If anyone wants a crazy statistic on Civil Wars v World Wars, how's this for one:
US casualties (dead) WW2: 407,316 Us Casualties (dead) WW1: 116,708 US Casualties (dead) Civil War: 620,000
Even on the most conservative estimate, over 50% of all US military fatalities occurred in the Civil War until the time of Vietnam.
Which is quite a thought.
And that doesn't include civilian casualties in the south especially during Sherman's rampage.
US had a very cheap ww1 vs UK nearly 900,000 and a pretty cheap ww2, about the same as UK but proportionally less. Soviet losses were just awesome. 27 million of which about 10 million military. Stalin was bang on the money about time money and blood.
Stalin also conveniently forgot how much lendlease had gone to the USSR. There were US jeeps at Stalingrad, for instance.
It wasn’t just the dollar value of the aid. It was often things that the USSR couldn’t make or easily obtain otherwise. Things like ultra high octane aviation fuel, or high quality radios for aircraft and tanks.
Yes arts subjects give you good language and communication skills and STEM subjects good logic and reasoning skills. The EBacc the last government introduced also ensures schools which see students get good GCSEs in humanities as well as Maths and the sciences are rewarded
The Ebacc just highlights how broken the system is.
To get a proper baccalaureate you take the full variety of subjects until 18.
Pupils not getting an Ebacc are dropping those elements at 14.
14 is far too early to be saying "I won't do that".
And it was even worse before the EBacc, at least the EBacc means league tables reward those taking History and Geography, Science and languages to GCSE not just those doing English and Maths
Why history and geography? Its an oddly specific requirement.
There are a wide variety of humanities and social sciences beyond history and geography.
And its absurd to use the name baccalaureate (which is a qualification for 18 year olds) as a term for 16 year olds.
GCSEs are not a proper baccalaureate and it demeans the term to use it.
On the talk of civil war: I just don't think it's particularly credible.
Our political system and institutions have been through a period of immense stress over the last decade, at least, and, while painful for everyone, remain intact and are in some ways stronger as a result.
People are critical, and want them improved. They don't want them torn down.
And British people really hate political violence, mobs and vigilantism.
I think Tim Shipman's *out* series of books is likely to pretty much bookend the crisis period.
There are 15million pensioners in the UK. Pensioners aren't revolutionaries. We are not going to have a civil war.
The last English civil war didn't really involve the people that much.
WTF. 4% of the population were casualties.
It also rather ignores the general dislocation of war. The looting of food, destruction of property and so on.
In the Goode Olde Days, a war would often kill several times more civilians from disturbing agriculture than the simple military deaths.
There has been some scholarship to suggest that deaths in the South during the American Civil War spiked massively. Due to economic collapse, large numbers of able bodied men in the military… in some areas people were literally starving.
See also the Bengal famine. British more concerned with winning the war than keeping Indians alive.*
Why not do both? My A levels were: Maths, F Maths, Physics, History and Politics.
Balance is important. A levels were easier back then. Much less history back then and physics had barely been discovered. Politics was almost rational.
On thread - Tom Calver appears to be worrying that the laws of physics and maths will change, leaving those who have studied these subjects high and dry. I think he is worrying unnecessarily.
If anyone wants a crazy statistic on Civil Wars v World Wars, how's this for one:
US casualties (dead) WW2: 407,316 Us Casualties (dead) WW1: 116,708 US Casualties (dead) Civil War: 620,000
Even on the most conservative estimate, over 50% of all US military fatalities occurred in the Civil War until the time of Vietnam.
Which is quite a thought.
And that doesn't include civilian casualties in the south especially during Sherman's rampage.
US had a very cheap ww1 vs UK nearly 900,000 and a pretty cheap ww2, about the same as UK but proportionally less. Soviet losses were just awesome. 27 million of which about 10 million military. Stalin was bang on the money about time money and blood.
Stalin also conveniently forgot how much lendlease had gone to the USSR. There were US jeeps at Stalingrad, for instance.
He said the US provided the money which I think in the context includes jeeps.
Perhaps, but the vast scale of it was definitely suppressed in the good old Stalinist days.
Among the changes Reeves is believed to be considering are:
- Raising more money from inheritance tax and capital gains tax. - Sticking to plans for a 1% increase in public spending even though it would involve cuts for some Whitehall departments. - Rejecting pressure to scrap the two-child benefit cap. - Changing the way debt is measured to exclude the Bank of England.
Forgive my ignorance, is that last point the same one that Luckyguy and others have been promoting?
"Among the changes Reeves is believed to be considering are:
- Raising more money from inheritance tax and capital gains tax."
The Guardian is saying this is news?? Jeez...
CGT rates to be same as IT nailed on
Rachel possibly won't increase the ISA limit either!
ISA is bloody ridiculous. Far too high an amount per year.
Encourage small amounts of saving by ordinary folks not a vehicle for the rich to escape tax.
I think there's a fair chance the limit will be reduced to £10,000pa from 2025.
I think £5k for cash and £10k for shares is coming soon. Right now couples are able to shelter £40k per year of their wealth into tax free growth and income. It's absolutely brilliant but potentially overly generous, we still need something fairly generous to encourage saving and investment, but maybe £20k per year is too much. I like the idea of £50k over a 5 year period and no allowance for cash ISAs, only give the tax break for equity investments so that risk taking is rewarded rather than idle cash which should be taxed as normal.
On the talk of civil war: I just don't think it's particularly credible.
Our political system and institutions have been through a period of immense stress over the last decade, at least, and, while painful for everyone, remain intact and are in some ways stronger as a result.
People are critical, and want them improved. They don't want them torn down.
And British people really hate political violence, mobs and vigilantism.
I think Tim Shipman's *out* series of books is likely to pretty much bookend the crisis period.
There are 15million pensioners in the UK. Pensioners aren't revolutionaries. We are not going to have a civil war.
The last English civil war didn't really involve the people that much.
"While it is notoriously difficult to determine the number of casualties in any war, it has been estimated that the conflict in England and Wales claimed about 85,000 lives in combat, with a further 127,000 noncombat deaths (including some 40,000 civilians). The fighting in Scotland and Ireland, where the populations were roughly a fifth of that of England, was more brutal still. As many as 15,000 civilians perished in Scotland, and a further 137,000 Irish civilians may well have died as a result of the wars there. In all nearly 200,000 people, or roughly 2.5 percent of the civilian population, lost their lives directly or indirectly as a result of the Wars of the Three Kingdoms during this decade, making the Civil Wars arguably the bloodiest conflict in the history of the British Isles."
^ Written by Jane H. Ohlmeyer. Professor in Irish History, University of Aberdeen, Scot. Coeditor of The Civil Wars: A Military History of England, Scotland, and Ireland, 1638-1660.
Among the changes Reeves is believed to be considering are:
- Raising more money from inheritance tax and capital gains tax. - Sticking to plans for a 1% increase in public spending even though it would involve cuts for some Whitehall departments. - Rejecting pressure to scrap the two-child benefit cap. - Changing the way debt is measured to exclude the Bank of England.
Forgive my ignorance, is that last point the same one that Luckyguy and others have been promoting?
Yet more Labour tax rises on the way then, especially hitting home owners and their children and entrepreneurs
It has been obvious both before the election and after Reeves was going to increase taxes, no doubt causing upset in those who are affected
On another subject 70% in Wales oppose 20mph policy according to YouGov
It's a bit out of date because, as far as I can see, all of the "could" roads are now actual exceptions. And of course this only affects restricted roads (those with lampposts at 30mph), so all other roads remain 60mph (or 40mph or whatever).
Seems to be de rigeur to post your A-levels. I took English Lit, History and Economics. As well as General Studies. Was chuffed when we got name the US city by location.
(I don't know of any similar list for training casualties, though they total more than most Americans realize -- which should not surprise anyone familiar with young men, weapons, and powerful machines.)
Among the changes Reeves is believed to be considering are:
- Raising more money from inheritance tax and capital gains tax. - Sticking to plans for a 1% increase in public spending even though it would involve cuts for some Whitehall departments. - Rejecting pressure to scrap the two-child benefit cap. - Changing the way debt is measured to exclude the Bank of England.
Forgive my ignorance, is that last point the same one that Luckyguy and others have been promoting?
"Among the changes Reeves is believed to be considering are:
- Raising more money from inheritance tax and capital gains tax."
The Guardian is saying this is news?? Jeez...
CGT rates to be same as IT nailed on
Rachel possibly won't increase the ISA limit either!
ISA is bloody ridiculous. Far too high an amount per year.
Encourage small amounts of saving by ordinary folks not a vehicle for the rich to escape tax.
The rich will find ways of escaping tax anyway and ultimately in this modern world they can live anywhere and take their taxes with them
Most of them want to live in naice places. Naice places, or at least those of any interesting scale, rather than small islands or havens, come with taxes. If a multi-millionaire really wants to leave the country because they have to pay tax on an extra £400 per year interest from not being able to put £10k in an ISA, so be it. They won't even cover their relocation costs within their lifetime but it is a free country.
Among the changes Reeves is believed to be considering are:
- Raising more money from inheritance tax and capital gains tax. - Sticking to plans for a 1% increase in public spending even though it would involve cuts for some Whitehall departments. - Rejecting pressure to scrap the two-child benefit cap. - Changing the way debt is measured to exclude the Bank of England.
Forgive my ignorance, is that last point the same one that Luckyguy and others have been promoting?
"Among the changes Reeves is believed to be considering are:
- Raising more money from inheritance tax and capital gains tax."
The Guardian is saying this is news?? Jeez...
CGT rates to be same as IT nailed on
Rachel possibly won't increase the ISA limit either!
ISA is bloody ridiculous. Far too high an amount per year.
Encourage small amounts of saving by ordinary folks not a vehicle for the rich to escape tax.
I think there's a fair chance the limit will be reduced to £10,000pa from 2025.
Canada (only jurisdiction I know about) has an annual limit currently $7000 and cumulative limit 95000. £4000 and 54000. Seems a bit more reasonable but please god let them grandfather existing accounts.
Among the changes Reeves is believed to be considering are:
- Raising more money from inheritance tax and capital gains tax. - Sticking to plans for a 1% increase in public spending even though it would involve cuts for some Whitehall departments. - Rejecting pressure to scrap the two-child benefit cap. - Changing the way debt is measured to exclude the Bank of England.
Forgive my ignorance, is that last point the same one that Luckyguy and others have been promoting?
Yet more Labour tax rises on the way then, especially hitting home owners and their children and entrepreneurs
It has been obvious both before the election and after Reeves was going to increase taxes, no doubt causing upset in those who are affected
On another subject 70% in Wales oppose 20mph policy according to YouGov
It's a bit out of date because, as far as I can see, all of the "could" roads are now actual exceptions. And of course this only affects restricted roads (those with lampposts at 30mph), so all other roads remain 60mph (or 40mph or whatever).
Yes, the whole thing is a ludicrous storm in a teacup. We’ve had them here in suburban north London for years now. You very quickly get used to it. It actually makes driving around here more pleasant.
FWIW, I holidayed in Wales earlier this summer. I didn’t even notice the bloody change!
Among the changes Reeves is believed to be considering are:
- Raising more money from inheritance tax and capital gains tax. - Sticking to plans for a 1% increase in public spending even though it would involve cuts for some Whitehall departments. - Rejecting pressure to scrap the two-child benefit cap. - Changing the way debt is measured to exclude the Bank of England.
Forgive my ignorance, is that last point the same one that Luckyguy and others have been promoting?
Yet more Labour tax rises on the way then, especially hitting home owners and their children and entrepreneurs
It has been obvious both before the election and after Reeves was going to increase taxes, no doubt causing upset in those who are affected
On another subject 70% in Wales oppose 20mph policy according to YouGov
It's a bit out of date because, as far as I can see, all of the "could" roads are now actual exceptions. And of course this only affects restricted roads (those with lampposts at 30mph), so all other roads remain 60mph (or 40mph or whatever).
Yes, the whole thing is a ludicrous storm in a teacup. We’ve had them here in suburban north London for years now. You very quickly get used to it. It actually makes driving around here more pleasant.
FWIW, I holidayed in Wales earlier this summer. I didn’t even notice the bloody change!
Why not do both? My A levels were: Maths, F Maths, Physics, History and Politics.
Balance is important. A levels were easier back then. Much less history back then and physics had barely been discovered. Politics was almost rational.
The problem with History is they keep adding to it at both ends. Hardly a day goes by without a bloke with a metal detector inadvertently revising our knowledge of the past.
Among the changes Reeves is believed to be considering are:
- Raising more money from inheritance tax and capital gains tax. - Sticking to plans for a 1% increase in public spending even though it would involve cuts for some Whitehall departments. - Rejecting pressure to scrap the two-child benefit cap. - Changing the way debt is measured to exclude the Bank of England.
Forgive my ignorance, is that last point the same one that Luckyguy and others have been promoting?
"Among the changes Reeves is believed to be considering are:
- Raising more money from inheritance tax and capital gains tax."
The Guardian is saying this is news?? Jeez...
CGT rates to be same as IT nailed on
Rachel possibly won't increase the ISA limit either!
ISA is bloody ridiculous. Far too high an amount per year.
Encourage small amounts of saving by ordinary folks not a vehicle for the rich to escape tax.
I think there's a fair chance the limit will be reduced to £10,000pa from 2025.
Canada (only jurisdiction I know about) has an annual limit currently $7000 and cumulative limit 95000. £4000 and 54000. Seems a bit more reasonable but please god let them grandfather existing accounts.
Labour LOVE tax but it is HIGHLY UNLIKELY that the tax free status of existing ISAs will be changed (probably)
Among the changes Reeves is believed to be considering are:
- Raising more money from inheritance tax and capital gains tax. - Sticking to plans for a 1% increase in public spending even though it would involve cuts for some Whitehall departments. - Rejecting pressure to scrap the two-child benefit cap. - Changing the way debt is measured to exclude the Bank of England.
Forgive my ignorance, is that last point the same one that Luckyguy and others have been promoting?
Yet more Labour tax rises on the way then, especially hitting home owners and their children and entrepreneurs
It has been obvious both before the election and after Reeves was going to increase taxes, no doubt causing upset in those who are affected
On another subject 70% in Wales oppose 20mph policy according to YouGov
It's a bit out of date because, as far as I can see, all of the "could" roads are now actual exceptions. And of course this only affects restricted roads (those with lampposts at 30mph), so all other roads remain 60mph (or 40mph or whatever).
Yes, the whole thing is a ludicrous storm in a teacup. We’ve had them here in suburban north London for years now. You very quickly get used to it. It actually makes driving around here more pleasant.
FWIW, I holidayed in Wales earlier this summer. I didn’t even notice the bloody change!
Makes bus travel a little slow, though. (eg. SL2 between Waterworks and Wood Street Walthamstow)
On thread - Tom Calver appears to be worrying that the laws of physics and maths will change, leaving those who have studied these subjects high and dry. I think he is worrying unnecessarily.
Einstein and Gödel changed them respectively at the beginning of the last century. Could happen again.
Among the changes Reeves is believed to be considering are:
- Raising more money from inheritance tax and capital gains tax. - Sticking to plans for a 1% increase in public spending even though it would involve cuts for some Whitehall departments. - Rejecting pressure to scrap the two-child benefit cap. - Changing the way debt is measured to exclude the Bank of England.
Forgive my ignorance, is that last point the same one that Luckyguy and others have been promoting?
Yet more Labour tax rises on the way then, especially hitting home owners and their children and entrepreneurs
It has been obvious both before the election and after Reeves was going to increase taxes, no doubt causing upset in those who are affected
On another subject 70% in Wales oppose 20mph policy according to YouGov
It's a bit out of date because, as far as I can see, all of the "could" roads are now actual exceptions. And of course this only affects restricted roads (those with lampposts at 30mph), so all other roads remain 60mph (or 40mph or whatever).
70% of Welsh drivers oppose the policy as implemented and changes are coming
I would respectively suggest you need to accept the reality of the experience of drivers in Wales and it comes from across the political spectrum
Among the changes Reeves is believed to be considering are:
- Raising more money from inheritance tax and capital gains tax. - Sticking to plans for a 1% increase in public spending even though it would involve cuts for some Whitehall departments. - Rejecting pressure to scrap the two-child benefit cap. - Changing the way debt is measured to exclude the Bank of England.
Forgive my ignorance, is that last point the same one that Luckyguy and others have been promoting?
"Among the changes Reeves is believed to be considering are:
- Raising more money from inheritance tax and capital gains tax."
The Guardian is saying this is news?? Jeez...
CGT rates to be same as IT nailed on
Rachel possibly won't increase the ISA limit either!
ISA is bloody ridiculous. Far too high an amount per year.
Encourage small amounts of saving by ordinary folks not a vehicle for the rich to escape tax.
I think there's a fair chance the limit will be reduced to £10,000pa from 2025.
Canada (only jurisdiction I know about) has an annual limit currently $7000 and cumulative limit 95000. £4000 and 54000. Seems a bit more reasonable but please god let them grandfather existing accounts.
Labour LOVE tax but it is HIGHLY UNLIKELY that the tax free status of existing ISAs will be changed (probably)
I think if they did that they'd switch places with the Tories in 2029. It would be the most unpopular policy for a generation. There's something like 20m people who have ISAs, Labour would risk pissing each and every one of them off if they didn't grandfather in existing pots into any cap policy.
I suspect many PBers are thinking what I’m thinking. TRUSS’s upcoming appearance at Unherd is the thinly veiled genesis of her bid for the leadership. And who can blame her? Perhaps now is her time?
I suspect many PBers are thinking what I’m thinking. TRUSS’s upcoming appearance at Unherd is the thinly veiled genesis of her bid for the leadership. And who can blame her? Perhaps now is her time?
Among the changes Reeves is believed to be considering are:
- Raising more money from inheritance tax and capital gains tax. - Sticking to plans for a 1% increase in public spending even though it would involve cuts for some Whitehall departments. - Rejecting pressure to scrap the two-child benefit cap. - Changing the way debt is measured to exclude the Bank of England.
Forgive my ignorance, is that last point the same one that Luckyguy and others have been promoting?
"Among the changes Reeves is believed to be considering are:
- Raising more money from inheritance tax and capital gains tax."
The Guardian is saying this is news?? Jeez...
CGT rates to be same as IT nailed on
Rachel possibly won't increase the ISA limit either!
ISA is bloody ridiculous. Far too high an amount per year.
Encourage small amounts of saving by ordinary folks not a vehicle for the rich to escape tax.
The rich will find ways of escaping tax anyway and ultimately in this modern world they can live anywhere and take their taxes with them
Most of them want to live in naice places. Naice places, or at least those of any interesting scale, rather than small islands or havens, come with taxes. If a multi-millionaire really wants to leave the country because they have to pay tax on an extra £400 per year interest from not being able to put £10k in an ISA, so be it. They won't even cover their relocation costs within their lifetime but it is a free country.
The problem is the direction of travel and how it is perceived by the wealthy
Among the changes Reeves is believed to be considering are:
- Raising more money from inheritance tax and capital gains tax. - Sticking to plans for a 1% increase in public spending even though it would involve cuts for some Whitehall departments. - Rejecting pressure to scrap the two-child benefit cap. - Changing the way debt is measured to exclude the Bank of England.
Forgive my ignorance, is that last point the same one that Luckyguy and others have been promoting?
Yet more Labour tax rises on the way then, especially hitting home owners and their children and entrepreneurs
It has been obvious both before the election and after Reeves was going to increase taxes, no doubt causing upset in those who are affected
On another subject 70% in Wales oppose 20mph policy according to YouGov
It's a bit out of date because, as far as I can see, all of the "could" roads are now actual exceptions. And of course this only affects restricted roads (those with lampposts at 30mph), so all other roads remain 60mph (or 40mph or whatever).
Yes, the whole thing is a ludicrous storm in a teacup. We’ve had them here in suburban north London for years now. You very quickly get used to it. It actually makes driving around here more pleasant.
FWIW, I holidayed in Wales earlier this summer. I didn’t even notice the bloody change!
Makes bus travel a little slow, though. (eg. SL2 between Waterworks and Wood Street Walthamstow)
By far the biggest determinant of bus travel around me is the traffic. The 20mph limits make no discernible difference.
Among the changes Reeves is believed to be considering are:
- Raising more money from inheritance tax and capital gains tax. - Sticking to plans for a 1% increase in public spending even though it would involve cuts for some Whitehall departments. - Rejecting pressure to scrap the two-child benefit cap. - Changing the way debt is measured to exclude the Bank of England.
Forgive my ignorance, is that last point the same one that Luckyguy and others have been promoting?
"Among the changes Reeves is believed to be considering are:
- Raising more money from inheritance tax and capital gains tax."
The Guardian is saying this is news?? Jeez...
CGT rates to be same as IT nailed on
Rachel possibly won't increase the ISA limit either!
For the hundredth time, I'll point out the following -
Raising CGT to 45% would be one of the greatest acts of economic self harm the country has ever inflicted on itself, causing capital flight on an unprecedented scale, giving the UK one of the highest CGT rates in the entire world, and effectively closing the country to business.
Are Labour mad enough to do it? Possibly. But it would be flying in the face of all the available evidence, that suggests a rise of 5%-ish is the most that investors will support.
Among the changes Reeves is believed to be considering are:
- Raising more money from inheritance tax and capital gains tax. - Sticking to plans for a 1% increase in public spending even though it would involve cuts for some Whitehall departments. - Rejecting pressure to scrap the two-child benefit cap. - Changing the way debt is measured to exclude the Bank of England.
Forgive my ignorance, is that last point the same one that Luckyguy and others have been promoting?
"Among the changes Reeves is believed to be considering are:
- Raising more money from inheritance tax and capital gains tax."
The Guardian is saying this is news?? Jeez...
CGT rates to be same as IT nailed on
Rachel possibly won't increase the ISA limit either!
ISA is bloody ridiculous. Far too high an amount per year.
Encourage small amounts of saving by ordinary folks not a vehicle for the rich to escape tax.
I think there's a fair chance the limit will be reduced to £10,000pa from 2025.
Canada (only jurisdiction I know about) has an annual limit currently $7000 and cumulative limit 95000. £4000 and 54000. Seems a bit more reasonable but please god let them grandfather existing accounts.
Labour LOVE tax but it is HIGHLY UNLIKELY that the tax free status of existing ISAs will be changed (probably)
I think if they did that they'd switch places with the Tories in 2029. It would be the most unpopular policy for a generation. There's something like 20m people who have ISAs, Labour would risk pissing each and every one of them off if they didn't grandfather in existing pots into any cap policy.
Surely an admin nightmare for the ages to retrospectively apply tax for ISAs?
Among the changes Reeves is believed to be considering are:
- Raising more money from inheritance tax and capital gains tax. - Sticking to plans for a 1% increase in public spending even though it would involve cuts for some Whitehall departments. - Rejecting pressure to scrap the two-child benefit cap. - Changing the way debt is measured to exclude the Bank of England.
Forgive my ignorance, is that last point the same one that Luckyguy and others have been promoting?
Yet more Labour tax rises on the way then, especially hitting home owners and their children and entrepreneurs
It has been obvious both before the election and after Reeves was going to increase taxes, no doubt causing upset in those who are affected
On another subject 70% in Wales oppose 20mph policy according to YouGov
It's a bit out of date because, as far as I can see, all of the "could" roads are now actual exceptions. And of course this only affects restricted roads (those with lampposts at 30mph), so all other roads remain 60mph (or 40mph or whatever).
Yes, the whole thing is a ludicrous storm in a teacup. We’ve had them here in suburban north London for years now. You very quickly get used to it. It actually makes driving around here more pleasant.
FWIW, I holidayed in Wales earlier this summer. I didn’t even notice the bloody change!
One thing about not giving the BoE indemnity on QE losses is that I think they'd have pushed interest rates up faster rather than selling their holding of bonds which means the £40bn in losses they've crystallised over the last two years wouldn't have happened, they'd still be sitting on a big paper loss and a small realised loss because the BoE bought bonds at way above par when interest rates were under 1% for so long and redemption values are lower.
There's also another £80bn in unrealised losses sitting on the Bank's balance sheet, the previous government should have rescinded the indemnity clause with primary legislation back in 2019 when they had the big majority, it would have been one of those small technical changes that no one would notice and could be waived as away as "bringing us in line with the US and Europe".
Now if Rachel Reeves does it she's going to get accused of cooking the books.
I suspect many PBers are thinking what I’m thinking. TRUSS’s upcoming appearance at Unherd is the thinly veiled genesis of her bid for the leadership. And who can blame her? Perhaps now is her time?
I know the rationale behind Unherd is to be a bit counter-mainstream, bit this is surely the ultimate in conformity: Liz Truss is never not at an event somewhere giving an address.
On thread - Tom Calver appears to be worrying that the laws of physics and maths will change, leaving those who have studied these subjects high and dry. I think he is worrying unnecessarily.
No, we they will still generally be high earning but managers and directors tend to study humanities and social sciences 'Only 3 per cent of science graduates become “managers, directors and senior officials”, according to figures from the Higher Education Statistics Agency — but among those from non-science degrees, the rate is twice as high.'
Yes arts subjects give you good language and communication skills and STEM subjects good logic and reasoning skills. The EBacc the last government introduced also ensures schools which see students get good GCSEs in humanities as well as Maths and the sciences are rewarded
The Ebacc just highlights how broken the system is.
To get a proper baccalaureate you take the full variety of subjects until 18.
Pupils not getting an Ebacc are dropping those elements at 14.
14 is far too early to be saying "I won't do that".
And it was even worse before the EBacc, at least the EBacc means league tables reward those taking History and Geography, Science and languages to GCSE not just those doing English and Maths
Why history and geography? Its an oddly specific requirement.
There are a wide variety of humanities and social sciences beyond history and geography.
And its absurd to use the name baccalaureate (which is a qualification for 18 year olds) as a term for 16 year olds.
GCSEs are not a proper baccalaureate and it demeans the term to use it.
As they are the core humanities subjects and the main ones studied in school, very few schools do sociology, economics or politics and philosophy for example, certainly before A Level if they stay on at school post 16.
GCSEs are also far closer to a baccalaureate in terms of range of subjects studied than A Levels
Yes arts subjects give you good language and communication skills and STEM subjects good logic and reasoning skills. The EBacc the last government introduced also ensures schools which see students get good GCSEs in humanities as well as Maths and the sciences are rewarded
Do arts subjects 'give' you good language and communication skills? I would argue here that correlation does not necessarily equal causation.
In terms of being able to write fluently and in an engaging manner yes
Is the "reclassification of BoE debt" in this article the one pushed by John Redwood et al? I had assumed it was nutjob stuff...
Think Gordon Brown has also advocated it.
It was a Reform manifesto policy iirc.
I can't see how changing the way debt is being measured to exclude the BOE does correlate to ending the policy of Treasury endemnification of the Bank's QT programme, or the payment of interest to commercial banks on their QE deposits with the Bank. Those are the two main drains upon the Exchequer from the Bank. Possibly the second? Good news if so.
Zaporizhzia oblast is in Ukraine, not Russia, is it not?
Quite surprised if Ukraine are pushing forwards to liberate Ukrainian lands after what happened last time, thought expanding the operations into Russia would continue more.
I am shocked, shocked that Reeves is planning to increase taxes and reduce spending. Who could possible have foreseen such a thing before the election?
I might have popped in for the lolz, but it’s sold out.
TRUSS
Lettuce hope they add some more seating.
"Romaine seated at all times"
The initial allocation will surely be just the tip of the iceberg
It is a disgrace that we don’t have an iconic British lettuce named after Truss. It would be a fitting tribute to our most special prime minister.
I agree, William, as I’m sure do all PBers and indeed all right-thinking people in this beloved country of ours. Perhaps you should launch a campaign? That way, next year’s barbecues might come garnished with a “crisp slice of Truss”.
I think that happened as Hillary Clinton was speaking at the DNC. Punters got confused for a second.
I thought Hillary spoke very well last night, it is a pity she is such a poor campaigner (even though she did win the popular vote) as she would have been a very tough and competent President. Foreign leaders would have respected her even if not always liked her in a way they don't really with Biden and likely won't with Harris and didn't even with Obama by the end of his term despite their mostly warm initial welcome for him and they just mostly see Trump as mad
She did. I was just joking. That glass ceiling should have smashed in 16. It will now.
I am shocked, shocked that Reeves is planning to increase taxes and reduce spending. Who could possible have foreseen such a thing before the election?
Yes arts subjects give you good language and communication skills and STEM subjects good logic and reasoning skills. The EBacc the last government introduced also ensures schools which see students get good GCSEs in humanities as well as Maths and the sciences are rewarded
The Ebacc just highlights how broken the system is.
To get a proper baccalaureate you take the full variety of subjects until 18.
Pupils not getting an Ebacc are dropping those elements at 14.
14 is far too early to be saying "I won't do that".
And it was even worse before the EBacc, at least the EBacc means league tables reward those taking History and Geography, Science and languages to GCSE not just those doing English and Maths
Why history and geography? Its an oddly specific requirement.
There are a wide variety of humanities and social sciences beyond history and geography.
And its absurd to use the name baccalaureate (which is a qualification for 18 year olds) as a term for 16 year olds.
GCSEs are not a proper baccalaureate and it demeans the term to use it.
As they are the core humanities subjects and the main ones studied in school, very few schools do sociology, economics or politics and philosophy for example, certainly before A Level if they stay on at school post 16.
GCSEs are also far closer to a baccalaureate in terms of range of subjects studied than A Levels
Yes but that's the point.
A meaningful English baccalaureate should be replacing A Levels.
Seattle Times - WA’s Beyoncé-style DNC cowboy hats nab national attention
CHICAGO — The Beyoncé-inspired cowboy hats worn by Washington’s delegates to the Democratic National Convention have grabbed plenty of TV time and social media attention.
They also prompted a call from the Smithsonian, according to state Democratic Party chair Shasti Conrad. . . .
The white cowboy hats — a brainstorm of Conrad’s and a friend — are modeled after the hat made famous by pop star Beyonce’s “Cowboy Carter” album, a smash hit released this year.
The hats include flashing lights that stood out immediately during Monday’s marathon first night of convention speeches. Journalists, music influencers and other delegates raved about them on social media. . . .
Political conventions are a serious business about nominating and selling the next president and vice president of the United States. But they’re also a made-for-TV show, and Washington’s delegates are having fun getting some prime attention for their outfits. . . .
Washington Republicans got a similar bout of attention in 2016 at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland for dancing around with goofy green foam pine tree hats. State GOP chair Jim Walsh nixed the hats at this year’s convention in Milwaukee, saying he didn’t like them. . . .
SSI - Jim Walsh is an idiot. AND a very nasty piece of work, but that's another issue!
I suspect many PBers are thinking what I’m thinking. TRUSS’s upcoming appearance at Unherd is the thinly veiled genesis of her bid for the leadership. And who can blame her? Perhaps now is her time?
I suspect many PBers are thinking what I’m thinking. TRUSS’s upcoming appearance at Unherd is the thinly veiled genesis of her bid for the leadership. And who can blame her? Perhaps now is her time?
Among the changes Reeves is believed to be considering are:
- Raising more money from inheritance tax and capital gains tax. - Sticking to plans for a 1% increase in public spending even though it would involve cuts for some Whitehall departments. - Rejecting pressure to scrap the two-child benefit cap. - Changing the way debt is measured to exclude the Bank of England.
Forgive my ignorance, is that last point the same one that Luckyguy and others have been promoting?
"Among the changes Reeves is believed to be considering are:
- Raising more money from inheritance tax and capital gains tax."
The Guardian is saying this is news?? Jeez...
CGT rates to be same as IT nailed on
Rachel possibly won't increase the ISA limit either!
ISA is bloody ridiculous. Far too high an amount per year.
Encourage small amounts of saving by ordinary folks not a vehicle for the rich to escape tax.
The rich will find ways of escaping tax anyway and ultimately in this modern world they can live anywhere and take their taxes with them
Most of them want to live in naice places. Naice places, or at least those of any interesting scale, rather than small islands or havens, come with taxes. If a multi-millionaire really wants to leave the country because they have to pay tax on an extra £400 per year interest from not being able to put £10k in an ISA, so be it. They won't even cover their relocation costs within their lifetime but it is a free country.
The problem is the direction of travel and how it is perceived by the wealthy
Well lets see how they react when they do the sums, pretty sure the numbers emigrating from being unable to shelter a few hundred or even thousand interest in tax free accounts will be much less than the number of doctors we are losing because we don't have the tax base to compete with Australia or Canada.
"The government sets rent levels in subsidised social housing using a national formula."
Wait. Tell me this isn't true. Centralist madness!!! Why aren't individual councils empowered to set their own rents??? They are the ones building hopefully?
"The government sets rent levels in subsidised social housing using a national formula."
Wait. Tell me this isn't true. Centralist madness!!! Why aren't individual councils empowered to set their own rents??? They are the ones building hopefully?
I don’t really know whether you're being sarcastic, but I am frequently astonished by the control of Ministers over prices and pay in various organisations. The trains - privatised. Why is the Government setting the pay levels? Let them get on with it. Nurses and Doctors - let the NHS have its budget and they can decide what to pay their staff.
Among the changes Reeves is believed to be considering are:
- Raising more money from inheritance tax and capital gains tax. - Sticking to plans for a 1% increase in public spending even though it would involve cuts for some Whitehall departments. - Rejecting pressure to scrap the two-child benefit cap. - Changing the way debt is measured to exclude the Bank of England.
Forgive my ignorance, is that last point the same one that Luckyguy and others have been promoting?
"Among the changes Reeves is believed to be considering are:
- Raising more money from inheritance tax and capital gains tax."
The Guardian is saying this is news?? Jeez...
CGT rates to be same as IT nailed on
Rachel possibly won't increase the ISA limit either!
For the hundredth time, I'll point out the following -
Raising CGT to 45% would be one of the greatest acts of economic self harm the country has ever inflicted on itself, causing capital flight on an unprecedented scale, giving the UK one of the highest CGT rates in the entire world, and effectively closing the country to business.
Are Labour mad enough to do it? Possibly. But it would be flying in the face of all the available evidence, that suggests a rise of 5%-ish is the most that investors will support.
Why not do both? My A levels were: Maths, F Maths, Physics, History and Politics.
Balance is important. A levels were easier back then. Much less history back then and physics had barely been discovered. Politics was almost rational.
Very similar here: Maths, F Maths, Physics and History.
I think a balance between science and humanities is important at ages 17-18. One criticism of our education system is specialisation too soon. Many real world jobs, even those with a mathematical or scientific focus, require a broad range of skills
Put it like this: the ability to write well is far more important to my job than the abstract maths I studied at university.
"The government sets rent levels in subsidised social housing using a national formula."
Wait. Tell me this isn't true. Centralist madness!!! Why aren't individual councils empowered to set their own rents??? They are the ones building hopefully?
Assume it is Local Housing Allowance, not actual rents.
Govt promising a 10 year deal to encourage building.
Cameron did same thing in 2012. Osborne reneged in 2015.
Among the changes Reeves is believed to be considering are:
- Raising more money from inheritance tax and capital gains tax. - Sticking to plans for a 1% increase in public spending even though it would involve cuts for some Whitehall departments. - Rejecting pressure to scrap the two-child benefit cap. - Changing the way debt is measured to exclude the Bank of England.
Forgive my ignorance, is that last point the same one that Luckyguy and others have been promoting?
The last point has been debated endlessly for weeks now by various analysts and economists and pol types. It's a pretty dry area of policy and all about technicalities.
The logic of it is pretty simple. QE involved printing very large quantities of new cash (not literally but on a computer screen). That "cash" was used to buy existing assets (bonds) from the banks improving liquidity and allowing them to lend more money into an economy that needed more demand. The bonds bought with the "cash" have fallen in value because they had very low rates of interest and gilts now have a higher rate. So there is a notional "loss". But it is a loss on artificial money that no tax payer ever paid. To require the taxpayer to indemnify the Bank on that "loss" from the made up "money" is absurd. To have to cut spending or increase taxes to do it is just insane.
Why not do both? My A levels were: Maths, F Maths, Physics, History and Politics.
Balance is important. A levels were easier back then. Much less history back then and physics had barely been discovered. Politics was almost rational.
Very similar here: Maths, F Maths, Physics and History.
I think a balance between science and humanities is important at ages 17-18. One criticism of our education system is specialisation too soon. Many real world jobs, even those with a mathematical or scientific focus, require a broad range of skills
Put it like this: the ability to write well is far more important to my job than the abstract maths I studied at university.
I couldn't be arsed with my Chemistry exam, so the question of "How do you separate Gas X from Gas Y?" I just wrote "Possibly using a hoover?" in the faint hope it'd raise a smile with the person marking the exam.
I realise 'somewhat' later, that I was probably the 8,000th person to use that line. But... We're all young and stupid... at least once.
Among the changes Reeves is believed to be considering are:
- Raising more money from inheritance tax and capital gains tax. - Sticking to plans for a 1% increase in public spending even though it would involve cuts for some Whitehall departments. - Rejecting pressure to scrap the two-child benefit cap. - Changing the way debt is measured to exclude the Bank of England.
Forgive my ignorance, is that last point the same one that Luckyguy and others have been promoting?
The last point has been debated endlessly for weeks now by various analysts and economists and pol types. It's a pretty dry area of policy and all about technicalities.
The logic of it is pretty simple. QE involved printing very large quantities of new cash (not literally but on a computer screen). That "cash" was used to buy existing assets (bonds) from the banks improving liquidity and allowing them to lend more money into an economy that needed more demand. The bonds bought with the "cash" have fallen in value because they had very low rates of interest and gilts now have a higher rate. So there is a notional "loss". But it is a loss on artificial money that no tax payer ever paid. To require the taxpayer to indemnify the Bank on that "loss" from the made up "money" is absurd. To have to cut spending or increase taxes to do it is just insane.
I sometimes, at the back of my hazy head, worry that a lot of 'our wealth' is in fact just a number someone's typed into Excel, emailed to a mate who did a `=(A1+1000000)` and emailed it back.
Among the changes Reeves is believed to be considering are:
- Raising more money from inheritance tax and capital gains tax. - Sticking to plans for a 1% increase in public spending even though it would involve cuts for some Whitehall departments. - Rejecting pressure to scrap the two-child benefit cap. - Changing the way debt is measured to exclude the Bank of England.
Forgive my ignorance, is that last point the same one that Luckyguy and others have been promoting?
Yet more Labour tax rises on the way then, especially hitting home owners and their children and entrepreneurs
It has been obvious both before the election and after Reeves was going to increase taxes, no doubt causing upset in those who are affected
On another subject 70% in Wales oppose 20mph policy according to YouGov
It's a bit out of date because, as far as I can see, all of the "could" roads are now actual exceptions. And of course this only affects restricted roads (those with lampposts at 30mph), so all other roads remain 60mph (or 40mph or whatever).
70% of Welsh drivers oppose the policy as implemented and changes are coming
I would respectively suggest you need to accept the reality of the experience of drivers in Wales and it comes from across the political spectrum
A startling example of the power of online misinformation
"The government sets rent levels in subsidised social housing using a national formula."
Wait. Tell me this isn't true. Centralist madness!!! Why aren't individual councils empowered to set their own rents??? They are the ones building hopefully?
I don’t really know whether you're being sarcastic, but I am frequently astonished by the control of Ministers over prices and pay in various organisations. The trains - privatised. Why is the Government setting the pay levels? Let them get on with it. Nurses and Doctors - let the NHS have its budget and they can decide what to pay their staff.
What would be the point of being a big important minister with a big important car and a big important office be then?
Among the changes Reeves is believed to be considering are:
- Raising more money from inheritance tax and capital gains tax. - Sticking to plans for a 1% increase in public spending even though it would involve cuts for some Whitehall departments. - Rejecting pressure to scrap the two-child benefit cap. - Changing the way debt is measured to exclude the Bank of England.
Forgive my ignorance, is that last point the same one that Luckyguy and others have been promoting?
The last point has been debated endlessly for weeks now by various analysts and economists and pol types. It's a pretty dry area of policy and all about technicalities.
The logic of it is pretty simple. QE involved printing very large quantities of new cash (not literally but on a computer screen). That "cash" was used to buy existing assets (bonds) from the banks improving liquidity and allowing them to lend more money into an economy that needed more demand. The bonds bought with the "cash" have fallen in value because they had very low rates of interest and gilts now have a higher rate. So there is a notional "loss". But it is a loss on artificial money that no tax payer ever paid. To require the taxpayer to indemnify the Bank on that "loss" from the made up "money" is absurd. To have to cut spending or increase taxes to do it is just insane.
It is.
But it also means admitting QE involved printing money. Real money, quite literally.
Yes on a computer screen, but computer money is every bit as real as notes.
Among the changes Reeves is believed to be considering are:
- Raising more money from inheritance tax and capital gains tax. - Sticking to plans for a 1% increase in public spending even though it would involve cuts for some Whitehall departments. - Rejecting pressure to scrap the two-child benefit cap. - Changing the way debt is measured to exclude the Bank of England.
Forgive my ignorance, is that last point the same one that Luckyguy and others have been promoting?
The last point has been debated endlessly for weeks now by various analysts and economists and pol types. It's a pretty dry area of policy and all about technicalities.
The logic of it is pretty simple. QE involved printing very large quantities of new cash (not literally but on a computer screen). That "cash" was used to buy existing assets (bonds) from the banks improving liquidity and allowing them to lend more money into an economy that needed more demand. The bonds bought with the "cash" have fallen in value because they had very low rates of interest and gilts now have a higher rate. So there is a notional "loss". But it is a loss on artificial money that no tax payer ever paid. To require the taxpayer to indemnify the Bank on that "loss" from the made up "money" is absurd. To have to cut spending or increase taxes to do it is just insane.
It is.
But it also means admitting QE involved printing money. Real money, quite literally.
Yes on a computer screen, but computer money is every bit as real as notes.
True. And the old adage of there being no such thing as a free lunch has been proven right once again. The select committee of the House of Commons did a really good paper on this. What it made clear is that when we went into QE we had no clear idea of how to get out of it again or reverse it and, surprise, surprise, it has proven to be a lot more expensive than we expected.
This is useful because QE was a well that politicians were getting ever keener to dip into. Now that we appreciate that the real cost is much more than anticipated I think we will be reluctant to do it again. That is a good thing. Debasing the currency was always problematic. But right now "losses" on the gilts bought should simply be written off. They should not be a draw on current tax revenues.
Among the changes Reeves is believed to be considering are:
- Raising more money from inheritance tax and capital gains tax. - Sticking to plans for a 1% increase in public spending even though it would involve cuts for some Whitehall departments. - Rejecting pressure to scrap the two-child benefit cap. - Changing the way debt is measured to exclude the Bank of England.
Forgive my ignorance, is that last point the same one that Luckyguy and others have been promoting?
The last point has been debated endlessly for weeks now by various analysts and economists and pol types. It's a pretty dry area of policy and all about technicalities.
The logic of it is pretty simple. QE involved printing very large quantities of new cash (not literally but on a computer screen). That "cash" was used to buy existing assets (bonds) from the banks improving liquidity and allowing them to lend more money into an economy that needed more demand. The bonds bought with the "cash" have fallen in value because they had very low rates of interest and gilts now have a higher rate. So there is a notional "loss". But it is a loss on artificial money that no tax payer ever paid. To require the taxpayer to indemnify the Bank on that "loss" from the made up "money" is absurd. To have to cut spending or increase taxes to do it is just insane.
It is.
But it also means admitting QE involved printing money. Real money, quite literally.
Yes on a computer screen, but computer money is every bit as real as notes.
True. And the old adage of there being no such thing as a free lunch has been proven right once again. The select committee of the House of Commons did a really good paper on this. What it made clear is that when we went into QE we had no clear idea of how to get out of it again or reverse it and, surprise, surprise, it has proven to be a lot more expensive than we expected.
This is useful because QE was a well that politicians were getting ever keener to dip into. Now that we appreciate that the real cost is much more than anticipated I think we will be reluctant to do it again. That is a good thing. Debasing the currency was always problematic. But right now "losses" on the gilts bought should simply be written off. They should not be a draw on current tax revenues.
Among the changes Reeves is believed to be considering are:
- Raising more money from inheritance tax and capital gains tax. - Sticking to plans for a 1% increase in public spending even though it would involve cuts for some Whitehall departments. - Rejecting pressure to scrap the two-child benefit cap. - Changing the way debt is measured to exclude the Bank of England.
Forgive my ignorance, is that last point the same one that Luckyguy and others have been promoting?
The last point has been debated endlessly for weeks now by various analysts and economists and pol types. It's a pretty dry area of policy and all about technicalities.
The logic of it is pretty simple. QE involved printing very large quantities of new cash (not literally but on a computer screen). That "cash" was used to buy existing assets (bonds) from the banks improving liquidity and allowing them to lend more money into an economy that needed more demand. The bonds bought with the "cash" have fallen in value because they had very low rates of interest and gilts now have a higher rate. So there is a notional "loss". But it is a loss on artificial money that no tax payer ever paid. To require the taxpayer to indemnify the Bank on that "loss" from the made up "money" is absurd. To have to cut spending or increase taxes to do it is just insane.
I'm in favour of it. Gordon Brown is right.
But we shouldn't talk of the BoE as somehow separate from the UK state/government.
If exchange watchers have noticed a switch to Trump today, more than likely fuelled by RFK likely dropping out and endorsing the Orange One..the same RFK who reached out to Kamala last week and got trashed...and that same RFK who trades on his name and is a massive Bellend.....
"Barrister and Writer, Steven Barrett, rages over the Home Office calling those involved in the disorder ‘criminals’, and complains Britain has lost ‘the concept of a fair trial."
For all the euphoria at the DNC and the real momentum Harris enjoys, this remains a very tight race. A statistical dead heat in many of the key swing states.
If exchange watchers have noticed a switch to Trump today, more than likely fuelled by RFK likely dropping out and endorsing the Orange One..the same RFK who reached out to Kamala last week and got trashed...and that same RFK who trades on his name and is a massive Bellend.....
Among the changes Reeves is believed to be considering are:
- Raising more money from inheritance tax and capital gains tax. - Sticking to plans for a 1% increase in public spending even though it would involve cuts for some Whitehall departments. - Rejecting pressure to scrap the two-child benefit cap. - Changing the way debt is measured to exclude the Bank of England.
Forgive my ignorance, is that last point the same one that Luckyguy and others have been promoting?
Yet more Labour tax rises on the way then, especially hitting home owners and their children and entrepreneurs
It has been obvious both before the election and after Reeves was going to increase taxes, no doubt causing upset in those who are affected
On another subject 70% in Wales oppose 20mph policy according to YouGov
It's a bit out of date because, as far as I can see, all of the "could" roads are now actual exceptions. And of course this only affects restricted roads (those with lampposts at 30mph), so all other roads remain 60mph (or 40mph or whatever).
70% of Welsh drivers oppose the policy as implemented and changes are coming
I would respectively suggest you need to accept the reality of the experience of drivers in Wales and it comes from across the political spectrum
Why would you consider only the experiences of drivers? What about pedestrians and cyclists? They are after all the ones whom the law was intended to protect.
Among the changes Reeves is believed to be considering are:
- Raising more money from inheritance tax and capital gains tax. - Sticking to plans for a 1% increase in public spending even though it would involve cuts for some Whitehall departments. - Rejecting pressure to scrap the two-child benefit cap. - Changing the way debt is measured to exclude the Bank of England.
Forgive my ignorance, is that last point the same one that Luckyguy and others have been promoting?
Yet more Labour tax rises on the way then, especially hitting home owners and their children and entrepreneurs
It has been obvious both before the election and after Reeves was going to increase taxes, no doubt causing upset in those who are affected
On another subject 70% in Wales oppose 20mph policy according to YouGov
It's a bit out of date because, as far as I can see, all of the "could" roads are now actual exceptions. And of course this only affects restricted roads (those with lampposts at 30mph), so all other roads remain 60mph (or 40mph or whatever).
70% of Welsh drivers oppose the policy as implemented and changes are coming
I would respectively suggest you need to accept the reality of the experience of drivers in Wales and it comes from across the political spectrum
Why would you consider only the experiences of drivers? What about pedestrians and cyclists? They are after all the ones who the law was intended to protect.
We should help them get into a vehicle so they can have the protection of something surrounding them, seat belts and other modern safety gear. Then we won't need to slow down vehicles to protect them.
Maybe bike riders should wear a f***ing helmet too. Not wearing a helmet should be treated the same as not wearing a seat belt.
If exchange watchers have noticed a switch to Trump today, more than likely fuelled by RFK likely dropping out and endorsing the Orange One..the same RFK who reached out to Kamala last week and got trashed...and that same RFK who trades on his name and is a massive Bellend.....
What massive reward has Trump 2.0 offered?
Secretary of State?
Vaccine Czar?
Nothing.
This isn’t even a promise (which would anyway be worthless from Trump), but RFK is probably dumb or desperate enough not to notice.
Reporter: Would you consider putting RFK Jr in your administration?
"The government sets rent levels in subsidised social housing using a national formula."
Wait. Tell me this isn't true. Centralist madness!!! Why aren't individual councils empowered to set their own rents??? They are the ones building hopefully?
That is totally insane, a social rent at say 80% of commercial in london, not an unreasonable figure could be 120% of commercial rent in hartlepool
Comments
There are a wide variety of humanities and social sciences beyond history and geography.
And its absurd to use the name baccalaureate (which is a qualification for 18 year olds) as a term for 16 year olds.
GCSEs are not a proper baccalaureate and it demeans the term to use it.
*Slight oversimplification for brevity.
Balance is important. A levels were easier back then. Much less history back then and physics had barely been discovered. Politics was almost rational.
He flounced like the poncey pussboots he is.
"While it is notoriously difficult to determine the number of casualties in any war, it has been estimated that the conflict in England and Wales claimed about 85,000 lives in combat, with a further 127,000 noncombat deaths (including some 40,000 civilians). The fighting in Scotland and Ireland, where the populations were roughly a fifth of that of England, was more brutal still. As many as 15,000 civilians perished in Scotland, and a further 137,000 Irish civilians may well have died as a result of the wars there. In all nearly 200,000 people, or roughly 2.5 percent of the civilian population, lost their lives directly or indirectly as a result of the Wars of the Three Kingdoms during this decade, making the Civil Wars arguably the bloodiest conflict in the history of the British Isles."
^ Written by Jane H. Ohlmeyer. Professor in Irish History, University of Aberdeen, Scot. Coeditor of The Civil Wars: A Military History of England, Scotland, and Ireland, 1638-1660.
It's a bit out of date because, as far as I can see, all of the "could" roads are now actual exceptions. And of course this only affects restricted roads (those with lampposts at 30mph), so all other roads remain 60mph (or 40mph or whatever).
I took English Lit, History and Economics. As well as General Studies. Was chuffed when we got name the US city by location.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_casualties_of_war.
(I don't know of any similar list for training casualties, though they total more than most Americans realize -- which should not surprise anyone familiar with young men, weapons, and powerful machines.)
FWIW, I holidayed in Wales earlier this summer. I didn’t even notice the bloody change!
https://club.unherd.com/event/former-prime-minister-2/
I would respectively suggest you need to accept the reality of the experience of drivers in Wales and it comes from across the political spectrum
TRUSS
A
S
H
I
S
A
- 41% of all CGT disposals are for gains of £5m or more - source: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/capital-gains-tax-statistics/capital-gains-tax-commentary--2
- a tax rate of 45% would be one of the highest in the western world, with most countries charging between 20-30% - source: https://taxsummaries.pwc.com/quick-charts/capital-gains-tax-cgt-rates
- HMRC's own study shows that any rise above 5% (i.e. 25% for the lower rate, 29% for the higher rate) would be net negative for the Treasury - Source - https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/direct-effects-of-illustrative-tax-changes/direct-effects-of-illustrative-tax-changes-bulletin-june-2024 (See section 13)
- Investors are already panicking, disposing of assets in advance, meaning tax take will be further reduced - source: https://www.ft.com/content/34d72fa2-d3b8-439a-886f-f4968c82762a
Raising CGT to 45% would be one of the greatest acts of economic self harm the country has ever inflicted on itself, causing capital flight on an unprecedented scale, giving the UK one of the highest CGT rates in the entire world, and effectively closing the country to business.
Are Labour mad enough to do it? Possibly. But it would be flying in the face of all the available evidence, that suggests a rise of 5%-ish is the most that investors will support.
https://x.com/atrupar/status/1825996207736406259
“Sane-washing” is a pretty good description of the way US media treats Trump.
There's also another £80bn in unrealised losses sitting on the Bank's balance sheet, the previous government should have rescinded the indemnity clause with primary legislation back in 2019 when they had the big majority, it would have been one of those small technical changes that no one would notice and could be waived as away as "bringing us in line with the US and Europe".
Now if Rachel Reeves does it she's going to get accused of cooking the books.
GCSEs are also far closer to a baccalaureate in terms of range of subjects studied than A Levels
Quite surprised if Ukraine are pushing forwards to liberate Ukrainian lands after what happened last time, thought expanding the operations into Russia would continue more.
A meaningful English baccalaureate should be replacing A Levels.
Not whitewashing GCSEs.
CHICAGO — The Beyoncé-inspired cowboy hats worn by Washington’s delegates to the Democratic National Convention have grabbed plenty of TV time and social media attention.
They also prompted a call from the Smithsonian, according to state Democratic Party chair Shasti Conrad. . . .
The white cowboy hats — a brainstorm of Conrad’s and a friend — are modeled after the hat made famous by pop star Beyonce’s “Cowboy Carter” album, a smash hit released this year.
The hats include flashing lights that stood out immediately during Monday’s marathon first night of convention speeches. Journalists, music influencers and other delegates raved about them on social media. . . .
Political conventions are a serious business about nominating and selling the next president and vice president of the United States. But they’re also a made-for-TV show, and Washington’s delegates are having fun getting some prime attention for their outfits. . . .
Washington Republicans got a similar bout of attention in 2016 at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland for dancing around with goofy green foam pine tree hats. State GOP chair Jim Walsh nixed the hats at this year’s convention in Milwaukee, saying he didn’t like them. . . .
SSI - Jim Walsh is an idiot. AND a very nasty piece of work, but that's another issue!
Jane Jacobs was great.
I hadn't known that Vancouver is so nice in part because of Jane Jacobs. Another example of the importance of simply disseminating good ideas?
https://x.com/patrickc/status/1825946616337149975
https://www.ft.com/content/e2546c45-126e-4093-b420-05cbfd54347a
"The government sets rent levels in subsidised social housing using a national formula."
Wait. Tell me this isn't true. Centralist madness!!! Why aren't individual councils empowered to set their own rents??? They are the ones building hopefully?
I think a balance between science and humanities is important at ages 17-18. One criticism of our education system is specialisation too soon. Many real world jobs, even those with a mathematical or scientific focus, require a broad range of skills
Put it like this: the ability to write well is far more important to my job than the abstract maths I studied at university.
Govt promising a 10 year deal to encourage building.
Cameron did same thing in 2012. Osborne reneged in 2015.
I realise 'somewhat' later, that I was probably the 8,000th person to use that line. But... We're all young and stupid... at least once.
Think this through, man!
But it also means admitting QE involved printing money. Real money, quite literally.
Yes on a computer screen, but computer money is every bit as real as notes.
This is useful because QE was a well that politicians were getting ever keener to dip into. Now that we appreciate that the real cost is much more than anticipated I think we will be reluctant to do it again. That is a good thing. Debasing the currency was always problematic. But right now "losses" on the gilts bought should simply be written off. They should not be a draw on current tax revenues.
But we shouldn't talk of the BoE as somehow separate from the UK state/government.
"Barrister and Writer, Steven Barrett, rages over the Home Office calling those involved in the disorder ‘criminals’, and complains Britain has lost ‘the concept of a fair trial."
https://x.com/GBNEWS/status/1825624773084201341
Lewis Goodall
@lewis_goodall
For all the euphoria at the DNC and the real momentum Harris enjoys, this remains a very tight race. A statistical dead heat in many of the key swing states.
https://x.com/lewis_goodall/status/1825947266189815939
Secretary of State?
Vaccine Czar?
Maybe bike riders should wear a f***ing helmet too. Not wearing a helmet should be treated the same as not wearing a seat belt.
This isn’t even a promise (which would anyway be worthless from Trump), but RFK is probably dumb or desperate enough not to notice.
Reporter: Would you consider putting RFK Jr in your administration?
Trump: I probably would
https://x.com/Acyn/status/1826016598777553209