@e_casalicchio Little surprise Hunt is now pouring cold water on his own NICs-abolishing hint.
Labour is arguing it's a BIGGER unfunded tax pledge than Truss announced — even though it's a vague ambition with no timeline
But last thing Hunt wants is to be put in the same boat as Truss
It’s not an unfunded tax cut since it hasn’t been put forward as a proposal without compensatory changes elsewhere. Getting rid of NI will be a good thing, but Labour want to poison the well on this, too, like they did with social care?
I think you've got your tenses wrong.
"Will" refers to it as something that is going to happen. Clearly you meant to use would i.e "Getting rid of NI WOULD be a good thing...". The plans for such a change don't exist beyond a vague ambition floated by someone who won't be around as Chancellor in 2025 and may not even be an MP, and as you say the compensatory changes are not spelt out.
However, even by floating the idea of getting rid of NI, what Hunt might have done is to open the door to a future Labour government merging income tax and employees NI into a new "national income contribution". If that was done simply by abolishing employees NI and loading the basic rate of income tax, then to raise the same amount of revenue the new rebranded tax could be levied at a lower basic rate than the present 20% income tax and 8% employees NI combined. And if the basic rate of the new "national income contribution" were set at say 25% or 26%, then Tory sophistry couldn't ignore NI and accuse Labour of raising the basic rate of income tax, because income tax would no longer exist.
Pensioner fury ! I think Malc would pop if that happened.
You mean the same Malc who pays no NI at 10% now 8%, has no student loan to repay at 9%, no employee pension contribution to make at say 5%, and pays no travel to work costs or childcare costs in order to be able to earn any income? And has probably already paid off the mortgage so lives without paying any housing costs let alone the extra cost of bringing up a family?
You describe my position fairly well but I do pay £3,800 in council tax which has risen by near 10% pa for 3 years
I believe it is correct to equalise the tax paid between workers and pensioners, but judging by Starmer and Reeves reaction they have no intention of doing it and are now claiming it is an unfunded tax cut of 45 billion when of course it is not
You increase the tax rate to say 22% with corresponding increases in higher rates, but also increase personal allowances to shield poorer pensioners and over a time scale of several years
I expect this to be a very important dividing line at the next GE
How's your council tax risen by 10% PA for 3 years ?
I thought only bankrupt councils could go with such whopping increases. Or are you in Drakeford's new band "I" ?
It was 9.9% last year and will be 9.6% this year and the Welsh labour government does not enforce a cap and respect Councils responsibility apparently
Woking council was a particularly poorly managed BOROUGH ! (So no adult care responsibilities) council. I'd have thought the best remedy for them would be to let their lenders take the hit.
Ben Bradley, who seemingly has every gov't job in Nottinghamshire reckons Notts C Council won't hit bankruptcy and is running for mayor basically against Labour's Nottingham City mess.
It is bigger than that N N D and D aiui.
An interesting contest.
The Tory Police Commissioner got herself banned from driving within 2 months and has been pretending she is a victim not a criminal when it is pointed out.
Good morning from Wembley. I note the Trump thread and nod that the budget was such a non-event that it has no political implications the morning after.
So, stick or twist. Is the "actually you're still paying the most amount of tax ever" budget enough to make Sunak sprint for May? Or do they need another autumn statement and thus slide towards ELE?
The big story from yesterday is Hunt's journey on equalising IT and NI which is something labour should be in favour off not objecting strenuously to it this morning
Nothing sides more with workers than this policy and I expect it to be in the conservative manifesto
As you know I'm not voting Labour...
The simple truth is that almost none of these budget measures will be enacted, by any party. The country is broken and something more substantial will be needed after the election, whenever it is.
The NI and child benefit changes together with 8.5% pension increases will be in April's pay packets
Both of which reduce the size of the tax increase. Like reducing inflation, its still an increase...
Show your working.
For a median earner on PAYE it's a tax cut.
For someone like Malc who thinks he shouldn't pay the same rates as those on PAYE it's a tax rise.
...There are next to no negative externalities from motoring...
Apart from the deaths and injuries and the cost of the emergency services?
The average number of deaths per mile driven in the UK is 0.000000009
A figure so minisculely low you need scientific notation to get a calculator to even display it.
What number of deaths per mile would you need for it to count as a negative externality?
Ultimately, there are about 1,500 deaths in the UK on the roads each year - and we're one of the safest countries in which to drive in the world. There are many more significant injuries. I'd certainly not argue that people shouldn't drive because of it - and that's not what a negative externality is. But to pretend it's a trivial negative externality is not one of your better takes.
A number that's not a rounding error from zero at 9 significant figures?
It is a trivial factor, our roads are safe. Accidents can happen in any walk of life, including walking and cycling, but any mile of driving has a 99.999991% chance of not causing a fatality.
The idea that we should have zero deaths or that roads are exceptionally dangerous is complete bunkum. Same kind of zero Covid BS.
jesus why can't we block posts from this psycho?
and you, you moron, why not give the number of deaths per inch of driving - that would be an even smaller number?
we know you are in favour of killing people, so what does it matter? surely you should be in favour of cars killing more people?
The trick, I find, is to simply ignore his posts. He’s 100% an utter peanut butter nutter.
London nightlife under Khan, and the imams and nimbies of gloom
“In Hackney, all new venues must close by 11PM Mon-Fri and 12PM at the weekend. No new venues can operate later than this.
Over time the existing venues will need new licenses and therefore the venues that are open after 11/12 will slowly erode until there is literally none left.”
There are very few imams in Hackney. The population is Black - White - Turkish - with a smattering of Vietnamese, plus the Orthodox Jews in Stamford Hill.
And it seems actual residents - at least in aggregate - are AGAINST shutting down the nighttime economy.
What seems to be happening is a toxic combination of nimbyism (“I moved next to a nightclub, and I want it closed by 11”), and the sad demographic/economic shift that is seeing young people disappear from inner London.
Yup.
It's also about densification. Streets with low level properties, which can be bulldozed for gleaming towers.
Rishi Sunak not denying that he's planning for a snap May election...
"I'm not going to say anything extra about that," he tells @theJeremyVine
Doesn’t mean anything. ANY noises about an election will take on a life of their own and create needless swirl.
Also, Hunt’s “demob” demeanour, remarked on here, also doesn’t imply anything on election dates. It is highly likely he will stand down in advance of the next election.
I’m going with Autumn, with a new Chancellor announced in the summer.
...There are next to no negative externalities from motoring...
Apart from the deaths and injuries and the cost of the emergency services?
The average number of deaths per mile driven in the UK is 0.000000009
A figure so minisculely low you need scientific notation to get a calculator to even display it.
What number of deaths per mile would you need for it to count as a negative externality?
Ultimately, there are about 1,500 deaths in the UK on the roads each year - and we're one of the safest countries in which to drive in the world. There are many more significant injuries. I'd certainly not argue that people shouldn't drive because of it - and that's not what a negative externality is. But to pretend it's a trivial negative externality is not one of your better takes.
A number that's not a rounding error from zero at 9 significant figures?
It is a trivial factor, our roads are safe. Accidents can happen in any walk of life, including walking and cycling, but any mile of driving has a 99.999991% chance of not causing a fatality.
The idea that we should have zero deaths or that roads are exceptionally dangerous is complete bunkum. Same kind of zero Covid BS.
jesus why can't we block posts from this psycho?
and you, you moron, why not give the number of deaths per inch of driving - that would be an even smaller number?
we know you are in favour of killing people, so what does it matter? surely you should be in favour of cars killing more people?
No I wont have that. I want to hear his silly views on the ukraine war. At least he gives me a good laugh.
Rishi Sunak not denying that he's planning for a snap May election...
"I'm not going to say anything extra about that," he tells @theJeremyVine
Doesn’t mean anything. ANY noises about an election will take on a life of their own and create needless swirl.
Also, Hunt’s “demob” demeanour, remarked on here, also doesn’t imply anything on election dates. It is highly likely he will stand down in advance of the next election.
I’m going with Autumn, with a new Chancellor announced in the summer.
That would be utterly Kwasi. And he's not running again either.
...There are next to no negative externalities from motoring...
Apart from the deaths and injuries and the cost of the emergency services?
The average number of deaths per mile driven in the UK is 0.000000009
A figure so minisculely low you need scientific notation to get a calculator to even display it.
What number of deaths per mile would you need for it to count as a negative externality?
Ultimately, there are about 1,500 deaths in the UK on the roads each year - and we're one of the safest countries in which to drive in the world. There are many more significant injuries. I'd certainly not argue that people shouldn't drive because of it - and that's not what a negative externality is. But to pretend it's a trivial negative externality is not one of your better takes.
A number that's not a rounding error from zero at 9 significant figures?
It is a trivial factor, our roads are safe. Accidents can happen in any walk of life, including walking and cycling, but any mile of driving has a 99.999991% chance of not causing a fatality.
The idea that we should have zero deaths or that roads are exceptionally dangerous is complete bunkum. Same kind of zero Covid BS.
jesus why can't we block posts from this psycho?
and you, you moron, why not give the number of deaths per inch of driving - that would be an even smaller number?
we know you are in favour of killing people, so what does it matter? surely you should be in favour of cars killing more people?
No I wont have that. I want to hear his silly views on the ukraine war. At least he gives me a good laugh.
...There are next to no negative externalities from motoring...
Apart from the deaths and injuries and the cost of the emergency services?
The average number of deaths per mile driven in the UK is 0.000000009
A figure so minisculely low you need scientific notation to get a calculator to even display it.
What number of deaths per mile would you need for it to count as a negative externality?
Ultimately, there are about 1,500 deaths in the UK on the roads each year - and we're one of the safest countries in which to drive in the world. There are many more significant injuries. I'd certainly not argue that people shouldn't drive because of it - and that's not what a negative externality is. But to pretend it's a trivial negative externality is not one of your better takes.
A number that's not a rounding error from zero at 9 significant figures?
It is a trivial factor, our roads are safe. Accidents can happen in any walk of life, including walking and cycling, but any mile of driving has a 99.999991% chance of not causing a fatality.
The idea that we should have zero deaths or that roads are exceptionally dangerous is complete bunkum. Same kind of zero Covid BS.
jesus why can't we block posts from this psycho?
and you, you moron, why not give the number of deaths per inch of driving - that would be an even smaller number?
we know you are in favour of killing people, so what does it matter? surely you should be in favour of cars killing more people?
OK let's avoid miles, let's talk about how many people the average driver kills per year.
0.000000 rounded to six significant figures.
Shit happens in any walk of life but let's not pretend that shit is likely or common.
Our transportation is overwhelmingly safe, that's a matter of fact and a good thing. You not liking my facts doesn't change them from being facts.
London nightlife under Khan, and the imams and nimbies of gloom
“In Hackney, all new venues must close by 11PM Mon-Fri and 12PM at the weekend. No new venues can operate later than this.
Over time the existing venues will need new licenses and therefore the venues that are open after 11/12 will slowly erode until there is literally none left.”
...There are next to no negative externalities from motoring...
Apart from the deaths and injuries and the cost of the emergency services?
The average number of deaths per mile driven in the UK is 0.000000009
A figure so minisculely low you need scientific notation to get a calculator to even display it.
What number of deaths per mile would you need for it to count as a negative externality?
Ultimately, there are about 1,500 deaths in the UK on the roads each year - and we're one of the safest countries in which to drive in the world. There are many more significant injuries. I'd certainly not argue that people shouldn't drive because of it - and that's not what a negative externality is. But to pretend it's a trivial negative externality is not one of your better takes.
A number that's not a rounding error from zero at 9 significant figures?
It is a trivial factor, our roads are safe. Accidents can happen in any walk of life, including walking and cycling, but any mile of driving has a 99.999991% chance of not causing a fatality.
The idea that we should have zero deaths or that roads are exceptionally dangerous is complete bunkum. Same kind of zero Covid BS.
Three points
* That 99.999991 number is only useful if everybody just drives one mile only in their entire lives. * 1500 deaths per year is not trivial * I just remembered you're an economist
...There are next to no negative externalities from motoring...
Apart from the deaths and injuries and the cost of the emergency services?
The average number of deaths per mile driven in the UK is 0.000000009
A figure so minisculely low you need scientific notation to get a calculator to even display it.
What number of deaths per mile would you need for it to count as a negative externality?
Ultimately, there are about 1,500 deaths in the UK on the roads each year - and we're one of the safest countries in which to drive in the world. There are many more significant injuries. I'd certainly not argue that people shouldn't drive because of it - and that's not what a negative externality is. But to pretend it's a trivial negative externality is not one of your better takes.
A number that's not a rounding error from zero at 9 significant figures?
It is a trivial factor, our roads are safe. Accidents can happen in any walk of life, including walking and cycling, but any mile of driving has a 99.999991% chance of not causing a fatality.
The idea that we should have zero deaths or that roads are exceptionally dangerous is complete bunkum. Same kind of zero Covid BS.
jesus why can't we block posts from this psycho?
and you, you moron, why not give the number of deaths per inch of driving - that would be an even smaller number?
we know you are in favour of killing people, so what does it matter? surely you should be in favour of cars killing more people?
OK let's avoid miles, let's talk about how many people the average driver kills per year.
0.000000 rounded to six significant figures.
Shit happens in any walk of life but let's not pretend that shit is likely or common.
Our transportation is overwhelmingly safe, that's a matter of fact and a good thing. You not liking my facts doesn't change them from being facts.
So why do you oppose the death penalty? You'd have much more chance of being killed on the roads than being wrongly executed.
NEW: Sunak refuses to say even that his "working assumption" is still an Autumn election. ~AA
[Keeps repeating new memorised line "we've turned the corner stick with the plan there's a brighter future ahead a renewed sense of pride in our country" - six times in five minutes!]
...There are next to no negative externalities from motoring...
Apart from the deaths and injuries and the cost of the emergency services?
The average number of deaths per mile driven in the UK is 0.000000009
A figure so minisculely low you need scientific notation to get a calculator to even display it.
What number of deaths per mile would you need for it to count as a negative externality?
Ultimately, there are about 1,500 deaths in the UK on the roads each year - and we're one of the safest countries in which to drive in the world. There are many more significant injuries. I'd certainly not argue that people shouldn't drive because of it - and that's not what a negative externality is. But to pretend it's a trivial negative externality is not one of your better takes.
A number that's not a rounding error from zero at 9 significant figures?
It is a trivial factor, our roads are safe. Accidents can happen in any walk of life, including walking and cycling, but any mile of driving has a 99.999991% chance of not causing a fatality.
The idea that we should have zero deaths or that roads are exceptionally dangerous is complete bunkum. Same kind of zero Covid BS.
Three points
* That 99.999991 number is only useful if everybody just drives one mile only in their entire lives. * 1500 deaths per year is not trivial * I just remembered you're an economist
May not be trivial but what are the costs to get the number lower. Personally i think the national speed limit on country roads should be reduced to 50 given these are actually the most dangerous roads.
London nightlife under Khan, and the imams and nimbies of gloom
“In Hackney, all new venues must close by 11PM Mon-Fri and 12PM at the weekend. No new venues can operate later than this.
Over time the existing venues will need new licenses and therefore the venues that are open after 11/12 will slowly erode until there is literally none left.”
Rishi Sunak not denying that he's planning for a snap May election...
"I'm not going to say anything extra about that," he tells @theJeremyVine
Doesn’t mean anything. ANY noises about an election will take on a life of their own and create needless swirl.
Also, Hunt’s “demob” demeanour, remarked on here, also doesn’t imply anything on election dates. It is highly likely he will stand down in advance of the next election.
I’m going with Autumn, with a new Chancellor announced in the summer.
I thought Hunt had donated huge sums of money to his local constituency party, which certainly looks like someone trying to hold on to his seat.
...There are next to no negative externalities from motoring...
Apart from the deaths and injuries and the cost of the emergency services?
The average number of deaths per mile driven in the UK is 0.000000009
A figure so minisculely low you need scientific notation to get a calculator to even display it.
What number of deaths per mile would you need for it to count as a negative externality?
Ultimately, there are about 1,500 deaths in the UK on the roads each year - and we're one of the safest countries in which to drive in the world. There are many more significant injuries. I'd certainly not argue that people shouldn't drive because of it - and that's not what a negative externality is. But to pretend it's a trivial negative externality is not one of your better takes.
A number that's not a rounding error from zero at 9 significant figures?
It is a trivial factor, our roads are safe. Accidents can happen in any walk of life, including walking and cycling, but any mile of driving has a 99.999991% chance of not causing a fatality.
The idea that we should have zero deaths or that roads are exceptionally dangerous is complete bunkum. Same kind of zero Covid BS.
This is the most egregious misuse of statistics I’ve seen in quite some time.
Never underestimate a libertarian’s aversion to any accounting of externalities that might affect their desire to do whatever they want & damn the consequences for everyone else?
Barty, car drivers have a higher crash rate per mile than any form of public transport. That extra load of injuries & deaths is a cost that driving imposes on the rest of the country. You can (reasonably, perhaps!) argue that it is a price worth paying, but it is dishonest to argue that these injuries are an irrelevance that no-one should care about because driving is “safe” according to a metric you have chosen that happens to have lots of zeros in the number.
...There are next to no negative externalities from motoring...
Apart from the deaths and injuries and the cost of the emergency services?
The average number of deaths per mile driven in the UK is 0.000000009
A figure so minisculely low you need scientific notation to get a calculator to even display it.
What number of deaths per mile would you need for it to count as a negative externality?
Ultimately, there are about 1,500 deaths in the UK on the roads each year - and we're one of the safest countries in which to drive in the world. There are many more significant injuries. I'd certainly not argue that people shouldn't drive because of it - and that's not what a negative externality is. But to pretend it's a trivial negative externality is not one of your better takes.
A number that's not a rounding error from zero at 9 significant figures?
It is a trivial factor, our roads are safe. Accidents can happen in any walk of life, including walking and cycling, but any mile of driving has a 99.999991% chance of not causing a fatality.
The idea that we should have zero deaths or that roads are exceptionally dangerous is complete bunkum. Same kind of zero Covid BS.
jesus why can't we block posts from this psycho?
and you, you moron, why not give the number of deaths per inch of driving - that would be an even smaller number?
we know you are in favour of killing people, so what does it matter? surely you should be in favour of cars killing more people?
OK let's avoid miles, let's talk about how many people the average driver kills per year.
0.000000 rounded to six significant figures.
Shit happens in any walk of life but let's not pretend that shit is likely or common.
Our transportation is overwhelmingly safe, that's a matter of fact and a good thing. You not liking my facts doesn't change them from being facts.
So why do you oppose the death penalty? You'd have much more chance of being killed on the roads than being wrongly executed.
Cost benefit ratio is much worse that's why.
Because if someone is already in custody there's a viable alternative in life in prison without parole. If a mistake is made you can release an innocent, you can't unexecute them.
Life without parole serves all the function the death penalty does so having the death penalty is only cost and no gain.
Same is not the case with roads which provide billions of miles of transportation gain per annum for negligible cost per capita or per mile.
London nightlife under Khan, and the imams and nimbies of gloom
“In Hackney, all new venues must close by 11PM Mon-Fri and 12PM at the weekend. No new venues can operate later than this.
Over time the existing venues will need new licenses and therefore the venues that are open after 11/12 will slowly erode until there is literally none left.”
...There are next to no negative externalities from motoring...
Apart from the deaths and injuries and the cost of the emergency services?
The average number of deaths per mile driven in the UK is 0.000000009
A figure so minisculely low you need scientific notation to get a calculator to even display it.
What number of deaths per mile would you need for it to count as a negative externality?
Ultimately, there are about 1,500 deaths in the UK on the roads each year - and we're one of the safest countries in which to drive in the world. There are many more significant injuries. I'd certainly not argue that people shouldn't drive because of it - and that's not what a negative externality is. But to pretend it's a trivial negative externality is not one of your better takes.
A number that's not a rounding error from zero at 9 significant figures?
It is a trivial factor, our roads are safe. Accidents can happen in any walk of life, including walking and cycling, but any mile of driving has a 99.999991% chance of not causing a fatality.
The idea that we should have zero deaths or that roads are exceptionally dangerous is complete bunkum. Same kind of zero Covid BS.
Three points
* That 99.999991 number is only useful if everybody just drives one mile only in their entire lives. * 1500 deaths per year is not trivial * I just remembered you're an economist
May not be trivial but what are the costs to get the number lower. Personally i think the national speed limit on country roads should be reduced to 50 given these are actually the most dangerous roads.
Thanks for update on road conditions in your oblast.
NEW: Sunak refuses to say even that his "working assumption" is still an Autumn election. ~AA
[Keeps repeating new memorised line "we've turned the corner stick with the plan there's a brighter future ahead a renewed sense of pride in our country" - six times in five minutes!]
What are the AA doing getting involved with this sort of thing ?
Perhaps they're hoping for better support for electric car charging infrsstructure under Labour.
NEW: Sunak refuses to say even that his "working assumption" is still an Autumn election. ~AA
[Keeps repeating new memorised line "we've turned the corner stick with the plan there's a brighter future ahead a renewed sense of pride in our country" - six times in five minutes!]
What are the AA doing getting involved with this sort of thing ?
Perhaps they're hoping for better support for electric car charging infrsstructure under Labour.
Or perhaps they are concerned that Sunaks irritating optimism will drive half the country to drink?
...There are next to no negative externalities from motoring...
Apart from the deaths and injuries and the cost of the emergency services?
The average number of deaths per mile driven in the UK is 0.000000009
A figure so minisculely low you need scientific notation to get a calculator to even display it.
What number of deaths per mile would you need for it to count as a negative externality?
Ultimately, there are about 1,500 deaths in the UK on the roads each year - and we're one of the safest countries in which to drive in the world. There are many more significant injuries. I'd certainly not argue that people shouldn't drive because of it - and that's not what a negative externality is. But to pretend it's a trivial negative externality is not one of your better takes.
A number that's not a rounding error from zero at 9 significant figures?
It is a trivial factor, our roads are safe. Accidents can happen in any walk of life, including walking and cycling, but any mile of driving has a 99.999991% chance of not causing a fatality.
The idea that we should have zero deaths or that roads are exceptionally dangerous is complete bunkum. Same kind of zero Covid BS.
Three points
* That 99.999991 number is only useful if everybody just drives one mile only in their entire lives. * 1500 deaths per year is not trivial * I just remembered you're an economist
May not be trivial but what are the costs to get the number lower. Personally i think the national speed limit on country roads should be reduced to 50 given these are actually the most dangerous roads.
The Irish government are thinking of reducing the default speed limit for smaller rural roads to 60kph from the present 80kph. I'm not sure what I think about this, but I have noticed that it's the drivers currently doing 50-60 kph that are the ones you most have to worry about. Half of them will be sozzled, and most of the other half will be nearly as old as Biden - and with worse eyesight.
Rishi Sunak not denying that he's planning for a snap May election...
"I'm not going to say anything extra about that," he tells @theJeremyVine
Doesn’t mean anything. ANY noises about an election will take on a life of their own and create needless swirl.
Also, Hunt’s “demob” demeanour, remarked on here, also doesn’t imply anything on election dates. It is highly likely he will stand down in advance of the next election.
I’m going with Autumn, with a new Chancellor announced in the summer.
I'm still going 2 May with a new Chancellor announced 3 May 👍
There are very few imams in Hackney. The population is Black - White - Turkish - with a smattering of Vietnamese, plus the Orthodox Jews in Stamford Hill.
And it seems actual residents - at least in aggregate - are AGAINST shutting down the nighttime economy.
What seems to be happening is a toxic combination of nimbyism (“I moved next to a nightclub, and I want it closed by 11”), and the sad demographic/economic shift that is seeing young people disappear from inner London.
There was a move to do this to the Ministry of Sound in Elephant & Castle when Boris was in office. Happily kiboshed.
...There are next to no negative externalities from motoring...
Apart from the deaths and injuries and the cost of the emergency services?
The average number of deaths per mile driven in the UK is 0.000000009
A figure so minisculely low you need scientific notation to get a calculator to even display it.
What number of deaths per mile would you need for it to count as a negative externality?
Ultimately, there are about 1,500 deaths in the UK on the roads each year - and we're one of the safest countries in which to drive in the world. There are many more significant injuries. I'd certainly not argue that people shouldn't drive because of it - and that's not what a negative externality is. But to pretend it's a trivial negative externality is not one of your better takes.
A number that's not a rounding error from zero at 9 significant figures?
It is a trivial factor, our roads are safe. Accidents can happen in any walk of life, including walking and cycling, but any mile of driving has a 99.999991% chance of not causing a fatality.
The idea that we should have zero deaths or that roads are exceptionally dangerous is complete bunkum. Same kind of zero Covid BS.
jesus why can't we block posts from this psycho?
and you, you moron, why not give the number of deaths per inch of driving - that would be an even smaller number?
we know you are in favour of killing people, so what does it matter? surely you should be in favour of cars killing more people?
OK let's avoid miles, let's talk about how many people the average driver kills per year.
0.000000 rounded to six significant figures.
Shit happens in any walk of life but let's not pretend that shit is likely or common.
Our transportation is overwhelmingly safe, that's a matter of fact and a good thing. You not liking my facts doesn't change them from being facts.
So why do you oppose the death penalty? You'd have much more chance of being killed on the roads than being wrongly executed.
Cost benefit ratio is much worse that's why.
Because if someone is already in custody there's a viable alternative in life in prison without parole. If a mistake is made you can release an innocent, you can't unexecute them.
Life without parole serves all the function the death penalty does so having the death penalty is only cost and no gain.
Same is not the case with roads which provide billions of miles of transportation gain per annum for negligible cost per capita or per mile.
The death penalty is clearly cheaper than providing lifetime secure accommodation so how can it be 'only cost and no gain' if you're trying to apply an economic argument?
What else where RB to do given that a lot of the messages last week could only have come from her phone.
Worth reading Joe Saward from earlier in the week for the background on this (seems to be a long running ownership argument between Red Bull and the motoring team over the future).
NEW: Sunak refuses to say even that his "working assumption" is still an Autumn election. ~AA
[Keeps repeating new memorised line "we've turned the corner stick with the plan there's a brighter future ahead a renewed sense of pride in our country" - six times in five minutes!]
There won't be a May election.
I will repeat this every day on here until it's legally too late to call one, if necessary.
...There are next to no negative externalities from motoring...
Apart from the deaths and injuries and the cost of the emergency services?
The average number of deaths per mile driven in the UK is 0.000000009
A figure so minisculely low you need scientific notation to get a calculator to even display it.
What number of deaths per mile would you need for it to count as a negative externality?
Ultimately, there are about 1,500 deaths in the UK on the roads each year - and we're one of the safest countries in which to drive in the world. There are many more significant injuries. I'd certainly not argue that people shouldn't drive because of it - and that's not what a negative externality is. But to pretend it's a trivial negative externality is not one of your better takes.
A number that's not a rounding error from zero at 9 significant figures?
It is a trivial factor, our roads are safe. Accidents can happen in any walk of life, including walking and cycling, but any mile of driving has a 99.999991% chance of not causing a fatality.
The idea that we should have zero deaths or that roads are exceptionally dangerous is complete bunkum. Same kind of zero Covid BS.
jesus why can't we block posts from this psycho?
and you, you moron, why not give the number of deaths per inch of driving - that would be an even smaller number?
we know you are in favour of killing people, so what does it matter? surely you should be in favour of cars killing more people?
OK let's avoid miles, let's talk about how many people the average driver kills per year.
0.000000 rounded to six significant figures.
Shit happens in any walk of life but let's not pretend that shit is likely or common.
Our transportation is overwhelmingly safe, that's a matter of fact and a good thing. You not liking my facts doesn't change them from being facts.
So why do you oppose the death penalty? You'd have much more chance of being killed on the roads than being wrongly executed.
Cost benefit ratio is much worse that's why.
Because if someone is already in custody there's a viable alternative in life in prison without parole. If a mistake is made you can release an innocent, you can't unexecute them.
Life without parole serves all the function the death penalty does so having the death penalty is only cost and no gain.
Same is not the case with roads which provide billions of miles of transportation gain per annum for negligible cost per capita or per mile.
The death penalty is clearly cheaper than providing lifetime secure accommodation so how can it be 'only cost and no gain' if you're trying to apply an economic argument?
...There are next to no negative externalities from motoring...
Apart from the deaths and injuries and the cost of the emergency services?
The average number of deaths per mile driven in the UK is 0.000000009
A figure so minisculely low you need scientific notation to get a calculator to even display it.
What number of deaths per mile would you need for it to count as a negative externality?
Ultimately, there are about 1,500 deaths in the UK on the roads each year - and we're one of the safest countries in which to drive in the world. There are many more significant injuries. I'd certainly not argue that people shouldn't drive because of it - and that's not what a negative externality is. But to pretend it's a trivial negative externality is not one of your better takes.
A number that's not a rounding error from zero at 9 significant figures?
It is a trivial factor, our roads are safe. Accidents can happen in any walk of life, including walking and cycling, but any mile of driving has a 99.999991% chance of not causing a fatality.
The idea that we should have zero deaths or that roads are exceptionally dangerous is complete bunkum. Same kind of zero Covid BS.
This is the most egregious misuse of statistics I’ve seen in quite some time.
Never underestimate a libertarian’s aversion to any accounting of externalities that might affect their desire to do whatever they want & damn the consequences for everyone else?
Barty, car drivers have a higher crash rate per mile than any form of public transport. That extra load of injuries & deaths is a cost that driving imposes on the rest of the country. You can (reasonably, perhaps!) argue that it is a price worth paying, but it is dishonest to argue that these injuries are an irrelevance that no-one should care about because driving is “safe” according to a metric you have chosen that happens to have lots of zeros in the number.
I didn't choose the metric, per capita or per mile is the appropriate metric to use. Hell, you yourself chose to use per mile in your opening sentence, you just omitted the figure itself which has all of those 0's in it whether you like that or not.
Yes I'm absolutely 100% saying the benefits from transportation absolutely overwhelm the tiny and sad risk that transportation has.
It's safe to any reasonable metric. Life is never without risks, nor can nor should it be, so if you're demanding 100% safety and a risk less life then I hope you never leave your home under any circumstances.
But if you never leave your home under any circumstances then that too carries risks as it will deprive you of exercise and vitamins you get going outdoors, so that's a Catch 22 problem.
Or you guys objecting can grow up, stop being so juvenile, and accept that life on the roads is overwhelmingly safe but has some minor risks for extremely unlikely unfortunate minorities.
London nightlife under Khan, and the imams and nimbies of gloom
“In Hackney, all new venues must close by 11PM Mon-Fri and 12PM at the weekend. No new venues can operate later than this.
Over time the existing venues will need new licenses and therefore the venues that are open after 11/12 will slowly erode until there is literally none left.”
A recent consultation found that 75% of Hackney residents said they were opposed to the council’s plans for a clamp down on the borough’s night time economy. This included 77% against doubling the size of the Shoreditch ‘Special Policy Area’ and 84% against making new bars close at 11pm on weekdays and midnight at weekends anywhere in the borough.
The residents are against it. Are other boroughs likely to follow suit (Thinking particularly Islington and Camden...) ? I'd have thought it's one of the big plus points for somewhere like London and surely a big attractor for young people ?!?
Yes, I don’t get it
I wonder if there is corruption. There is so much money to be made converting pubs and clubs into flats and houses. But they are literally destroying London as a 24/7 world city, so in the end it’s entirely counter productive. London will lose allure and property prices will fall
Depends what sort of consultation. If it were self-selected the club owners'd get all da yoof on a Twatter or tiktok campaign and the oldies wouldn't be so energised so the gross stats are about as useful as a pro pit bull campaign.
NEW: Sunak refuses to say even that his "working assumption" is still an Autumn election. ~AA
[Keeps repeating new memorised line "we've turned the corner stick with the plan there's a brighter future ahead a renewed sense of pride in our country" - six times in five minutes!]
Because that's what he wants the news headline to be and not "Sunak reconfirms Autumn election " or "Sunak denies May election again" - the latter being a Labour goading line for the frit angle.
NEW: Sunak refuses to say even that his "working assumption" is still an Autumn election. ~AA
[Keeps repeating new memorised line "we've turned the corner stick with the plan there's a brighter future ahead a renewed sense of pride in our country" - six times in five minutes!]
What are the AA doing getting involved with this sort of thing ?
Perhaps they're hoping for better support for electric car charging infrsstructure under Labour.
Or perhaps they are concerned that Sunaks irritating optimism will drive half the country to drink?
NEW: Sunak refuses to say even that his "working assumption" is still an Autumn election. ~AA
[Keeps repeating new memorised line "we've turned the corner stick with the plan there's a brighter future ahead a renewed sense of pride in our country" - six times in five minutes!]
He's setting the hare (or maybe the @MoonRabbit) running now.
...There are next to no negative externalities from motoring...
Apart from the deaths and injuries and the cost of the emergency services?
The average number of deaths per mile driven in the UK is 0.000000009
A figure so minisculely low you need scientific notation to get a calculator to even display it.
What number of deaths per mile would you need for it to count as a negative externality?
Ultimately, there are about 1,500 deaths in the UK on the roads each year - and we're one of the safest countries in which to drive in the world. There are many more significant injuries. I'd certainly not argue that people shouldn't drive because of it - and that's not what a negative externality is. But to pretend it's a trivial negative externality is not one of your better takes.
A number that's not a rounding error from zero at 9 significant figures?
It is a trivial factor, our roads are safe. Accidents can happen in any walk of life, including walking and cycling, but any mile of driving has a 99.999991% chance of not causing a fatality.
The idea that we should have zero deaths or that roads are exceptionally dangerous is complete bunkum. Same kind of zero Covid BS.
jesus why can't we block posts from this psycho?
and you, you moron, why not give the number of deaths per inch of driving - that would be an even smaller number?
we know you are in favour of killing people, so what does it matter? surely you should be in favour of cars killing more people?
OK let's avoid miles, let's talk about how many people the average driver kills per year.
0.000000 rounded to six significant figures.
Shit happens in any walk of life but let's not pretend that shit is likely or common.
Our transportation is overwhelmingly safe, that's a matter of fact and a good thing. You not liking my facts doesn't change them from being facts.
So why do you oppose the death penalty? You'd have much more chance of being killed on the roads than being wrongly executed.
Cost benefit ratio is much worse that's why.
Because if someone is already in custody there's a viable alternative in life in prison without parole. If a mistake is made you can release an innocent, you can't unexecute them.
Life without parole serves all the function the death penalty does so having the death penalty is only cost and no gain.
Same is not the case with roads which provide billions of miles of transportation gain per annum for negligible cost per capita or per mile.
The death penalty is clearly cheaper than providing lifetime secure accommodation so how can it be 'only cost and no gain' if you're trying to apply an economic argument?
Lawyers fees.
Also the appeals/reappeals process can typically stretch not far off a life sentence, even if the crime was committed as a young man.
...There are next to no negative externalities from motoring...
Apart from the deaths and injuries and the cost of the emergency services?
The average number of deaths per mile driven in the UK is 0.000000009
A figure so minisculely low you need scientific notation to get a calculator to even display it.
What number of deaths per mile would you need for it to count as a negative externality?
Ultimately, there are about 1,500 deaths in the UK on the roads each year - and we're one of the safest countries in which to drive in the world. There are many more significant injuries. I'd certainly not argue that people shouldn't drive because of it - and that's not what a negative externality is. But to pretend it's a trivial negative externality is not one of your better takes.
A number that's not a rounding error from zero at 9 significant figures?
It is a trivial factor, our roads are safe. Accidents can happen in any walk of life, including walking and cycling, but any mile of driving has a 99.999991% chance of not causing a fatality.
The idea that we should have zero deaths or that roads are exceptionally dangerous is complete bunkum. Same kind of zero Covid BS.
This is the most egregious misuse of statistics I’ve seen in quite some time.
Never underestimate a libertarian’s aversion to any accounting of externalities that might affect their desire to do whatever they want & damn the consequences for everyone else?
Barty, car drivers have a higher crash rate per mile than any form of public transport. That extra load of injuries & deaths is a cost that driving imposes on the rest of the country. You can (reasonably, perhaps!) argue that it is a price worth paying, but it is dishonest to argue that these injuries are an irrelevance that no-one should care about because driving is “safe” according to a metric you have chosen that happens to have lots of zeros in the number.
Fortunately, when you take the UK population as a proportion of the World Population it's only 0.007 which is near as dammit zero, so none of these issues affect anyone really, and I probably don't exist.
If we're talking of charging externalities properly, how much extra tax are motorcycle users going to have to pay ?
A set of tyres for my BMW cost 500 quid! What the fuck more do you want?
We are about 25x more likely to be killed outright in an accident than the occupant of a car so we are quite cheap. Basically just the cost of shovelling the bits into a wheelie bin.
At least one country has no problem with building new houses.
Sheep as a lamb is probably the thinking.
Stealing someone's back yard certainly solves the NIMBY thing.
It's not stealing, it was owned by Jordan and Jordan relinquished it.
Arafat had an opportunity to create a Palestinian state in that land but rejected it. He chose instead to keep the border issue undecided in favour of future negotiations.
C'est la vie.
Israel can and absolutely should do whatever suits their own interests and strengthens their hand in future negotiations. Pandering has failed.
Nonsense. Israel has no more right to annex (and ethnically cleanse) the West Bank than Russia does to annex Crimea. Israel, like all countries, should obey international law.
Replace "Israel" in your last paragraph with "Russia" and read it back. Would you agree with that? Why does Israel get to act differently?
Replace "Israel" in your last paragraph with "England", "the West Bank" with "The United States of America" or "Australia" or "Ireland" or indeed countless other examples of land acquisition through conquest and war, and you will begin to understand how the world actually works.
Shouldn't the Palestinians be Realistic about confronting a nuclear power that has an ideological belief that it should have their land? Give up and move somewhere else? Rather than fighting other peoples proxy wars to the last Palestinian?
I can't speak for the Palestinians but throughout history lands have been acquired and reaquired. I'm betting that some have done so since the formation of UNWRA which institutionalised the "refugee" status. And look at the IRA. They haven't given up and moved somewhere else.
The problem is that AFAIA Israel has existed for quite some time and hence there are competing claims. Israel agreed to the UN 1947 partition plan but the Arabs didn't. More fool them because they lost the subsequent war and some lands with it. As I said how wars work. And they have been losing wars, and land, since.
Ah. There are "competing claims". So Israel has the right to do what it like.
Well, you know, wars are pretty awful and usually stem from "competing claims". So Israel has the right to do what it believes it should do in a war.
Other than that I'm not sure what you are trying to get at which is unusual for you because you are so clever.
Is it a war ? Given that Israel completely controls the borders, and almost all of the territory of Gaza, it now has the status of an occupation. Which brings with it legal responsibilities towards the population of the occupied territory.
As our Foreign Secretary pointed out yesterday.
Israel thinks it's war.
It actually being war wouldn't excuse what is happening let alone just thinking it is.
I know. War is shit. But luckily we can rely on you to let us know what should be happening. Perhaps yet another letter calls to Bibi. Just set out your thinking clearly and I'm sure it will have an effect.
Yes yes yes. But what is your point? I mean, I get that you have a visceral aversion to people expressing criticism of what Israel is doing in Gaza. But other than that?
Good morning from Wembley. I note the Trump thread and nod that the budget was such a non-event that it has no political implications the morning after.
So, stick or twist. Is the "actually you're still paying the most amount of tax ever" budget enough to make Sunak sprint for May? Or do they need another autumn statement and thus slide towards ELE?
The big story from yesterday is Hunt's journey on equalising IT and NI which is something labour should be in favour off not objecting strenuously to it this morning
Nothing sides more with workers than this policy and I expect it to be in the conservative manifesto
As you know I'm not voting Labour...
The simple truth is that almost none of these budget measures will be enacted, by any party. The country is broken and something more substantial will be needed after the election, whenever it is.
The NI and child benefit changes together with 8.5% pension increases will be in April's pay packets
Both of which reduce the size of the tax increase. Like reducing inflation, its still an increase...
Show your working.
For a median earner on PAYE it's a tax cut.
For someone like Malc who thinks he shouldn't pay the same rates as those on PAYE it's a tax rise.
Listen you lying little snake. I pay all the same taxes as everyone else and I bet multiple times the money you are paying as a thick low income sponger. I pay more than twice your minimum income so that you can get loads of freebies for you and your brood.
...There are next to no negative externalities from motoring...
Apart from the deaths and injuries and the cost of the emergency services?
The average number of deaths per mile driven in the UK is 0.000000009
A figure so minisculely low you need scientific notation to get a calculator to even display it.
What number of deaths per mile would you need for it to count as a negative externality?
Ultimately, there are about 1,500 deaths in the UK on the roads each year - and we're one of the safest countries in which to drive in the world. There are many more significant injuries. I'd certainly not argue that people shouldn't drive because of it - and that's not what a negative externality is. But to pretend it's a trivial negative externality is not one of your better takes.
A number that's not a rounding error from zero at 9 significant figures?
It is a trivial factor, our roads are safe. Accidents can happen in any walk of life, including walking and cycling, but any mile of driving has a 99.999991% chance of not causing a fatality.
The idea that we should have zero deaths or that roads are exceptionally dangerous is complete bunkum. Same kind of zero Covid BS.
This is the most egregious misuse of statistics I’ve seen in quite some time.
Never underestimate a libertarian’s aversion to any accounting of externalities that might affect their desire to do whatever they want & damn the consequences for everyone else?
Barty, car drivers have a higher crash rate per mile than any form of public transport. That extra load of injuries & deaths is a cost that driving imposes on the rest of the country. You can (reasonably, perhaps!) argue that it is a price worth paying, but it is dishonest to argue that these injuries are an irrelevance that no-one should care about because driving is “safe” according to a metric you have chosen that happens to have lots of zeros in the number.
I didn't choose the metric, per capita or per mile is the appropriate metric to use. Hell, you yourself chose to use per mile in your opening sentence, you just omitted the figure itself which has all of those 0's in it whether you like that or not.
Yes I'm absolutely 100% saying the benefits from transportation absolutely overwhelm the tiny and sad risk that transportation has.
It's safe to any reasonable metric. Life is never without risks, nor can nor should it be, so if you're demanding 100% safety and a risk less life then I hope you never leave your home under any circumstances.
But if you never leave your home under any circumstances then that too carries risks as it will deprive you of exercise and vitamins you get going outdoors, so that's a Catch 22 problem.
Or you guys objecting can grow up, stop being so juvenile, and accept that life on the roads is overwhelmingly safe but has some minor risks for extremely unlikely unfortunate minorities.
The other dishonesty here is, of course, the focus on the death rate to the exclusion of all else.
Personally, I don’t think it matters to you whether car driving is “safe”: You ignore all the externalities & push back whenever they are pointed out to you because, to you, driving represents freedom & you can’t stand the idea that your personal freedom might be constrained.
...There are next to no negative externalities from motoring...
Apart from the deaths and injuries and the cost of the emergency services?
The average number of deaths per mile driven in the UK is 0.000000009
A figure so minisculely low you need scientific notation to get a calculator to even display it.
What number of deaths per mile would you need for it to count as a negative externality?
Ultimately, there are about 1,500 deaths in the UK on the roads each year - and we're one of the safest countries in which to drive in the world. There are many more significant injuries. I'd certainly not argue that people shouldn't drive because of it - and that's not what a negative externality is. But to pretend it's a trivial negative externality is not one of your better takes.
A number that's not a rounding error from zero at 9 significant figures?
It is a trivial factor, our roads are safe. Accidents can happen in any walk of life, including walking and cycling, but any mile of driving has a 99.999991% chance of not causing a fatality.
The idea that we should have zero deaths or that roads are exceptionally dangerous is complete bunkum. Same kind of zero Covid BS.
This is the most egregious misuse of statistics I’ve seen in quite some time.
Never underestimate a libertarian’s aversion to any accounting of externalities that might affect their desire to do whatever they want & damn the consequences for everyone else?
Barty, car drivers have a higher crash rate per mile than any form of public transport. That extra load of injuries & deaths is a cost that driving imposes on the rest of the country. You can (reasonably, perhaps!) argue that it is a price worth paying, but it is dishonest to argue that these injuries are an irrelevance that no-one should care about because driving is “safe” according to a metric you have chosen that happens to have lots of zeros in the number.
Fortunately, when you take the UK population as a proportion of the World Population it's only 0.007 which is near as dammit zero, so none of these issues affect anyone really, and I probably don't exist.
London nightlife under Khan, and the imams and nimbies of gloom
“In Hackney, all new venues must close by 11PM Mon-Fri and 12PM at the weekend. No new venues can operate later than this.
Over time the existing venues will need new licenses and therefore the venues that are open after 11/12 will slowly erode until there is literally none left.”
If we're talking of charging externalities properly, how much extra tax are motorcycle users going to have to pay ?
If there weren't any motorcyclists you'd possibly reduce the level of spinal injuries such that you had to merge most of the specialist spinal injuries units so that the consultants could keep their hand in.
Rishi Sunak not denying that he's planning for a snap May election...
"I'm not going to say anything extra about that," he tells @theJeremyVine
Doesn’t mean anything. ANY noises about an election will take on a life of their own and create needless swirl.
Also, Hunt’s “demob” demeanour, remarked on here, also doesn’t imply anything on election dates. It is highly likely he will stand down in advance of the next election.
I’m going with Autumn, with a new Chancellor announced in the summer.
However.
Having scraped off an indecent slice of barrel bottom to cobble together some tax cut headlines this time round, it will be a struggle to repeat the trick a third time. The government can't even afford the paper for a "there's no money left" note.
Yesterday was a bit shit or bust. Unfortunately for Team Rishi, the government is both.
Rishi Sunak not denying that he's planning for a snap May election...
"I'm not going to say anything extra about that," he tells @theJeremyVine
How would it be a snap election?
Every election where you don't let cthe clock run out is a snap election the day before it is called.
I always understood a snap election to be one called at short notice (reduced campaign time etc). Isn't the minimum length of time needed longer nowadays?
If we're talking of charging externalities properly, how much extra tax are motorcycle users going to have to pay ?
A set of tyres for my BMW cost 500 quid! What the fuck more do you want?
We are about 25x more likely to be killed outright in an accident than the occupant of a car so we are quite cheap. Basically just the cost of shovelling the bits into a wheelie bin.
The wheelie bins the council can't afford to collect?
Vine: "You're sticking to Labour's plan. The non-dom policy is a Labour policy that you said wouldn't work."
PM: "It's all part of our plan... more investment in the NHS, cutting taxes by significant amount, debt falling, no extra borrowing."
So, MAGIC. The plan is MAGIC.
It's quite sad. Most people have commented on the budget but I don't think the fact that it's nonsense has been remarked upon enough. IIUC it's based on assumptions that aren't true or are unlikely to happen, and includes things designed to detonate during a Labour administration. I know politics requires attacking your opponent but surely there must be some pride in the job? They're not (meant to be) hooky plumbers.
...There are next to no negative externalities from motoring...
Apart from the deaths and injuries and the cost of the emergency services?
The average number of deaths per mile driven in the UK is 0.000000009
A figure so minisculely low you need scientific notation to get a calculator to even display it.
What number of deaths per mile would you need for it to count as a negative externality?
Ultimately, there are about 1,500 deaths in the UK on the roads each year - and we're one of the safest countries in which to drive in the world. There are many more significant injuries. I'd certainly not argue that people shouldn't drive because of it - and that's not what a negative externality is. But to pretend it's a trivial negative externality is not one of your better takes.
A number that's not a rounding error from zero at 9 significant figures?
It is a trivial factor, our roads are safe. Accidents can happen in any walk of life, including walking and cycling, but any mile of driving has a 99.999991% chance of not causing a fatality.
The idea that we should have zero deaths or that roads are exceptionally dangerous is complete bunkum. Same kind of zero Covid BS.
jesus why can't we block posts from this psycho?
and you, you moron, why not give the number of deaths per inch of driving - that would be an even smaller number?
we know you are in favour of killing people, so what does it matter? surely you should be in favour of cars killing more people?
OK let's avoid miles, let's talk about how many people the average driver kills per year.
0.000000 rounded to six significant figures.
Shit happens in any walk of life but let's not pretend that shit is likely or common.
Our transportation is overwhelmingly safe, that's a matter of fact and a good thing. You not liking my facts doesn't change them from being facts.
So why do you oppose the death penalty? You'd have much more chance of being killed on the roads than being wrongly executed.
Cost benefit ratio is much worse that's why.
Because if someone is already in custody there's a viable alternative in life in prison without parole. If a mistake is made you can release an innocent, you can't unexecute them.
Life without parole serves all the function the death penalty does so having the death penalty is only cost and no gain.
Same is not the case with roads which provide billions of miles of transportation gain per annum for negligible cost per capita or per mile.
The death penalty is clearly cheaper than providing lifetime secure accommodation so how can it be 'only cost and no gain' if you're trying to apply an economic argument?
Lawyers fees.
Also the appeals/reappeals process can typically stretch not far off a life sentence, even if the crime was committed as a young man.
The argument is always that we return to the good-old British method. Weren't you given three Sundays between sentencing and execution to make an appeal and then ask the Home Secretary for clemency? If both failed it was trapdoor time.
At least one country has no problem with building new houses.
Sheep as a lamb is probably the thinking.
Stealing someone's back yard certainly solves the NIMBY thing.
It's not stealing, it was owned by Jordan and Jordan relinquished it.
Arafat had an opportunity to create a Palestinian state in that land but rejected it. He chose instead to keep the border issue undecided in favour of future negotiations.
C'est la vie.
Israel can and absolutely should do whatever suits their own interests and strengthens their hand in future negotiations. Pandering has failed.
Nonsense. Israel has no more right to annex (and ethnically cleanse) the West Bank than Russia does to annex Crimea. Israel, like all countries, should obey international law.
Replace "Israel" in your last paragraph with "Russia" and read it back. Would you agree with that? Why does Israel get to act differently?
Replace "Israel" in your last paragraph with "England", "the West Bank" with "The United States of America" or "Australia" or "Ireland" or indeed countless other examples of land acquisition through conquest and war, and you will begin to understand how the world actually works.
Shouldn't the Palestinians be Realistic about confronting a nuclear power that has an ideological belief that it should have their land? Give up and move somewhere else? Rather than fighting other peoples proxy wars to the last Palestinian?
I can't speak for the Palestinians but throughout history lands have been acquired and reaquired. I'm betting that some have done so since the formation of UNWRA which institutionalised the "refugee" status. And look at the IRA. They haven't given up and moved somewhere else.
The problem is that AFAIA Israel has existed for quite some time and hence there are competing claims. Israel agreed to the UN 1947 partition plan but the Arabs didn't. More fool them because they lost the subsequent war and some lands with it. As I said how wars work. And they have been losing wars, and land, since.
Ah. There are "competing claims". So Israel has the right to do what it like.
Well, you know, wars are pretty awful and usually stem from "competing claims". So Israel has the right to do what it believes it should do in a war.
Other than that I'm not sure what you are trying to get at which is unusual for you because you are so clever.
Is it a war ? Given that Israel completely controls the borders, and almost all of the territory of Gaza, it now has the status of an occupation. Which brings with it legal responsibilities towards the population of the occupied territory.
As our Foreign Secretary pointed out yesterday.
Israel thinks it's war.
It actually being war wouldn't excuse what is happening let alone just thinking it is.
I know. War is shit. But luckily we can rely on you to let us know what should be happening. Perhaps yet another letter calls to Bibi. Just set out your thinking clearly and I'm sure it will have an effect.
Yes yes yes. But what is your point? I mean, I get that you have a visceral aversion to people expressing criticism of what Israel is doing in Gaza. But other than that?
I don't have a visceral dislike of them criticising Israel's actions. I just point out the illogicalities and inconsistencies and wishful thinking in their arguments.
That line of attack won't work, as it did for Gordon Brown, because there was never any serious intention of holding one then in the first place.
SKS will still try though. So will you.
I think the reason the comparison with Brown doesn't work is that we're only months away no matter what he decides. It's not the same as a choice between 2007 and 2010.
Good morning from Wembley. I note the Trump thread and nod that the budget was such a non-event that it has no political implications the morning after.
So, stick or twist. Is the "actually you're still paying the most amount of tax ever" budget enough to make Sunak sprint for May? Or do they need another autumn statement and thus slide towards ELE?
The big story from yesterday is Hunt's journey on equalising IT and NI which is something labour should be in favour off not objecting strenuously to it this morning
Nothing sides more with workers than this policy and I expect it to be in the conservative manifesto
As you know I'm not voting Labour...
The simple truth is that almost none of these budget measures will be enacted, by any party. The country is broken and something more substantial will be needed after the election, whenever it is.
The NI and child benefit changes together with 8.5% pension increases will be in April's pay packets
Both of which reduce the size of the tax increase. Like reducing inflation, its still an increase...
Show your working.
For a median earner on PAYE it's a tax cut.
For someone like Malc who thinks he shouldn't pay the same rates as those on PAYE it's a tax rise.
Listen you lying little snake. I pay all the same taxes as everyone else and I bet multiple times the money you are paying as a thick low income sponger. I pay more than twice your minimum income so that you can get loads of freebies for you and your brood.
National Insurance is a tax you nincompoop.
HMRC says its a tax under international law and treaties.
Rishi Sunak not denying that he's planning for a snap May election...
"I'm not going to say anything extra about that," he tells @theJeremyVine
How would it be a snap election?
Every election where you don't let cthe clock run out is a snap election the day before it is called.
I always understood a snap election to be one called at short notice (reduced campaign time etc). Isn't the minimum length of time needed longer nowadays?
Yes - the minimum campaign period is now 25 working days, days which are bank holidays in any part of the UK are excluded.
In Feb 1974 Ted Heath called an election on 7th with polling day just 3 weeks later - that really was a snap election but it would not be possible now.
Is the budget falling apart yet, after one night of everyone looking through the details?
Give it a couple of days.
The Resolution Foundation pointed out that the pre election tax cuts are a bit of a con, as there's £19bn of tax increase already baked in after the next election.
The OBR guy had a good point about the difficulty of forecasting. They get fairly detailed tax plans from government - but literally zero detail other, than the single headline government spending figure, for departmental spending plans. Hunt has in this budget awarded himself £20bn of future cuts in his planning, without a single inkling of how this will be delivered.
I think the regular criticisms of OBR forecasts are to great extent based on a poor understanding of what is possible.
If a good (let's face it reasonable would be an improvement) forecast is not possible, why should Government spending be based on them?
Since 2010 the UK has had the weakest GDP per capita, the lowest wage growth, and among the highest unemployment rates of any period of government since WWII. Striking chart from the @resfoundation this morning 👇
Since 2010 the UK has had the weakest GDP per capita, the lowest wage growth, and among the highest unemployment rates of any period of government since WWII. Striking chart from the @resfoundation this morning 👇
UK unemployment rate is 3.8%
The UK has not had the highest unemployment rates of any period since WWII.
Anyone claiming that is playing silly buggers with the statistics.
If we're talking of charging externalities properly, how much extra tax are motorcycle users going to have to pay ?
A set of tyres for my BMW cost 500 quid! What the fuck more do you want?
We are about 25x more likely to be killed outright in an accident than the occupant of a car so we are quite cheap. Basically just the cost of shovelling the bits into a wheelie bin.
The wheelie bins the council can't afford to collect?
DA forgot the overtime spent looking for the bits. They do get scattered.
London nightlife under Khan, and the imams and nimbies of gloom
“In Hackney, all new venues must close by 11PM Mon-Fri and 12PM at the weekend. No new venues can operate later than this.
Over time the existing venues will need new licenses and therefore the venues that are open after 11/12 will slowly erode until there is literally none left.”
At least one country has no problem with building new houses.
Sheep as a lamb is probably the thinking.
Stealing someone's back yard certainly solves the NIMBY thing.
It's not stealing, it was owned by Jordan and Jordan relinquished it.
Arafat had an opportunity to create a Palestinian state in that land but rejected it. He chose instead to keep the border issue undecided in favour of future negotiations.
C'est la vie.
Israel can and absolutely should do whatever suits their own interests and strengthens their hand in future negotiations. Pandering has failed.
Nonsense. Israel has no more right to annex (and ethnically cleanse) the West Bank than Russia does to annex Crimea. Israel, like all countries, should obey international law.
Replace "Israel" in your last paragraph with "Russia" and read it back. Would you agree with that? Why does Israel get to act differently?
Replace "Israel" in your last paragraph with "England", "the West Bank" with "The United States of America" or "Australia" or "Ireland" or indeed countless other examples of land acquisition through conquest and war, and you will begin to understand how the world actually works.
Shouldn't the Palestinians be Realistic about confronting a nuclear power that has an ideological belief that it should have their land? Give up and move somewhere else? Rather than fighting other peoples proxy wars to the last Palestinian?
I can't speak for the Palestinians but throughout history lands have been acquired and reaquired. I'm betting that some have done so since the formation of UNWRA which institutionalised the "refugee" status. And look at the IRA. They haven't given up and moved somewhere else.
The problem is that AFAIA Israel has existed for quite some time and hence there are competing claims. Israel agreed to the UN 1947 partition plan but the Arabs didn't. More fool them because they lost the subsequent war and some lands with it. As I said how wars work. And they have been losing wars, and land, since.
Ah. There are "competing claims". So Israel has the right to do what it like.
Well, you know, wars are pretty awful and usually stem from "competing claims". So Israel has the right to do what it believes it should do in a war.
Other than that I'm not sure what you are trying to get at which is unusual for you because you are so clever.
Is it a war ? Given that Israel completely controls the borders, and almost all of the territory of Gaza, it now has the status of an occupation. Which brings with it legal responsibilities towards the population of the occupied territory.
As our Foreign Secretary pointed out yesterday.
Israel thinks it's war.
It actually being war wouldn't excuse what is happening let alone just thinking it is.
I know. War is shit. But luckily we can rely on you to let us know what should be happening. Perhaps yet another letter calls to Bibi. Just set out your thinking clearly and I'm sure it will have an effect.
Yes yes yes. But what is your point? I mean, I get that you have a visceral aversion to people expressing criticism of what Israel is doing in Gaza. But other than that?
I don't have a visceral dislike of them criticising Israel's actions. I just point out the illogicalities and inconsistencies and wishful thinking in their arguments.
Oh but you do. Any criticism of Israel and you're all over it like some rapid rebuttal unit.
As for what you point out, it seems to boil down to "this is war" and all is therefore fair. Rather a conversation stopper.
And inconsistency? Well what about other wars? Do you apply the same mantra across the board? That it's wrong to criticise the excesses?
Surely you don't. So why such latitude towards Israel?
That line of attack won't work, as it did for Gordon Brown, because there was never any serious intention of holding one then in the first place.
SKS will still try though. So will you.
What was the line Cameron used? Something like, "Brown is the only man scared to call an election that he thinks he will win."
No-one is going to think that Sunak is hiding from an election he might win. Everyone understands that he'll wait to pretty much the last moment because he's facing defeat.
Interesting article Wes Streeting might take a look at. Any comments, @Foxy ?
What the NHS can and cannot learn from the Singaporean health care system https://www.smf.co.uk/publications/nhs-lessons-from-singapore/ There is no simple reason why Singapore spends less than other developed countries on healthcare: Singaporean public hospitals do not deliver markedly lower unit costs than peer countries. Singapore charges patients to access healthcare services, and while this moderates demand, it cannot fully explain Singapore’s low hospital utilisation. Low demand is largely determined by population health and culture, which are difficult to emulate. Hong Kong and Taiwan spend more than Singapore on healthcare, but much less than Western countries. All three East Asian states have very low levels of obesity, high life expectancy, and low health inequality. Health experts should not uncritically cite parts of Singapore’s system to justify their favoured programme of reform. Instead, they should provide evidence that a specific part of Singapore’s healthcare system works better than the NHS. This paper applies this method to primary care.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The NHS should grant prescribing rights to Singaporean doctors, building on an existing EU Directive. Demand for private GP appointments is growing as patients struggle to access timely care. An appointment on a Singaporean telemedicine app costs half as much as private UK providers, and British patients are already using this service. The government should formalise this process, and make it accessible to more people. NHS England should trial Singaporean-style polyclinics in areas of England with too few GPs. Singaporean polyclinics deliver lower unit costs, and pay their doctors more than NHS GP practices...
Too late now, but Sunak should have called the election for Maundy Thursday.
Then we wouldn't have had to worry about having to go to work after staying up for the results, and would be able to go on a 4-day bender to celebrate kicking the Tories out of office.
Have Labour branded the Chancellor yet and called him Mr. Raider and called him Mr. Wrong?
Are you confusing Culture Beat with Snap? 😈
One of my problems as a teenager was trying to make sense of the lyrics – who is Mr Raider and why would he be called Mr Wrong? I struggled, I can tell you.
Only much later in life did I realise it was a gang of Germans with almost zero command of English and they just fitted rhymes to the track.
As an aside, I once had a client called Mr Rayner, and he always reminded me of the track.
Too late now, but Sunak should have called the election for Maundy Thursday.
Then we wouldn't have had to worry about having to go to work after staying up for the results, and would be able to go on a 4-day bender to celebrate kicking the Tories out of office.
Indeed, that was rather thoughtless of him.
(Although being pedantic I presume it's illegal to call an election when the count falls on a bank holiday?)
Vine: "You're sticking to Labour's plan. The non-dom policy is a Labour policy that you said wouldn't work."
PM: "It's all part of our plan... more investment in the NHS, cutting taxes by significant amount, debt falling, no extra borrowing."
So, MAGIC. The plan is MAGIC.
It's quite sad. Most people have commented on the budget but I don't think the fact that it's nonsense has been remarked upon enough. IIUC it's based on assumptions that aren't true or are unlikely to happen, and includes things designed to detonate during a Labour administration. I know politics requires attacking your opponent but surely there must be some pride in the job? They're not (meant to be) hooky plumbers.
I agree. Its political spite wrapped in a budget. Not happy to have sold the farm they've salted the land too.
Traditionally those with property were said to have the most to lose by fucking the country. As capital is now so fluid and green cards available, maybe the wealthiest win with this new conservative cynicism.
That line of attack won't work, as it did for Gordon Brown, because there was never any serious intention of holding one then in the first place.
SKS will still try though. So will you.
What was the line Cameron used? Something like, "Brown is the only man scared to call an election that he thinks he will win."
No-one is going to think that Sunak is hiding from an election he might win. Everyone understands that he'll wait to pretty much the last moment because he's facing defeat.
Hmm. I'm not sure "Sunak is clinging on until the bitter end because he is scared of what the electorate will do to him" is a much better look TBH.
I can only hope this old story is not appropriate next January: “This is summed up very nicely in a mid-seventh-century story about a certain abbot, to whom God appeared in a dream. ‘Is it true that all rulers are appointed by heavenly command?’ he asked. The answer was positive. ‘Then why, O Lord, did you send the wicked tyrant Phocas to rule over the Roman people?’ ‘Because’, came the stern reply, ‘I could find no one worse.’
On the first point, these are the figures. It seems (to this naive observer) fairly persuasive.
...During a recent trip, I met with the CEO of the largest telemedicine provider in Singapore. He casually mentioned that UK patients were already using his service. This seemed surprising. No comprehensive data is available for the costs of UK telemedicine services, so I googled the cost of online appointments in the UK and Singapore. Singaporean appointments are less than half the price of those in the UK. The most affordable online appointment I found in the UK was £29. Yet, many providers charge significantly more – for instance, Babylon Health lists its price for private GP appointments at £59. In contrast, Doctor Anywhere, Singapore's leading telemedicine provider, offers services for just £12.27 Doctor Anywhere has an app where patients can log on and see patients virtually. They make and then register the diagnosis. The rest of the process, including referrals and prescriptions, is automated.
Doctor Anywhere operates under a unique regulatory framework established by the Singaporean Ministry of Health. Specifically, it is part of the regulatory sandbox for telemedicine providers, which falls under the Licensing Experimentation and Adaptation Programme.28 This programme is designed to enable the development of innovative healthcare services in a controlled and safe environment. In addition to this, Doctor Anywhere adheres to the National Telemedicine Guidelines and the Singapore Medical Council's Ethical Code and Ethical Guidelines.29 Their practices also comply with the Public Hospitals and Medical Clinics Guidelines, ensuring a high standard of medical care. The only drawback is that Singaporean doctors currently cannot write prescriptions for UK patients...
That line of attack won't work, as it did for Gordon Brown, because there was never any serious intention of holding one then in the first place.
SKS will still try though. So will you.
What was the line Cameron used? Something like, "Brown is the only man scared to call an election that he thinks he will win."
No-one is going to think that Sunak is hiding from an election he might win. Everyone understands that he'll wait to pretty much the last moment because he's facing defeat.
Hmm. I'm not sure "Sunak is clinging on until the bitter end because he is scared of what the electorate will do to him" is a much better look TBH.
It's not great, but no-one is going to seriously believe that Sunak had decided to call an election in May and then bottled it - but people do believe that Brown had decided to call an election in autumn 2007 and then bottled it.
Comments
An interesting contest.
The Tory Police Commissioner got herself banned from driving within 2 months and has been pretending she is a victim not a criminal when it is pointed out.
For a median earner on PAYE it's a tax cut.
For someone like Malc who thinks he shouldn't pay the same rates as those on PAYE it's a tax rise.
He’s 100% an utter peanut butter nutter.
Rishi Sunak not denying that he's planning for a snap May election...
"I'm not going to say anything extra about that," he tells @theJeremyVine
Free Parking has been posted for some reason so no controls, and there are wankers in BMWs driving the wrong way everywhere.
Did Hunt put something in the kludget?
It's also about densification. Streets with low level properties, which can be bulldozed for gleaming towers.
ANY noises about an election will take on a life of their own and create needless swirl.
Also, Hunt’s “demob” demeanour, remarked on here, also doesn’t imply anything on election dates.
It is highly likely he will stand down in advance of the next election.
I’m going with Autumn, with a new Chancellor announced in the summer.
And he's not running again either.
0.000000 rounded to six significant figures.
Shit happens in any walk of life but let's not pretend that shit is likely or common.
Our transportation is overwhelmingly safe, that's a matter of fact and a good thing. You not liking my facts doesn't change them from being facts.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.4758208,-2.2422694,3a,75y,73.04h,96.93t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sHUosFjOjqA0UC4B9Swcu6g!2e0!5s20080701T000000!7i13312!8i6656?entry=ttu
Now a Tesco Express.
A trend that will sadly continue.
* That 99.999991 number is only useful if everybody just drives one mile only in their entire lives.
* 1500 deaths per year is not trivial
* I just remembered you're an economist
NEW: Sunak refuses to say even that his "working assumption" is still an Autumn election. ~AA
[Keeps repeating new memorised line "we've turned the corner stick with the plan there's a brighter future ahead a renewed sense of pride in our country" - six times in five minutes!]
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/spring-budget-2024/spring-budget-2024-html
Never underestimate a libertarian’s aversion to any accounting of externalities that might affect their desire to do whatever they want & damn the consequences for everyone else?
Barty, car drivers have a higher crash rate per mile than any form of public transport. That extra load of injuries & deaths is a cost that driving imposes on the rest of the country. You can (reasonably, perhaps!) argue that it is a price worth paying, but it is dishonest to argue that these injuries are an irrelevance that no-one should care about because driving is “safe” according to a metric you have chosen that happens to have lots of zeros in the number.
Because if someone is already in custody there's a viable alternative in life in prison without parole. If a mistake is made you can release an innocent, you can't unexecute them.
Life without parole serves all the function the death penalty does so having the death penalty is only cost and no gain.
Same is not the case with roads which provide billions of miles of transportation gain per annum for negligible cost per capita or per mile.
Perhaps they're hoping for better support for electric car charging infrsstructure under Labour.
Red Bull suspend woman who accused Christian Horner of inappropriate behaviour
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/68501426
I agree with you.
Worth reading Joe Saward from earlier in the week for the background on this (seems to be a long running ownership argument between Red Bull and the motoring team over the future).
I will repeat this every day on here until it's legally too late to call one, if necessary.
Yes I'm absolutely 100% saying the benefits from transportation absolutely overwhelm the tiny and sad risk that transportation has.
It's safe to any reasonable metric. Life is never without risks, nor can nor should it be, so if you're demanding 100% safety and a risk less life then I hope you never leave your home under any circumstances.
But if you never leave your home under any circumstances then that too carries risks as it will deprive you of exercise and vitamins you get going outdoors, so that's a Catch 22 problem.
Or you guys objecting can grow up, stop being so juvenile, and accept that life on the roads is overwhelmingly safe but has some minor risks for extremely unlikely unfortunate minorities.
There's a lot of confirmation bias going on here.
It's going to be 2 May, isn't it?
https://edition.cnn.com/2024/03/07/media/donald-trump-super-tuesday-rupert-murdoch/index.html
We are about 25x more likely to be killed outright in an accident than the occupant of a car so we are quite cheap. Basically just the cost of shovelling the bits into a wheelie bin.
Will Sunak bottle it???
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13168263/Could-general-election-Rishi-polls-just-EIGHT-weeks-time-doesnt-play-safe-wait-Autumn.html
Personally, I don’t think it matters to you whether car driving is “safe”: You ignore all the externalities & push back whenever they are pointed out to you because, to you, driving represents freedom & you can’t stand the idea that your personal freedom might be constrained.
PM: "It's all part of our plan... more investment in the NHS, cutting taxes by significant amount, debt falling, no extra borrowing."
So, MAGIC. The plan is MAGIC.
Having scraped off an indecent slice of barrel bottom to cobble together some tax cut headlines this time round, it will be a struggle to repeat the trick a third time. The government can't even afford the paper for a "there's no money left" note.
Yesterday was a bit shit or bust. Unfortunately for Team Rishi, the government is both.
SKS will still try though. So will you.
I didn't see it, but assume she mis-named Mr Hunt?
HMRC says its a tax under international law and treaties.
Do you pay that? Or did you not understand that?
Are you lying, or ignorant?
In Feb 1974 Ted Heath called an election on 7th with polling day just 3 weeks later - that really was a snap election but it would not be possible now.
You can’t trust the Tories with public finances, sadly.
That Labour are also along for the ride is also depressing.
After Brexit, when will Britain be ready to listen to the truth? You can’t solve any problem without at first acknowledging it.
Frit! Frit! Frit!
Since 2010 the UK has had the weakest GDP per capita, the lowest wage growth, and among the highest unemployment rates of any period of government since WWII.
Striking chart from the @resfoundation this morning 👇
The Kremlin are probably reasonably happy, all told, with the length of his shift.
The UK has not had the highest unemployment rates of any period since WWII.
Anyone claiming that is playing silly buggers with the statistics.
As for what you point out, it seems to boil down to "this is war" and all is therefore fair. Rather a conversation stopper.
And inconsistency? Well what about other wars? Do you apply the same mantra across the board? That it's wrong to criticise the excesses?
Surely you don't. So why such latitude towards Israel?
No-one is going to think that Sunak is hiding from an election he might win. Everyone understands that he'll wait to pretty much the last moment because he's facing defeat.
Any comments, @Foxy ?
What the NHS can and cannot learn from the Singaporean health care system
https://www.smf.co.uk/publications/nhs-lessons-from-singapore/
There is no simple reason why Singapore spends less than other developed countries on healthcare:
Singaporean public hospitals do not deliver markedly lower unit costs than peer countries.
Singapore charges patients to access healthcare services, and while this moderates demand, it cannot fully explain Singapore’s low hospital utilisation.
Low demand is largely determined by population health and culture, which are difficult to emulate.
Hong Kong and Taiwan spend more than Singapore on healthcare, but much less than Western countries. All three East Asian states have very low levels of obesity, high life expectancy, and low health inequality.
Health experts should not uncritically cite parts of Singapore’s system to justify their favoured programme of reform. Instead, they should provide evidence that a specific part of Singapore’s healthcare system works better than the NHS. This paper applies this method to primary care.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The NHS should grant prescribing rights to Singaporean doctors, building on an existing EU Directive. Demand for private GP appointments is growing as patients struggle to access timely care. An appointment on a Singaporean telemedicine app costs half as much as private UK providers, and British patients are already using this service. The government should formalise this process, and make it accessible to more people.
NHS England should trial Singaporean-style polyclinics in areas of England with too few GPs. Singaporean polyclinics deliver lower unit costs, and pay their doctors more than NHS GP practices...
Then we wouldn't have had to worry about having to go to work after staying up for the results, and would be able to go on a 4-day bender to celebrate kicking the Tories out of office.
Only much later in life did I realise it was a gang of Germans with almost zero command of English and they just fitted rhymes to the track.
As an aside, I once had a client called Mr Rayner, and he always reminded me of the track.
(Although being pedantic I presume it's illegal to call an election when the count falls on a bank holiday?)
Traditionally those with property were said to have the most to lose by fucking the country. As capital is now so fluid and green cards available, maybe the wealthiest win with this new conservative cynicism.
I can only hope this old story is not appropriate next January: “This is summed up very nicely in a mid-seventh-century story about a certain abbot, to whom God appeared in a dream. ‘Is it true that all rulers are appointed by heavenly command?’ he asked. The answer was positive. ‘Then why, O Lord, did you send the wicked tyrant Phocas to rule over the Roman people?’ ‘Because’, came the stern reply, ‘I could find no one worse.’
source: https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/humour-history-and-politics-in-late-antiquity-and-the-early-middle-ages/8AC53E8118BB570AB0F3F76D38B76B07 p. 68
(Cross posted at Patterico's.)
It seems (to this naive observer) fairly persuasive.
...During a recent trip, I met with the CEO of the largest telemedicine provider in Singapore. He casually mentioned that UK patients were already using his service. This seemed surprising. No comprehensive data is available for the costs of UK telemedicine services, so I googled the cost of online appointments in the UK and Singapore. Singaporean appointments are less than half the price of those in the UK. The most affordable online appointment I found in the UK was £29. Yet, many providers charge significantly more – for instance, Babylon Health lists its price for private GP appointments at £59. In contrast, Doctor Anywhere, Singapore's leading telemedicine provider, offers services for just £12.27 Doctor Anywhere has an app where patients can log on and see patients virtually. They make and then register the diagnosis. The rest of the process, including referrals and prescriptions, is automated.
Doctor Anywhere operates under a unique regulatory framework established by the Singaporean Ministry of Health. Specifically, it is part of the regulatory sandbox for telemedicine providers, which falls under the Licensing Experimentation and Adaptation Programme.28 This programme is designed to enable the development of innovative healthcare services in a controlled and safe environment. In addition to this, Doctor Anywhere adheres to the National Telemedicine Guidelines and the Singapore Medical Council's Ethical Code and Ethical Guidelines.29 Their practices also comply with the Public Hospitals and Medical Clinics Guidelines, ensuring a high standard of medical care. The only drawback is that Singaporean doctors currently cannot write prescriptions for UK patients...