By and large the UK has a pretty effective and intelligent regulatory regime by international standards. Just ask any multinational investor: it’s relatively easy to start and run a business, hire and fire, raise capital, pay tax, restructure. We’re seen as one of the straightforward markets, without being the Wild West.
The big area where we are recalcitrant and extremely difficult to navigate is the planning regime. Yes there are other aspects of regulation that should be looked at, but when it comes to regulation that strangles growth it’s planning planning planning.
Does the electorate want development? I am not so sure
To expand on this, ever been on a local community facebook group where there’s a post about planning permission? Hundreds of comments about any development being too big, inappropriate, too many people, “we are not a city”, “the council should build X instead”etc etc. These kind of comments are not usually from the Labour voting type but the Tory/Reform voting type.
LD and Green voters also tend to be Nimby. Indeed LD led councils are more likely to block new developments than Tory led councils
There's a lot of misinformation on X about what Trump's executive orders mean, especially from British accounts.
For example, he can't ban gender medicalization of kids. His EO only stops federal funds from paying for it. Two-thirds of Americans have private health insurance, not public, and won't be affected.
And his prison EO can only remove men from women's FEDERAL prisons. 88% of incarcerated Americans are in state prisons and local jails, where men can still be housed with women.
I know it's confusing because our government systems are so different, but I'm concerned that people are getting the idea this fight is all over here when it's just beginning.
By and large the UK has a pretty effective and intelligent regulatory regime by international standards. Just ask any multinational investor: it’s relatively easy to start and run a business, hire and fire, raise capital, pay tax, restructure. We’re seen as one of the straightforward markets, without being the Wild West.
The big area where we are recalcitrant and extremely difficult to navigate is the planning regime. Yes there are other aspects of regulation that should be looked at, but when it comes to regulation that strangles growth it’s planning planning planning.
Does the electorate want development? I am not so sure
The electorate want a load of mutually incompatible things. Politicians pandering to them at the individual policy level rather than coming up with a coherent plan with a mix of popular and unpopular policies that put together make sense is why we are governed badly and politicians end up increasingly distrusted.
I am going to repost the link to that Atlantic article again, as it is well worth a read (if you can), and is tangentially relevant to this topic also.
In the contemporary political environment, it is hard to envisage what a government that does command majority approval would look like? Trump might be managing it for a short while through performative stunts, but when the hard work of governing begins….
yes, but he wont scrap them will he ? He'll make bleaty noises and then approve more laws and restrictions.
PB Right: the government should go for growth and deregulate.
Government: we should go for growth and deregulate.
PB Right: don’t believe them.
What is the point of this discourse? There is no analysis, no engagement, just blind opposition for the sake of it.
Rather like Rishi Sunak thinking that all he needed to do was talk about stopping the boats, all Keir Starmer thinks he needs to do all talk about growth, rather than actually doing anything about it. Everything his government has actually done in the last six months will strangle growth rather than enable it.
I’ll be first in line to give him his dues, when he actually produces growth through his actions and those of his government.
To be fair, Reeves’ negative talk last autumn had a definite impact on business and consumer confidence. It stands to reason that if careless talk costs growth, then positive talk is going to help. Can’t have it both ways.
While positive talk is a good thing, many processes only work one way. You can boil an egg, but cooling it down won't unboil it.
By and large the UK has a pretty effective and intelligent regulatory regime by international standards. Just ask any multinational investor: it’s relatively easy to start and run a business, hire and fire, raise capital, pay tax, restructure. We’re seen as one of the straightforward markets, without being the Wild West.
The big area where we are recalcitrant and extremely difficult to navigate is the planning regime. Yes there are other aspects of regulation that should be looked at, but when it comes to regulation that strangles growth it’s planning planning planning.
Does the electorate want development? I am not so sure
It’s a good point, and I’m not so sure either. But to boil it down to a very simplistic argument, we either need to accept that our way of life will get immeasurably worse, things more unaffordable and less convenient by building nothing or taking the hit to some of our amenity by putting spades in the ground to try and alleviate some of that problem. I think being faced with that choice the government is picking the right side of the argument, it has to just hope that the public see it that way eventually.
There's a lot of misinformation on X about what Trump's executive orders mean, especially from British accounts.
For example, he can't ban gender medicalization of kids. His EO only stops federal funds from paying for it. Two-thirds of Americans have private health insurance, not public, and won't be affected.
And his prison EO can only remove men from women's FEDERAL prisons. 88% of incarcerated Americans are in state prisons and local jails, where men can still be housed with women.
I know it's confusing because our government systems are so different, but I'm concerned that people are getting the idea this fight is all over here when it's just beginning.
By and large the UK has a pretty effective and intelligent regulatory regime by international standards. Just ask any multinational investor: it’s relatively easy to start and run a business, hire and fire, raise capital, pay tax, restructure. We’re seen as one of the straightforward markets, without being the Wild West.
The big area where we are recalcitrant and extremely difficult to navigate is the planning regime. Yes there are other aspects of regulation that should be looked at, but when it comes to regulation that strangles growth it’s planning planning planning.
Does the electorate want development? I am not so sure
To expand on this, ever been on a local community facebook group where there’s a post about planning permission? Hundreds of comments about any development being too big, inappropriate, too many people, “we are not a city”, “the council should build X instead”etc etc. These kind of comments are not usually from the Labour voting type but the Tory/Reform voting type.
In my experience they’re from all types (over the age of 50). We even get them here in inner London.
I make a point of never adding my name to an objection, and writing in support of developments (including one literally in - well overlooking - my backyard).
Well done.
We're about to submit the planning application for our self-build, if I send you the details can you post your support? ;-)
yes, but he wont scrap them will he ? He'll make bleaty noises and then approve more laws and restrictions.
PB Right: the government should go for growth and deregulate.
Government: we should go for growth and deregulate.
PB Right: don’t believe them.
What is the point of this discourse? There is no analysis, no engagement, just blind opposition for the sake of it.
Well, what exactly have the government done so far to "go for growth" (other than saying they are going for growth) ?
They have sought the advice of the regulators and raised employment costs on businesses.
A winning strategy.
You don't get growth by holding the status quo. Some of the jobs (and companies) around are in a holding pattern. They should have folded during Covid but we kept going by grants, loans and in some cases, fraud.
If you want change / growth / whatever you want to call it, some jobs/companies have to die if they cannot adapt to the pressures.
Which is what we are seeing in the high street but then govt needs to create an environment where businesses can thrive and the change to NI
yes, but he wont scrap them will he ? He'll make bleaty noises and then approve more laws and restrictions.
PB Right: the government should go for growth and deregulate.
Government: we should go for growth and deregulate.
PB Right: don’t believe them.
What is the point of this discourse? There is no analysis, no engagement, just blind opposition for the sake of it.
Because this Labour government is simultaneously lying, delusional, stupid, talentless, idiotic, self-destructive, and inept
I’ll believe this new “growth strategy” when a spade goes in the dirt at Heathrow. Not until
Are you suggesting that only an idiot would have voted for them?
Either that or someone so small minded and petty he voted for Labour solely to discomfort a woke retired accountant in Hampstead
Someone's been working in that excuse for months. Less convincing than Reeves.
I don’t actually mean this. It’s a joke. Discombobulating @kinabalu was about 5% of my motivation for voting Labour. The rest was a mix of 1. Voting for the actual PM in my constituency, how often do you get to vote directly for the PM? 2. Wondering what it would feel like to vote Labour for the first time * and 3. “Give Labour a chance”
There's a lot of misinformation on X about what Trump's executive orders mean, especially from British accounts.
For example, he can't ban gender medicalization of kids. His EO only stops federal funds from paying for it. Two-thirds of Americans have private health insurance, not public, and won't be affected.
And his prison EO can only remove men from women's FEDERAL prisons. 88% of incarcerated Americans are in state prisons and local jails, where men can still be housed with women.
I know it's confusing because our government systems are so different, but I'm concerned that people are getting the idea this fight is all over here when it's just beginning.
Governments are never liked. But approval ratings tend to lead, not lag, voting intentions. Labour are still likely to drop to third, in coming months.
As an aside, the two Canadian EKOS polls, which show a big rise in Liberal support, look like outliers.
Given Trudeau has gone and Trump is threatening to annex Canada and impose tariffs on them would not be sure about that at all. The Liberals are pitching themselves as the anti Trump party in Canada and making poll gains accordingly
yes, but he wont scrap them will he ? He'll make bleaty noises and then approve more laws and restrictions.
PB Right: the government should go for growth and deregulate.
Government: we should go for growth and deregulate.
PB Right: don’t believe them.
What is the point of this discourse? There is no analysis, no engagement, just blind opposition for the sake of it.
Rather like Rishi Sunak thinking that all he needed to do was talk about stopping the boats, all Keir Starmer thinks he needs to do all talk about growth, rather than actually doing anything about it. Everything his government has actually done in the last six months will strangle growth rather than enable it.
I’ll be first in line to give him his dues, when he actually produces growth through his actions and those of his government.
To be fair, Reeves’ negative talk last autumn had a definite impact on business and consumer confidence. It stands to reason that if careless talk costs growth, then positive talk is going to help. Can’t have it both ways.
Only to a point. If you say to your wife “you are a terrible cook, a useless lover and your face makes me vomit” and then turn round seven months later and say “your food is exquisite, your lovemaking is heavenly and your face is alright” the damage is done and you might get a bit of credit that things have improved in your mind but the scars are still there and the fact that she went and shagged your best friend to make her feel better can’t be undone.
Is that the previous government, or this one that you're on about ?
I think we could probably apply it to every government. This was however an accident as I meant to write it in WhatsApp to my friend with the ugly wife.
Weimar always had the option of the President ruling by decree during a state of emergency, under Article 48 of the constitution.
From 1930 it was invoked so frequently I think the Reichstag only met about four times.
It was one of the big weaknesses of Weimar, although not the only one.
It didn't help that by 1930 the President was 83 and going senile,* so the powers were ultimately transferred to the Chancellor under the Enabling Act of March 1933.
Admittedly, that was still only passed because the SA said they would beat up anyone who didn't vote in favour of it.
*It's a good job America has just elected somebody young, vigorous and intelligent rather than a senile geriatric with a weird obsession with sharks. Imagine the trouble such a person could cause.
There's a lot of misinformation on X about what Trump's executive orders mean, especially from British accounts.
For example, he can't ban gender medicalization of kids. His EO only stops federal funds from paying for it. Two-thirds of Americans have private health insurance, not public, and won't be affected.
And his prison EO can only remove men from women's FEDERAL prisons. 88% of incarcerated Americans are in state prisons and local jails, where men can still be housed with women.
I know it's confusing because our government systems are so different, but I'm concerned that people are getting the idea this fight is all over here when it's just beginning.
Is that poster saying he wants it to get *worse*; that the EOs have not gone far enough?
No she is simply clarifying that Trump's EOs will not directly stop the gender medicalisation of many children as they have private insurance and don't rely on the federal government (though many insurers piggyback on Medicare, so it will likely have a knock on effect) and women in state prisons are still likely to be vulnerable to men being housed with them if they declare they are women.
By and large the UK has a pretty effective and intelligent regulatory regime by international standards. Just ask any multinational investor: it’s relatively easy to start and run a business, hire and fire, raise capital, pay tax, restructure. We’re seen as one of the straightforward markets, without being the Wild West.
The big area where we are recalcitrant and extremely difficult to navigate is the planning regime. Yes there are other aspects of regulation that should be looked at, but when it comes to regulation that strangles growth it’s planning planning planning.
Does the electorate want development? I am not so sure
It’s a good point, and I’m not so sure either. But to boil it down to a very simplistic argument, we either need to accept that our way of life will get immeasurably worse, things more unaffordable and less convenient by building nothing or taking the hit to some of our amenity by putting spades in the ground to try and alleviate some of that problem. I think being faced with that choice the government is picking the right side of the argument, it has to just hope that the public see it that way eventually.
It is a fair point and I think that we do want development but most people want development somewhere else.
A lot of scepticism on here about Labour going for growth but I think they have realised:
1) They have run out of room to borrow more. Hunt and Reeves have already collectively pushed this to the limits of what could still plausibly be described as fiscally sound. Any further and you risk a debt crisis, or it becomes self-defeating as higher refinancing costs on the existing debt pile outweigh the additional spending from borrowing more.
2) They have run out of room to tax meaningfully more, absent a more ambitious gross wealth tax than would probably take three years to implement.
3) They would genuinely like to improve public services. That either takes money or deep reform. The former is limited by points 1 and 2, the latter takes years to show benefits even if done well.
The only remaining variable they can pull is to improve growth. Even if it means deregulation and putting aside environmental concerns.
I appreciate they started off poorly (talking down the economy, tax rises on businesses) but it's too soon to write them off, I think.
There's a lot of misinformation on X about what Trump's executive orders mean, especially from British accounts.
For example, he can't ban gender medicalization of kids. His EO only stops federal funds from paying for it. Two-thirds of Americans have private health insurance, not public, and won't be affected.
And his prison EO can only remove men from women's FEDERAL prisons. 88% of incarcerated Americans are in state prisons and local jails, where men can still be housed with women.
I know it's confusing because our government systems are so different, but I'm concerned that people are getting the idea this fight is all over here when it's just beginning.
The confusion is hardly confined to "British accounts on X".
GOP legislators don't seem to understand what they're doing when they pass bills into law.
Talked to a bunch of House Rs this AM in Doral about the WH move to freeze federal aid. Many are defending Trump — including the chairman of House Appropriations Committee, Tom Cole, who told me he doesn’t “have a problem” with the White House decision pause the aid.
“I think that’s probably what you ought to do when you’re coming in as a new administration,” he said.
When asked about the legality of the White House directing agencies not to spend money appropriated by Congress, Cole called it a “legitimate exercise of executive oversight” and noted that appropriations directed by Congress are “not a law.”
“I’m not a lawyer, I can’t pontificate on what’s legal but I suspect what’s happening is what most Republicans would be supportive of,” he said. “Appropriations is not a law, it’s the directive of Congress.”..
There's a lot of misinformation on X about what Trump's executive orders mean, especially from British accounts.
For example, he can't ban gender medicalization of kids. His EO only stops federal funds from paying for it. Two-thirds of Americans have private health insurance, not public, and won't be affected.
And his prison EO can only remove men from women's FEDERAL prisons. 88% of incarcerated Americans are in state prisons and local jails, where men can still be housed with women.
I know it's confusing because our government systems are so different, but I'm concerned that people are getting the idea this fight is all over here when it's just beginning.
Governments are never liked. But approval ratings tend to lead, not lag, voting intentions. Labour are still likely to drop to third, in coming months.
As an aside, the two Canadian EKOS polls, which show a big rise in Liberal support, look like outliers.
Given Trudeau has gone and Trump is threatening to annex Canada and impose tariffs on them would not be sure about that at all. The Liberals are pitching themselves as the anti Trump party in Canada and making poll gains accordingly
Other pollsters still have the Liberals up even if less than EKOS. Sometimes the outlier can be right too as Survation was here in 2015 and 2017 or Trafalgar was in the US in 2016
A lot of scepticism on here about Labour going for growth but I think they have realised:
1) They have run out of room to borrow more. Hunt and Reeves have already collectively pushed this to the limits of what could still plausibly be described as fiscally sound. Any further and you risk a debt crisis, or it becomes self-defeating as higher refinancing costs on the existing debt pile outweigh the additional spending from borrowing more.
2) They have run out of room to tax meaningfully more, absent a more ambitious gross wealth tax than would probably take three years to implement.
3) They would genuinely like to improve public services. That either takes money or deep reform. The former is limited by points 1 and 2, the latter takes years to show benefits even if done well.
The only remaining variable they can pull is to improve growth. Even if it means deregulation and putting aside environmental concerns.
I appreciate they started off poorly (talking down the economy, tax rises on businesses) but it's too soon to write them off, I think.
I get the scepticism, There is alot of talk about it but nothing concrete so far.
However they can turn it around. I agree. They have the chance to and it does seem the top table in Labour does get it now. If they do start to get some growth I think they can easily convert the WNV/DK's back to Labour and win a second term.
Alot hinges on it and reforming the planning system.
There's a lot of misinformation on X about what Trump's executive orders mean, especially from British accounts.
For example, he can't ban gender medicalization of kids. His EO only stops federal funds from paying for it. Two-thirds of Americans have private health insurance, not public, and won't be affected.
And his prison EO can only remove men from women's FEDERAL prisons. 88% of incarcerated Americans are in state prisons and local jails, where men can still be housed with women.
I know it's confusing because our government systems are so different, but I'm concerned that people are getting the idea this fight is all over here when it's just beginning.
The confusion is hardly confined to "British accounts on X".
GOP legislators don't seem to understand what they're doing when they pass bills into law.
Talked to a bunch of House Rs this AM in Doral about the WH move to freeze federal aid. Many are defending Trump — including the chairman of House Appropriations Committee, Tom Cole, who told me he doesn’t “have a problem” with the White House decision pause the aid.
“I think that’s probably what you ought to do when you’re coming in as a new administration,” he said.
When asked about the legality of the White House directing agencies not to spend money appropriated by Congress, Cole called it a “legitimate exercise of executive oversight” and noted that appropriations directed by Congress are “not a law.”
“I’m not a lawyer, I can’t pontificate on what’s legal but I suspect what’s happening is what most Republicans would be supportive of,” he said. “Appropriations is not a law, it’s the directive of Congress.”..
Some of them at least are on top of their brief:
BREAKING: Secretary of State Marco Rubio provides waiver for @PEPFAR to provide HIV medications to poor nations.
The Trump administration had thrown the foreign aid program into chaos this week by putting it on a 90-day "pause" along with all other foreign aid. People with HIV were not even allowed to pick up their medications.
There's a lot of misinformation on X about what Trump's executive orders mean, especially from British accounts.
For example, he can't ban gender medicalization of kids. His EO only stops federal funds from paying for it. Two-thirds of Americans have private health insurance, not public, and won't be affected.
And his prison EO can only remove men from women's FEDERAL prisons. 88% of incarcerated Americans are in state prisons and local jails, where men can still be housed with women.
I know it's confusing because our government systems are so different, but I'm concerned that people are getting the idea this fight is all over here when it's just beginning.
There's a lot of misinformation on X about what Trump's executive orders mean, especially from British accounts.
For example, he can't ban gender medicalization of kids. His EO only stops federal funds from paying for it. Two-thirds of Americans have private health insurance, not public, and won't be affected.
And his prison EO can only remove men from women's FEDERAL prisons. 88% of incarcerated Americans are in state prisons and local jails, where men can still be housed with women.
I know it's confusing because our government systems are so different, but I'm concerned that people are getting the idea this fight is all over here when it's just beginning.
yes, but he wont scrap them will he ? He'll make bleaty noises and then approve more laws and restrictions.
PB Right: the government should go for growth and deregulate.
Government: we should go for growth and deregulate.
PB Right: don’t believe them.
What is the point of this discourse? There is no analysis, no engagement, just blind opposition for the sake of it.
Because this Labour government is simultaneously lying, delusional, stupid, talentless, idiotic, self-destructive, and inept
I’ll believe this new “growth strategy” when a spade goes in the dirt at Heathrow. Not until
Are you suggesting that only an idiot would have voted for them?
Either that or someone so small minded and petty he voted for Labour solely to discomfort a woke retired accountant in Hampstead
Someone's been working in that excuse for months. Less convincing than Reeves.
I don’t actually mean this. It’s a joke. Discombobulating @kinabalu was about 5% of my motivation for voting Labour. The rest was a mix of 1. Voting for the actual PM in my constituency, how often do you get to vote directly for the PM? 2. Wondering what it would feel like to vote Labour for the first time * and 3. “Give Labour a chance”
*awful. It felt awful. Never again
Wick Man love Myanmar International Airways Voting Labour
Anything else you want to add to the felt awful, never again list?
Weimar always had the option of the President ruling by decree during a state of emergency, under Article 48 of the constitution.
From 1930 it was invoked so frequently I think the Reichstag only met about four times.
It was one of the big weaknesses of Weimar, although not the only one.
It didn't help that by 1930 the President was 83 and going senile,* so the powers were ultimately transferred to the Chancellor under the Enabling Act of March 1933.
Admittedly, that was still only passed because the SA said they would beat up anyone who didn't vote in favour of it.
*It's a good job America has just elected somebody young, vigorous and intelligent rather than a senile geriatric with a weird obsession with sharks. Imagine the trouble such a person could cause.
The leaders of Proud Boys and Oath Keepers have been freed.
A lot of scepticism on here about Labour going for growth but I think they have realised:
1) They have run out of room to borrow more. Hunt and Reeves have already collectively pushed this to the limits of what could still plausibly be described as fiscally sound. Any further and you risk a debt crisis, or it becomes self-defeating as higher refinancing costs on the existing debt pile outweigh the additional spending from borrowing more.
2) They have run out of room to tax meaningfully more, absent a more ambitious gross wealth tax than would probably take three years to implement.
3) They would genuinely like to improve public services. That either takes money or deep reform. The former is limited by points 1 and 2, the latter takes years to show benefits even if done well.
The only remaining variable they can pull is to improve growth. Even if it means deregulation and putting aside environmental concerns.
I appreciate they started off poorly (talking down the economy, tax rises on businesses) but it's too soon to write them off, I think.
I get the scepticism, There is alot of talk about it but nothing concrete so far.
However they can turn it around. I agree. They have the chance to and it does seem the top table in Labour does get it now. If they do start to get some growth I think they can easily convert the WNV/DK's back to Labour and win a second term.
A lot hinges on it and reforming the planning system.
I'm keeping something of an open mind on it. It's possible that they're actually desperate enough to push this through. And the combination of a massive parliamentary majority, and extremely fragile electoral support, provides both means and motivation.
At least we'll know a lot quicker than the fourteen years the Tories took to do nothing of significance on this.
There's a lot of misinformation on X about what Trump's executive orders mean, especially from British accounts.
For example, he can't ban gender medicalization of kids. His EO only stops federal funds from paying for it. Two-thirds of Americans have private health insurance, not public, and won't be affected.
And his prison EO can only remove men from women's FEDERAL prisons. 88% of incarcerated Americans are in state prisons and local jails, where men can still be housed with women.
I know it's confusing because our government systems are so different, but I'm concerned that people are getting the idea this fight is all over here when it's just beginning.
Parties of the Left: 55% Parties of the Right: 45%
I doubt if this binary division really works any more. I don't think the case has been made out for Reform belonging to the Right, Centre Right, Radical Right or Extreme Right. It's general approach seems to me to start from a sort of 1950s social democracy (welfare state as genuine safety net, lots of free stuff, NATO) with a very traditional view about inward migration, which is neither left nor right but nationalist and anti globalist.
There's a lot of misinformation on X about what Trump's executive orders mean, especially from British accounts.
For example, he can't ban gender medicalization of kids. His EO only stops federal funds from paying for it. Two-thirds of Americans have private health insurance, not public, and won't be affected.
And his prison EO can only remove men from women's FEDERAL prisons. 88% of incarcerated Americans are in state prisons and local jails, where men can still be housed with women.
I know it's confusing because our government systems are so different, but I'm concerned that people are getting the idea this fight is all over here when it's just beginning.
There's a lot of misinformation on X about what Trump's executive orders mean, especially from British accounts.
For example, he can't ban gender medicalization of kids. His EO only stops federal funds from paying for it. Two-thirds of Americans have private health insurance, not public, and won't be affected.
And his prison EO can only remove men from women's FEDERAL prisons. 88% of incarcerated Americans are in state prisons and local jails, where men can still be housed with women.
I know it's confusing because our government systems are so different, but I'm concerned that people are getting the idea this fight is all over here when it's just beginning.
yes, but he wont scrap them will he ? He'll make bleaty noises and then approve more laws and restrictions.
PB Right: the government should go for growth and deregulate.
Government: we should go for growth and deregulate.
PB Right: don’t believe them.
What is the point of this discourse? There is no analysis, no engagement, just blind opposition for the sake of it.
Because this Labour government is simultaneously lying, delusional, stupid, talentless, idiotic, self-destructive, and inept
I’ll believe this new “growth strategy” when a spade goes in the dirt at Heathrow. Not until
Are you suggesting that only an idiot would have voted for them?
Either that or someone so small minded and petty he voted for Labour solely to discomfort a woke retired accountant in Hampstead
Someone's been working in that excuse for months. Less convincing than Reeves.
I don’t actually mean this. It’s a joke. Discombobulating @kinabalu was about 5% of my motivation for voting Labour. The rest was a mix of 1. Voting for the actual PM in my constituency, how often do you get to vote directly for the PM? 2. Wondering what it would feel like to vote Labour for the first time * and 3. “Give Labour a chance”
*awful. It felt awful. Never again
Wick Man love Myanmar International Airways Voting Labour
Anything else you want to add to the felt awful, never again list?
"Try everything once, except folk dancing and incest."
Governments are never liked. But approval ratings tend to lead, not lag, voting intentions. Labour are still likely to drop to third, in coming months.
As an aside, the two Canadian EKOS polls, which show a big rise in Liberal support, look like outliers.
Given Trudeau has gone and Trump is threatening to annex Canada and impose tariffs on them would not be sure about that at all. The Liberals are pitching themselves as the anti Trump party in Canada and making poll gains accordingly
Other pollsters still have the Liberals up even if less than EKOS. Sometimes the outlier can be right too as Survation was here in 2015 and 2017 or Trafalgar was in the US in 2016
Trafalgar were just lucky. Cahaly's methods do not confirm to the usual polling norms. Guessing is not opinion polling.
There's a lot of misinformation on X about what Trump's executive orders mean, especially from British accounts.
For example, he can't ban gender medicalization of kids. His EO only stops federal funds from paying for it. Two-thirds of Americans have private health insurance, not public, and won't be affected.
And his prison EO can only remove men from women's FEDERAL prisons. 88% of incarcerated Americans are in state prisons and local jails, where men can still be housed with women.
I know it's confusing because our government systems are so different, but I'm concerned that people are getting the idea this fight is all over here when it's just beginning.
Is that poster saying he wants it to get *worse*; that the EOs have not gone far enough?
No she is simply clarifying that Trump's EOs will not directly stop the gender medicalisation of many children as they have private insurance and don't rely on the federal government (though many insurers piggyback on Medicare, so it will likely have a knock on effect) and women in state prisons are still likely to be vulnerable to men being housed with them if they declare they are women...
...and that "the fight is all over here when it's just beginning". Fem_nb's intent is plainly that the position be expanded to cover the state and private sphere.
There's a lot of misinformation on X about what Trump's executive orders mean, especially from British accounts.
For example, he can't ban gender medicalization of kids. His EO only stops federal funds from paying for it. Two-thirds of Americans have private health insurance, not public, and won't be affected.
And his prison EO can only remove men from women's FEDERAL prisons. 88% of incarcerated Americans are in state prisons and local jails, where men can still be housed with women.
I know it's confusing because our government systems are so different, but I'm concerned that people are getting the idea this fight is all over here when it's just beginning.
So why is your favourite stat something that is obviously untrue but re-enforces your priors.....
Why is your rebuttal from a study that's 5 years old?
You think nothing changed under the Biden administration?
Because it is the most recent quickly found stat. Your the expert, please provide the up to date figures.
I don't think they're known since bodies started conflating "gender" with "sex" - to take a local example:
'Stop conflating sex and gender, NHS told by watchdog'
'NHS England accused of conflating the terms in its staff survey which asked about 'gender discrimination' and whether a person’s gender had an impact on career progression, rather than their sex'
Parties of the Left: 55% Parties of the Right: 45%
I doubt if this binary division really works any more. I don't think the case has been made out for Reform belonging to the Right, Centre Right, Radical Right or Extreme Right. It's general approach seems to me to start from a sort of 1950s social democracy (welfare state as genuine safety net, lots of free stuff, NATO) with a very traditional view about inward migration, which is neither left nor right but nationalist and anti globalist.
Reform are Right of centre populists; I would argue they are extreme right.
Robert Jenrick has the same problem as Kemi Badenoch when it comes to holding this government to account, as yesterday when he faced this response from Shabana Mahmood, the Justice Secretary:-
What an absolutely outrageous set of remarks! The right hon. Member completely forgets that, only six months ago, his Government were in charge. The Government of which he was part all but ran our justice system into the ground. I do not recall seeing him standing up and speaking about delays for rape victims, or indeed any other kind of victim, when he was on this side of the House. I am glad he has now realised that the system ought to try to put victims first. His critique would have more force were it not for the fact that this Government, having come to office only six months ago, have increased Crown court sitting capacity by 2,500 days.
There's a lot of misinformation on X about what Trump's executive orders mean, especially from British accounts.
For example, he can't ban gender medicalization of kids. His EO only stops federal funds from paying for it. Two-thirds of Americans have private health insurance, not public, and won't be affected.
And his prison EO can only remove men from women's FEDERAL prisons. 88% of incarcerated Americans are in state prisons and local jails, where men can still be housed with women.
I know it's confusing because our government systems are so different, but I'm concerned that people are getting the idea this fight is all over here when it's just beginning.
So why is your favourite stat something that is obviously untrue but re-enforces your priors.....
Why is your rebuttal from a study that's 5 years old?
You think nothing changed under the Biden administration?
Because it is the most recent quickly found stat. Your the expert, please provide the up to date figures.
I don't think they're known since bodies started conflating "gender" with "sex" - to take a local example:
'Stop conflating sex and gender, NHS told by watchdog'
'NHS England accused of conflating the terms in its staff survey which asked about 'gender discrimination' and whether a person’s gender had an impact on career progression, rather than their sex'
It is absurd to think that we have gone from 15 prisoners out of 4,890 in 2020 to almost 100% now and no-one has any numbers or policy documents to show this.
Parties of the Left: 55% Parties of the Right: 45%
I doubt if this binary division really works any more. I don't think the case has been made out for Reform belonging to the Right, Centre Right, Radical Right or Extreme Right. It's general approach seems to me to start from a sort of 1950s social democracy (welfare state as genuine safety net, lots of free stuff, NATO) with a very traditional view about inward migration, which is neither left nor right but nationalist and anti globalist.
Reform are Right of centre populists; I would argue they are extreme right.
At that point at the top of the circle where far left nationalism meets far right nationalism?
There's a lot of misinformation on X about what Trump's executive orders mean, especially from British accounts.
For example, he can't ban gender medicalization of kids. His EO only stops federal funds from paying for it. Two-thirds of Americans have private health insurance, not public, and won't be affected.
And his prison EO can only remove men from women's FEDERAL prisons. 88% of incarcerated Americans are in state prisons and local jails, where men can still be housed with women.
I know it's confusing because our government systems are so different, but I'm concerned that people are getting the idea this fight is all over here when it's just beginning.
There's a lot of misinformation on X about what Trump's executive orders mean, especially from British accounts.
For example, he can't ban gender medicalization of kids. His EO only stops federal funds from paying for it. Two-thirds of Americans have private health insurance, not public, and won't be affected.
And his prison EO can only remove men from women's FEDERAL prisons. 88% of incarcerated Americans are in state prisons and local jails, where men can still be housed with women.
I know it's confusing because our government systems are so different, but I'm concerned that people are getting the idea this fight is all over here when it's just beginning.
A lot of scepticism on here about Labour going for growth but I think they have realised:
1) They have run out of room to borrow more. Hunt and Reeves have already collectively pushed this to the limits of what could still plausibly be described as fiscally sound. Any further and you risk a debt crisis, or it becomes self-defeating as higher refinancing costs on the existing debt pile outweigh the additional spending from borrowing more.
2) They have run out of room to tax meaningfully more, absent a more ambitious gross wealth tax than would probably take three years to implement.
3) They would genuinely like to improve public services. That either takes money or deep reform. The former is limited by points 1 and 2, the latter takes years to show benefits even if done well.
The only remaining variable they can pull is to improve growth. Even if it means deregulation and putting aside environmental concerns.
I appreciate they started off poorly (talking down the economy, tax rises on businesses) but it's too soon to write them off, I think.
I get the scepticism, There is alot of talk about it but nothing concrete so far.
However they can turn it around. I agree. They have the chance to and it does seem the top table in Labour does get it now. If they do start to get some growth I think they can easily convert the WNV/DK's back to Labour and win a second term.
A lot hinges on it and reforming the planning system.
I'm keeping something of an open mind on it. It's possible that they're actually desperate enough to push this through. And the combination of a massive parliamentary majority, and extremely fragile electoral support, provides both means and motivation.
At least we'll know a lot quicker than the fourteen years the Tories took to do nothing of significance on this.
Same here. I am prepared to keep an open mind and although have been critical of Reeves previously I have been pleased to see the change in tone and emphasis from her in the last few weeks and have said so here.
I feel let down by Labour having voted for them. Won't vote for them in the locals. Probably Independent and whoever else is likely to win that is not labour, merely to relay disatisfaction, and if that is Reform so be it. However for a GE I am a DK/WNV now and can be won back and it is nice that my seat is nominally Reform at the moment so Labour will want my vote and work for it rather than taking it for granted as they did in the Giles Radice/Kevan Jones years.
The Tories are such a low bar to compare them to. It is hard to see what they actually did in this area of any significance or positivity.
Parties of the Left: 55% Parties of the Right: 45%
I doubt if this binary division really works any more. I don't think the case has been made out for Reform belonging to the Right, Centre Right, Radical Right or Extreme Right. It's general approach seems to me to start from a sort of 1950s social democracy (welfare state as genuine safety net, lots of free stuff, NATO) with a very traditional view about inward migration, which is neither left nor right but nationalist and anti globalist.
There is a big disconnect between Reform leadership, the membership and their voters, perhaps the greatest divide of any of our parties.
The leadership and members (should that be subscribers?) are Thatcherite free marketeers wanting a vastly smaller state, the voters are much more traditional social conservatives, nostalgic for the welfare state and manufacturing industry of the fifties and sixties, viewed through rose tinted spectacles.
So a party of the centre-left led by the Thatcherite right. They don't fit neatly on the spectrum, and the voters are at least potentially open to a return to Labour if there is some genuine levelling up, and immigration continues to plummet. The visa figures indicate that the stats published yesterday are simply wrong.
yes, but he wont scrap them will he ? He'll make bleaty noises and then approve more laws and restrictions.
PB Right: the government should go for growth and deregulate.
Government: we should go for growth and deregulate.
PB Right: don’t believe them.
What is the point of this discourse? There is no analysis, no engagement, just blind opposition for the sake of it.
Because this Labour government is simultaneously lying, delusional, stupid, talentless, idiotic, self-destructive, and inept
I’ll believe this new “growth strategy” when a spade goes in the dirt at Heathrow. Not until
Are you suggesting that only an idiot would have voted for them?
Either that or someone so small minded and petty he voted for Labour solely to discomfort a woke retired accountant in Hampstead
Someone's been working in that excuse for months. Less convincing than Reeves.
I don’t actually mean this. It’s a joke. Discombobulating @kinabalu was about 5% of my motivation for voting Labour. The rest was a mix of 1. Voting for the actual PM in my constituency, how often do you get to vote directly for the PM? 2. Wondering what it would feel like to vote Labour for the first time * and 3. “Give Labour a chance”
*awful. It felt awful. Never again
Wick Man love Myanmar International Airways Voting Labour
Anything else you want to add to the felt awful, never again list?
Rail travel on Sundays Shopping malls ITV Reading Wittgenstein Les Miserables Harry Potter volumes 5, 6 and 7.
There's a lot of misinformation on X about what Trump's executive orders mean, especially from British accounts.
For example, he can't ban gender medicalization of kids. His EO only stops federal funds from paying for it. Two-thirds of Americans have private health insurance, not public, and won't be affected.
And his prison EO can only remove men from women's FEDERAL prisons. 88% of incarcerated Americans are in state prisons and local jails, where men can still be housed with women.
I know it's confusing because our government systems are so different, but I'm concerned that people are getting the idea this fight is all over here when it's just beginning.
"As of October 24, 2023, there are 10 transgender women housed in BOP female facilities"
Given the numbers it must be cheaper to build small separate transgender wings at a handful of prisons rather than decades of court cases and policy shifts that are never going to satisfy all.
There's a lot of misinformation on X about what Trump's executive orders mean, especially from British accounts.
For example, he can't ban gender medicalization of kids. His EO only stops federal funds from paying for it. Two-thirds of Americans have private health insurance, not public, and won't be affected.
And his prison EO can only remove men from women's FEDERAL prisons. 88% of incarcerated Americans are in state prisons and local jails, where men can still be housed with women.
I know it's confusing because our government systems are so different, but I'm concerned that people are getting the idea this fight is all over here when it's just beginning.
There's a lot of misinformation on X about what Trump's executive orders mean, especially from British accounts.
For example, he can't ban gender medicalization of kids. His EO only stops federal funds from paying for it. Two-thirds of Americans have private health insurance, not public, and won't be affected.
And his prison EO can only remove men from women's FEDERAL prisons. 88% of incarcerated Americans are in state prisons and local jails, where men can still be housed with women.
I know it's confusing because our government systems are so different, but I'm concerned that people are getting the idea this fight is all over here when it's just beginning.
Weimar always had the option of the President ruling by decree during a state of emergency, under Article 48 of the constitution.
From 1930 it was invoked so frequently I think the Reichstag only met about four times.
It was one of the big weaknesses of Weimar, although not the only one.
It didn't help that by 1930 the President was 83 and going senile,* so the powers were ultimately transferred to the Chancellor under the Enabling Act of March 1933.
Admittedly, that was still only passed because the SA said they would beat up anyone who didn't vote in favour of it.
*It's a good job America has just elected somebody young, vigorous and intelligent rather than a senile geriatric with a weird obsession with sharks. Imagine the trouble such a person could cause.
Trump doesn't have those powers, of course, even though Congress is acting as though he does, notably over the appropriations bill, where the law is being comprehensively flouted.
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Budget_and_Impoundment_Control_Act_of_1974 Title X of the Act, also known as the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, specifies that the president may request that Congress rescind appropriated funds. If both the Senate and the House of Representatives have not approved a rescission proposal (by passing legislation) within forty-five days of continuous session, any funds being withheld must be made available for obligation. Congress is not required to vote on the request and has ignored most presidential requests...
There's a lot of misinformation on X about what Trump's executive orders mean, especially from British accounts.
For example, he can't ban gender medicalization of kids. His EO only stops federal funds from paying for it. Two-thirds of Americans have private health insurance, not public, and won't be affected.
And his prison EO can only remove men from women's FEDERAL prisons. 88% of incarcerated Americans are in state prisons and local jails, where men can still be housed with women.
I know it's confusing because our government systems are so different, but I'm concerned that people are getting the idea this fight is all over here when it's just beginning.
"As of October 24, 2023, there are 10 transgender women housed in BOP female facilities"
Good. Then it shouldn't be a problem to safely accommodate them in the male prison estate.
Any idea how many are in State Prisons (which is 88% of the US prison population)?
I can understand concerns about them being in womens prisons but of course it is a problem to keep them safe in male prisons, especially ones as lawless as the US system.
"Of the 10 transgender women at Chino who spoke to NBC News during a weekend visit last year, nine said they’d been sexually assaulted behind bars."
There's a lot of misinformation on X about what Trump's executive orders mean, especially from British accounts.
For example, he can't ban gender medicalization of kids. His EO only stops federal funds from paying for it. Two-thirds of Americans have private health insurance, not public, and won't be affected.
And his prison EO can only remove men from women's FEDERAL prisons. 88% of incarcerated Americans are in state prisons and local jails, where men can still be housed with women.
I know it's confusing because our government systems are so different, but I'm concerned that people are getting the idea this fight is all over here when it's just beginning.
Parties of the Left: 55% Parties of the Right: 45%
The LDs have been in government with the Tories for five years, they can't really be classed as a leftwing party just an anti Brexit party
Reform aren’t a right wing party.
This is the problem with using the words left and right, which I have always thought problematic. I am a liberal, both socially and financially, which often makes me to the 'right' (if we have to use that term) to Conservatives in certain areas and definitely Reform. Both conservative with a small 'c' and whom I often think come out with very authoritarian stuff.
Maybe Progressive and Conservative would be better terms. Still not happy with that though.
There's a lot of misinformation on X about what Trump's executive orders mean, especially from British accounts.
For example, he can't ban gender medicalization of kids. His EO only stops federal funds from paying for it. Two-thirds of Americans have private health insurance, not public, and won't be affected.
And his prison EO can only remove men from women's FEDERAL prisons. 88% of incarcerated Americans are in state prisons and local jails, where men can still be housed with women.
I know it's confusing because our government systems are so different, but I'm concerned that people are getting the idea this fight is all over here when it's just beginning.
"As of October 24, 2023, there are 10 transgender women housed in BOP female facilities"
That’s very out of date.
Its not gone from less than 1% of transgender females in womens prisons in Oct 2023 to 100% transgender females in womens prisons today......accept reality.
There's a lot of misinformation on X about what Trump's executive orders mean, especially from British accounts.
For example, he can't ban gender medicalization of kids. His EO only stops federal funds from paying for it. Two-thirds of Americans have private health insurance, not public, and won't be affected.
And his prison EO can only remove men from women's FEDERAL prisons. 88% of incarcerated Americans are in state prisons and local jails, where men can still be housed with women.
I know it's confusing because our government systems are so different, but I'm concerned that people are getting the idea this fight is all over here when it's just beginning.
There's a lot of misinformation on X about what Trump's executive orders mean, especially from British accounts.
For example, he can't ban gender medicalization of kids. His EO only stops federal funds from paying for it. Two-thirds of Americans have private health insurance, not public, and won't be affected.
And his prison EO can only remove men from women's FEDERAL prisons. 88% of incarcerated Americans are in state prisons and local jails, where men can still be housed with women.
I know it's confusing because our government systems are so different, but I'm concerned that people are getting the idea this fight is all over here when it's just beginning.
"As of October 24, 2023, there are 10 transgender women housed in BOP female facilities"
Given the numbers it must be cheaper to build small separate transgender wings at a handful of prisons rather than decades of court cases and policy shifts that are never going to satisfy all.
Pretty sure there are people who want the issue to be a continuing festering sore for political reasons rather than deep concern for the individuals concerned. Tbf to Musk (not words I often use) I suppose he has some personal experience of the trans issue, but his upset seems mainly about his trans daughter really, REALLY thinking he's an asshole and loudly saying so.
There's a lot of misinformation on X about what Trump's executive orders mean, especially from British accounts.
For example, he can't ban gender medicalization of kids. His EO only stops federal funds from paying for it. Two-thirds of Americans have private health insurance, not public, and won't be affected.
And his prison EO can only remove men from women's FEDERAL prisons. 88% of incarcerated Americans are in state prisons and local jails, where men can still be housed with women.
I know it's confusing because our government systems are so different, but I'm concerned that people are getting the idea this fight is all over here when it's just beginning.
"As of October 24, 2023, there are 10 transgender women housed in BOP female facilities"
Good. Then it shouldn't be a problem to safely accommodate them in the male prison estate.
Any idea how many are in State Prisons (which is 88% of the US prison population)?
I can understand concerns about them being in womens prisons but of course it is a problem to keep them safe in male prisons, especially ones as lawless as the US system.
"Of the 10 transgender women at Chino who spoke to NBC News during a weekend visit last year, nine said they’d been sexually assaulted behind bars."
The young, the old, and gay men are vulnerable to sexual assault in male prisons - they, and men who identify as women need to be provided with safe accommodation.
Shifting this male problem to female prisons is not the solution.
There's a lot of misinformation on X about what Trump's executive orders mean, especially from British accounts.
For example, he can't ban gender medicalization of kids. His EO only stops federal funds from paying for it. Two-thirds of Americans have private health insurance, not public, and won't be affected.
And his prison EO can only remove men from women's FEDERAL prisons. 88% of incarcerated Americans are in state prisons and local jails, where men can still be housed with women.
I know it's confusing because our government systems are so different, but I'm concerned that people are getting the idea this fight is all over here when it's just beginning.
"As of October 24, 2023, there are 10 transgender women housed in BOP female facilities"
Good. Then it shouldn't be a problem to safely accommodate them in the male prison estate.
Any idea how many are in State Prisons (which is 88% of the US prison population)?
I can understand concerns about them being in womens prisons but of course it is a problem to keep them safe in male prisons, especially ones as lawless as the US system.
"Of the 10 transgender women at Chino who spoke to NBC News during a weekend visit last year, nine said they’d been sexually assaulted behind bars."
The young, the old, and gay men are vulnerable to sexual assault in male prisons - they, and men who identify as women need to be provided with safe accommodation.
Shifting this male problem to female prisons is not the solution.
I haven't suggested it is. I am saying that it is very difficult to safely house them in male prisons, you say it is easy, the evidence says not.
yes, but he wont scrap them will he ? He'll make bleaty noises and then approve more laws and restrictions.
PB Right: the government should go for growth and deregulate.
Government: we should go for growth and deregulate.
PB Right: don’t believe them.
What is the point of this discourse? There is no analysis, no engagement, just blind opposition for the sake of it.
I agree, there is a lot of stupid blind opposition (tbf, there was when the Conservatives were in power). But it is possible to believe this government want to deregulate, but not believe they will find it possible because they are ideologically incapable of deregulating.
The alternative take is Starmer's approach to that A47 protestor. No, there won't be a bonfire of regulation. But there will be a meaningful pruning of regulatory abuse and overreach. And someone who believes in rules has got a better chance of making that work and stick than someone who just wants to burn it all down.
But yes, proof of pudding, eating and all that. For the next four years, all most of us can do is wait and see and heckle.
There's a lot of misinformation on X about what Trump's executive orders mean, especially from British accounts.
For example, he can't ban gender medicalization of kids. His EO only stops federal funds from paying for it. Two-thirds of Americans have private health insurance, not public, and won't be affected.
And his prison EO can only remove men from women's FEDERAL prisons. 88% of incarcerated Americans are in state prisons and local jails, where men can still be housed with women.
I know it's confusing because our government systems are so different, but I'm concerned that people are getting the idea this fight is all over here when it's just beginning.
"As of October 24, 2023, there are 10 transgender women housed in BOP female facilities"
Good. Then it shouldn't be a problem to safely accommodate them in the male prison estate.
Any idea how many are in State Prisons (which is 88% of the US prison population)?
I can understand concerns about them being in womens prisons but of course it is a problem to keep them safe in male prisons, especially ones as lawless as the US system.
"Of the 10 transgender women at Chino who spoke to NBC News during a weekend visit last year, nine said they’d been sexually assaulted behind bars."
The young, the old, and gay men are vulnerable to sexual assault in male prisons - they, and men who identify as women need to be provided with safe accommodation.
Shifting this male problem to female prisons is not the solution.
Yes the solution is mostly likely to be a ‘trans wing’ of a men’s prison.
American Federal prisons are very different to British prisons, and much more violent.
Inter alia the stuff coming out of Labour - deregulate and grow! - is not just vapid bilge - it is also a tacit but clinching argument for Brexit
Because; even if we did manage to sweep away all the stifling red tape and wankery, if we were still in the EU we would then confront an immovable second later of EU rules and regs. Which are now destroying the EU economically
I was on a panel with DBT and a bunch of businesses yesterday fielding questions on the government “reset” with the EU. One of the big repeated complaints is all the new red tape we’ve been faced with since Brexit. Enough to have stopped thousands of small businesses from exporting. (Red tape which was described at the time as project fear).
For bigger businesses there’s also a wish not to proliferate different regulatory regimes if the EU one is already familiar. It’s easier to deal with one set of rules than multiple.
As someone who ran a business with over 50% export, the issue is not red tape but mind set. Main problem is they want everyone to communicate in English and pay in sterling. The world has moved on since the Empire but few seem to have noticed.
There's a lot of misinformation on X about what Trump's executive orders mean, especially from British accounts.
For example, he can't ban gender medicalization of kids. His EO only stops federal funds from paying for it. Two-thirds of Americans have private health insurance, not public, and won't be affected.
And his prison EO can only remove men from women's FEDERAL prisons. 88% of incarcerated Americans are in state prisons and local jails, where men can still be housed with women.
I know it's confusing because our government systems are so different, but I'm concerned that people are getting the idea this fight is all over here when it's just beginning.
"As of October 24, 2023, there are 10 transgender women housed in BOP female facilities"
That’s very out of date.
Its not gone from less than 1% of transgender females in womens prisons in Oct 2023 to 100% transgender females in womens prisons today......accept reality.
Possibly the quote of the week, the year, the century and for eternity.
"The minute we start going down that track *of looking for evidence*, I think we start to lose our way"
Kemi Badenoch
You should never look *for* evidence
You should look *at* the evidence and determine if your hypothesis is true or not.
Otherwise you are at risk of confirmation bias
Who decides what the evidence "is"? How it is collected?
All sounds clever but in reality lots of cases where we should look for evidence. Obvious example a defence lawyer presented with evidence from the police but client says that is not the whole picture.
It is a mix of looking both for and at evidence that is needed.
By and large the UK has a pretty effective and intelligent regulatory regime by international standards. Just ask any multinational investor: it’s relatively easy to start and run a business, hire and fire, raise capital, pay tax, restructure. We’re seen as one of the straightforward markets, without being the Wild West.
The big area where we are recalcitrant and extremely difficult to navigate is the planning regime. Yes there are other aspects of regulation that should be looked at, but when it comes to regulation that strangles growth it’s planning planning planning.
Does the electorate want development? I am not so sure
To expand on this, ever been on a local community facebook group where there’s a post about planning permission? Hundreds of comments about any development being too big, inappropriate, too many people, “we are not a city”, “the council should build X instead”etc etc. These kind of comments are not usually from the Labour voting type but the Tory/Reform voting type.
In my experience they’re from all types (over the age of 50). We even get them here in inner London.
I make a point of never adding my name to an objection, and writing in support of developments (including one literally in - well overlooking - my backyard).
Here’s a good topical example in Morpeth, Northumberland.
There's a lot of misinformation on X about what Trump's executive orders mean, especially from British accounts.
For example, he can't ban gender medicalization of kids. His EO only stops federal funds from paying for it. Two-thirds of Americans have private health insurance, not public, and won't be affected.
And his prison EO can only remove men from women's FEDERAL prisons. 88% of incarcerated Americans are in state prisons and local jails, where men can still be housed with women.
I know it's confusing because our government systems are so different, but I'm concerned that people are getting the idea this fight is all over here when it's just beginning.
"As of October 24, 2023, there are 10 transgender women housed in BOP female facilities"
That’s very out of date.
Its not gone from less than 1% of transgender females in womens prisons in Oct 2023 to 100% transgender females in womens prisons today......accept reality.
The NY Times figure was 15%.
No, the stat you claimed initially was 15% of the womens prison population are trangender females. That requires 100% of transgender female prisoners to be in womens prisons (a bit more than 100% but being generous, lets call it 100%).
There's a lot of misinformation on X about what Trump's executive orders mean, especially from British accounts.
For example, he can't ban gender medicalization of kids. His EO only stops federal funds from paying for it. Two-thirds of Americans have private health insurance, not public, and won't be affected.
And his prison EO can only remove men from women's FEDERAL prisons. 88% of incarcerated Americans are in state prisons and local jails, where men can still be housed with women.
I know it's confusing because our government systems are so different, but I'm concerned that people are getting the idea this fight is all over here when it's just beginning.
"As of October 24, 2023, there are 10 transgender women housed in BOP female facilities"
Good. Then it shouldn't be a problem to safely accommodate them in the male prison estate.
Any idea how many are in State Prisons (which is 88% of the US prison population)?
I can understand concerns about them being in womens prisons but of course it is a problem to keep them safe in male prisons, especially ones as lawless as the US system.
"Of the 10 transgender women at Chino who spoke to NBC News during a weekend visit last year, nine said they’d been sexually assaulted behind bars."
The young, the old, and gay men are vulnerable to sexual assault in male prisons - they, and men who identify as women need to be provided with safe accommodation.
Shifting this male problem to female prisons is not the solution.
I haven't suggested it is. I am saying that it is very difficult to safely house them in male prisons, you say it is easy, the evidence says not.
The "ease" was based on the numbers involved - allegedly 10 - not the simplicity of keeping the young, the old, gay men and men who identify as women safe in male prisons. But all of them deserve to be housed safely, not just one subset. And not at the expense of vulnerable women.
There's a lot of misinformation on X about what Trump's executive orders mean, especially from British accounts.
For example, he can't ban gender medicalization of kids. His EO only stops federal funds from paying for it. Two-thirds of Americans have private health insurance, not public, and won't be affected.
And his prison EO can only remove men from women's FEDERAL prisons. 88% of incarcerated Americans are in state prisons and local jails, where men can still be housed with women.
I know it's confusing because our government systems are so different, but I'm concerned that people are getting the idea this fight is all over here when it's just beginning.
One sign that things are changing will be suits going to the Supreme Court arguing that delaying projects through lawfare is a right.
Other things to watch for -
- The linear process. That is, launch an appeal on one thing (stop the project). Fail. Wait until timeout is due, then launch the next case (stop the project). This is core meteorology for lawfare against projects. - Projects being stopped the moment any case is bought, rather than a test of likelihood of it actually being upheld.
The streamlined process that got us lots of offshore wind is worth a look. It made quite a few of the Planning Industrial Complex types angry.
Possibly the quote of the week, the year, the century and for eternity.
"The minute we start going down that track *of looking for evidence*, I think we start to lose our way"
Kemi Badenoch
You should never look *for* evidence
You should look *at* the evidence and determine if your hypothesis is true or not.
Otherwise you are at risk of confirmation bias
That's wrong. I spend a good chunk of my work time looking for and gathering evidence. When I have it, I then look at it, carefully.
If we can never look for (or generate?) evidence then you're shutting down much of science and we're limited to systematic reviews (although the search part of that could be said to be looking for evidence) and maybe reviews of existing registries of data etc, but certainly no new data collection.
On the Badenoch quote, I'd need to see the context to have a view on that. If she'd suggesting we just do what we 'know' to be right without being troubled by evidence, it's batty, but it might be something else.
Kemi will turn it around, but it will take a couple of years for people to be willing to take a fresh look at the Tories, IMO.
The latter bit is certainly true - the first bit will only be true if she gets a bit of space. At this stage, criticism of her is a sign that the critic wants her to fail and, by extension, have either Labour or Farage win the next election. Especially as the Tories performance in council by elections is significantly better than the polls suggest.
Not that they are a good predictor but they're a better reflection of where voters are right now than opinion polls IMV.
I expect that from the New Statesman whose article got linked to yesterday.
I am going to repost the link to that Atlantic article again, as it is well worth a read (if you can), and is tangentially relevant to this topic also.
In the contemporary political environment, it is hard to envisage what a government that does command majority approval would look like? Trump might be managing it for a short while through performative stunts, but when the hard work of governing begins….
yes, but he wont scrap them will he ? He'll make bleaty noises and then approve more laws and restrictions.
PB Right: the government should go for growth and deregulate.
Government: we should go for growth and deregulate.
PB Right: don’t believe them.
What is the point of this discourse? There is no analysis, no engagement, just blind opposition for the sake of it.
Rather like Rishi Sunak thinking that all he needed to do was talk about stopping the boats, all Keir Starmer thinks he needs to do all talk about growth, rather than actually doing anything about it. Everything his government has actually done in the last six months will strangle growth rather than enable it.
I’ll be first in line to give him his dues, when he actually produces growth through his actions and those of his government.
To be fair, Reeves’ negative talk last autumn had a definite impact on business and consumer confidence. It stands to reason that if careless talk costs growth, then positive talk is going to help. Can’t have it both ways.
While positive talk is a good thing, many processes only work one way. You can boil an egg, but cooling it down won't unboil it.
Observers say that no AD rockets launched against a number of targets yesterday.
Maybe Russia shouldn't be supplying Saudi Arabia with 2 billion dollars of air defence...
The Saudis bought AD from Russia, and not from America?
Idiots, but if the Russians are that desperate for proper money over defending their oil industry, I guess the Saudis won’t complain too much. $2bn well spent.
yes, but he wont scrap them will he ? He'll make bleaty noises and then approve more laws and restrictions.
PB Right: the government should go for growth and deregulate.
Government: we should go for growth and deregulate.
PB Right: don’t believe them.
What is the point of this discourse? There is no analysis, no engagement, just blind opposition for the sake of it.
You're supposed to be a scientist of some sort. Surely you should want to see the evidence that they're actually doing something positive rather than promises?
One irony here is that long before Elon Musk's hegemony, Twitter algorithms amplified the right because theirs were the tweets that caused more engagement, including from people trying to refute them.
yes, but he wont scrap them will he ? He'll make bleaty noises and then approve more laws and restrictions.
PB Right: the government should go for growth and deregulate.
Government: we should go for growth and deregulate.
PB Right: don’t believe them.
What is the point of this discourse? There is no analysis, no engagement, just blind opposition for the sake of it.
Because this Labour government is simultaneously lying, delusional, stupid, talentless, idiotic, self-destructive, and inept
I’ll believe this new “growth strategy” when a spade goes in the dirt at Heathrow. Not until
Are you suggesting that only an idiot would have voted for them?
Either that or someone so small minded and petty he voted for Labour solely to discomfort a woke retired accountant in Hampstead
Someone's been working in that excuse for months. Less convincing than Reeves.
I don’t actually mean this. It’s a joke. Discombobulating @kinabalu was about 5% of my motivation for voting Labour. The rest was a mix of 1. Voting for the actual PM in my constituency, how often do you get to vote directly for the PM? 2. Wondering what it would feel like to vote Labour for the first time * and 3. “Give Labour a chance”
*awful. It felt awful. Never again
Wick Man love Myanmar International Airways Voting Labour
Anything else you want to add to the felt awful, never again list?
"Try everything once, except folk dancing and incest."
yes, but he wont scrap them will he ? He'll make bleaty noises and then approve more laws and restrictions.
PB Right: the government should go for growth and deregulate.
Government: we should go for growth and deregulate.
PB Right: don’t believe them.
What is the point of this discourse? There is no analysis, no engagement, just blind opposition for the sake of it.
You're supposed to be a scientist of some sort. Surely you should want to see the evidence that they're actually doing something positive rather than promises?
Agreed. Let's wait to see some evidence. Let's not rush to conclude, without evidence, that they won't deliver.
Observers say that no AD rockets launched against a number of targets yesterday.
They are manufacturing them - but at a far lower rate than consumption. As with many weapons.
This is why Russia is desperate for even North Korean support. They used up their fairly thin reserves of modern weapons. They’ve also rum low on the huge stockpiles of older stuff.
And this is why you see spasmodic activity - they save up enough production / refurbished / North Korean / Chinese stuff to mount a limited offensive.
Broken back warfare - straight out of Herman Kahn.
This is why doctors are paid a lot, they are taxed far too much
‘I’m never working for the NHS again – I owe £7,500 in tax after one shift’
Complex pension calculations leave medical professionals with large liabilities
When Dr Leon Creaney opened his pension statement, all he wanted was a small amount of growth. After all, he’d spent three years working on the NHS’s frontline after stepping back in to help during the Covid 19 pandemic.
Instead, he found himself staring down at a £7,500 tax bill. He didn’t know it at the time, but he was midway through a five-year ordeal that would see him take court action against the health service he had dedicated years to.
Reflecting on that day, he says: “My worst possible fears were realised. I opened up this letter expecting it to be a couple of hundred pounds growth for each year. I almost fainted.”
The saga began in April 2020 at the height of lockdown. Dr Creaney, who is 47 and lives near Manchester, decided to work an A&E shift at his local hospital.
At the time, pension savers were limited to annual contributions of £40,000 a year before facing a tax charge, with the allowance reduced further still for the highest earners.
It was simple for people in defined contribution pensions to avoid breaching the allowance, as the calculation was based purely on how much money was paid in each year.
For NHS pensions, however, the perceived growth of someone’s benefits was measured against the allowance – and the calculation was extremely complex.
Dr Creaney had carefully managed how much went into his private pension, but his hospital shift came right at the end of the tax year and added another £57 into his NHS pension.
This triggered a calculation which, due to historic inflation, found his benefits had grown by £17,500 – meaning he had breached the allowance and a tax bill of 45pc was payable.
Graham Crossley, of Quilter, said that even today it was possible for £1 of additional income to generate a £22,500 tax bill.
There's a lot of misinformation on X about what Trump's executive orders mean, especially from British accounts.
For example, he can't ban gender medicalization of kids. His EO only stops federal funds from paying for it. Two-thirds of Americans have private health insurance, not public, and won't be affected.
And his prison EO can only remove men from women's FEDERAL prisons. 88% of incarcerated Americans are in state prisons and local jails, where men can still be housed with women.
I know it's confusing because our government systems are so different, but I'm concerned that people are getting the idea this fight is all over here when it's just beginning.
yes, but he wont scrap them will he ? He'll make bleaty noises and then approve more laws and restrictions.
PB Right: the government should go for growth and deregulate.
Government: we should go for growth and deregulate.
PB Right: don’t believe them.
What is the point of this discourse? There is no analysis, no engagement, just blind opposition for the sake of it.
I agree, there is a lot of stupid blind opposition (tbf, there was when the Conservatives were in power). But it is possible to believe this government want to deregulate, but not believe they will find it possible because they are ideologically incapable of deregulating.
The alternative take is Starmer's approach to that A47 protestor. No, there won't be a bonfire of regulation. But there will be a meaningful pruning of regulatory abuse and overreach. And someone who believes in rules has got a better chance of making that work and stick than someone who just wants to burn it all down.
But yes, proof of pudding, eating and all that. For the next four years, all most of us can do is wait and see and heckle.
...the Aarhus convention...
...in the middle of Aarh street. Aarhus...
It’s a rather high end furniture store in California. I always liked the name
There’s so many pro-Ukraine channels posting in the last few days that the whole Russian economy is about to fall over, please can we all pray that it’s true.
Possibly the quote of the week, the year, the century and for eternity.
"The minute we start going down that track *of looking for evidence*, I think we start to lose our way"
Kemi Badenoch
You should never look *for* evidence
You should look *at* the evidence and determine if your hypothesis is true or not.
Otherwise you are at risk of confirmation bias
That's wrong. I spend a good chunk of my work time looking for and gathering evidence. When I have it, I then look at it, carefully.
If we can never look for (or generate?) evidence then you're shutting down much of science and we're limited to systematic reviews (although the search part of that could be said to be looking for evidence) and maybe reviews of existing registries of data etc, but certainly no new data collection.
On the Badenoch quote, I'd need to see the context to have a view on that. If she'd suggesting we just do what we 'know' to be right without being troubled by evidence, it's batty, but it might be something else.
tbf I think she is being (somewhat) misquoted - 'of looking for evidence' wasn't in her answer, but was part of the question. A generous interpretation would be she is trying to say it's wrong to ignore anecdotes and individual experience just because it doesn't really (yet) count as hard evidence. Less generous is she is saying 'ignore the evidence'
Context was her claim that 'lack of social integration' was a factor in the Southport murders.
My money would be on them not reminding the LA that they should be sent a council tax demand then when finally the LA sends them a demand countersuing for 8+ years of stress.
Possibly the quote of the week, the year, the century and for eternity.
"The minute we start going down that track *of looking for evidence*, I think we start to lose our way"
Kemi Badenoch
You should never look *for* evidence
You should look *at* the evidence and determine if your hypothesis is true or not.
Otherwise you are at risk of confirmation bias
That's wrong. I spend a good chunk of my work time looking for and gathering evidence. When I have it, I then look at it, carefully.
If we can never look for (or generate?) evidence then you're shutting down much of science and we're limited to systematic reviews (although the search part of that could be said to be looking for evidence) and maybe reviews of existing registries of data etc, but certainly no new data collection.
On the Badenoch quote, I'd need to see the context to have a view on that. If she'd suggesting we just do what we 'know' to be right without being troubled by evidence, it's batty, but it might be something else.
I believe what she was talking about were those who believed something, and looked only for evidence to support that belief.
It is, of course, an accusation which could just as easily be turned on her.
Comments
Parties of the Right: 45%
Still good news for Kiev and Kharkiv though.
There's a lot of misinformation on X about what Trump's executive orders mean, especially from British accounts.
For example, he can't ban gender medicalization of kids. His EO only stops federal funds from paying for it. Two-thirds of Americans have private health insurance, not public, and won't be affected.
And his prison EO can only remove men from women's FEDERAL prisons. 88% of incarcerated Americans are in state prisons and local jails, where men can still be housed with women.
I know it's confusing because our government systems are so different, but I'm concerned that people are getting the idea this fight is all over here when it's just beginning.
https://x.com/fem_mb/status/1884517315925999806
Build, build, build, sod short term popularity.
‘It was leaked to us:’ Army in chaos over Trump orders
Confusion around the new administration’s spending freezes and executive orders has caused disarray inside the Pentagon.
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/01/28/army-trump-executive-order-chaos-00201074
We're about to submit the planning application for our self-build, if I send you the details can you post your support? ;-)
*awful. It felt awful. Never again
Which, if true, must have been horrific for the actual women held there.
From 1930 it was invoked so frequently I think the Reichstag only met about four times.
It was one of the big weaknesses of Weimar, although not the only one.
It didn't help that by 1930 the President was 83 and going senile,* so the powers were ultimately transferred to the Chancellor under the Enabling Act of March 1933.
Admittedly, that was still only passed because the SA said they would beat up anyone who didn't vote in favour of it.
*It's a good job America has just elected somebody young, vigorous and intelligent rather than a senile geriatric with a weird obsession with sharks. Imagine the trouble such a person could cause.
Bottom line is they are going to have to lump it.
We can't have too many reminders of this utterly gross period of history.
And at the risk of Godwinning my own post, there are very strong parallels between the rise of Hitler and the Nazis, and Trump/Maga today.
1) They have run out of room to borrow more. Hunt and Reeves have already collectively pushed this to the limits of what could still plausibly be described as fiscally sound. Any further and you risk a debt crisis, or it becomes self-defeating as higher refinancing costs on the existing debt pile outweigh the additional spending from borrowing more.
2) They have run out of room to tax meaningfully more, absent a more ambitious gross wealth tax than would probably take three years to implement.
3) They would genuinely like to improve public services. That either takes money or deep reform. The former is limited by points 1 and 2, the latter takes years to show benefits even if done well.
The only remaining variable they can pull is to improve growth. Even if it means deregulation and putting aside environmental concerns.
I appreciate they started off poorly (talking down the economy, tax rises on businesses) but it's too soon to write them off, I think.
GOP legislators don't seem to understand what they're doing when they pass bills into law.
Talked to a bunch of House Rs this AM in Doral about the WH move to freeze federal aid. Many are defending Trump — including the chairman of House Appropriations Committee, Tom Cole, who told me he doesn’t “have a problem” with the White House decision pause the aid.
“I think that’s probably what you ought to do when you’re coming in as a new administration,” he said.
When asked about the legality of the White House directing agencies not to spend money appropriated by Congress, Cole called it a “legitimate exercise of executive oversight” and noted that appropriations directed by Congress are “not a law.”
“I’m not a lawyer, I can’t pontificate on what’s legal but I suspect what’s happening is what most Republicans would be supportive of,” he said. “Appropriations is not a law, it’s the directive of Congress.”..
https://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_gender.jsp
So there are 10k female prisoners and 1.5k transgender female prisoners.
So it would be close to true if all transgender females were in womens prisons.
But it is very rare that they are:
https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/transgender-women-are-nearly-always-incarcerated-men-s-putting-many-n1142436
So why is your favourite stat something that is obviously untrue but re-enforces your priors.....
Excluding Quebec, Canadia has an English-speaking* majority of 80%.
[* language spoken at home]
cf. USA = 78%
However they can turn it around. I agree. They have the chance to and it does seem the top table in Labour does get it now. If they do start to get some growth I think they can easily convert the WNV/DK's back to Labour and win a second term.
Alot hinges on it and reforming the planning system.
BREAKING: Secretary of State Marco Rubio provides waiver for @PEPFAR to provide HIV medications to poor nations.
The Trump administration had thrown the foreign aid program into chaos this week by putting it on a 90-day "pause" along with all other foreign aid. People with HIV were not even allowed to pick up their medications.
https://x.com/benryanwriter/status/1884433881853747427
You think nothing changed under the Biden administration?
Man love
Myanmar International Airways
Voting Labour
Anything else you want to add to the felt awful, never again list?
It's possible that they're actually desperate enough to push this through.
And the combination of a massive parliamentary majority, and extremely fragile electoral support, provides both means and motivation.
At least we'll know a lot quicker than the fourteen years the Tories took to do nothing of significance on this.
https://x.com/alexberenson/status/1882836921363448148
Yes it could be read that not all of them are currently in the women’s prison.
The exact quote is “15% of women in prison are transgender” rather than “15% of people in women’s prison are transgender”.
'Stop conflating sex and gender, NHS told by watchdog'
'NHS England accused of conflating the terms in its staff survey which asked about 'gender discrimination' and whether a person’s gender had an impact on career progression, rather than their sex'
https://x.com/JournalismSEEN/status/1884291618687303742
Also, ask yourself this: If they had a binary choice between forming a coalition with the Ref/Con or Lab/Green, which way do you think they would go?
What an absolutely outrageous set of remarks! The right hon. Member completely forgets that, only six months ago, his Government were in charge. The Government of which he was part all but ran our justice system into the ground. I do not recall seeing him standing up and speaking about delays for rape victims, or indeed any other kind of victim, when he was on this side of the House. I am glad he has now realised that the system ought to try to put victims first. His critique would have more force were it not for the fact that this Government, having come to office only six months ago, have increased Crown court sitting capacity by 2,500 days.
30s video clip on TwiX:-
https://x.com/PeterStefanovi2/status/1884273412534894738
It is absurd to think that we have gone from 15 prisoners out of 4,890 in 2020 to almost 100% now and no-one has any numbers or policy documents to show this.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24520773-peters-responses-to-judiciary-committee-2022/?q=female&mode=document#document/p6
"As of October 24, 2023, there are 10 transgender women housed in BOP female facilities"
"As of October 24, 2023, there are 10 transgender women housed in BOP female facilities"
I feel let down by Labour having voted for them. Won't vote for them in the locals. Probably Independent and whoever else is likely to win that is not labour, merely to relay disatisfaction, and if that is Reform so be it. However for a GE I am a DK/WNV now and can be won back and it is nice that my seat is nominally Reform at the moment so Labour will want my vote and work for it rather than taking it for granted as they did in the Giles Radice/Kevan Jones years.
The Tories are such a low bar to compare them to. It is hard to see what they actually did in this area of any significance or positivity.
The leadership and members (should that be subscribers?) are Thatcherite free marketeers wanting a vastly smaller state, the voters are much more traditional social conservatives, nostalgic for the welfare state and manufacturing industry of the fifties and sixties, viewed through rose tinted spectacles.
So a party of the centre-left led by the Thatcherite right. They don't fit neatly on the spectrum, and the voters are at least potentially open to a return to Labour if there is some genuine levelling up, and immigration continues to plummet. The visa figures indicate that the stats published yesterday are simply wrong.
https://bsky.app/profile/jdportes.bsky.social/post/3lgslmocs422a
Shopping malls
ITV
Reading Wittgenstein
Les Miserables
Harry Potter volumes 5, 6 and 7.
Any idea how many are in State Prisons (which is 88% of the US prison population)?
That is my quota of value added comments for the day
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Budget_and_Impoundment_Control_Act_of_1974
Title X of the Act, also known as the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, specifies that the president may request that Congress rescind appropriated funds. If both the Senate and the House of Representatives have not approved a rescission proposal (by passing legislation) within forty-five days of continuous session, any funds being withheld must be made available for obligation. Congress is not required to vote on the request and has ignored most presidential requests...
You should look *at* the evidence and determine if your hypothesis is true or not.
Otherwise you are at risk of confirmation bias
"Of the 10 transgender women at Chino who spoke to NBC News during a weekend visit last year, nine said they’d been sexually assaulted behind bars."
Maybe Progressive and Conservative would be better terms. Still not happy with that though.
Shifting this male problem to female prisons is not the solution.
https://x.com/secretsqrl123/status/1884463044170064004
Observers say that no AD rockets launched against a number of targets yesterday.
American Federal prisons are very different to British prisons, and much more violent.
All sounds clever but in reality lots of cases where we should look for evidence. Obvious example a defence lawyer presented with evidence from the police but client says that is not the whole picture.
It is a mix of looking both for and at evidence that is needed.
The entitlement of this tax dodging pensioner is off the scale.
‘I haven’t paid council tax in eight years – should I tell someone?’
Ask A Lawyer: our reader is worried their local authority’s oversight could result in a hefty debt
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/tax/not-paid-council-tax-eight-years-tell-someone/
One sign that things are changing will be suits going to the Supreme Court arguing that delaying projects through lawfare is a right.
Other things to watch for -
- The linear process. That is, launch an appeal on one thing (stop the project). Fail. Wait until timeout is due, then launch the next case (stop the project). This is core meteorology for lawfare against projects.
- Projects being stopped the moment any case is bought, rather than a test of likelihood of it actually being upheld.
The streamlined process that got us lots of offshore wind is worth a look. It made quite a few of the Planning Industrial Complex types angry.
If we can never look for (or generate?) evidence then you're shutting down much of science and we're limited to systematic reviews (although the search part of that could be said to be looking for evidence) and maybe reviews of existing registries of data etc, but certainly no new data collection.
On the Badenoch quote, I'd need to see the context to have a view on that. If she'd suggesting we just do what we 'know' to be right without being troubled by evidence, it's batty, but it might be something else.
Not that they are a good predictor but they're a better reflection of where voters are right now than opinion polls IMV.
I expect that from the New Statesman whose article got linked to yesterday.
Idiots, but if the Russians are that desperate for proper money over defending their oil industry, I guess the Saudis won’t complain too much. $2bn well spent.
This is why Russia is desperate for even North Korean support. They used up their fairly thin reserves of modern weapons. They’ve also rum low on the huge stockpiles of older stuff.
And this is why you see spasmodic activity - they save up enough production / refurbished / North Korean / Chinese stuff to mount a limited offensive.
Broken back warfare - straight out of Herman Kahn.
‘I’m never working for the NHS again – I owe £7,500 in tax after one shift’
Complex pension calculations leave medical professionals with large liabilities
When Dr Leon Creaney opened his pension statement, all he wanted was a small amount of growth. After all, he’d spent three years working on the NHS’s frontline after stepping back in to help during the Covid 19 pandemic.
Instead, he found himself staring down at a £7,500 tax bill. He didn’t know it at the time, but he was midway through a five-year ordeal that would see him take court action against the health service he had dedicated years to.
Reflecting on that day, he says: “My worst possible fears were realised. I opened up this letter expecting it to be a couple of hundred pounds growth for each year. I almost fainted.”
The saga began in April 2020 at the height of lockdown. Dr Creaney, who is 47 and lives near Manchester, decided to work an A&E shift at his local hospital.
At the time, pension savers were limited to annual contributions of £40,000 a year before facing a tax charge, with the allowance reduced further still for the highest earners.
It was simple for people in defined contribution pensions to avoid breaching the allowance, as the calculation was based purely on how much money was paid in each year.
For NHS pensions, however, the perceived growth of someone’s benefits was measured against the allowance – and the calculation was extremely complex.
Dr Creaney had carefully managed how much went into his private pension, but his hospital shift came right at the end of the tax year and added another £57 into his NHS pension.
This triggered a calculation which, due to historic inflation, found his benefits had grown by £17,500 – meaning he had breached the allowance and a tax bill of 45pc was payable.
Graham Crossley, of Quilter, said that even today it was possible for £1 of additional income to generate a £22,500 tax bill.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/pensions/nhs-7500-tax-bill-working-one-hospital-shift/
Russian oil refinery bingo.
https://x.com/maks_nafo_fella/status/1884375586312753341
There’s so many pro-Ukraine channels posting in the last few days that the whole Russian economy is about to fall over, please can we all pray that it’s true.
Context was her claim that 'lack of social integration' was a factor in the Southport murders.
It is, of course, an accusation which could just as easily be turned on her.