On the speeding penalties conversation, attention should be paid to the Court Sentencing guidelines as well as the police ones. Bans start at limit + 21mph.
As we know, deterrence from committing offences is a combination of likelihood of being caught, and the resulting punishment. So I'm in favour of restoring numbers of police on the streets, traffic police having been cancelled as a specific discipline around 2002 and numbers halved.
It's particularly important around crimes which are not easy to detect by camera, such as drink driving and drug driving. These feed into all sorts of other stuff, such as young bloods trying to impress the ladies to get inside their knickers by dangerous driving.
For penalties, I quite elements of the French or the Danish approach. The French start with a single point penalty when the limit is broken, rather than our "effective limit is 10%+2 above the limit". The Danish have more of an expectation of civilised behaviour, so have heavier fines. The Danes also have fewer bans, which I favour as for wealthier people fines and higher insurance are little practical deterrence.
Here, we have a horrible, not-integrated into walking and cycling networks, bypass, and about 8-10 people (from memory) were killed on it before averaging speed cameras were introduced. It's still a badly designed abortion, but it's a bit less of an killing abortion. Sorting out walking / cycling access to the local school could take away about 1000 journeys a day, but Notts LHA don't in general do thinking, and were the only one in the country to have their capability rating reduced in 2024.
"So, Starmer and Reeves must bear the impact of crashing into the brick wall of [an emergency Budget on] 26 March together. Between them, they have failed to give themselves enough room to avoid the collision. The only thing that can save them is some good luck on the economy that brings the OBR forecast back into line with Reeves’s fiscal rules in time."
I've come to the conclusion that this and every future Government is going to fail, until something effective is done about both economic inequality and the dependency ratio. The measures required, which will essentially amount to stripping wealthy elderly people and their heirs of a large chunk of their riches, and telling everyone under the age of about fifty that they will have to keep working into their seventies before they can claim the state pension, are going to be so unpopular that the country will have to keep circling the plughole until it falls into some major systemic crisis that will force ministers to act.
An unsustainable rise in gilt yields as foreign investors conclude that we are a basket case seems the most likely scenario, although the collapse of the healthcare system leading to mass avoidable fatalities might also do it. We shall see.
If it’s just us, and not other European countries that need such drastic treatment, we would need to look at the reasons why. Destroying manufacturing, austerity, selling the family silver. Perhaps then, people would see the damage that Thatcher, Brown and Osborne inflicted on us.
It is not just us. Most rich world countries face sluggish growth, and are living beyond their means.
Now, compared to most people, in most times, we’ve all drawn first prize in the lottery of life.
Demographics. (Specifically, demographics is destiny as Auguste Comte noted about 200 years ago.)
Economies grew very quickly when birth rates dipped and women could spend much more time in the workforce. And this was combined with the echo of the Second World War, which meant we didn't have too many old people to support.
Now we have lots of old people sucking up the economic output of workers, constraining growth. With fertility rates so far below replacement, the issue gets more and more acute. Ultimately, people who aren't working need to live off the economic output of those who are. (Work is ephemeral, you really can't save it up for later.)
The British government amerliorated the problem by importing lots of people of working age to maintain the dependency ratio. But this wasn't without its own costs: in terms of housing availability and the inevitable issues that occur when people with different cultures live together.
Nobody has actually addressed this issue yet.
Absolutely. The price of zero immigration is a high dependency burden and endless austerity.
That would be the choice if an honest one was put to the electorate.
Playing devil’s advocate, you could accompany it with policies designed to vastly increase the number of births i.e. subsidies for mothers
Natalist Autarky, that would be in the lingo? It has its supporters, I gather.
Why is importing people better than local manufacture?
Because we don't pay for schooling and training?
A high proportion of immigrants are better qualified than the average Brit.
In my view we should be striving for the average brit to be better educated and better qualified than the rest of the world
We should be looking to *export* doctors and nurses.
Due to the epic increases in living standard and expectations in much of the world, medical staff will be in short supply, now and in the future.
Instead of depending on stripping Africa (and elsewhere) of medical staff, we should be educating not 75% of the NHS requirement, but 125%.
Think of it as our reparations….
Anyone else notice how quiet things have gone over the extra 10 000 Medical School places.
It's tumbleweed time...
What might work is something like the triple lock.
“We will expand medical education capacity by 1% of the NHS requirements every year”
Once that momentum is started….
I think the penny has dropped that the physical and personnel needed to double our output of doctors simply doesn't exist, even if the money did. That's before we get to the problem of finding suitable candidates.
Experienced Medical Educationalists like yours truly are in short supply, and we can't be simultaneously training the students and cracking through the waiting lists.
Would it help if there were varying levels of expertise and training, with not all medical students needing straight A’s? Those that don’t start on the highest levels of training could presumably advance through the ranks over time if they demonstrate that they have the necessary practical skills. Is BMA protectionism an issue?
In fact, the US has by far the largest welfare state in the world, to the best of my knowledge.
But there appears to be a persistent belief among some that the US does not spend much on retirement and medical care. Can anyone explain to me why this is so? Why does this belief persist?
(For the record: For years I have been receiving benefits from the first two of those programs.)
I do not defend the designs of those programs, but will concede that changing them is, to say the least, difficult, politically.)
Execise for the interested: Compare the number of beneficiaries and the per capita spending for the NHS and the US Medicaid program.
"So, Starmer and Reeves must bear the impact of crashing into the brick wall of [an emergency Budget on] 26 March together. Between them, they have failed to give themselves enough room to avoid the collision. The only thing that can save them is some good luck on the economy that brings the OBR forecast back into line with Reeves’s fiscal rules in time."
I've come to the conclusion that this and every future Government is going to fail, until something effective is done about both economic inequality and the dependency ratio. The measures required, which will essentially amount to stripping wealthy elderly people and their heirs of a large chunk of their riches, and telling everyone under the age of about fifty that they will have to keep working into their seventies before they can claim the state pension, are going to be so unpopular that the country will have to keep circling the plughole until it falls into some major systemic crisis that will force ministers to act.
An unsustainable rise in gilt yields as foreign investors conclude that we are a basket case seems the most likely scenario, although the collapse of the healthcare system leading to mass avoidable fatalities might also do it. We shall see.
If it’s just us, and not other European countries that need such drastic treatment, we would need to look at the reasons why. Destroying manufacturing, austerity, selling the family silver. Perhaps then, people would see the damage that Thatcher, Brown and Osborne inflicted on us.
It is not just us. Most rich world countries face sluggish growth, and are living beyond their means.
Now, compared to most people, in most times, we’ve all drawn first prize in the lottery of life.
Demographics. (Specifically, demographics is destiny as Auguste Comte noted about 200 years ago.)
Economies grew very quickly when birth rates dipped and women could spend much more time in the workforce. And this was combined with the echo of the Second World War, which meant we didn't have too many old people to support.
Now we have lots of old people sucking up the economic output of workers, constraining growth. With fertility rates so far below replacement, the issue gets more and more acute. Ultimately, people who aren't working need to live off the economic output of those who are. (Work is ephemeral, you really can't save it up for later.)
The British government amerliorated the problem by importing lots of people of working age to maintain the dependency ratio. But this wasn't without its own costs: in terms of housing availability and the inevitable issues that occur when people with different cultures live together.
Nobody has actually addressed this issue yet.
Absolutely. The price of zero immigration is a high dependency burden and endless austerity.
That would be the choice if an honest one was put to the electorate.
Playing devil’s advocate, you could accompany it with policies designed to vastly increase the number of births i.e. subsidies for mothers
Natalist Autarky, that would be in the lingo? It has its supporters, I gather.
Why is importing people better than local manufacture?
Because we don't pay for schooling and training?
A high proportion of immigrants are better qualified than the average Brit.
In my view we should be striving for the average brit to be better educated and better qualified than the rest of the world
We should be looking to *export* doctors and nurses.
Due to the epic increases in living standard and expectations in much of the world, medical staff will be in short supply, now and in the future.
Instead of depending on stripping Africa (and elsewhere) of medical staff, we should be educating not 75% of the NHS requirement, but 125%.
Think of it as our reparations….
Anyone else notice how quiet things have gone over the extra 10 000 Medical School places.
It's tumbleweed time...
What might work is something like the triple lock.
“We will expand medical education capacity by 1% of the NHS requirements every year”
Once that momentum is started….
I think the penny has dropped that the physical and personnel needed to double our output of doctors simply doesn't exist, even if the money did. That's before we get to the problem of finding suitable candidates.
Experienced Medical Educationalists like yours truly are in short supply, and we can't be simultaneously training the students and cracking through the waiting lists.
There are plenty of students being rejected for medical courses with straight A’s.
The problem (as @Foxy explains above) is a classic for Operational Research. It's all about queues.
Medical students are just the start. To turn them into actual medicos, a great deal of further, hands on training is required. I've seen estimates that a basic doctor costs £250K to get to the point of them being able to be turned loose on the patients on their own.
So after university places, you need places in teaching hospitals. Staffed with training staff.
So if you expand the university places, you've got nowhere to take them. So you need to expand the training places as well. Which is difficult and expensive.
In fact, the US has by far the largest welfare state in the world, to the best of my knowledge.
But there appears to be a persistent belief among some that the US does not spend much on retirement and medical care. Can anyone explain to me why this is so? Why does this belief persist?
(For the record: For years I have been receiving benefits from the first two of those programs.)
I do not defend the designs of those programs, but will concede that changing them is, to say the least, difficult, politically.)
Execise for the interested: Compare the number of beneficiaries and the per capita spending for the NHS and the US Medicaid program.
I've seen it stated that if you took Medicaid, Medicare, the veterans medical systems etc the US is already spending more than the cost per capita of the NHS.
The reason for the belief you describe is the perception that medical care in the US is 100% private and done by insurance.
In fact, the US has by far the largest welfare state in the world, to the best of my knowledge.
But there appears to be a persistent belief among some that the US does not spend much on retirement and medical care. Can anyone explain to me why this is so? Why does this belief persist?
"So, Starmer and Reeves must bear the impact of crashing into the brick wall of [an emergency Budget on] 26 March together. Between them, they have failed to give themselves enough room to avoid the collision. The only thing that can save them is some good luck on the economy that brings the OBR forecast back into line with Reeves’s fiscal rules in time."
I've come to the conclusion that this and every future Government is going to fail, until something effective is done about both economic inequality and the dependency ratio. The measures required, which will essentially amount to stripping wealthy elderly people and their heirs of a large chunk of their riches, and telling everyone under the age of about fifty that they will have to keep working into their seventies before they can claim the state pension, are going to be so unpopular that the country will have to keep circling the plughole until it falls into some major systemic crisis that will force ministers to act.
An unsustainable rise in gilt yields as foreign investors conclude that we are a basket case seems the most likely scenario, although the collapse of the healthcare system leading to mass avoidable fatalities might also do it. We shall see.
If it’s just us, and not other European countries that need such drastic treatment, we would need to look at the reasons why. Destroying manufacturing, austerity, selling the family silver. Perhaps then, people would see the damage that Thatcher, Brown and Osborne inflicted on us.
It is not just us. Most rich world countries face sluggish growth, and are living beyond their means.
Now, compared to most people, in most times, we’ve all drawn first prize in the lottery of life.
Demographics. (Specifically, demographics is destiny as Auguste Comte noted about 200 years ago.)
Economies grew very quickly when birth rates dipped and women could spend much more time in the workforce. And this was combined with the echo of the Second World War, which meant we didn't have too many old people to support.
Now we have lots of old people sucking up the economic output of workers, constraining growth. With fertility rates so far below replacement, the issue gets more and more acute. Ultimately, people who aren't working need to live off the economic output of those who are. (Work is ephemeral, you really can't save it up for later.)
The British government amerliorated the problem by importing lots of people of working age to maintain the dependency ratio. But this wasn't without its own costs: in terms of housing availability and the inevitable issues that occur when people with different cultures live together.
Nobody has actually addressed this issue yet.
Absolutely. The price of zero immigration is a high dependency burden and endless austerity.
That would be the choice if an honest one was put to the electorate.
Playing devil’s advocate, you could accompany it with policies designed to vastly increase the number of births i.e. subsidies for mothers
Natalist Autarky, that would be in the lingo? It has its supporters, I gather.
Why is importing people better than local manufacture?
Because we don't pay for schooling and training?
A high proportion of immigrants are better qualified than the average Brit.
In my view we should be striving for the average brit to be better educated and better qualified than the rest of the world
We should be looking to *export* doctors and nurses.
Due to the epic increases in living standard and expectations in much of the world, medical staff will be in short supply, now and in the future.
Instead of depending on stripping Africa (and elsewhere) of medical staff, we should be educating not 75% of the NHS requirement, but 125%.
Think of it as our reparations….
Anyone else notice how quiet things have gone over the extra 10 000 Medical School places.
It's tumbleweed time...
What might work is something like the triple lock.
“We will expand medical education capacity by 1% of the NHS requirements every year”
Once that momentum is started….
I think the penny has dropped that the physical and personnel needed to double our output of doctors simply doesn't exist, even if the money did. That's before we get to the problem of finding suitable candidates.
Experienced Medical Educationalists like yours truly are in short supply, and we can't be simultaneously training the students and cracking through the waiting lists.
Would it help if there were varying levels of expertise and training, with not all medical students needing straight A’s? Those that don’t start on the highest levels of training could presumably advance through the ranks over time if they demonstrate that they have the necessary practical skills. Is BMA protectionism an issue?
BMA have nothing to do with it. Medical education, both undergraduate and postgraduate is regulated by the GMC which in turn is an arm of the state, albeit paid for by doctors.
There isn't much scope to drop grades, our covid cohort with their inflated grades are noticeably struggling compared to those who came before or after.
In fact, the US has by far the largest welfare state in the world, to the best of my knowledge.
But there appears to be a persistent belief among some that the US does not spend much on retirement and medical care. Can anyone explain to me why this is so? Why does this belief persist?
OT. Before Christmas, PB pointed me to the London Tube Memory Map. Without googling, I have just reached 80% of total stations, despite not having visited London since 2013. DLR and some of the outer reaches of the Overground are my weakest areas. Does this qualify me for the Ancient Order of Prassanan (2nd Class)? If so, what level is required for 1st Class status (free tea and coffee and antimacassars)?
"So, Starmer and Reeves must bear the impact of crashing into the brick wall of [an emergency Budget on] 26 March together. Between them, they have failed to give themselves enough room to avoid the collision. The only thing that can save them is some good luck on the economy that brings the OBR forecast back into line with Reeves’s fiscal rules in time."
I've come to the conclusion that this and every future Government is going to fail, until something effective is done about both economic inequality and the dependency ratio. The measures required, which will essentially amount to stripping wealthy elderly people and their heirs of a large chunk of their riches, and telling everyone under the age of about fifty that they will have to keep working into their seventies before they can claim the state pension, are going to be so unpopular that the country will have to keep circling the plughole until it falls into some major systemic crisis that will force ministers to act.
An unsustainable rise in gilt yields as foreign investors conclude that we are a basket case seems the most likely scenario, although the collapse of the healthcare system leading to mass avoidable fatalities might also do it. We shall see.
If it’s just us, and not other European countries that need such drastic treatment, we would need to look at the reasons why. Destroying manufacturing, austerity, selling the family silver. Perhaps then, people would see the damage that Thatcher, Brown and Osborne inflicted on us.
It is not just us. Most rich world countries face sluggish growth, and are living beyond their means.
Now, compared to most people, in most times, we’ve all drawn first prize in the lottery of life.
Demographics. (Specifically, demographics is destiny as Auguste Comte noted about 200 years ago.)
Economies grew very quickly when birth rates dipped and women could spend much more time in the workforce. And this was combined with the echo of the Second World War, which meant we didn't have too many old people to support.
Now we have lots of old people sucking up the economic output of workers, constraining growth. With fertility rates so far below replacement, the issue gets more and more acute. Ultimately, people who aren't working need to live off the economic output of those who are. (Work is ephemeral, you really can't save it up for later.)
The British government amerliorated the problem by importing lots of people of working age to maintain the dependency ratio. But this wasn't without its own costs: in terms of housing availability and the inevitable issues that occur when people with different cultures live together.
Nobody has actually addressed this issue yet.
Absolutely. The price of zero immigration is a high dependency burden and endless austerity.
That would be the choice if an honest one was put to the electorate.
Playing devil’s advocate, you could accompany it with policies designed to vastly increase the number of births i.e. subsidies for mothers
Natalist Autarky, that would be in the lingo? It has its supporters, I gather.
Why is importing people better than local manufacture?
Because we don't pay for schooling and training?
A high proportion of immigrants are better qualified than the average Brit.
In my view we should be striving for the average brit to be better educated and better qualified than the rest of the world
We should be looking to *export* doctors and nurses.
Due to the epic increases in living standard and expectations in much of the world, medical staff will be in short supply, now and in the future.
Instead of depending on stripping Africa (and elsewhere) of medical staff, we should be educating not 75% of the NHS requirement, but 125%.
Think of it as our reparations….
Anyone else notice how quiet things have gone over the extra 10 000 Medical School places.
It's tumbleweed time...
What might work is something like the triple lock.
“We will expand medical education capacity by 1% of the NHS requirements every year”
Once that momentum is started….
I think the penny has dropped that the physical and personnel needed to double our output of doctors simply doesn't exist, even if the money did. That's before we get to the problem of finding suitable candidates.
Experienced Medical Educationalists like yours truly are in short supply, and we can't be simultaneously training the students and cracking through the waiting lists.
Would it help if there were varying levels of expertise and training, with not all medical students needing straight A’s? Those that don’t start on the highest levels of training could presumably advance through the ranks over time if they demonstrate that they have the necessary practical skills. Is BMA protectionism an issue?
BMA have nothing to do with it. Medical education, both undergraduate and postgraduate is regulated by the GMC which in turn is an arm of the state, albeit paid for by doctors.
There isn't much scope to drop grades, our covid cohort with their inflated grades are noticeably struggling compared to those who came before or after.
Jen Psaki: "The American public is not waiting for someone to lead them out of fascism. That is not what the American public sent us a message about. They're waiting for people to listen to them and actually engage with them in their communities about what they want from the government."
On the speeding penalties conversation, attention should be paid to the Court Sentencing guidelines as well as the police ones. Bans start at limit + 21mph.
As we know, deterrence from committing offences is a combination of likelihood of being caught, and the resulting punishment. So I'm in favour of restoring numbers of police on the streets, traffic police having been cancelled as a specific discipline around 2002 and numbers halved.
It's particularly important around crimes which are not easy to detect by camera, such as drink driving and drug driving. These feed into all sorts of other stuff, such as young bloods trying to impress the ladies to get inside their knickers by dangerous driving.
For penalties, I quite elements of the French or the Danish approach. The French start with a single point penalty when the limit is broken, rather than our "effective limit is 10%+2 above the limit". The Danish have more of an expectation of civilised behaviour, so have heavier fines. The Danes also have fewer bans, which I favour as for wealthier people fines and higher insurance are little practical deterrence.
Here, we have a horrible, not-integrated into walking and cycling networks, bypass, and about 8-10 people (from memory) were killed on it before averaging speed cameras were introduced. It's still a badly designed abortion, but it's a bit less of an killing abortion. Sorting out walking / cycling access to the local school could take away about 1000 journeys a day, but Notts LHA don't in general do thinking, and were the only one in the country to have their capability rating reduced in 2024.
Typo. "Consider a ban" speeding over limit are:
20, 30mph limit - 11 mph over limit. 40, 50mph limit - 16 mph over limit. 60, 70mph limit - 21 mph over limit.
What’s not entirely obvious to me is why the UK’s gilts are so unpopular when the UK has the lowest debt:GDP level in the G7 bar Germany. And it is only mid-tier on size of fiscal deficit.
More threats of destabilisation from the US than Germany ? And also possible destabilisation of its American economic & defence relationships, perhaps.
OT. Before Christmas, PB pointed me to the London Tube Memory Map. Without googling, I have just reached 80% of total stations, despite not having visited London since 2013. DLR and some of the outer reaches of the Overground are my weakest areas. Does this qualify me for the Ancient Order of Prasannan (2nd Class)? If so, what level is required for 1st Class status (free tea and coffee and antimacassars)?
In fact, the US has by far the largest welfare state in the world, to the best of my knowledge.
But there appears to be a persistent belief among some that the US does not spend much on retirement and medical care. Can anyone explain to me why this is so? Why does this belief persist?
(For the record: For years I have been receiving benefits from the first two of those programs.)
I do not defend the designs of those programs, but will concede that changing them is, to say the least, difficult, politically.)
Execise for the interested: Compare the number of beneficiaries and the per capita spending for the NHS and the US Medicaid program.
I've seen it stated that if you took Medicaid, Medicare, the veterans medical systems etc the US is already spending more than the cost per capita of the NHS.
The reason for the belief you describe is the perception that medical care in the US is 100% private and done by insurance.
Indeed, however how much bang does Medicaid or the Veterans' programme get for each buck? (That applies to both the Govt expenditure and the Copay).
And of course Mr Trump may have his eye on gutting Medicare and Medicaid, depending how much of Project 2025 is actually implemented.
What’s not entirely obvious to me is why the UK’s gilts are so unpopular when the UK has the lowest debt:GDP level in the G7 bar Germany. And it is only mid-tier on size of fiscal deficit.
More threats of destabilisation from the US than Germany ? And also possible destabilisation of its American economic & defence relationships, perhaps.
The UK has never looked so alone.
Yes. Thank you again Brexiteers.
Brexit was and remains an era-defining disaster.
Perhaps one of its worst consequences was that it set the tone for establishment opposition to election results that bled over into the US when Trump won.
The Imperial British Dilapidations of Rangoon, Myanmar
For some reason your Rangoon making me of the film Empire of The Sun, although that was filmed in Shanghai, I think.
And set in Shanghai - great film and book. Dunno if the CCP would be happy to allow that kind of freedom now.
No doubt Ballard would have found Rangoon interesting if he did visit, though he may have had his fill of full-fat end of empire during the war.
Ballard would have loved modern Rangoon. Not least because of the layers. On top of the ancient pagodas and imperial British ruins you’ve got the new wartime layer - sandbags and barbed wire and soldiers - it does feel fairly warlike. And then on top of that you’ve got the 2025 vibe, the new century - so under some mildewed ruined grandiose British porch a block down from the half-ruined 4th century stupa, and surrounded by razor wire and piles of ruinous litter there’s a kid eagerly scrolling vids on his smartphone
On the question of anti-Americanism, I wouldn't describe myself as anti-,American at all. I read a lot of American literature, listen to American music, respect and am interested in particular American politicians and historical figures, and generally value the American and expansiveness. At times, since the war, we've managed to balance these influences very well with ones from Europe.
Do I want us to become part of America ? No. Would I fight to stop this ? Probably yes.
OT. Before Christmas, PB pointed me to the London Tube Memory Map. Without googling, I have just reached 80% of total stations, despite not having visited London since 2013. DLR and some of the outer reaches of the Overground are my weakest areas. Does this qualify me for the Ancient Order of Prassanan (2nd Class)? If so, what level is required for 1st Class status (free tea and coffee and antimacassars)?
Best news ever, this place should get a Michelin star.
Trendy pizzeria charges £100 for a Hawaiian to discourage customers from divisive topping
‘Pineapple on pizza? Never,’ says head chef of Norwich restaurant weighing in on age-old row
It is arguably the most divisive culinary combination.
Topping the traditional Italian favourite with pineapple now comes with a hefty price tag at one trendy pizzeria.
Lupa Pizza, in Norwich, is charging customers £100 for their Hawaiian pizza on the food delivery service, Deliveroo, because they disapprove of the combination so strongly.
The pizzeria, where the average base costs £11.70, has nailed its culinary colours to the mast, telling customers: “Yeah, for £100 you can have it. Order the champagne too! Go on you Monster!”
Francis Woolf, the co-owner of Lupa Pizza, told the Norwich Evening News: “I absolutely loathe pineapple on a pizza.”
It is a sentiment shared by Quin Jianoran, the head chef, who added: “I love a piña colada, but pineapple on pizza? Never. I’d rather put a bloody strawberry on one than that tropical menace.”
Thanks for linking that article from "Changing America". It was vey funny, unintentionally I assume. I especially liked this: "The U.S., where health care is privatized . . " Except for more than two trillion dollars per year.
And this: "Broad trends say that coastal states, such as California, Washington, Oregon, New York, Maine and Massachusetts offer better working conditions than states located in the South." Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia are all "coastal" states. And southern.
In fact, the US has by far the largest welfare state in the world, to the best of my knowledge.
But there appears to be a persistent belief among some that the US does not spend much on retirement and medical care. Can anyone explain to me why this is so? Why does this belief persist?
(For the record: For years I have been receiving benefits from the first two of those programs.)
I do not defend the designs of those programs, but will concede that changing them is, to say the least, difficult, politically.)
Execise for the interested: Compare the number of beneficiaries and the per capita spending for the NHS and the US Medicaid program.
I've seen it stated that if you took Medicaid, Medicare, the veterans medical systems etc the US is already spending more than the cost per capita of the NHS.
The reason for the belief you describe is the perception that medical care in the US is 100% private and done by insurance.
Indeed, however how much bang does Medicaid or the Veterans' programme get for each buck? (That applies to both the Govt expenditure and the Copay).
And of course Mr Trump may have his eye on gutting Medicare and Medicaid, depending how much of Project 2025 is actually implemented.
I just did the maths and got
Cost per person for Medicare, Medicaid, and Veterans healthcare in 2024 approx - $4,491
Thanks for linking that article from "Changing America". It was vey funny, unintentionally I assume. I especially liked this: "The U.S., where health care is privatized . . " Except for more than two trillion dollars per year.
And this: "Broad trends say that coastal states, such as California, Washington, Oregon, New York, Maine and Massachusetts offer better working conditions than states located in the South." Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia are all "coastal" states. And southern.
Well, that's an internal US debate for you all to have there, I think. Thehill is a fairly respected Washington site, so they're not linking to something with no evidence.
There are also countless other studies indicating much lower in-work and out-of-work benefits in the U.S., than in comparable countries, which isn't too much of a surprise, as that's how the post-Reagan Republicans have consciously and openlybwanted things to be
I won't link to the article because it's about a subject we're not allowed to discuss, but Anglo-Canadian pundit Mark Steyn has always been a good barometer for the current attitudes of the hard Right. If he's anything to go by then the hard Right have looked at Reform, looked at Tommy Robinson and opted for the latter. Nigel's time way well be up - too stale and moderate now for requirements.
In fact, the US has by far the largest welfare state in the world, to the best of my knowledge.
But there appears to be a persistent belief among some that the US does not spend much on retirement and medical care. Can anyone explain to me why this is so? Why does this belief persist?
(For the record: For years I have been receiving benefits from the first two of those programs.)
I do not defend the designs of those programs, but will concede that changing them is, to say the least, difficult, politically.)
Execise for the interested: Compare the number of beneficiaries and the per capita spending for the NHS and the US Medicaid program.
I've seen it stated that if you took Medicaid, Medicare, the veterans medical systems etc the US is already spending more than the cost per capita of the NHS.
The reason for the belief you describe is the perception that medical care in the US is 100% private and done by insurance.
Indeed, however how much bang does Medicaid or the Veterans' programme get for each buck? (That applies to both the Govt expenditure and the Copay).
And of course Mr Trump may have his eye on gutting Medicare and Medicaid, depending how much of Project 2025 is actually implemented.
I just did the maths and got
Cost per person for Medicare, Medicaid, and Veterans healthcare in 2024 approx - $4,491
In fact, the US has by far the largest welfare state in the world, to the best of my knowledge.
But there appears to be a persistent belief among some that the US does not spend much on retirement and medical care. Can anyone explain to me why this is so? Why does this belief persist?
(For the record: For years I have been receiving benefits from the first two of those programs.)
I do not defend the designs of those programs, but will concede that changing them is, to say the least, difficult, politically.)
Execise for the interested: Compare the number of beneficiaries and the per capita spending for the NHS and the US Medicaid program.
I've seen it stated that if you took Medicaid, Medicare, the veterans medical systems etc the US is already spending more than the cost per capita of the NHS.
The reason for the belief you describe is the perception that medical care in the US is 100% private and done by insurance.
Indeed, however how much bang does Medicaid or the Veterans' programme get for each buck? (That applies to both the Govt expenditure and the Copay).
And of course Mr Trump may have his eye on gutting Medicare and Medicaid, depending how much of Project 2025 is actually implemented.
I just did the maths and got
Cost per person for Medicare, Medicaid, and Veterans healthcare in 2024 approx - $4,491
Cost per person for the NHS - $4,479
Speaks for itself, doesn't it?
Do we know which achieves better care/outcomes?
It would be very hard to separate out the American spending from the effect of the private healthcare spending on top - which is immense.
A reasoned attempt at a comparison between countries - but including the US private healthcare. But the US is still 11th vs 9th for the UK - in outcomes.
This would strongly suggest that Medicare, Medicaid, and Veterans healthcare on their own are vastly less efficient than the NHS and produce much worse outcomes.
On the question of anti-Americanism, I wouldn't describe myself as anti-,American at all. I read a lot of American literature, listen to American music, respect and am interested in particular American politicians and historical figures, and generally value the American and expansiveness. At times, since the war, we've managed to balance these influences very well with ones from Europe.
Do I want us to become part of America ? No. Would I fight to stop this ? Probably yes.
Very touching, but your allegiance is fairly worthless, given that you would happily see Britain subsumed within a European superstate that is more aligned with your own cultural and political tastes.
I won't link to the article because it's about a subject we're not allowed to discuss, but Anglo-Canadian pundit Mark Steyn has always been a good barometer for the current attitudes of the hard Right. If he's anything to go by then the hard Right have looked at Reform, looked at Tommy Robinson and opted for the latter. Nigel's time way well be up - too stale and moderate now for requirements.
You breathlessly predict the demise of Reform about twice a day.
I won't link to the article because it's about a subject we're not allowed to discuss, but Anglo-Canadian pundit Mark Steyn has always been a good barometer for the current attitudes of the hard Right. If he's anything to go by then the hard Right have looked at Reform, looked at Tommy Robinson and opted for the latter. Nigel's time way well be up - too stale and moderate now for requirements.
There's always going to be a 'hard' right that thinks Farage is too soft but how many of them are there?
On the question of anti-Americanism, I wouldn't describe myself as anti-,American at all. I read a lot of American literature, listen to American music, respect and am interested in particular American politicians and historical figures, and generally value the American and expansiveness. At times, since the war, we've managed to balance these influences very well with ones from Europe.
Do I want us to become part of America ? No. Would I fight to stop this ? Probably yes.
Very touching, but your allegiance is fairly worthless, given that you would happily see Britain subsumed within a European superstate that is more aligned with your own cultural and political tastes.
No, if there was a choice I'd rather see Britain subsumed into whatever gives it greater autonomy.
So it's quite simple ; I would prefer the current, pretty significant autonomy, that France and Gernany have, to what seems to be an emergent MAGA idea to have us directly ruled from Washington.
I won't link to the article because it's about a subject we're not allowed to discuss, but Anglo-Canadian pundit Mark Steyn has always been a good barometer for the current attitudes of the hard Right. If he's anything to go by then the hard Right have looked at Reform, looked at Tommy Robinson and opted for the latter. Nigel's time way well be up - too stale and moderate now for requirements.
There's always going to be a 'hard' right that thinks Farage is too soft but how many of them are there?
Neither Farage nor Robinson are ethnonationalists so that sense they're both 'soft' right.
I won't link to the article because it's about a subject we're not allowed to discuss, but Anglo-Canadian pundit Mark Steyn has always been a good barometer for the current attitudes of the hard Right. If he's anything to go by then the hard Right have looked at Reform, looked at Tommy Robinson and opted for the latter. Nigel's time way well be up - too stale and moderate now for requirements.
You breathlessly predict the demise of Reform about twice a day.
Do I? I can't recall doing so on even one occasion.
On the question of anti-Americanism, I wouldn't describe myself as anti-,American at all. I read a lot of American literature, listen to American music, respect and am interested in particular American politicians and historical figures, and generally value the American and expansiveness. At times, since the war, we've managed to balance these influences very well with ones from Europe.
Do I want us to become part of America ? No. Would I fight to stop this ? Probably yes.
Very touching, but your allegiance is fairly worthless, given that you would happily see Britain subsumed within a European superstate that is more aligned with your own cultural and political tastes.
No, if there was a choice I'd rather see Britain subsumed into whatever gives it greater autonomy.
So it's quite simple ; I would prefer the current, pretty significant autonomy, that France and Gernany have, to what seems to be an emergent MAGA idea to have us directly ruled from Washington.
It's a delusion that we're not ruled by Washington. It is pretty much at the behest of Washington that we were in the EU in the first place. As we've discussed, should the MAGA hordes succeed in making us the 51st state, that would give us more democratic rights within the USA than we currently possess, not less. 'Government by fax' with no stake in the outcome will be a concept you are very familiar with having rehearsed that argument many times.
That said, should the plan ever take shape, I'll be on the front lines with you, though for very different reasons.
"So, Starmer and Reeves must bear the impact of crashing into the brick wall of [an emergency Budget on] 26 March together. Between them, they have failed to give themselves enough room to avoid the collision. The only thing that can save them is some good luck on the economy that brings the OBR forecast back into line with Reeves’s fiscal rules in time."
I've come to the conclusion that this and every future Government is going to fail, until something effective is done about both economic inequality and the dependency ratio. The measures required, which will essentially amount to stripping wealthy elderly people and their heirs of a large chunk of their riches, and telling everyone under the age of about fifty that they will have to keep working into their seventies before they can claim the state pension, are going to be so unpopular that the country will have to keep circling the plughole until it falls into some major systemic crisis that will force ministers to act.
An unsustainable rise in gilt yields as foreign investors conclude that we are a basket case seems the most likely scenario, although the collapse of the healthcare system leading to mass avoidable fatalities might also do it. We shall see.
If it’s just us, and not other European countries that need such drastic treatment, we would need to look at the reasons why. Destroying manufacturing, austerity, selling the family silver. Perhaps then, people would see the damage that Thatcher, Brown and Osborne inflicted on us.
It is not just us. Most rich world countries face sluggish growth, and are living beyond their means.
Now, compared to most people, in most times, we’ve all drawn first prize in the lottery of life.
Demographics. (Specifically, demographics is destiny as Auguste Comte noted about 200 years ago.)
Economies grew very quickly when birth rates dipped and women could spend much more time in the workforce. And this was combined with the echo of the Second World War, which meant we didn't have too many old people to support.
Now we have lots of old people sucking up the economic output of workers, constraining growth. With fertility rates so far below replacement, the issue gets more and more acute. Ultimately, people who aren't working need to live off the economic output of those who are. (Work is ephemeral, you really can't save it up for later.)
The British government amerliorated the problem by importing lots of people of working age to maintain the dependency ratio. But this wasn't without its own costs: in terms of housing availability and the inevitable issues that occur when people with different cultures live together.
Nobody has actually addressed this issue yet.
More to the point - productivity,
There are some weird attitudes to this still. Talk about it, and I’ll guarantee someone will sneer about “flogging the workers”
Real productivity increases *reduce* the amount of work required to create a product. Less effort for the result.
It is at the heart of the vast increase in living standards since WWII.
And productivity increases have stalled in the U.K.
Education can therefore increase productivity as an educated workforce can innovate
It depends what we educate them in.
Which is why I want to merge the academic and “technical” training. In much of the modern economy we need people who understand (and do) both “white collar” and “blue collar” tasks.
The Britishvolt comedy is perfect example of the problem - they didn’t have anyone who actually knew much about manufacturing batteries or the science behind it. So they did a moderately clever property deal and thought that they would hire in all that dirty technology knowledge as an afterthought.
Hence my niche as an engineer-turned-lawyer
I get your point though generally, but BritishVolt failed and so what? We need to adopt a culture of failure being the driver for better in the future rather than an object of mockery. Those involved in BritishVolt will have learned from that failure, you would hope. The government and/or the local authority also should have learned from that too.
There is little evidence of recognition of the problem. Especially from those involved with BritishVolt. Who seem to believe that if someone had kept shovelling money at them, a battery factory would have built itself.
The point is that if we don’t get the culture of technology+finance+sociology+politics combined, things won’t change.
And while “proper leaders” are generalists (accountants and lawyers) who don’t want to understand technology, we wont succeed in technology.
Embracing failure is an important piece, I agree. But so is understanding how to use it.
To upset some people here - consider how SpaceX pivoted to stainless steel from carbon fibre. The carbon fibre solution failed - grew in cost and weight. The traditional approach would to have carried on the investment on sunk cost grounds, wait until the project failed and abandon everything.
We would probably need to import the expertise/technology for any big expansion of battery manufacturing. Either Chinese - which is currently the best - or Korean.
I would have got Panasonic to partner up for the first couple of factories, myself.
They’ve actually done that in several places.
For now, they’re no longer SOTA, but agreed, another alternative. The point is that even well funded, serious efforts to start from scratch, like Northvolt, have run into the sand.
"So, Starmer and Reeves must bear the impact of crashing into the brick wall of [an emergency Budget on] 26 March together. Between them, they have failed to give themselves enough room to avoid the collision. The only thing that can save them is some good luck on the economy that brings the OBR forecast back into line with Reeves’s fiscal rules in time."
I've come to the conclusion that this and every future Government is going to fail, until something effective is done about both economic inequality and the dependency ratio. The measures required, which will essentially amount to stripping wealthy elderly people and their heirs of a large chunk of their riches, and telling everyone under the age of about fifty that they will have to keep working into their seventies before they can claim the state pension, are going to be so unpopular that the country will have to keep circling the plughole until it falls into some major systemic crisis that will force ministers to act.
An unsustainable rise in gilt yields as foreign investors conclude that we are a basket case seems the most likely scenario, although the collapse of the healthcare system leading to mass avoidable fatalities might also do it. We shall see.
If it’s just us, and not other European countries that need such drastic treatment, we would need to look at the reasons why. Destroying manufacturing, austerity, selling the family silver. Perhaps then, people would see the damage that Thatcher, Brown and Osborne inflicted on us.
It is not just us. Most rich world countries face sluggish growth, and are living beyond their means.
Now, compared to most people, in most times, we’ve all drawn first prize in the lottery of life.
Demographics. (Specifically, demographics is destiny as Auguste Comte noted about 200 years ago.)
Economies grew very quickly when birth rates dipped and women could spend much more time in the workforce. And this was combined with the echo of the Second World War, which meant we didn't have too many old people to support.
Now we have lots of old people sucking up the economic output of workers, constraining growth. With fertility rates so far below replacement, the issue gets more and more acute. Ultimately, people who aren't working need to live off the economic output of those who are. (Work is ephemeral, you really can't save it up for later.)
The British government amerliorated the problem by importing lots of people of working age to maintain the dependency ratio. But this wasn't without its own costs: in terms of housing availability and the inevitable issues that occur when people with different cultures live together.
Nobody has actually addressed this issue yet.
Absolutely. The price of zero immigration is a high dependency burden and endless austerity.
That would be the choice if an honest one was put to the electorate.
Playing devil’s advocate, you could accompany it with policies designed to vastly increase the number of births i.e. subsidies for mothers
Natalist Autarky, that would be in the lingo? It has its supporters, I gather.
Why is importing people better than local manufacture?
Because we don't pay for schooling and training?
A high proportion of immigrants are better qualified than the average Brit.
In my view we should be striving for the average brit to be better educated and better qualified than the rest of the world
So who does the jobs that don't require education and qualifications?
On the question of anti-Americanism, I wouldn't describe myself as anti-,American at all. I read a lot of American literature, listen to American music, respect and am interested in particular American politicians and historical figures, and generally value the American and expansiveness. At times, since the war, we've managed to balance these influences very well with ones from Europe.
Do I want us to become part of America ? No. Would I fight to stop this ? Probably yes.
Very touching, but your allegiance is fairly worthless, given that you would happily see Britain subsumed within a European superstate that is more aligned with your own cultural and political tastes.
No, if there was a choice I'd rather see Britain subsumed into whatever gives it greater autonomy.
So it's quite simple ; I would prefer the current, pretty significant autonomy, that France and Gernany have, to what seems to be an emergent MAGA idea to have us directly ruled from Washington.
My idea is an Anglospheric Federation of all the States of the USA, Provinces of Canada, Countries of Blighty, States of Australia, plus New Zealand and Ireland (the latter two of course being "single states" in real life).
Thus, there would be no "United States", or "Canada", or "UK", or "Australia"; the above mentioned subdivisions plus NZ and Ireland would all be States of my Anglospheric Federation, equal in status to one another.
Of course, given England (with 92 Electoral Votes) would easily be more populous than 2nd placed California, and London is just that bit more populous than New York, there is the ever so slight temptation to make London the, shall we say, "adminstrative centre" of the Federation.
I won't link to the article because it's about a subject we're not allowed to discuss, but Anglo-Canadian pundit Mark Steyn has always been a good barometer for the current attitudes of the hard Right. If he's anything to go by then the hard Right have looked at Reform, looked at Tommy Robinson and opted for the latter. Nigel's time way well be up - too stale and moderate now for requirements.
The thing which seems dimly understood (at best) by most of the comenteriat is that, despite all the column inches devoted to claiming he was, Nigel (and Reform) aren't hard right, and never have been. He is to the right of the Tories on a number of issues, but he's not a skinhead racist EDL type.
The comenteriat therefore also fail to understand that some noise from the EDL types that Nige isn't one of them doesn't matter, because neither is much of the electorate. The 20-25% of the population currently indicating they will vote Reform haven't all suddenly become Tommy Robinson fans overnight - they are more the traditional economic/ social conservatives who are fed up with the Tories for being wet and useless, and fed up with Labour for managing the remarkable achievement of being more damaging in government than the Tories.
The skinheads saying Fararge is a bit wet for them is probably good news for him - it's easier for us normals to admit to supporting Reform if you don't immediately get accused of being virtually the EDL.
Full disclosure - I voted Tory in 2019 and Reform in 2024. My seat is a nominal Tory/Lab marginal, how I vote will depend on the national polling and party leaders at the next election, but will probably be aimed at achieving either a Reform government or a Ref-Tory coalition.
I won't link to the article because it's about a subject we're not allowed to discuss, but Anglo-Canadian pundit Mark Steyn has always been a good barometer for the current attitudes of the hard Right. If he's anything to go by then the hard Right have looked at Reform, looked at Tommy Robinson and opted for the latter. Nigel's time way well be up - too stale and moderate now for requirements.
The thing which seems dimly understood (at best) by most of the comenteriat is that, despite all the column inches devoted to claiming he was, Nigel (and Reform) aren't hard right, and never have been. He is to the right of the Tories on a number of issues, but he's not a skinhead racist EDL type.
The comenteriat therefore also fail to understand that some noise from the EDL types that Nige isn't one of them doesn't matter, because neither is much of the electorate. The 20-25% of the population currently indicating they will vote Reform haven't all suddenly become Tommy Robinson fans overnight - they are more the traditional economic/ social conservatives who are fed up with the Tories for being wet and useless, and fed up with Labour for managing the remarkable achievement of being more damaging in government than the Tories.
The skinheads saying Fararge is a bit wet for them is probably good news for him - it's easier for us normals to admit to supporting Reform if you don't immediately get accused of being virtually the EDL.
Full disclosure - I voted Tory in 2019 and Reform in 2024. My seat is a nominal Tory/Lab marginal, how I vote will depend on the national polling and party leaders at the next election, but will probably be aimed at achieving either a Reform government or a Ref-Tory coalition.
I voted for Brexit in 2016, and Brexit Party at the 2019 Euro Elections (remember those?? LOL!).
"So, Starmer and Reeves must bear the impact of crashing into the brick wall of [an emergency Budget on] 26 March together. Between them, they have failed to give themselves enough room to avoid the collision. The only thing that can save them is some good luck on the economy that brings the OBR forecast back into line with Reeves’s fiscal rules in time."
I've come to the conclusion that this and every future Government is going to fail, until something effective is done about both economic inequality and the dependency ratio. The measures required, which will essentially amount to stripping wealthy elderly people and their heirs of a large chunk of their riches, and telling everyone under the age of about fifty that they will have to keep working into their seventies before they can claim the state pension, are going to be so unpopular that the country will have to keep circling the plughole until it falls into some major systemic crisis that will force ministers to act.
An unsustainable rise in gilt yields as foreign investors conclude that we are a basket case seems the most likely scenario, although the collapse of the healthcare system leading to mass avoidable fatalities might also do it. We shall see.
If it’s just us, and not other European countries that need such drastic treatment, we would need to look at the reasons why. Destroying manufacturing, austerity, selling the family silver. Perhaps then, people would see the damage that Thatcher, Brown and Osborne inflicted on us.
It is not just us. Most rich world countries face sluggish growth, and are living beyond their means.
Now, compared to most people, in most times, we’ve all drawn first prize in the lottery of life.
Demographics. (Specifically, demographics is destiny as Auguste Comte noted about 200 years ago.)
Economies grew very quickly when birth rates dipped and women could spend much more time in the workforce. And this was combined with the echo of the Second World War, which meant we didn't have too many old people to support.
Now we have lots of old people sucking up the economic output of workers, constraining growth. With fertility rates so far below replacement, the issue gets more and more acute. Ultimately, people who aren't working need to live off the economic output of those who are. (Work is ephemeral, you really can't save it up for later.)
The British government amerliorated the problem by importing lots of people of working age to maintain the dependency ratio. But this wasn't without its own costs: in terms of housing availability and the inevitable issues that occur when people with different cultures live together.
Nobody has actually addressed this issue yet.
Absolutely. The price of zero immigration is a high dependency burden and endless austerity.
That would be the choice if an honest one was put to the electorate.
Playing devil’s advocate, you could accompany it with policies designed to vastly increase the number of births i.e. subsidies for mothers
Natalist Autarky, that would be in the lingo? It has its supporters, I gather.
Why is importing people better than local manufacture?
Because we don't pay for schooling and training?
A high proportion of immigrants are better qualified than the average Brit.
In my view we should be striving for the average brit to be better educated and better qualified than the rest of the world
So who does the jobs that don't require education and qualifications?
Just because a job doesn't require education and qualifications doesn't mean someone who is well educated can't do it, or even perform the job more efficiently.
Malmesbury said: "This would strongly suggest that Medicare, Medicaid, and Veterans healthcare on their own are vastly less efficient than the NHS and produce much worse outcomes." I agree with the first -- yes, those US programs are inefficient -- but disagree with the second -- that they produce much worse outcomes. (For what it is worth, two smaller US programs, the Veteran's Administration, and the Indian Health Service, are run somewhat like your NHS; they have salaried doctors paid directly by the government.)
We’ve got Wilson at the moment, we need a new Callaghan first.
Wilson was funny and quick on the feet at the despatch box.
You can't say that about Starmer.
Wilson was also an economics don.
And a statistician. And a member of, and President of, the Royal Statistical Society.
The bloke who murdered Mahatma Gandhi was a member of the RSS.
EDIT: Oh, you mean a different RSS!
Once upon a time there was a Revolutionary Students' Society on every campus. I assume they live on in dark corners of the internet, even to this day, earnestly discussing whether amelioration of the workers' misery is a reactionary anti-Marxist ploy or just a doomed attempt to contain the contradictions of capitalism and postpone the inevitable denouement.
In fact, the US has by far the largest welfare state in the world, to the best of my knowledge.
But there appears to be a persistent belief among some that the US does not spend much on retirement and medical care. Can anyone explain to me why this is so? Why does this belief persist?
(For the record: For years I have been receiving benefits from the first two of those programs.)
I do not defend the designs of those programs, but will concede that changing them is, to say the least, difficult, politically.)
Execise for the interested: Compare the number of beneficiaries and the per capita spending for the NHS and the US Medicaid program.
I've seen it stated that if you took Medicaid, Medicare, the veterans medical systems etc the US is already spending more than the cost per capita of the NHS.
The reason for the belief you describe is the perception that medical care in the US is 100% private and done by insurance.
Indeed, however how much bang does Medicaid or the Veterans' programme get for each buck? (That applies to both the Govt expenditure and the Copay).
And of course Mr Trump may have his eye on gutting Medicare and Medicaid, depending how much of Project 2025 is actually implemented.
I just did the maths and got
Cost per person for Medicare, Medicaid, and Veterans healthcare in 2024 approx - $4,491
Cost per person for the NHS - $4,479
Speaks for itself, doesn't it?
Cheers.
Is that per person who uses Medicare etc or per person of USA population?
Clearly the NHS is providing a far wider scope of service, and with no copay, but what about the denominator in that calculation?
Malmesbury said: "This would strongly suggest that Medicare, Medicaid, and Veterans healthcare on their own are vastly less efficient than the NHS and produce much worse outcomes." I agree with the first -- yes, those US programs are inefficient -- but disagree with the second -- that they produce much worse outcomes. (For what it is worth, two smaller US programs, the Veteran's Administration, and the Indian Health Service, are run somewhat like your NHS; they have salaried doctors paid directly by the government.)
In fact, the US has by far the largest welfare state in the world, to the best of my knowledge.
But there appears to be a persistent belief among some that the US does not spend much on retirement and medical care. Can anyone explain to me why this is so? Why does this belief persist?
(For the record: For years I have been receiving benefits from the first two of those programs.)
I do not defend the designs of those programs, but will concede that changing them is, to say the least, difficult, politically.)
Execise for the interested: Compare the number of beneficiaries and the per capita spending for the NHS and the US Medicaid program.
I've seen it stated that if you took Medicaid, Medicare, the veterans medical systems etc the US is already spending more than the cost per capita of the NHS.
The reason for the belief you describe is the perception that medical care in the US is 100% private and done by insurance.
Indeed, however how much bang does Medicaid or the Veterans' programme get for each buck? (That applies to both the Govt expenditure and the Copay).
And of course Mr Trump may have his eye on gutting Medicare and Medicaid, depending how much of Project 2025 is actually implemented.
I just did the maths and got
Cost per person for Medicare, Medicaid, and Veterans healthcare in 2024 approx - $4,491
Cost per person for the NHS - $4,479
Speaks for itself, doesn't it?
Cheers.
Is that per person who uses Medicare etc or per person of USA population?
Clearly the NHS is providing a far wider scope of service, and with no copay, but what about the denominator in that calculation?
Per person of US population. The point is that more money is being spent by the US Government right now, on a limited group of people, than the cost of an NHS style universal solution.
We’ve got Wilson at the moment, we need a new Callaghan first.
Wilson was funny and quick on the feet at the despatch box.
You can't say that about Starmer.
Wilson was also an economics don.
And a statistician. And a member of, and President of, the Royal Statistical Society.
The bloke who murdered Mahatma Gandhi was a member of the RSS.
EDIT: Oh, you mean a different RSS!
Once upon a time there was a Revolutionary Students' Society on every campus. I assume they live on in dark corners of the internet, even to this day, earnestly discussing whether amelioration of the workers' misery is a reactionary anti-Marxist ploy or just a doomed attempt to contain the contradictions of capitalism and postpone the inevitable denouement.
These days they're all writing for Spiked and supporting Donald Trump.
Neil Henderson @hendopolis · 4m MAIL ON SUNDAY: Musk and Cummings ‘in plot to sabotage UK politics’ #TomorrowsPapersToday
Cummings is just a bog standard agitator who thinks 'disrupting' things is automatically a good idea (as opposed to sometimes being good), his pronouncements are always so basic and trite, I don't get why some campaigning success imbued him with the self belief - and reputation with others - as some kind of brilliant svengali.
On the question of anti-Americanism, I wouldn't describe myself as anti-,American at all. I read a lot of American literature, listen to American music, respect and am interested in particular American politicians and historical figures, and generally value the American and expansiveness. At times, since the war, we've managed to balance these influences very well with ones from Europe.
Do I want us to become part of America ? No. Would I fight to stop this ? Probably yes.
Very touching, but your allegiance is fairly worthless, given that you would happily see Britain subsumed within a European superstate that is more aligned with your own cultural and political tastes.
No, if there was a choice I'd rather see Britain subsumed into whatever gives it greater autonomy.
So it's quite simple ; I would prefer the current, pretty significant autonomy, that France and Gernany have, to what seems to be an emergent MAGA idea to have us directly ruled from Washington.
My idea is an Anglospheric Federation of all the States of the USA, Provinces of Canada, Countries of Blighty, States of Australia, plus New Zealand and Ireland (the latter two of course being "single states" in real life).
Thus, there would be no "United States", or "Canada", or "UK", or "Australia"; the above mentioned subdivisions plus NZ and Ireland would all be States of my Anglospheric Federation, equal in status to one another.
Of course, given England (with 92 Electoral Votes) would easily be more populous than 2nd placed California, and London is just that bit more populous than New York, there is the ever so slight temptation to make London the, shall we say, "adminstrative centre" of the Federation.
It might be more appropriate / sensible to make the UK into 11 States, following the Government Regions of England, Wales, Scotland & NI. That would place it far closer to the size of the average US State (which is 6.7 million).
Similarly Australia 6 States plus or minus one, and Canada 11 States (to be pragmatic), and Ireland, and New Zealand.
That's about 30 more, which would balance representation in the Senate, and perhaps civilise the House a little.
On the question of anti-Americanism, I wouldn't describe myself as anti-,American at all. I read a lot of American literature, listen to American music, respect and am interested in particular American politicians and historical figures, and generally value the American and expansiveness. At times, since the war, we've managed to balance these influences very well with ones from Europe.
Do I want us to become part of America ? No. Would I fight to stop this ? Probably yes.
Very touching, but your allegiance is fairly worthless, given that you would happily see Britain subsumed within a European superstate that is more aligned with your own cultural and political tastes.
No, if there was a choice I'd rather see Britain subsumed into whatever gives it greater autonomy.
So it's quite simple ; I would prefer the current, pretty significant autonomy, that France and Gernany have, to what seems to be an emergent MAGA idea to have us directly ruled from Washington.
My idea is an Anglospheric Federation of all the States of the USA, Provinces of Canada, Countries of Blighty, States of Australia, plus New Zealand and Ireland (the latter two of course being "single states" in real life).
Thus, there would be no "United States", or "Canada", or "UK", or "Australia"; the above mentioned subdivisions plus NZ and Ireland would all be States of my Anglospheric Federation, equal in status to one another.
Of course, given England (with 92 Electoral Votes) would easily be more populous than 2nd placed California, and London is just that bit more populous than New York, there is the ever so slight temptation to make London the, shall we say, "adminstrative centre" of the Federation.
It might be more appropriate / sensible to make the UK into 11 States, following the Government Regions of England, Wales, Scotland & NI. That would place it far closer to the size of the average US State (which is 6.7 million).
Similarly Australia 6 States plus or minus one, and Canada 11 States (to be pragmatic), and Ireland, and New Zealand.
That's about 30 more, which would balance representation in the Senate, and perhaps civilise the House a little.
Did anyone in this conversation read the 51st State by Peter Preston?
On the question of anti-Americanism, I wouldn't describe myself as anti-,American at all. I read a lot of American literature, listen to American music, respect and am interested in particular American politicians and historical figures, and generally value the American and expansiveness. At times, since the war, we've managed to balance these influences very well with ones from Europe.
Do I want us to become part of America ? No. Would I fight to stop this ? Probably yes.
Very touching, but your allegiance is fairly worthless, given that you would happily see Britain subsumed within a European superstate that is more aligned with your own cultural and political tastes.
No, if there was a choice I'd rather see Britain subsumed into whatever gives it greater autonomy.
So it's quite simple ; I would prefer the current, pretty significant autonomy, that France and Gernany have, to what seems to be an emergent MAGA idea to have us directly ruled from Washington.
My idea is an Anglospheric Federation of all the States of the USA, Provinces of Canada, Countries of Blighty, States of Australia, plus New Zealand and Ireland (the latter two of course being "single states" in real life).
Thus, there would be no "United States", or "Canada", or "UK", or "Australia"; the above mentioned subdivisions plus NZ and Ireland would all be States of my Anglospheric Federation, equal in status to one another.
Of course, given England (with 92 Electoral Votes) would easily be more populous than 2nd placed California, and London is just that bit more populous than New York, there is the ever so slight temptation to make London the, shall we say, "adminstrative centre" of the Federation.
It might be more appropriate / sensible to make the UK into 11 States, following the Government Regions of England, Wales, Scotland & NI. That would place it far closer to the size of the average US State (which is 6.7 million).
Whitehall would love that kind of organisation even now (albeit with less power than a US State has).
It's not really surprising the government have been keen to move so quickly on its strategic mayoralty plan, as for Whitehall purposes is means that in a few years time they will only meaningfully have to engage with 50 or so mayors, rather than hundreds of council leaders (a lot of whom will still exist, but sitting 'under' the strategic authorities government can ignore them).
Best news ever, this place should get a Michelin star.
Trendy pizzeria charges £100 for a Hawaiian to discourage customers from divisive topping
‘Pineapple on pizza? Never,’ says head chef of Norwich restaurant weighing in on age-old row
It is arguably the most divisive culinary combination.
Topping the traditional Italian favourite with pineapple now comes with a hefty price tag at one trendy pizzeria.
Lupa Pizza, in Norwich, is charging customers £100 for their Hawaiian pizza on the food delivery service, Deliveroo, because they disapprove of the combination so strongly.
The pizzeria, where the average base costs £11.70, has nailed its culinary colours to the mast, telling customers: “Yeah, for £100 you can have it. Order the champagne too! Go on you Monster!”
Francis Woolf, the co-owner of Lupa Pizza, told the Norwich Evening News: “I absolutely loathe pineapple on a pizza.”
It is a sentiment shared by Quin Jianoran, the head chef, who added: “I love a piña colada, but pineapple on pizza? Never. I’d rather put a bloody strawberry on one than that tropical menace.”
Neil Henderson @hendopolis · 4m MAIL ON SUNDAY: Musk and Cummings ‘in plot to sabotage UK politics’ #TomorrowsPapersToday
The people who are sabotaging UK politics are the politicians.
Unless Musk and Cummings have a few hundred competent politicians in reserve they're not going to achieve anything.
That presupposes they want to achieve anything specific.
For those taking a Littlefinger-esque approach to events the creation (or enhancement) of chaos to the established order is self-justifyingly a good outcome, with a sanguine attitude as to what may follow.
Anyone doing American Primeval on Netflix? Not a lot of laughs but nicely shot and a definite Blood Meridian vibe,
There seems to have been a miniature revival of gritty western dramas in the last 5 years or so, both modern and historic, though mostly on TV rather than film.
From the cast list American Primeval seems to be made up of people who looked like they might become big film stars but never quite made it.
"So, Starmer and Reeves must bear the impact of crashing into the brick wall of [an emergency Budget on] 26 March together. Between them, they have failed to give themselves enough room to avoid the collision. The only thing that can save them is some good luck on the economy that brings the OBR forecast back into line with Reeves’s fiscal rules in time."
I've come to the conclusion that this and every future Government is going to fail, until something effective is done about both economic inequality and the dependency ratio. The measures required, which will essentially amount to stripping wealthy elderly people and their heirs of a large chunk of their riches, and telling everyone under the age of about fifty that they will have to keep working into their seventies before they can claim the state pension, are going to be so unpopular that the country will have to keep circling the plughole until it falls into some major systemic crisis that will force ministers to act.
An unsustainable rise in gilt yields as foreign investors conclude that we are a basket case seems the most likely scenario, although the collapse of the healthcare system leading to mass avoidable fatalities might also do it. We shall see.
If it’s just us, and not other European countries that need such drastic treatment, we would need to look at the reasons why. Destroying manufacturing, austerity, selling the family silver. Perhaps then, people would see the damage that Thatcher, Brown and Osborne inflicted on us.
It is not just us. Most rich world countries face sluggish growth, and are living beyond their means.
Now, compared to most people, in most times, we’ve all drawn first prize in the lottery of life.
Demographics. (Specifically, demographics is destiny as Auguste Comte noted about 200 years ago.)
Economies grew very quickly when birth rates dipped and women could spend much more time in the workforce. And this was combined with the echo of the Second World War, which meant we didn't have too many old people to support.
Now we have lots of old people sucking up the economic output of workers, constraining growth. With fertility rates so far below replacement, the issue gets more and more acute. Ultimately, people who aren't working need to live off the economic output of those who are. (Work is ephemeral, you really can't save it up for later.)
The British government amerliorated the problem by importing lots of people of working age to maintain the dependency ratio. But this wasn't without its own costs: in terms of housing availability and the inevitable issues that occur when people with different cultures live together.
Nobody has actually addressed this issue yet.
Absolutely. The price of zero immigration is a high dependency burden and endless austerity.
That would be the choice if an honest one was put to the electorate.
Playing devil’s advocate, you could accompany it with policies designed to vastly increase the number of births i.e. subsidies for mothers
Natalist Autarky, that would be in the lingo? It has its supporters, I gather.
Why is importing people better than local manufacture?
Because we don't pay for schooling and training?
A high proportion of immigrants are better qualified than the average Brit.
In my view we should be striving for the average brit to be better educated and better qualified than the rest of the world
So who does the jobs that don't require education and qualifications?
Just because a job doesn't require education and qualifications doesn't mean someone who is well educated can't do it
I won't link to the article because it's about a subject we're not allowed to discuss, but Anglo-Canadian pundit Mark Steyn has always been a good barometer for the current attitudes of the hard Right. If he's anything to go by then the hard Right have looked at Reform, looked at Tommy Robinson and opted for the latter. Nigel's time way well be up - too stale and moderate now for requirements.
There's always going to be a 'hard' right that thinks Farage is too soft but how many of them are there?
I'd say perhaps 15-25% of people in Reform UK ie a significant minority, estimating (not as a straight ratio) from eg people willing to say so on Reform facebook pages and prominence of people like Habib.
But I have no polling data - has such a poll been done?
Neil Henderson @hendopolis · 4m MAIL ON SUNDAY: Musk and Cummings ‘in plot to sabotage UK politics’ #TomorrowsPapersToday
The people who are sabotaging UK politics are the politicians.
Unless Musk and Cummings have a few hundred competent politicians in reserve they're not going to achieve anything.
That presupposes they want to achieve anything specific.
For those taking a Littlefinger-esque approach to events the creation (or enhancement) of chaos to the established order is self-justifyingly a good outcome, with a sanguine attitude as to what may follow.
But the creation of chaos so as to enable the outsider to reach the top doesn't work for Cummings now.
Or rather it already has and he blew it when he was in the position of maximum influence.
He's not going to get another chance.
Likewise for Musk, he's in a position of maximum influence - creating chaos is more likely to bring his downfall (very possibly fatally) than bring him more power.
Two interesting legal developments today relating to our civil service and its understanding - or, rather, misunderstanding of equality law. In one case 2 Ministerial Departments have had to pay out a whistleblowers claim in full (a substantial six-figure sum), agree to rewrite their internal equality policies and return to a policy of impartiality. It's a pretty comprehensive defeat - by agreement - not even after a court ruling after a few years of trying to fight the case.
Who the hell took the decision to fight: lawyers? HR? The Head of the Civil Service? Ministers? (The last seems unlikely to me.) A colossal waste of time and money. And pretty appalling that 2 Departments have to admit publicly that they have not been impartial in relation to their obligations to their employees and their understanding of the relevant law, as well as not understanding how wrong it is to retaliate against whistleblowers, as they did. There is also (no surprise to me) 2 conflicts of interest at the heart of the case.
Neil Henderson @hendopolis · 4m MAIL ON SUNDAY: Musk and Cummings ‘in plot to sabotage UK politics’ #TomorrowsPapersToday
The people who are sabotaging UK politics are the politicians.
Unless Musk and Cummings have a few hundred competent politicians in reserve they're not going to achieve anything.
That presupposes they want to achieve anything specific.
For those taking a Littlefinger-esque approach to events the creation (or enhancement) of chaos to the established order is self-justifyingly a good outcome, with a sanguine attitude as to what may follow.
But the creation of chaos so as to enable the outsider to reach the top doesn't work for Cummings now.
Or rather it already has and he blew it when he was in the position of maximum influence.
He's not going to get another chance.
Likewise for Musk, he's in a position of maximum influence - creating chaos is more likely to bring his downfall (very possibly fatally) than bring him more power.
Cummings I suspect is just being vindictive because he blew his shot.
Musk is probably just overreaching because he has zero patience for anything, including taking the time to learn about the issues as he thinks he knows everything about politics and no one tells him otherwise (no one he listens to).
Two interesting legal developments today relating to our civil service and its understanding - or, rather, misunderstanding of equality law. I one case 2 Ministerial Departments have had to pay out a whistleblowers claim in full (a substantial six-figure sum)and agree to rewrite their internal equality policies and return to a policy of impartiality. It's a pretty comprehensive defeat - by agreement - not even after a court ruling after a few years of trying to fight the case.
Who the hell took the decision to fight: lawyers? HR? The Head of the Civil Service? Ministers? (The last seems unlikely to me.) A colossal waste of time and money. And pretty appalling that 2 Departments have to admit publicly that they have not been impartial in relation to their obligations to their employees and their understanding of the relevant law, as well as not understanding how wrong it is to retaliate against whistleblowers, as they did. There is also (no surprise to me) 2 conflicts of interest at the heart of the case.
Aren't these things typically driven by internal culture, which tends to be very influenced by a few passionate (and not always well informed) people in HR, with senior managers just going with the flow as usually you can get by with it and so that becomes the expected norm even if it is wrong, until it blows up in their faces?
Neil Henderson @hendopolis · 4m MAIL ON SUNDAY: Musk and Cummings ‘in plot to sabotage UK politics’ #TomorrowsPapersToday
The people who are sabotaging UK politics are the politicians.
Unless Musk and Cummings have a few hundred competent politicians in reserve they're not going to achieve anything.
That presupposes they want to achieve anything specific.
For those taking a Littlefinger-esque approach to events the creation (or enhancement) of chaos to the established order is self-justifyingly a good outcome, with a sanguine attitude as to what may follow.
But the creation of chaos so as to enable the outsider to reach the top doesn't work for Cummings now.
Or rather it already has and he blew it when he was in the position of maximum influence.
He's not going to get another chance.
Likewise for Musk, he's in a position of maximum influence - creating chaos is more likely to bring his downfall (very possibly fatally) than bring him more power.
Cummings I suspect is just being vindictive because he blew his shot.
Musk is probably just overreaching because he has zero patience for anything, including taking the time to learn about the issues as he thinks he knows everything about politics and no one tells him otherwise (no one he listens to).
Imagine being a person who had zero patience for taking the time to learn, and yet simultaneously think you knew it all.
You'd end up driven mad in a hellhole like Rangoon.
Anyone doing American Primeval on Netflix? Not a lot of laughs but nicely shot and a definite Blood Meridian vibe,
There seems to have been a miniature revival of gritty western dramas in the last 5 years or so, both modern and historic, though mostly on TV rather than film.
From the cast list American Primeval seems to be made up of people who looked like they might become big film stars but never quite made it.
I always look backwards on these things. Unforgiven was 30-35 years ago - just about ripe for it having been taught to impressionable film students.
Two interesting legal developments today relating to our civil service and its understanding - or, rather, misunderstanding of equality law. I one case 2 Ministerial Departments have had to pay out a whistleblowers claim in full (a substantial six-figure sum)and agree to rewrite their internal equality policies and return to a policy of impartiality. It's a pretty comprehensive defeat - by agreement - not even after a court ruling after a few years of trying to fight the case.
Who the hell took the decision to fight: lawyers? HR? The Head of the Civil Service? Ministers? (The last seems unlikely to me.) A colossal waste of time and money. And pretty appalling that 2 Departments have to admit publicly that they have not been impartial in relation to their obligations to their employees and their understanding of the relevant law, as well as not understanding how wrong it is to retaliate against whistleblowers, as they did. There is also (no surprise to me) 2 conflicts of interest at the heart of the case.
Aren't these things typically driven by internal culture, which tends to be very influenced by a few passionate (and not always well informed) people in HR, with senior managers just going with the flow as usually you can get by with it and so that becomes the expected norm even if it is wrong, until it blows up in their faces?
Worse than that I think. Driven in part by a one-issue lobby group (one of the obvious conflicts of interest which senior civil servants failed to spot - and not just in these 2 Departments - and, I strongly suspect, in others and in other public sector functions) and by a failure to pay any attention to the law and a series of court cases. That is a failure of the lawyers advising and of HR whose job it is to know about this stuff.
Also the laws around whistleblowing and non-retaliation have been known about for yonks. Mind you, my opinion of HR departments is at about the same level as my opinion of the Post Office's legal department or the Met police.
What’s not entirely obvious to me is why the UK’s gilts are so unpopular when the UK has the lowest debt:GDP level in the G7 bar Germany. And it is only mid-tier on size of fiscal deficit.
Edit: Although I am decidedly underwhelmed by Reeves, a lot of the anti-UK sentiment seems very overblown. Again, looking at the OECD, the UK has a great deal going for it.
Presumably it's got at least something to do with the fact that Reeve's credibility is shot. She's enacted a cash grabbing anti-growth budget which is hurting the private sector badly, she's also borrowing a shed load of extra cash with no plausible plan to ever shrink (never mind close) the deficit. From a bond holders point of view, there's a significant risk the printing presses go brrrrr and the currency gets devalued...
Euroseptics a few years ago - countries in the Euro lose the ability to devalue their currency Euroseptics now - oh horror , Britain is devaluing its currency
Two interesting legal developments today relating to our civil service and its understanding - or, rather, misunderstanding of equality law. In one case 2 Ministerial Departments have had to pay out a whistleblowers claim in full (a substantial six-figure sum), agree to rewrite their internal equality policies and return to a policy of impartiality. It's a pretty comprehensive defeat - by agreement - not even after a court ruling after a few years of trying to fight the case.
Who the hell took the decision to fight: lawyers? HR? The Head of the Civil Service? Ministers? (The last seems unlikely to me.) A colossal waste of time and money. And pretty appalling that 2 Departments have to admit publicly that they have not been impartial in relation to their obligations to their employees and their understanding of the relevant law, as well as not understanding how wrong it is to retaliate against whistleblowers, as they did. There is also (no surprise to me) 2 conflicts of interest at the heart of the case.
What’s not entirely obvious to me is why the UK’s gilts are so unpopular when the UK has the lowest debt:GDP level in the G7 bar Germany. And it is only mid-tier on size of fiscal deficit.
Edit: Although I am decidedly underwhelmed by Reeves, a lot of the anti-UK sentiment seems very overblown. Again, looking at the OECD, the UK has a great deal going for it.
Presumably it's got at least something to do with the fact that Reeve's credibility is shot. She's enacted a cash grabbing anti-growth budget which is hurting the private sector badly, she's also borrowing a shed load of extra cash with no plausible plan to ever shrink (never mind close) the deficit. From a bond holders point of view, there's a significant risk the printing presses go brrrrr and the currency gets devalued...
Euroseptics a few years ago - countries in the Euro lose the ability to devalue their currency Euroseptics now - oh horror , Britain is devaluing its currency
It's perfectly possible to hold both those views simultaneously.
Devaluations are bad. They are also somewhat of a safety valve - by making everyone whole holds currency "x" poorer, it squares (to some extent) the circle of reckless borrow and spend beloved of many social democratic politicians.
Being unable to devalue or default, which was effectively the position Greece was once it was in the Eurozone is even worse than devaluation, and is one of the many reason why the Euro was a stupid idea.
Devaluations shouldn't happen, and only occur because of poor government - however being unable to devalue when it is needed makes an already bad situation much worse.
What’s not entirely obvious to me is why the UK’s gilts are so unpopular when the UK has the lowest debt:GDP level in the G7 bar Germany. And it is only mid-tier on size of fiscal deficit.
More threats of destabilisation from the US than Germany ? And also possible destabilisation of its American economic & defence relationships, perhaps.
The UK has never looked so alone.
Yes. Thank you again Brexiteers.
Brexit was and remains an era-defining disaster.
Perhaps one of its worst consequences was that it set the tone for establishment opposition to election results that bled over into the US when Trump won.
What’s not entirely obvious to me is why the UK’s gilts are so unpopular when the UK has the lowest debt:GDP level in the G7 bar Germany. And it is only mid-tier on size of fiscal deficit.
Edit: Although I am decidedly underwhelmed by Reeves, a lot of the anti-UK sentiment seems very overblown. Again, looking at the OECD, the UK has a great deal going for it.
Presumably it's got at least something to do with the fact that Reeve's credibility is shot. She's enacted a cash grabbing anti-growth budget which is hurting the private sector badly, she's also borrowing a shed load of extra cash with no plausible plan to ever shrink (never mind close) the deficit. From a bond holders point of view, there's a significant risk the printing presses go brrrrr and the currency gets devalued...
Euroseptics a few years ago - countries in the Euro lose the ability to devalue their currency Euroseptics now - oh horror , Britain is devaluing its currency
Those are not inconsistent
Devaluation is a way of avoiding painful adjustments to improve competitiveness
However if you cannot devalue then you can end up with structurally high unemployment (especially among those with less value added eg at the start of their career).
Best situation is to be able to devalue but not need to. Next best is for any devaluation to be only temporary
Neil Henderson @hendopolis · 4m MAIL ON SUNDAY: Musk and Cummings ‘in plot to sabotage UK politics’ #TomorrowsPapersToday
Makes sense. Also explains Elon's swipe at Nigel, whom Dom loathes.
'The sources say that Mr Cummings, who has called for huge cuts to the size of the British state, is advising Mr Musk on his mission to slash trillions of dollars from US government spending on behalf of incoming President Donald Trump. Labour’s suspicions Mr Musk and Mr Cummings were in cahoots were aroused by the tech tycoon’s use of British terminology such as ‘two-tier Keir’ and the timings of his posts.
Many were put out in the middle of the night in America – coinciding with daytime in the UK – leading the sources to conclude Mr Musk ‘must have a UK-based co-conspirator writing the posts for him’.An ally of Mr Musk said: ‘It is 100 per cent true that they [Musk and Cummings] are talking about smaller government and the end of the traditional party system.
What’s not entirely obvious to me is why the UK’s gilts are so unpopular when the UK has the lowest debt:GDP level in the G7 bar Germany. And it is only mid-tier on size of fiscal deficit.
More threats of destabilisation from the US than Germany ? And also possible destabilisation of its American economic & defence relationships, perhaps.
The UK has never looked so alone.
Yes. Thank you again Brexiteers.
Brexit was and remains an era-defining disaster.
Perhaps one of its worst consequences was that it set the tone for establishment opposition to election results that bled over into the US when Trump won.
Two interesting legal developments today relating to our civil service and its understanding - or, rather, misunderstanding of equality law. In one case 2 Ministerial Departments have had to pay out a whistleblowers claim in full (a substantial six-figure sum), agree to rewrite their internal equality policies and return to a policy of impartiality. It's a pretty comprehensive defeat - by agreement - not even after a court ruling after a few years of trying to fight the case.
Who the hell took the decision to fight: lawyers? HR? The Head of the Civil Service? Ministers? (The last seems unlikely to me.) A colossal waste of time and money. And pretty appalling that 2 Departments have to admit publicly that they have not been impartial in relation to their obligations to their employees and their understanding of the relevant law, as well as not understanding how wrong it is to retaliate against whistleblowers, as they did. There is also (no surprise to me) 2 conflicts of interest at the heart of the case.
Comments
https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/magistrates-court/item/speeding-revised-2017/
As we know, deterrence from committing offences is a combination of likelihood of being caught, and the resulting punishment. So I'm in favour of restoring numbers of police on the streets, traffic police having been cancelled as a specific discipline around 2002 and numbers halved.
It's particularly important around crimes which are not easy to detect by camera, such as drink driving and drug driving. These feed into all sorts of other stuff, such as young bloods trying to impress the ladies to get inside their knickers by dangerous driving.
For penalties, I quite elements of the French or the Danish approach. The French start with a single point penalty when the limit is broken, rather than our "effective limit is 10%+2 above the limit". The Danish have more of an expectation of civilised behaviour, so have heavier fines. The Danes also have fewer bans, which I favour as for wealthier people fines and higher insurance are little practical deterrence.
Here, we have a horrible, not-integrated into walking and cycling networks, bypass, and about 8-10 people (from memory) were killed on it before averaging speed cameras were introduced. It's still a badly designed abortion, but it's a bit less of an killing abortion. Sorting out walking / cycling access to the local school could take away about 1000 journeys a day, but Notts LHA don't in general do thinking, and were the only one in the country to have their capability rating reduced in 2024.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_(United_States)#Major_programs
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_(United_States)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicaid
In fact, the US has by far the largest welfare state in the world, to the best of my knowledge.
But there appears to be a persistent belief among some that the US does not spend much on retirement and medical care. Can anyone explain to me why this is so? Why does this belief persist?
(For the record: For years I have been receiving benefits from the first two of those programs.)
I do not defend the designs of those programs, but will concede that changing them is, to say the least, difficult, politically.)
Execise for the interested: Compare the number of beneficiaries and the per capita spending for the NHS and the US Medicaid program.
Medical students are just the start. To turn them into actual medicos, a great deal of further, hands on training is required. I've seen estimates that a basic doctor costs £250K to get to the point of them being able to be turned loose on the patients on their own.
So after university places, you need places in teaching hospitals. Staffed with training staff.
So if you expand the university places, you've got nowhere to take them. So you need to expand the training places as well. Which is difficult and expensive.
The reason for the belief you describe is the perception that medical care in the US is 100% private and done by insurance.
There isn't much scope to drop grades, our covid cohort with their inflated grades are noticeably struggling compared to those who came before or after.
Jen Psaki: "The American public is not waiting for someone to lead them out of fascism. That is not what the American public sent us a message about. They're waiting for people to listen to them and actually engage with them in their communities about what they want from the government."
20, 30mph limit - 11 mph over limit.
40, 50mph limit - 16 mph over limit.
60, 70mph limit - 21 mph over limit.
And of course Mr Trump may have his eye on gutting Medicare and Medicaid, depending how much of Project 2025 is actually implemented.
historical figures, and generally value the American and expansiveness. At times, since the war, we've managed to balance these influences very well with ones from Europe.
Do I want us to become part of America ? No. Would I fight to stop this ? Probably yes.
I did not get anywhere near that.
Steve Peers @stevepeers.bsky.social
·
2h
Bluesky reaches 27 million users
bsky.jazco.dev/stats
Ten days to add the most recent million. Last couple of days the rate of new users speeded up, thanks to Zuckerberg
And this: "Broad trends say that coastal states, such as California, Washington, Oregon, New York, Maine and Massachusetts offer better working conditions than states located in the South." Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia are all "coastal" states. And southern.
Cost per person for Medicare, Medicaid, and Veterans healthcare in 2024 approx - $4,491
Cost per person for the NHS - $4,479
Speaks for itself, doesn't it?
There are also countless other studies indicating much lower in-work and out-of-work benefits in the U.S., than in comparable countries, which isn't too much of a surprise, as that's how the post-Reagan Republicans have consciously and openlybwanted things to be
https://sites.lsa.umich.edu/mje/2023/05/26/a-comparative-analysis-of-the-us-and-uk-health-care-systems/
A reasoned attempt at a comparison between countries - but including the US private healthcare. But the US is still 11th vs 9th for the UK - in outcomes.
This would strongly suggest that Medicare, Medicaid, and Veterans healthcare on their own are vastly less efficient than the NHS and produce much worse outcomes.
So it's quite simple ; I would prefer the current, pretty significant autonomy, that France and Gernany have, to what seems to be an emergent MAGA idea to have us directly ruled from Washington.
https://www.kff.org/medicaid/state-indicator/total-medicaid-spending/?currentTimeframe=0&selectedRows={"wrapups":{"united-states":{}}}&sortModel={"colId":"Location","sort":"asc"}
https://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid/program-information/medicaid-and-chip-enrollment-data/report-highlights/index.html
That said, should the plan ever take shape, I'll be on the front lines with you, though for very different reasons.
Westminster Voting Intention:
LAB: 29% (=)
RFM: 24% (+2)
CON: 23% (=)
LDM: 10% (-1)
GRN: 9% (-1)
SNP: 2% (-1)
Via @OpiniumResearch, 8-10 Jan.
Changes w/ 18-20 Dec.
The point is that even well funded, serious efforts to start from scratch, like Northvolt, have run into the sand.
Thus, there would be no "United States", or "Canada", or "UK", or "Australia"; the above mentioned subdivisions plus NZ and Ireland would all be States of my Anglospheric Federation, equal in status to one another.
Of course, given England (with 92 Electoral Votes) would easily be more populous than 2nd placed California, and London is just that bit more populous than New York, there is the ever so slight temptation to make London the, shall we say, "adminstrative centre" of the Federation.
The comenteriat therefore also fail to understand that some noise from the EDL types that Nige isn't one of them doesn't matter, because neither is much of the electorate. The 20-25% of the population currently indicating they will vote Reform haven't all suddenly become Tommy Robinson fans overnight - they are more the traditional economic/ social conservatives who are fed up with the Tories for being wet and useless, and fed up with Labour for managing the remarkable achievement of being more damaging in government than the Tories.
The skinheads saying Fararge is a bit wet for them is probably good news for him - it's easier for us normals to admit to supporting Reform if you don't immediately get accused of being virtually the EDL.
Full disclosure - I voted Tory in 2019 and Reform in 2024. My seat is a nominal Tory/Lab marginal, how I vote will depend on the national polling and party leaders at the next election, but will probably be aimed at achieving either a Reform government or a Ref-Tory coalition.
EDIT: Oh, you mean a different RSS!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_Wilson_(mathematician)
Is that per person who uses Medicare etc or per person of USA population?
Clearly the NHS is providing a far wider scope of service, and with no copay, but what about the denominator in that calculation?
https://sites.lsa.umich.edu/mje/2023/05/26/a-comparative-analysis-of-the-us-and-uk-health-care-systems/
the overall outcomes in the US are worse. Much worse. Even including all the private health spend.
This is because US outcomes are massively bought down by those who can't afford healthcare.
Neil Henderson
@hendopolis
·
4m
MAIL ON SUNDAY: Musk and Cummings ‘in plot to sabotage UK politics’ #TomorrowsPapersToday
Unless Musk and Cummings have a few hundred competent politicians in reserve they're not going to achieve anything.
Similarly Australia 6 States plus or minus one, and Canada 11 States (to be pragmatic), and Ireland, and New Zealand.
That's about 30 more, which would balance representation in the Senate, and perhaps civilise the House a little.
It's not really surprising the government have been keen to move so quickly on its strategic mayoralty plan, as for Whitehall purposes is means that in a few years time they will only meaningfully have to engage with 50 or so mayors, rather than hundreds of council leaders (a lot of whom will still exist, but sitting 'under' the strategic authorities government can ignore them).
Watching micro surgery performed on said kiwi fruit did strain all my sinews not to burst out laughing..
For those taking a Littlefinger-esque approach to events the creation (or enhancement) of chaos to the established order is self-justifyingly a good outcome, with a sanguine attitude as to what may follow.
From the cast list American Primeval seems to be made up of people who looked like they might become big film stars but never quite made it.
But I have no polling data - has such a poll been done?
Or rather it already has and he blew it when he was in the position of maximum influence.
He's not going to get another chance.
Likewise for Musk, he's in a position of maximum influence - creating chaos is more likely to bring his downfall (very possibly fatally) than bring him more power.
Who the hell took the decision to fight: lawyers? HR? The Head of the Civil Service? Ministers? (The last seems unlikely to me.) A colossal waste of time and money. And pretty appalling that 2 Departments have to admit publicly that they have not been impartial in relation to their obligations to their employees and their understanding of the relevant law, as well as not understanding how wrong it is to retaliate against whistleblowers, as they did. There is also (no surprise to me) 2 conflicts of interest at the heart of the case.
Musk is probably just overreaching because he has zero patience for anything, including taking the time to learn about the issues as he thinks he knows everything about politics and no one tells him otherwise (no one he listens to).
German Bluesky Hashtag: #möwendieaufdingensitzen
aka "Seagulls Sitting on Things".
https://bsky.app/hashtag/MöwenDieAufDingenSitzen
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/usercode.py?scotcontrol=N&CON=23&LAB=29&LIB=10&Reform=24&Green=9&UKIP=&TVCON=&TVLAB=&TVLIB=&TVReform=&TVGreen=&TVUKIP=&SCOTCON=&SCOTLAB=&SCOTLIB=&SCOTReform=&SCOTGreen=&SCOTUKIP=&SCOTNAT=&display=AllChanged&regorseat=(none)&boundary=2024
You'd end up driven mad in a hellhole like Rangoon.
https://www.statista.com/chart/33730/projected-and-currently-operating-nuclear-capacity/
https://x.com/kikeypikey/status/1878197646130548969
Also the laws around whistleblowing and non-retaliation have been known about for yonks. Mind you, my opinion of HR departments is at about the same level as my opinion of the Post Office's legal department or the Met police.
Euroseptics now - oh horror , Britain is devaluing its currency
Devaluations are bad. They are also somewhat of a safety valve - by making everyone whole holds currency "x" poorer, it squares (to some extent) the circle of reckless borrow and spend beloved of many social democratic politicians.
Being unable to devalue or default, which was effectively the position Greece was once it was in the Eurozone is even worse than devaluation, and is one of the many reason why the Euro was a stupid idea.
Devaluations shouldn't happen, and only occur because of poor government - however being unable to devalue when it is needed makes an already bad situation much worse.
Devaluation is a way of avoiding painful adjustments to improve competitiveness
However if you cannot devalue then you can end up with structurally high unemployment (especially among those with less value added eg at the start of their career).
Best situation is to be able to devalue but not need to. Next best is for any devaluation to be only temporary
Labour’s suspicions Mr Musk and Mr Cummings were in cahoots were aroused by the tech tycoon’s use of British terminology such as ‘two-tier Keir’ and the timings of his posts.
Many were put out in the middle of the night in America – coinciding with daytime in the UK – leading the sources to conclude Mr Musk ‘must have a UK-based co-conspirator writing the posts for him’.An ally of Mr Musk said: ‘It is 100 per cent true that they [Musk and Cummings] are talking about smaller government and the end of the traditional party system.
‘It is not just Elon – Dom is in constant contact with major Silicon Valley figures, who are becoming increasingly anti-woke’.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14274419/Elon-Musk-Dominic-Cummings-plot-sabotage-UK-politics-Nigel-Farage.html
(I think)