tbf, everyone looks biased to the left to you though.
Not true, I've worked in places that seemed to me to have a much more right-wing bias, particularly in the US. But the part of the NHS where I worked definitely wasn't one of them. Nor will it ever be - its culture and economic incentives determine that.
Sack workers in a sector with unfillable vacancies. Sounds like a plan... Plus. Legal minimum service levels aren't being hit when no one is on strike. Such as Cross Country Trains. Who gets sued when they cancel a third of trains?
It's a plan, of sorts...
Daily Star. This is how it felt to be Kinnock facing The Sun every day..
Definition of an out of touch elite. Threatening to sack folk whose colleagues are all spending their spare time investigating better paying roles. Sainsbury's £11 ph today. Why would you be a teaching assistant?
I was briefly a supply teaching assistant when freshly graduated, and I think the main reason you would take on such a job despite better pay prospects elsewhere would be because you felt a sense of duty towards the kids at your school - because a lot of the kids at the EBD school I was mostly sent to really needed the help - possibly because the hours were convenient while your own kids were at school, or as you intended to train to become a teacher and the experience would be helpful.
My brother's partner was some mix of all three, and has now gone from being a teaching assistant to an assistant deputy head - mostly seems to be because the question she kept on being faced was, "Who else is going to do it?" And the answer was: no-one.
I’ve just been watching an old archive programme on iplayer, “People of Paradise”. A young David Attenborough travels around the Western Pacific in 1960.
One of the most fascinating TV series I’ve watched in years. Highly recommended.
Incidentally the young and middle aged Attenborough will clearly be acted by Hugh Grant in the biopic of his life.
I am afraid the not so young or even middle aged Hugh Grant - 62 - is now too old to play Attenborough in those phases of his life.
62 is early middle age
Hmm. I suspect that if you believe that you are no where near there yet - though of course I might be wrong. It certainly doesn't feel like early middle age as you approach it.
6 months off
Fair enough. I can only assume you have looked after yourself better than I have.
Nope. Just today told an NHS nurse how much I drink, divided by about 3, and got some serious tooth sucking disapproval.
In fairness they probably mentally multiplied your estimate by 5x!
I’ve just been watching an old archive programme on iplayer, “People of Paradise”. A young David Attenborough travels around the Western Pacific in 1960.
One of the most fascinating TV series I’ve watched in years. Highly recommended.
Incidentally the young and middle aged Attenborough will clearly be acted by Hugh Grant in the biopic of his life.
I am afraid the not so young or even middle aged Hugh Grant - 62 - is now too old to play Attenborough in those phases of his life.
62 is early middle age
Hmm. I suspect that if you believe that you are no where near there yet - though of course I might be wrong. It certainly doesn't feel like early middle age as you approach it.
6 months off
Fair enough. I can only assume you have looked after yourself better than I have.
Nope. Just today told an NHS nurse how much I drink, divided by about 3, and got some serious tooth sucking disapproval.
Ah that's the answer then You have pickled yourself
Definition of an out of touch elite. Threatening to sack folk whose colleagues are all spending their spare time investigating better paying roles. Sainsbury's £11 ph today. Why would you be a teaching assistant?
I was briefly a supply teaching assistant when freshly graduated, and I think the main reason you would take on such a job despite better pay prospects elsewhere would be because you felt a sense of duty towards the kids at your school - because a lot of the kids at the EBD school I was mostly sent to really needed the help - possibly because the hours were convenient while your own kids were at school, or as you intended to train to become a teacher and the experience would be helpful.
My brother's partner was some mix of all three, and has now gone from being a teaching assistant to an assistant deputy head - mostly seems to be because the question she kept on being faced was, "Who else is going to do it?" And the answer was: no-one.
I was completely bemused by the promise to reduce government debt. Not as a % of GDP, not in real terms but absolutely. So that means a surplus. In 2023! How the hell does he think that is possible with the current deficit and paying half of everyone's fuel bills?
Definition of an out of touch elite. Threatening to sack folk whose colleagues are all spending their spare time investigating better paying roles. Sainsbury's £11 ph today. Why would you be a teaching assistant?
I was briefly a supply teaching assistant when freshly graduated, and I think the main reason you would take on such a job despite better pay prospects elsewhere would be because you felt a sense of duty towards the kids at your school - because a lot of the kids at the EBD school I was mostly sent to really needed the help - possibly because the hours were convenient while your own kids were at school, or as you intended to train to become a teacher and the experience would be helpful.
My brother's partner was some mix of all three, and has now gone from being a teaching assistant to an assistant deputy head - mostly seems to be because the question she kept on being faced was, "Who else is going to do it?" And the answer was: no-one.
And so. I do my job for similar reasons. And am woefully underpaid. The answer seems to be to sack us if we complain. Go ahead punk. Make my fucking day.
I’ve just been watching an old archive programme on iplayer, “People of Paradise”. A young David Attenborough travels around the Western Pacific in 1960.
One of the most fascinating TV series I’ve watched in years. Highly recommended.
Incidentally the young and middle aged Attenborough will clearly be acted by Hugh Grant in the biopic of his life.
I am afraid the not so young or even middle aged Hugh Grant - 62 - is now too old to play Attenborough in those phases of his life.
62 is early middle age
Hmm. I suspect that if you believe that you are no where near there yet - though of course I might be wrong. It certainly doesn't feel like early middle age as you approach it.
6 months off
Fair enough. I can only assume you have looked after yourself better than I have.
Nope. Just today told an NHS nurse how much I drink, divided by about 3, and got some serious tooth sucking disapproval.
In fairness they probably mentally multiplied your estimate by 5x!
I record mine daily on an app and have done since 2017, so I actually give proper estimates of my intake. God knows what the doctors and nurses must think if they’re mentally multiplying mine.
I was completely bemused by the promise to reduce government debt. Not as a % of GDP, not in real terms but absolutely. So that means a surplus. In 2023! How the hell does he think that is possible with the current deficit and paying half of everyone's fuel bills?
Me too. I can only think he means reduce the defict. But ffs shouldn't he of all people know the difference?
Comments
Otherwise by voting machine.
However, in US Senate all roll calls are voice votes.
Addendum - Interesting, same practice in some state legislatures, for example in WA State.
In corporate tax the jury really is out on whether tax rates influence investment more or less than incentive regimes, or deduction rules or other oddities of the CT system. There’s been a general trend away from favouring low headline rates in the Northern European style to higher rates but bigger incentives in the traditional US or French style (though both have dropped rates recently). There’s also a difference between what businesses “want” or “like” and what induces investment, and a difference between what will encourage an existing UK based company to invest vs what will attract a foreign investor.
The action in terms of consumer behaviour is generally in indirect tax, though income tax levels do affect life choices especially savings decisions.
Finally, what’s good for one country in one phase of its development may be bad for another in a different phase. Low employers social security is an example: in a country with high unemployment and an inflexible labour market this may help tweak the incentives for businesses to hire staff. In a country with full employment but low wages and productivity it may disincentivise investment in technology and automation.
The relationship between tax and economics is really complex. I’ve been trying to get to the bottom of it as it’s my job (and I hopefully have an article out on it next week) but it’s tough to find any compelling evidence one way or the other despite many studies. Too many variables.
We'll see when they call his name again!
Cornette really doesn’t like anything that he sees as devaluing the trade. Stuff like the Fingerpoke of Doom and his contempt for that absolutely I get. I agree the silly stuff also has a place too, he’s a little too old school at times. But always entertaining.
I’ve not watched any New Jack shoots. I’ll have to find them. Be interested to see his take on the Mass Transit blading. He’s not someone who has a great reputation it seems but there was something fabulous about ECW in the nineties.
Have you caught any of the dark side of wrestling ? They are on YouTube.
Certainly WAY more than when I first began noticing the existence of the Congress of the United States back in the 1960s.
Testimony to the Great Migration of Latinos to the United States in the past six decades.
Also more Asian names, but its the Spanish ones that catch my ear.
Extending NI to all income, would balance offset the increase in pensions - hitting the wealthier pensioners whilst allowing the triple-lock to help the poorer ones.
(Of course the very poorest pensioners don't benefit from the triple-lock because there total income is dictated by the Pension Credit 'Standard Amount', which is not triple-locked.)
Truly fascinating to me to see how the Republican Party built itself into an extremist, conspiracy driven clown car, and now is surprised that clowns can't govern.
https://twitter.com/JoshuaPHilll/status/1610731016674476034
Members of the US House of Representatives ALWAYS want committee upgrades - and subcommittee gavels.
Has been true ever since Henry Clay was in short pants.
Yep
One reason vote for Speaker is by voice vote, is because it is NOT a Yea versus Nay vote, but instead for a Person.
@Stone_SkyNews has the latest on the election for a new speaker of the House from Washington.
https://trib.al/Rx0iR33
📺 Sky 501 and YouTube https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1610750484733693958/video/1
The way to keep costs down and allow consumer choice by freeing up capacity is by ending universal free access. I am not sure we are ready to go there, but that was how it worked here until 1948.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_by_wealth_inequality
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality
https://twitter.com/RosenzweigP/status/1610754107958038550
He potentially buys them off with more committee appointments etc. But the big question mark here is what all this is about. There are some reports that this is less about perks and more about personalities - there are enough rebels who simply don’t want McCarthy as Speaker and won’t enable it. If that remains the case after negotiations, he will have to consider his position.
One of the most fascinating TV series I’ve watched in years. Highly recommended.
Incidentally the young and middle aged Attenborough will clearly be acted by Hugh Grant in the biopic of his life.
https://www.euronews.com/2022/07/08/on-life-support-can-frances-struggling-healthcare-system-be-saved
and Germany's:
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2022/07/09/yeoc-j09.html
in fact, all of Western Europe's:
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/dec/14/a-ticking-time-bomb-healthcare-under-threat-across-western-europe
Oh, and America's:
https://news.gsu.edu/research-magazine/can-americas-healthcare-crisis-be-solved
Are there no limits to the powers of this EEVVVVVILLLLL Tory scum government?
While we can learn from other countries, we cannot just shift to a German system rooted in the Bismarkian system without the physical as well as the socio-political infrastructure of that system over a period of more than a century.
We have different history, culture and politics. It isn't impossible to change these to a more European way of doing things, but that is something that we have moved against in recent years, to a backward, nostalgic autarky.
If we want to change to such a system then some home truths need to be told to the voters that put this government in power in the Red Wall and Saxon shore, and there is no sign of either Blue or Red Party being willing to touch that electoral kryptonite. The NHS may well be a corpse but both parties are chained to it.
The alternative is to try to make an obsolete system function better by slow evolution, which is the British way. We are not a revolutionary people.
Rishi Sunak is poised to announce minimum strike legislation as soon as tomorrow
It will enable employers to sue unions and sack employees if they refuse to accept
Hearing six sectors covered - NHS, schools, rail, borders, fire, nuclear
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/69f2c02c-8c77-11ed-b24e-c1aaebfbdb8d?shareToken=da488f5271005a8f26a56fd1fa36dcb6
If the government honestly believes that sacking nurses is a good idea right now, I humbly suggest they visit Milton Keynes A&E this evening.
They will quickly change their mind.
https://twitter.com/chriscurtis94/status/1610762473132462088
TUC says it is almost certainly a breach of the human rights act and would curtail people's 'fundamental right' to strike
https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1610762504442941470
Sounds like a plan...
Plus. Legal minimum service levels aren't being hit when no one is on strike. Such as Cross Country Trains. Who gets sued when they cancel a third of trains?
Obviously the national desire and landslide victory of Attlees Labour for a comprehensive welfare state was part of its genesis, but in many ways the NHS was created by formalising and continuing the war time nationalisation.
I predict a 10pt rise off the back of that.
They know the difficulties our hospital is facing. To vote for it would be unforgivable.
https://twitter.com/chriscurtis94/status/1610764668108169216
"The prime minister said that people would hear more details about the government’s approach “in coming days” and suggested that public sector workers could be awarded a significant pay increase this year in an attempt to break the deadlock."
This is the obvious face saving way out. The 22-23 FY award stands, but the 23-24 FY award is 10% or so, so a net 14%ish settlement over two years, and everyone can get back to work.
Threatening to sack folk whose colleagues are all spending their spare time investigating better paying roles.
Sainsbury's £11 ph today. Why would you be a teaching assistant?
https://conservativehome.com/2023/01/04/i-will-only-promise-what-i-can-deliver-and-i-will-deliver-what-i-promise-sunaks-speech-full-text/
Thought this was hilarious.
But Labour did, so they got the credit.
"I have examined the Bill and it looks to me uncommonly like the first step, and a big one, to national socialism as practised in Germany.
The medical service there was early put under the dictatorship of a "medical fuhrer" The Bill will establish the minister for health in that capacity."
Alfred Cox - Former Chairman of the BMA in 1946
Teachers are unlikely to strike. The postal strikes mean enough ballots won't have been in on time.
My brother's partner was some mix of all three, and has now gone from being a teaching assistant to an assistant deputy head - mostly seems to be because the question she kept on being faced was, "Who else is going to do it?" And the answer was: no-one.
My neighbour is a trainee nurse in a and e. She said she was looking after 10 patients in a corridor last shift.
And am woefully underpaid.
The answer seems to be to sack us if we complain.
Go ahead punk. Make my fucking day.