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.
A minor scandal in Scotland is that there are a lot of people either getting threatened with bailiffs or getting their energy completely free - a result of people in England not understanding flat naming convestions (eg 50/2, 20F3).
One of my colleagues has been granted compensation because the energy company is refusing to bill them for their energy , while the neighbour is currently fighting their double-bill in court. The Osbudsman has previously confirmed that both should get all the energy free for the last 6 years, and going forward until the energy company bothers to fix it. The overall compensation for everyone in the tenement affected now runs into the £1000s.
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%).
Where on Earth does a 100% figure come from? No-one is suggesting that 15% of male convicts are trannies, only that 15% of ‘female’ convicts are.
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.
I think that Keir also needs to personally concentrate on the domestic agenda, and put away his passport for a bit. That is what a Foreign Secretary is for.
Take some time to tour in places like Stoke, Middlesborough, Clacton, Merthyr, Glasgow and Leicester and talk to people on the ground. We all know that the Treasury is skint, but there are low cost changes that could make lives better.
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.
The point I was making (based on linguistics) was that she had a fair point that was being mischaracterised
The context was people looking for evidence to justify not getting vaccinated - post hoc data mining for sub samples gives me the shivers
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.
The solution is simple. Just switch everyone to a DC SIPP. Real cash against real assets, no make believe DB public sector nonsense.
Prediction: the government is going to have to tie themselves in knots at some point in the next few years, to defend the pensions given to doctors that are pretty much impossible to buy in the private sector.
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%).
Where on Earth does a 100% figure come from? No-one is suggesting that 15% of male convicts are trannies, only that 15% of ‘female’ convicts are.
There are 10025 female prsioners - all in womens prisons. There are 1529 transgender females - in a mix of mens and womens prisons.
If all 1529, 100%, were in womens prisons that gives a womens prisons population of 11554 of which 13.2% would be transgender females. The reality is it will be in double figures as a total and much less than 1% as a proportion
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.
Thanks. I'd be interested to see a link to the actual exchange - if it was an interview? - that led to this.
It is a favourite approach of people with strong ideology to reject looking for/at evidence on something they hold to be true. If she's making a bit claim about the reasons for the Southport murders then it certainly would be prudent and responsible to have some evidence to support that, rather than just shit stirring for votes.
A minor scandal in Scotland is that there are a lot of people either getting threatened with bailiffs or getting their energy completely free - a result of people in England not understanding flat naming convestions (eg 50/2, 20F3).
One of my colleagues has been granted compensation because the energy company is refusing to bill them for their energy , while the neighbour is currently fighting their double-bill in court. The Osbudsman has previously confirmed that both should get all the energy free for the last 6 years, and going forward until the energy company bothers to fix it. The overall compensation for everyone in the tenement affected now runs into the £1000s.
It’s fun in England too.
My friend moved in to a new build in 2015.
Now the plot numbers do not align to the house numbers, so for example, plot 47 is house number 33, plot number 48 is house number 11.
So my friend was getting billed for the wrong house and EDF arbitrarily decided her bill for 4 years should be £11,000, when the reality is she was using circa £800 a year.
Ended up going to the ombudsman and solicitors who decided she had nothing to pay between 2015 and 2019 as EDF couldn’t confirm the meter details. Then she got the compensation.
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."
In a society as litigious as the US it amazes me that the awful violence in the prison system is allowed to continue. I would have thought prisoners would have a strong case against the prison authorities in terms of a failure of their duty of care. Perhaps there is some kind of law preventing this from happening - which would be pretty shameful but not unsurprising.
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.
That, of course, is a valid point. It's generally easy to find evidence to support almost any view if you only look for that evidence and particularly if you're willing to extrapolate from what it says to what you want it to say.
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.
Pantsir-S1M air defense system, apparently. No idea how much has actually been delivered.
Aside from details about the purchase of the Pantsir system, the leak includes a 69-page proposal that discusses future cooperation between Saudi Arabia and the sanctioned Russian firms. The proposal outlines three potential contracts.
One contract would cover the construction of maintenance facilities, while another would create a 15,000-square-metre center in Jeddah to train personnel on using the Pantsir system. The third potential contract would include building an assembly plant in Saudi Arabia to produce Pantsir units, and ammunition.
The contract for the assembly plant was due to be signed in the second half of 2022. However, OCCRP was unable to confirm whether this or the other two additional contracts were formally agreed upon, since the leak included documents only until May 2022.
This is a bit worrying:
The deal may have also allowed Russia to gain knowledge of Patriot air defense systems that Saudi Arabia has acquired from the U.S. The Russian side requested and received consent to visit Saudi air defense facilities in 2022, the leaked emails show.
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.
Pantsir-S1M air defense system, apparently. No idea how much has actually been delivered.
Aside from details about the purchase of the Pantsir system, the leak includes a 69-page proposal that discusses future cooperation between Saudi Arabia and the sanctioned Russian firms. The proposal outlines three potential contracts.
One contract would cover the construction of maintenance facilities, while another would create a 15,000-square-metre center in Jeddah to train personnel on using the Pantsir system. The third potential contract would include building an assembly plant in Saudi Arabia to produce Pantsir units, and ammunition.
The contract for the assembly plant was due to be signed in the second half of 2022. However, OCCRP was unable to confirm whether this or the other two additional contracts were formally agreed upon, since the leak included documents only until May 2022.
This is a bit worrying:
The deal may have also allowed Russia to gain knowledge of Patriot air defense systems that Saudi Arabia has acquired from the U.S. The Russian side requested and received consent to visit Saudi air defense facilities in 2022, the leaked emails show.
Interesting name that, to English-hearing ears.
"Why's our oil refinery on fire? I thought we had a defence system!" "We do. It's pants, Sir."
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."
In a society as litigious as the US it amazes me that the awful violence in the prison system is allowed to continue. I would have thought prisoners would have a strong case against the prison authorities in terms of a failure of their duty of care. Perhaps there is some kind of law preventing this from happening - which would be pretty shameful but not unsurprising.
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.
Thanks. I'd be interested to see a link to the actual exchange - if it was an interview? - that led to this.
It is a favourite approach of people with strong ideology to reject looking for/at evidence on something they hold to be true. If she's making a bit claim about the reasons for the Southport murders then it certainly would be prudent and responsible to have some evidence to support that, rather than just shit stirring for votes.
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.
Pantsir-S1M air defense system, apparently. No idea how much has actually been delivered.
Aside from details about the purchase of the Pantsir system, the leak includes a 69-page proposal that discusses future cooperation between Saudi Arabia and the sanctioned Russian firms. The proposal outlines three potential contracts.
One contract would cover the construction of maintenance facilities, while another would create a 15,000-square-metre center in Jeddah to train personnel on using the Pantsir system. The third potential contract would include building an assembly plant in Saudi Arabia to produce Pantsir units, and ammunition.
The contract for the assembly plant was due to be signed in the second half of 2022. However, OCCRP was unable to confirm whether this or the other two additional contracts were formally agreed upon, since the leak included documents only until May 2022.
This is a bit worrying:
The deal may have also allowed Russia to gain knowledge of Patriot air defense systems that Saudi Arabia has acquired from the U.S. The Russian side requested and received consent to visit Saudi air defense facilities in 2022, the leaked emails show.
Oh okay, a pre-war contract which is slightly different. I was rather hoping that the Saudis were buying up Russian AD systems now.
I’ll take a wild guess that nothing was delivered and no Russians had a look around the Patriot systems.
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.
I think that Keir also needs to personally concentrate on the domestic agenda, and put away his passport for a bit. That is what a Foreign Secretary is for.
Take some time to tour in places like Stoke, Middlesborough, Clacton, Merthyr, Glasgow and Leicester and talk to people on the ground. We all know that the Treasury is skint, but there are low cost changes that could make lives better.
One of the things that made Blair so impressive was his government always gave the impression of having their fingers on the pulse of the nation. It was perhaps an easier ask back then, the print media was stronger and largely supportive, the economy was in a much better state etc. But I do agree I think Starmer and Reeves need to do better on that front, try and connect more. At the moment a lot of what they say is rather esoteric to the man on the street. “Growth” as a concept is great but growth doesn’t really mean a tremendous amount to the average person.
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.
Pantsir-S1M air defense system, apparently. No idea how much has actually been delivered.
Aside from details about the purchase of the Pantsir system, the leak includes a 69-page proposal that discusses future cooperation between Saudi Arabia and the sanctioned Russian firms. The proposal outlines three potential contracts.
One contract would cover the construction of maintenance facilities, while another would create a 15,000-square-metre center in Jeddah to train personnel on using the Pantsir system. The third potential contract would include building an assembly plant in Saudi Arabia to produce Pantsir units, and ammunition.
The contract for the assembly plant was due to be signed in the second half of 2022. However, OCCRP was unable to confirm whether this or the other two additional contracts were formally agreed upon, since the leak included documents only until May 2022.
This is a bit worrying:
The deal may have also allowed Russia to gain knowledge of Patriot air defense systems that Saudi Arabia has acquired from the U.S. The Russian side requested and received consent to visit Saudi air defense facilities in 2022, the leaked emails show.
Interesting name that, to English-hearing ears.
Панцирь means breastplate or more generally armour.
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
I didn't say 'leftwing' I said 'of the left'. The Liberals have always been 'of the left', even when in coalition with the Tories.
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?
Orange Booker LDs like Clegg, Davey and Alexander were pro smaller state and lower tax, they weren't 'of the left' on any definition just socially liberal.
Indeed many LD voters now are economically right of Reform voters, especially given the LD heartland is the South of England while Reform's heartland is the redwall, ex industrial cities and depressed seaside towns, just more pro immigration and more pro net zero and more anti Brexit than Reform voters.
If they go with Labour that will be over Brexit but in opposing the tractor tax and cut to WFA the LDs are more aligned with the Tories and Reform now than Labour
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.
Thanks. I'd be interested to see a link to the actual exchange - if it was an interview? - that led to this.
It is a favourite approach of people with strong ideology to reject looking for/at evidence on something they hold to be true. If she's making a bit claim about the reasons for the Southport murders then it certainly would be prudent and responsible to have some evidence to support that, rather than just shit stirring for votes.
She is basically saying she doesn't need any evidence...
right-wing politician prioritising her own lived experience over properly gathered evidence - I thought that was supposed to be a trait of the left-wing wokerati?
It's all a bit arse about face - her personal experience is very valid and a good starting point to look at/for evidence that it's a wider issue, which it may well be, but hanging it on Southport is tasteless at best.
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.
Thanks. I'd be interested to see a link to the actual exchange - if it was an interview? - that led to this.
It is a favourite approach of people with strong ideology to reject looking for/at evidence on something they hold to be true. If she's making a bit claim about the reasons for the Southport murders then it certainly would be prudent and responsible to have some evidence to support that, rather than just shit stirring for votes.
She is basically saying she doesn't need any evidence...
I think, putting the most generous interpretation on it that I can, that she is saying that she has observed a phenomenon (poor integration) that may be relevant here and she should be able to bring that up as something to be looked at before clear evidence that it is relevant in this case is established.
And, in response, I think its fair to say that, sure, one can suggest possibilities, but you should be clear that they are only possibilities and reserve stronger causal language for when you do have that evidence.
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
I didn't say 'leftwing' I said 'of the left'. The Liberals have always been 'of the left', even when in coalition with the Tories.
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?
Orange Bookers like Clegg, Davey and Alexander were pro smaller state and lower tax, they weren't 'of the left' on any definition just socially liberal.
Indeed many LD voters now are economically right of Reform voters, especially given the LD heartland is the South of England while Reform's heartland is the redwall, ex industrial cities and depressed seaside towns, just more pro immigration and more pro net zero and more anti Brexit than Reform voters.
If they go with Labour that will be over Brexit but in opposing the tractor tax and cut to WFA the LDs are more aligned with the Tories and Reform now than Labour
Interesting commentary.
I think the 2015 experience means that they may not go beyond Confidence and Supply before 2035-2040 (say). It is likely to require to be post-Davey and Farron, and post those returners such as Tessa Munt, who remember. There's a lot of institutional memories in the LDs.
At this time Orange Bookers plus marginalised Rump Tories may be a more attractive option, which depends on whether the Blues rebuild the current self-dismantled clown car. I think it also depends on the Cons escaping from their current nativist tendencies.
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.
You don't mess with any tax authority. Council Tax (which actually mainly goes to Central Government) can be collected either by a charge on the property or by sending people to prison for wilfully avoiding paying.
Have come across someone not paying CT for 15 years and every year, a historic bill gets registered against the title or gets paid by a 'showbiz friend'. There is a somewhat odd relationship in the background that was never asked about.
Since house price inflation more than covers the bill, then it appears to make sense to the home owner.
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.
Pantsir-S1M air defense system, apparently. No idea how much has actually been delivered.
Aside from details about the purchase of the Pantsir system, the leak includes a 69-page proposal that discusses future cooperation between Saudi Arabia and the sanctioned Russian firms. The proposal outlines three potential contracts.
One contract would cover the construction of maintenance facilities, while another would create a 15,000-square-metre center in Jeddah to train personnel on using the Pantsir system. The third potential contract would include building an assembly plant in Saudi Arabia to produce Pantsir units, and ammunition.
The contract for the assembly plant was due to be signed in the second half of 2022. However, OCCRP was unable to confirm whether this or the other two additional contracts were formally agreed upon, since the leak included documents only until May 2022.
This is a bit worrying:
The deal may have also allowed Russia to gain knowledge of Patriot air defense systems that Saudi Arabia has acquired from the U.S. The Russian side requested and received consent to visit Saudi air defense facilities in 2022, the leaked emails show.
Oh okay, a pre-war contract which is slightly different. I was rather hoping that the Saudis were buying up Russian AD systems now.
I’ll take a wild guess that nothing was delivered and no Russians had a look around the Patriot systems.
Article says
Trade data shows that, in 2023, companies named in the contract delivered trucks to Saudi Arabia. The vehicles are the same type that carry components of the air defense system, including missiles and radio communications.
Also will the US take action against the Saudis?
Ongoing cooperation on the contract would not violate any laws in Saudi Arabia, as the country has not sanctioned the Russian firms. However, experts said Saudi individuals and entities risk getting slapped with U.S. sanctions if they do business with the Russian defense companies.
The U.S. “can impose secondary sanctions on people or companies in other countries if it believes that they have violated its sanctions,” said Agiya Zagrebelska, a sanctions expert at the Economic Security Council of Ukraine, a Kyiv-based research institute.
“There could be potentially individual sanctions," said Anna Borshchevskaya, a senior fellow with the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a think tank that focuses on U.S. interests in the Middle East.
The Saudi Arabian Ministry of Defense did not respond to requests for comment about the contracts, including whether cooperation with the sanctioned Russian firms is ongoing today.
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.
Pantsir-S1M air defense system, apparently. No idea how much has actually been delivered.
Aside from details about the purchase of the Pantsir system, the leak includes a 69-page proposal that discusses future cooperation between Saudi Arabia and the sanctioned Russian firms. The proposal outlines three potential contracts.
One contract would cover the construction of maintenance facilities, while another would create a 15,000-square-metre center in Jeddah to train personnel on using the Pantsir system. The third potential contract would include building an assembly plant in Saudi Arabia to produce Pantsir units, and ammunition.
The contract for the assembly plant was due to be signed in the second half of 2022. However, OCCRP was unable to confirm whether this or the other two additional contracts were formally agreed upon, since the leak included documents only until May 2022.
This is a bit worrying:
The deal may have also allowed Russia to gain knowledge of Patriot air defense systems that Saudi Arabia has acquired from the U.S. The Russian side requested and received consent to visit Saudi air defense facilities in 2022, the leaked emails show.
Interesting name that, to English-hearing ears.
Панцирь means breastplate or more generally armour.
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
I didn't say 'leftwing' I said 'of the left'. The Liberals have always been 'of the left', even when in coalition with the Tories.
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?
Orange Bookers like Clegg, Davey and Alexander were pro smaller state and lower tax, they weren't 'of the left' on any definition just socially liberal.
Indeed many LD voters now are economically right of Reform voters, especially given the LD heartland is the South of England while Reform's heartland is the redwall, ex industrial cities and depressed seaside towns, just more pro immigration and more pro net zero and more anti Brexit than Reform voters.
If they go with Labour that will be over Brexit but in opposing the tractor tax and cut to WFA the LDs are more aligned with the Tories and Reform now than Labour
Largely agree, as a liberal. The reasons the LDs would more likely support Lab/Green over Ref/Con is that Ref and Con are, at present, socially conservative. Back in 2010 there was a lot of common ground with the liberal-leaning leadership of the Conservative party.
FWIW, I'm disappointed in the LDs opposing the WFA removal and, to some extent, the inheritance tax changes (there's scope for opposition there around the implementation).
It varies though, for the LDs - the common thread is liberalism, but the leadership can be left or right of centre economically. Kennedy was more to the left of centre, in my view (proposed tax increases to fund health and social care IIRC).
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.
Pantsir-S1M air defense system, apparently. No idea how much has actually been delivered.
Aside from details about the purchase of the Pantsir system, the leak includes a 69-page proposal that discusses future cooperation between Saudi Arabia and the sanctioned Russian firms. The proposal outlines three potential contracts.
One contract would cover the construction of maintenance facilities, while another would create a 15,000-square-metre center in Jeddah to train personnel on using the Pantsir system. The third potential contract would include building an assembly plant in Saudi Arabia to produce Pantsir units, and ammunition.
The contract for the assembly plant was due to be signed in the second half of 2022. However, OCCRP was unable to confirm whether this or the other two additional contracts were formally agreed upon, since the leak included documents only until May 2022.
This is a bit worrying:
The deal may have also allowed Russia to gain knowledge of Patriot air defense systems that Saudi Arabia has acquired from the U.S. The Russian side requested and received consent to visit Saudi air defense facilities in 2022, the leaked emails show.
Interesting name that, to English-hearing ears.
Панцирь means breastplate or more generally armour.
Surely the same word as German Panzer.
Which also means coat of mail, though from French and Latin roots apparently.
'It derives through the French word pancier, "breastplate", from Latin pantex, "belly".'
A minor scandal in Scotland is that there are a lot of people either getting threatened with bailiffs or getting their energy completely free - a result of people in England not understanding flat naming convestions (eg 50/2, 20F3).
One of my colleagues has been granted compensation because the energy company is refusing to bill them for their energy , while the neighbour is currently fighting their double-bill in court. The Osbudsman has previously confirmed that both should get all the energy free for the last 6 years, and going forward until the energy company bothers to fix it. The overall compensation for everyone in the tenement affected now runs into the £1000s.
Water bills are the same. The outsourced billing by the regulated utilities is a nightmare. If it is not paid in time, the debt gets passed onto a debt collector and no effort is made to rectify the issue unless they go to the Ombudsman.
Utilities are simple business made far more complex by deregulation and piss poor oversight.
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.
Pantsir-S1M air defense system, apparently. No idea how much has actually been delivered.
Aside from details about the purchase of the Pantsir system, the leak includes a 69-page proposal that discusses future cooperation between Saudi Arabia and the sanctioned Russian firms. The proposal outlines three potential contracts.
One contract would cover the construction of maintenance facilities, while another would create a 15,000-square-metre center in Jeddah to train personnel on using the Pantsir system. The third potential contract would include building an assembly plant in Saudi Arabia to produce Pantsir units, and ammunition.
The contract for the assembly plant was due to be signed in the second half of 2022. However, OCCRP was unable to confirm whether this or the other two additional contracts were formally agreed upon, since the leak included documents only until May 2022.
This is a bit worrying:
The deal may have also allowed Russia to gain knowledge of Patriot air defense systems that Saudi Arabia has acquired from the U.S. The Russian side requested and received consent to visit Saudi air defense facilities in 2022, the leaked emails show.
Oh okay, a pre-war contract which is slightly different. I was rather hoping that the Saudis were buying up Russian AD systems now.
I’ll take a wild guess that nothing was delivered and no Russians had a look around the Patriot systems.
Article says
Trade data shows that, in 2023, companies named in the contract delivered trucks to Saudi Arabia. The vehicles are the same type that carry components of the air defense system, including missiles and radio communications.
Also will the US take action against the Saudis?
Ongoing cooperation on the contract would not violate any laws in Saudi Arabia, as the country has not sanctioned the Russian firms. However, experts said Saudi individuals and entities risk getting slapped with U.S. sanctions if they do business with the Russian defense companies.
The U.S. “can impose secondary sanctions on people or companies in other countries if it believes that they have violated its sanctions,” said Agiya Zagrebelska, a sanctions expert at the Economic Security Council of Ukraine, a Kyiv-based research institute.
“There could be potentially individual sanctions," said Anna Borshchevskaya, a senior fellow with the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a think tank that focuses on U.S. interests in the Middle East.
The Saudi Arabian Ministry of Defense did not respond to requests for comment about the contracts, including whether cooperation with the sanctioned Russian firms is ongoing today.
Awesome. Can the Saudis please sign a contract for three more of these systems, to be delivered this year?
Anything being exported is not being sent to the war.
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.
This exact problem is going to dog the Conservatives for years. Almost everything they try and blame on the current government will have the rejoinder of “and what did you do about this when you were in power?” thrown back in their faces.
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.
Pantsir-S1M air defense system, apparently. No idea how much has actually been delivered.
Aside from details about the purchase of the Pantsir system, the leak includes a 69-page proposal that discusses future cooperation between Saudi Arabia and the sanctioned Russian firms. The proposal outlines three potential contracts.
One contract would cover the construction of maintenance facilities, while another would create a 15,000-square-metre center in Jeddah to train personnel on using the Pantsir system. The third potential contract would include building an assembly plant in Saudi Arabia to produce Pantsir units, and ammunition.
The contract for the assembly plant was due to be signed in the second half of 2022. However, OCCRP was unable to confirm whether this or the other two additional contracts were formally agreed upon, since the leak included documents only until May 2022.
This is a bit worrying:
The deal may have also allowed Russia to gain knowledge of Patriot air defense systems that Saudi Arabia has acquired from the U.S. The Russian side requested and received consent to visit Saudi air defense facilities in 2022, the leaked emails show.
Turkey was thrown out of the F35 project a few years back when they bought Russian S-400 AD systems. The Yanks did not want them practicing detecting western stealth aircraft with a Russian AD system.
I think this is a major reason as to why Saudi has yet to receive permission to purchase F35's. Instead, they may buy Turkey's Kaan (*) jets.
(*) My mind says "Khaaaaannnn!" when I read that name...
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.
A minor scandal in Scotland is that there are a lot of people either getting threatened with bailiffs or getting their energy completely free - a result of people in England not understanding flat naming convestions (eg 50/2, 20F3).
One of my colleagues has been granted compensation because the energy company is refusing to bill them for their energy , while the neighbour is currently fighting their double-bill in court. The Osbudsman has previously confirmed that both should get all the energy free for the last 6 years, and going forward until the energy company bothers to fix it. The overall compensation for everyone in the tenement affected now runs into the £1000s.
It’s fun in England too.
My friend moved in to a new build in 2015.
Now the plot numbers do not align to the house numbers, so for example, plot 47 is house number 33, plot number 48 is house number 11.
So my friend was getting billed for the wrong house and EDF arbitrarily decided her bill for 4 years should be £11,000, when the reality is she was using circa £800 a year.
Ended up going to the ombudsman and solicitors who decided she had nothing to pay between 2015 and 2019 as EDF couldn’t confirm the meter details. Then she got the compensation.
What's going on here? Is this not just basic competence.
I can see that for Council Tax it would be down to lack of capacity and 20 years of resource slashing.
But Electrics? I once had my neighbour electricity thrown into chaos because the Electric Company had swapped over 27A not 27. Took years to sort and I kept very quiet on that one.
And having been here about 12 years I still get certain financial reports from the previous people. I have passed it on a dozen times but they have not changed it, so now it gets shredded.
On growth, Labour lost the 'benefit of the doubt' with their utterly inept first six months.
What are they proposing? Exactly what you'd expect from them - absolutely nothing new that hasn't been discussed for years, or isn't already happening.
Lots of new reservoirs - many of these have been in the pipeline for years and are at various planning stages. Oxford to Cambridge - years of talking. New runways - decades. Of course, many Labour MPs (including Starmer) have been at the heart of stopping all of these projects over the years.
When they had the actual chance to do something, like with tech and AI, they stopped the investment because of politics, Sunak proposed it.
Let's also not forget that the budget (and Rayner's crap) itself will have increased the cost for all of these growth potentials.
More evidence that they came into power, after 14 years away, without a single original thought or policy.
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
I didn't say 'leftwing' I said 'of the left'. The Liberals have always been 'of the left', even when in coalition with the Tories.
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?
Orange Bookers like Clegg, Davey and Alexander were pro smaller state and lower tax, they weren't 'of the left' on any definition just socially liberal.
Indeed many LD voters now are economically right of Reform voters, especially given the LD heartland is the South of England while Reform's heartland is the redwall, ex industrial cities and depressed seaside towns, just more pro immigration and more pro net zero and more anti Brexit than Reform voters.
If they go with Labour that will be over Brexit but in opposing the tractor tax and cut to WFA the LDs are more aligned with the Tories and Reform now than Labour
Largely agree, as a liberal. The reasons the LDs would more likely support Lab/Green over Ref/Con is that Ref and Con are, at present, socially conservative. Back in 2010 there was a lot of common ground with the liberal-leaning leadership of the Conservative party.
FWIW, I'm disappointed in the LDs opposing the WFA removal and, to some extent, the inheritance tax changes (there's scope for opposition there around the implementation).
It varies though, for the LDs - the common thread is liberalism, but the leadership can be left or right of centre economically. Kennedy was more to the left of centre, in my view (proposed tax increases to fund health and social care IIRC).
Yes, as an LD supporter I'm also disappointed that they're opposing the WFA cut. I suppose it's good politics but I disagree on the principle.
@EdConwaySky Three minutes in and she's already said the word "growth" eight times
Its like they think if they say it enough times, they will magic it up, the genie will come out of the bottle and grant her the 3 wishes to achieve 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.
Pantsir-S1M air defense system, apparently. No idea how much has actually been delivered.
Aside from details about the purchase of the Pantsir system, the leak includes a 69-page proposal that discusses future cooperation between Saudi Arabia and the sanctioned Russian firms. The proposal outlines three potential contracts.
One contract would cover the construction of maintenance facilities, while another would create a 15,000-square-metre center in Jeddah to train personnel on using the Pantsir system. The third potential contract would include building an assembly plant in Saudi Arabia to produce Pantsir units, and ammunition.
The contract for the assembly plant was due to be signed in the second half of 2022. However, OCCRP was unable to confirm whether this or the other two additional contracts were formally agreed upon, since the leak included documents only until May 2022.
This is a bit worrying:
The deal may have also allowed Russia to gain knowledge of Patriot air defense systems that Saudi Arabia has acquired from the U.S. The Russian side requested and received consent to visit Saudi air defense facilities in 2022, the leaked emails show.
Interesting name that, to English-hearing ears.
Панцирь means breastplate or more generally armour.
A minor scandal in Scotland is that there are a lot of people either getting threatened with bailiffs or getting their energy completely free - a result of people in England not understanding flat naming convestions (eg 50/2, 20F3).
One of my colleagues has been granted compensation because the energy company is refusing to bill them for their energy , while the neighbour is currently fighting their double-bill in court. The Osbudsman has previously confirmed that both should get all the energy free for the last 6 years, and going forward until the energy company bothers to fix it. The overall compensation for everyone in the tenement affected now runs into the £1000s.
It’s fun in England too.
My friend moved in to a new build in 2015.
Now the plot numbers do not align to the house numbers, so for example, plot 47 is house number 33, plot number 48 is house number 11.
So my friend was getting billed for the wrong house and EDF arbitrarily decided her bill for 4 years should be £11,000, when the reality is she was using circa £800 a year.
Ended up going to the ombudsman and solicitors who decided she had nothing to pay between 2015 and 2019 as EDF couldn’t confirm the meter details. Then she got the compensation.
What's going on here? Is this not just basic competence.
I can see that for Council Tax it would be down to lack of capacity and 20 years of resource slashing.
But Electrics? I once had my neighbour electricity thrown into chaos because the Electric Company had swapped over 27A not 27. Took years to sort and I kept very quiet on that one.
And having been here about 12 years I still get certain financial reports from the previous people. I have passed it on a dozen times but they have not changed it, so now it gets shredded.
It is basic competence, but mostly utilities are competing on "lowest prices", not "competent and well staffed admin and customer service departments"...
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
I didn't say 'leftwing' I said 'of the left'. The Liberals have always been 'of the left', even when in coalition with the Tories.
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?
Orange Bookers like Clegg, Davey and Alexander were pro smaller state and lower tax, they weren't 'of the left' on any definition just socially liberal.
Indeed many LD voters now are economically right of Reform voters, especially given the LD heartland is the South of England while Reform's heartland is the redwall, ex industrial cities and depressed seaside towns, just more pro immigration and more pro net zero and more anti Brexit than Reform voters.
If they go with Labour that will be over Brexit but in opposing the tractor tax and cut to WFA the LDs are more aligned with the Tories and Reform now than Labour
Largely agree, as a liberal. The reasons the LDs would more likely support Lab/Green over Ref/Con is that Ref and Con are, at present, socially conservative. Back in 2010 there was a lot of common ground with the liberal-leaning leadership of the Conservative party.
FWIW, I'm disappointed in the LDs opposing the WFA removal and, to some extent, the inheritance tax changes (there's scope for opposition there around the implementation).
It varies though, for the LDs - the common thread is liberalism, but the leadership can be left or right of centre economically. Kennedy was more to the left of centre, in my view (proposed tax increases to fund health and social care IIRC).
As a Lib Dem, I share your disappointment in the LDs following the Daily Mail in opposing the WFA removal and the inheritance tax changes. It's opposition for the sake of it.
However I'm delighted that the LDs are opposing Labour in Labour's timidity in getting closer to Europe, and Labour's tardiness in sorting out support of carers. These are distinctive LD policies and popular as well.
So is Rachel from accounts actually going to green-light the new Heathrow runway, or is she going to green-light some planning process?
The key is to watch opposition from vested interests to see if a Gov't is actually trying to do anything radical. If you tune into CNN (The US version at least) you can clearly see the pushback against DOGE. If the (UK) Gov't gets taken to court over say nutrient neutrality I'll at least assume they're trying to move things along.
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.
Pantsir-S1M air defense system, apparently. No idea how much has actually been delivered.
Aside from details about the purchase of the Pantsir system, the leak includes a 69-page proposal that discusses future cooperation between Saudi Arabia and the sanctioned Russian firms. The proposal outlines three potential contracts.
One contract would cover the construction of maintenance facilities, while another would create a 15,000-square-metre center in Jeddah to train personnel on using the Pantsir system. The third potential contract would include building an assembly plant in Saudi Arabia to produce Pantsir units, and ammunition.
The contract for the assembly plant was due to be signed in the second half of 2022. However, OCCRP was unable to confirm whether this or the other two additional contracts were formally agreed upon, since the leak included documents only until May 2022.
This is a bit worrying:
The deal may have also allowed Russia to gain knowledge of Patriot air defense systems that Saudi Arabia has acquired from the U.S. The Russian side requested and received consent to visit Saudi air defense facilities in 2022, the leaked emails show.
Interesting name that, to English-hearing ears.
Панцирь means breastplate or more generally armour.
That's interesting - is it grabbed from Orthodox tradition?
As in the New Testament "Breastplate of Righteousness" from St Paul's "Whole Armour of God" illustration. Quite matchy for nationalists trying to talk up the Orthodox Empire, as Soviet and Russian leaders did.
Western Evangelicals love it, especially those Usonian ones who find anything except money and power too challenging to deal with.
Also in Celtic Tradition - via the St Patrick's Breastplate Irish Lorica (which word has its roots in 'body armour, such as chainmail').
So is Rachel from accounts actually going to green-light the new Heathrow runway, or is she going to green-light some planning process?
"She adds that today she can announce two new national wealth fund investments: £65m for Connected Curb to extend their electrical charging network and second £28m equity investment in Cornish Metals"
The government equivalent of me finding a £10 down the back of the sofa and spending it on a takeaway as a way to boost GDP.
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.
...and for all those of us who aren't rich, here is a non-paywall copy: https://archive.is/n2zrd
Yes, good read thank you @IanB2 ...and rather saddening. One way around the problem described is to nationalise social media, or to make engagement algorithmic feeds illegal. We know there's a problem, we know what causes it, but the logical next step (fix it!) is beyond us. We lack the imagination to visualise a solution...
...and that is the real problem: learned helplessness. If the Bank of England is causing a recession by quantitative tightening, then fire the BOE head, instal another one, and slow it down. If social media is causing problems thru engagement algorithms, then ban them. If lack of houses is causing problems, build more houses. And so on, and so on, and so on.
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
I didn't say 'leftwing' I said 'of the left'. The Liberals have always been 'of the left', even when in coalition with the Tories.
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?
Orange Bookers like Clegg, Davey and Alexander were pro smaller state and lower tax, they weren't 'of the left' on any definition just socially liberal.
Indeed many LD voters now are economically right of Reform voters, especially given the LD heartland is the South of England while Reform's heartland is the redwall, ex industrial cities and depressed seaside towns, just more pro immigration and more pro net zero and more anti Brexit than Reform voters.
If they go with Labour that will be over Brexit but in opposing the tractor tax and cut to WFA the LDs are more aligned with the Tories and Reform now than Labour
Largely agree, as a liberal. The reasons the LDs would more likely support Lab/Green over Ref/Con is that Ref and Con are, at present, socially conservative. Back in 2010 there was a lot of common ground with the liberal-leaning leadership of the Conservative party.
FWIW, I'm disappointed in the LDs opposing the WFA removal and, to some extent, the inheritance tax changes (there's scope for opposition there around the implementation).
It varies though, for the LDs - the common thread is liberalism, but the leadership can be left or right of centre economically. Kennedy was more to the left of centre, in my view (proposed tax increases to fund health and social care IIRC).
Yes, as an LD supporter I'm also disappointed that they're opposing the WFA cut. I suppose it's good politics but I disagree on the principle.
It's not even good politics.
Most Labour and Lib Dem supporters approve of means testing WFA.
@EdConwaySky Three minutes in and she's already said the word "growth" eight times
Its like they think if they say it enough times, they will magic it up, the genie will come out of the bottle and grant her the 3 wishes to achieve it....
Its a risk free bet for them. If there is no or poor growth they will get kicked out regardless because our fiscal situation requires it. If there is good growth they have planted the seeds to claim credit for it.
Mostly growth in the UK is driven by global economics and our demographics. Voters mostly reward and punish our politicians based on chance and things out of their control, so politicians may as well play the game the best they can.
A minor scandal in Scotland is that there are a lot of people either getting threatened with bailiffs or getting their energy completely free - a result of people in England not understanding flat naming convestions (eg 50/2, 20F3).
One of my colleagues has been granted compensation because the energy company is refusing to bill them for their energy , while the neighbour is currently fighting their double-bill in court. The Osbudsman has previously confirmed that both should get all the energy free for the last 6 years, and going forward until the energy company bothers to fix it. The overall compensation for everyone in the tenement affected now runs into the £1000s.
It’s fun in England too.
My friend moved in to a new build in 2015.
Now the plot numbers do not align to the house numbers, so for example, plot 47 is house number 33, plot number 48 is house number 11.
So my friend was getting billed for the wrong house and EDF arbitrarily decided her bill for 4 years should be £11,000, when the reality is she was using circa £800 a year.
Ended up going to the ombudsman and solicitors who decided she had nothing to pay between 2015 and 2019 as EDF couldn’t confirm the meter details. Then she got the compensation.
What's going on here? Is this not just basic competence.
I can see that for Council Tax it would be down to lack of capacity and 20 years of resource slashing.
But Electrics? I once had my neighbour electricity thrown into chaos because the Electric Company had swapped over 27A not 27. Took years to sort and I kept very quiet on that one.
And having been here about 12 years I still get certain financial reports from the previous people. I have passed it on a dozen times but they have not changed it, so now it gets shredded.
My favourite anecdote was a friend's dad who incorrectly got bills for a mains gas supply. His farm was near Great Longstone in the Peak District, and was a long way away from the nearest gas main (*). They would not accept 'no' as a response to the bill.
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
I didn't say 'leftwing' I said 'of the left'. The Liberals have always been 'of the left', even when in coalition with the Tories.
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?
Orange Bookers like Clegg, Davey and Alexander were pro smaller state and lower tax, they weren't 'of the left' on any definition just socially liberal.
Indeed many LD voters now are economically right of Reform voters, especially given the LD heartland is the South of England while Reform's heartland is the redwall, ex industrial cities and depressed seaside towns, just more pro immigration and more pro net zero and more anti Brexit than Reform voters.
If they go with Labour that will be over Brexit but in opposing the tractor tax and cut to WFA the LDs are more aligned with the Tories and Reform now than Labour
Largely agree, as a liberal. The reasons the LDs would more likely support Lab/Green over Ref/Con is that Ref and Con are, at present, socially conservative. Back in 2010 there was a lot of common ground with the liberal-leaning leadership of the Conservative party.
FWIW, I'm disappointed in the LDs opposing the WFA removal and, to some extent, the inheritance tax changes (there's scope for opposition there around the implementation).
It varies though, for the LDs - the common thread is liberalism, but the leadership can be left or right of centre economically. Kennedy was more to the left of centre, in my view (proposed tax increases to fund health and social care IIRC).
Yes, as an LD supporter I'm also disappointed that they're opposing the WFA cut. I suppose it's good politics but I disagree on the principle.
It's not even good politics.
Most Labour and Lib Dem supporters approve of means testing WFA.
The sweet spot for LDs would have been to focus on extending exemptions, either over 85s or perhaps up to £20k income rather than blanket opposition.
How many years have we been talking about a third runway at Heathrow or expansion at Gatwick? 20 years? 30 years? And still not even close to any spades in the ground.
So is Rachel from accounts actually going to green-light the new Heathrow runway, or is she going to green-light some planning process?
"She adds that today she can announce two new national wealth fund investments: £65m for Connected Curb to extend their electrical charging network and second £28m equity investment in Cornish Metals"
The government equivalent of me finding a £10 down the back of the sofa and spending it on a takeaway as a way to boost GDP.
They pay for this by penny pinching in other areas, in closing down Latin and scrapping a Maths programme (because Sunak wanted it) and so on.
Oliver Johnson @BristOliver Beyond the shortsightedness, one of the most depressing things about this is the sheer penny pinching. You don't need advanced maths to tell that you can't plug a £22bn black hole by scrapping a programme that costs £6m/year
Education is going to go wrong for them. Phillipson is hapless. Starmer will be fuming that he got it wrong at PMQs last week (and Badenoch was right) and had to correct the record, because of her.
So is Rachel from accounts actually going to green-light the new Heathrow runway, or is she going to green-light some planning process?
"She adds that today she can announce two new national wealth fund investments: £65m for Connected Curb to extend their electrical charging network and second £28m equity investment in Cornish Metals"
The government equivalent of me finding a £10 down the back of the sofa and spending it on a takeaway as a way to boost GDP.
They pay for this by penny pinching in other areas, in closing down Latin and scrapping a Maths programme (because Sunak wanted it) and so on.
Oliver Johnson @BristOliver Beyond the shortsightedness, one of the most depressing things about this is the sheer penny pinching. You don't need advanced maths to tell that you can't plug a £22bn black hole by scrapping a programme that costs £6m/year
Education is going to go wrong for them. Phillipson is hapless. Starmer will be fuming that he got it wrong at PMQs last week (and Badenoch was right) and had to correct the record, because of her.
Maths you say....and what do you need to be good at to succeed in developing AI / ML capabilities....
I presume the novel super-computer is still cancelled that would have provided capacity for solving scientific problems that is currently only available in US and China.
Building some roads and green lighting a new development for some homes != Silicon Valley
How many years have we been talking about a third runway at Heathrow or expansion at Gatwick? 20 years? 30 years? And still not even close to any spades in the ground.
The second runway at Gatwick was a hot topic of conversation around those parts back in the 1980s.
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."
In a society as litigious as the US it amazes me that the awful violence in the prison system is allowed to continue. I would have thought prisoners would have a strong case against the prison authorities in terms of a failure of their duty of care. Perhaps there is some kind of law preventing this from happening - which would be pretty shameful but not unsurprising.
Prisons are places where rights are removed by definition. The US is very efficient to this, to the point of providing enforced labour (ie defacto slavery). IIUC some of the people battling the fires in LA were enforced prisoners.
How many years have we been talking about a third runway at Heathrow or expansion at Gatwick? 20 years? 30 years? And still not even close to any spades in the ground.
The second runway at Gatwick was a hot topic of conversation around those parts back in the 1980s.
They were arguing about a 'third London airport' in the 1960s ...
Presumably the Heathrow announcement will leave Green > Labour tactical voting in tatters up to Election 29?
2024 Greens were a mix of greeny greens, Corbynites, Palestinian supporters and anti both Tory and Labour. Probably only the greeny greens care enough about this.
The Oxford-Cambridge Growth Corridor. Stirring stuff.
It is for me, near one end of that corridor.
OT but just noticed a piece about the other end of the corridor - the old LNWR station at Oxford, the one made up of Crystal Palace modules and much more interesting than the business studies dept that replaced it. It's been reerected at Quainton preserved railway station in Bucks. Nice! Of course it was designed to be easily dismantleable, I suppose, like an old Bayko kit.
How many years have we been talking about a third runway at Heathrow or expansion at Gatwick? 20 years? 30 years? And still not even close to any spades in the ground.
The second runway at Gatwick was a hot topic of conversation around those parts back in the 1980s.
They were arguing about a 'third London airport' in the 1960s ...
So is Rachel from accounts actually going to green-light the new Heathrow runway, or is she going to green-light some planning process?
"She adds that today she can announce two new national wealth fund investments: £65m for Connected Curb to extend their electrical charging network and second £28m equity investment in Cornish Metals"
The government equivalent of me finding a £10 down the back of the sofa and spending it on a takeaway as a way to boost GDP.
LOL. So nothing then.
No third runway, no HS2 expansion, no Stonehenge tunnel, no Brynglas Tunnel bypass….
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?
And as for anyone who could (apparently) go to Wick without seeing the joys of Pulteneytown as an example of urban planning up there with Bath (and by the same chap, in part) ...
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
I didn't say 'leftwing' I said 'of the left'. The Liberals have always been 'of the left', even when in coalition with the Tories.
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?
Orange Bookers like Clegg, Davey and Alexander were pro smaller state and lower tax, they weren't 'of the left' on any definition just socially liberal.
Indeed many LD voters now are economically right of Reform voters, especially given the LD heartland is the South of England while Reform's heartland is the redwall, ex industrial cities and depressed seaside towns, just more pro immigration and more pro net zero and more anti Brexit than Reform voters.
If they go with Labour that will be over Brexit but in opposing the tractor tax and cut to WFA the LDs are more aligned with the Tories and Reform now than Labour
Largely agree, as a liberal. The reasons the LDs would more likely support Lab/Green over Ref/Con is that Ref and Con are, at present, socially conservative. Back in 2010 there was a lot of common ground with the liberal-leaning leadership of the Conservative party.
FWIW, I'm disappointed in the LDs opposing the WFA removal and, to some extent, the inheritance tax changes (there's scope for opposition there around the implementation).
It varies though, for the LDs - the common thread is liberalism, but the leadership can be left or right of centre economically. Kennedy was more to the left of centre, in my view (proposed tax increases to fund health and social care IIRC).
Indeed but most leftwing LD Charles Kennedy voters returned to Labour once Ed Miliband took over the leadership and Clegg formed a government with the Tories.
They have been replaced by liberal anti Brexit former Cameroon Tories on the whole and most LD seats now were won by Cameron in 2015
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.
I wonder if the bridge is going sometime soon, too.
Presumably the Heathrow announcement will leave Green > Labour tactical voting in tatters up to Election 29?
2024 Greens were a mix of greeny greens, Corbynites, Palestinian supporters and anti both Tory and Labour. Probably only the greeny greens care enough about this.
The Gaza ceasefire is, for now, probably the most important influence on Green / Labour vote share. If it holds then some voters will come back, if it fails and Israel starts bombing again it’ll stay away.
So is Rachel from accounts actually going to green-light the new Heathrow runway, or is she going to green-light some planning process?
"She adds that today she can announce two new national wealth fund investments: £65m for Connected Curb to extend their electrical charging network and second £28m equity investment in Cornish Metals"
The government equivalent of me finding a £10 down the back of the sofa and spending it on a takeaway as a way to boost GDP.
Union and AfD then would be comfortably over 50% but at the moment it still looks like the Union will only deal with the SPD and Greens not the AfD when forming a new government (plus the FDP but they look like they will fail to reach the threshold for seats this time)
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.
I wonder if the bridge is going sometime soon, too.
Russia continues to advance (slowly, but relentlessly) in Donbas thanks to a shortage of Ukrainian troops, so Ukraine really need to address things on the battlefield not just the Russian economy.
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.
The point I was making (based on linguistics) was that she had a fair point that was being mischaracterised
The context was people looking for evidence to justify not getting vaccinated - post hoc data mining for sub samples gives me the shivers
Is the political phrase not "policy-based evidence"?
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
I didn't say 'leftwing' I said 'of the left'. The Liberals have always been 'of the left', even when in coalition with the Tories.
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?
Orange Bookers like Clegg, Davey and Alexander were pro smaller state and lower tax, they weren't 'of the left' on any definition just socially liberal.
Indeed many LD voters now are economically right of Reform voters, especially given the LD heartland is the South of England while Reform's heartland is the redwall, ex industrial cities and depressed seaside towns, just more pro immigration and more pro net zero and more anti Brexit than Reform voters.
If they go with Labour that will be over Brexit but in opposing the tractor tax and cut to WFA the LDs are more aligned with the Tories and Reform now than Labour
Largely agree, as a liberal. The reasons the LDs would more likely support Lab/Green over Ref/Con is that Ref and Con are, at present, socially conservative. Back in 2010 there was a lot of common ground with the liberal-leaning leadership of the Conservative party.
FWIW, I'm disappointed in the LDs opposing the WFA removal and, to some extent, the inheritance tax changes (there's scope for opposition there around the implementation).
It varies though, for the LDs - the common thread is liberalism, but the leadership can be left or right of centre economically. Kennedy was more to the left of centre, in my view (proposed tax increases to fund health and social care IIRC).
Indeed but most leftwing LD Charles Kennedy voters returned to Labour once Ed Miliband took over the leadership and Clegg formed a government with the Tories.
They have been replaced by liberal anti Brexit former Cameroon Tories on the whole and most LD seats now were won by Cameron in 2015
Presumably the Heathrow announcement will leave Green > Labour tactical voting in tatters up to Election 29?
2024 Greens were a mix of greeny greens, Corbynites, Palestinian supporters and anti both Tory and Labour. Probably only the greeny greens care enough about this.
The Gaza ceasefire is, for now, probably the most important influence on Green / Labour vote share. If it holds then some voters will come back, if it fails and Israel starts bombing again it’ll stay away.
But the importance of that vote depends on where it is. Inner cities? Labour won't care. Marginals with Reform in the north of England? Suddenly a problem.
I think the bigger issue will be the Lib Dems. Or even the Tories. Given the overwhelming support for the environment across all parties, there is a gap for an Australian-style teal party to balance NIMBYism with green stuff - your RSPB member, for example.
I think PB misses that deep emotional/spiritual tie people have to the trees, the rivers, the hills. There is a reason why the newt stuff is so effective.
How many years have we been talking about a third runway at Heathrow or expansion at Gatwick? 20 years? 30 years? And still not even close to any spades in the ground.
The second runway at Gatwick was a hot topic of conversation around those parts back in the 1980s.
They were arguing about a 'third London airport' in the 1960s ...
Just build Boris Island. Seriously.
Yep. Proper infrastructure, and it would have an environmental benefit too.
Many Labour voters in London are too. It's an odd fight to pick which she may well lose. She should have concentrated on Gatwick expansion which costs a fraction of Heathrow3 and delivers similar benefits. It is also a hub. There are 220 overseas destinations from Gatwick as well as Aberdeen, Edinburgh etc.
The Oxford-Cambridge Growth Corridor. Stirring stuff.
It is for me, near one end of that corridor.
OT but just noticed a piece about the other end of the corridor - the old LNWR station at Oxford, the one made up of Crystal Palace modules and much more interesting than the business studies dept that replaced it. It's been reerected at Quainton preserved railway station in Bucks. Nice! Of course it was designed to be easily dismantleable, I suppose, like an old Bayko kit.
I've never been to Quainton Road, but thanks to HS2 they now have a bit of mainline they can operate on for a few years at least. (AIUI there site was split into two by the old GCR mainline). QR was also the start of London Underground's furthermost reach: the Brill Tramway.
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.
I think that Keir also needs to personally concentrate on the domestic agenda, and put away his passport for a bit. That is what a Foreign Secretary is for.
Take some time to tour in places like Stoke, Middlesborough, Clacton, Merthyr, Glasgow and Leicester and talk to people on the ground. We all know that the Treasury is skint, but there are low cost changes that could make lives better.
One of the things that made Blair so impressive was his government always gave the impression of having their fingers on the pulse of the nation. It was perhaps an easier ask back then, the print media was stronger and largely supportive, the economy was in a much better state etc. But I do agree I think Starmer and Reeves need to do better on that front, try and connect more. At the moment a lot of what they say is rather esoteric to the man on the street. “Growth” as a concept is great but growth doesn’t really mean a tremendous amount to the average person.
Here I go again with this. No apologies since it's true. It was a blooper to proclaim growth as their "defining mission". The economy has been sluggish at best since the GFC and that was with QE and low interest rates propping it up. The drug has now been withdrawn, QE in reverse, rates back to the pre 08 norm. It's a tough ask to conjure good growth out of this scenario. And in any case growth over the shorter term (what they'll be judged on) is mainly dependent on global factors not what the government does or doesn't do.
So, tldr, they've chosen to be defined by something which (i) is likely to disappoint and (ii) they don't have much control over. But they don't listen to me, they've gone and said it now - "growth is our defining mission" - so they need two things. First and foremost, they need to get lucky on the global situation (since the biggest influence on our economy is the world economy). Second, they need to forget about the long term, solving our deep seated problems, all of that crap, in favour of some really effective short-termism, ie lots of initiatives paying quick dividends. Fingers crossed for both.
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.
I wonder if the bridge is going sometime soon, too.
There’s actually a thinking that the bridge is costing so much to defend, that taking it out frees their resources to go elsewhere.
I suspect they’ll do it right at the end of the war, as a symbolic fcuk you Putin.
So was that it, few quid for a mine in Cornwall, some new houses in Oxfordshire and a massive lengthy court battle ahead for rehash of rehash of a rehash of another runway at Heathrow. While also closing down fracking and ruling out the U-Turn on NI increase that is killing jobs.
So is Rachel from accounts actually going to green-light the new Heathrow runway, or is she going to green-light some planning process?
"She adds that today she can announce two new national wealth fund investments: £65m for Connected Curb to extend their electrical charging network and second £28m equity investment in Cornish Metals"
The government equivalent of me finding a £10 down the back of the sofa and spending it on a takeaway as a way to boost GDP.
I read that as 'Cornish meals' first time and thought it must be some kind of inverse pasty tax!
How many years have we been talking about a third runway at Heathrow or expansion at Gatwick? 20 years? 30 years? And still not even close to any spades in the ground.
The second runway at Gatwick was a hot topic of conversation around those parts back in the 1980s.
They were arguing about a 'third London airport' in the 1960s ...
Just build Boris Island. Seriously.
I had an idea of how to do it quicker - and make the site selection easier.
Instead of dredging an island - which limits it to a number of very shallow areas - use concrete gravity structures. Think Statfyord B.
Bit like table, with a flat top, legs and at the bottom a cellular structure for buoyancy. Since this is for shallow water, the legs will be a lot shorter than the oil platforms.
Build them in a dry dock - each one, 500 meters by 200, say. Float them out, sail them to their destination, sink in place.
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."
No. Try everything TWICE. You maybe did it wrong the first time, so you have to make sure
Worked for me and heroin. First time I hated it, just puked a lot
The Saudi Arabian Ministry of Defense did not respond to requests for comment about the contracts, including whether cooperation with the sanctioned Russian firms is ongoing today.
MBS is many things but he's not daft. Closer relations with Russia has been a central thwart of his foreign policy. Hedging his bets against the US losing interest in securing the regime.
I was quite surprised by how personally popular he is with young Saudis on my recent study trip to Jeddah. They like him because he has genuine affection for the country and its culture. He's seen as less of a dissolute dilettante than many of the other members of the royal family. The reality may be different of course but he's projected the image very well. What also works in his favour is that he has never studied abroad and never been in the Saudi armed forces. The latter is widely, and probably correctly perceived, as the principle tool the US uses to assure its dominance over the Kingdom.
Aside from their shared geopolitical interests, KSA and the Russian Federation have some similarities. They are both hydrocarbon fuelled oligarchies with a penchant for social conservatism and doing SMOs on neighbouring countries. It's just that the UK exhibits venal obsequiousness to one and irrational dread to the other.
Many Labour voters in London are too. It's an odd fight to pick which she may well lose. She should have concentrated on Gatwick expansion which costs a fraction of Heathrow3 and delivers similar benefits. It is also a hub. There are 220 overseas destinations from Gatwick as well as Aberdeen, Edinburgh etc.
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.
For many it comes down to "I don't support their views therefore they are far left/right*" *dependent on which side of the fence the person expressing it is
It's fun seeing people put in question to deepseek that suggest it isn't exactly politically neutral. Criticising Xi Jinping is beyond it's current scope. So much for it being intelligent.
It's fun seeing people put in question to deepseek that suggest it isn't exactly politically neutral. Criticising Xi Jingping is beyond it's current scope. So much for it being intelligent.
I wonder what happens to all your data you input to it (if you use their web app)....I am certainly not putting any of my code into it.
Comments
A minor scandal in Scotland is that there are a lot of people either getting threatened with bailiffs or getting their energy completely free - a result of people in England not understanding flat naming convestions (eg 50/2, 20F3).
One of my colleagues has been granted compensation because the energy company is refusing to bill them for their energy , while the neighbour is currently fighting their double-bill in court. The Osbudsman has previously confirmed that both should get all the energy free for the last 6 years, and going forward until the energy company bothers to fix it. The overall compensation for everyone in the tenement affected now runs into the £1000s.
Take some time to tour in places like Stoke, Middlesborough, Clacton, Merthyr, Glasgow and Leicester and talk to people on the ground. We all know that the Treasury is skint, but there are low cost changes that could make lives better.
The context was people looking for evidence to justify not getting vaccinated - post hoc data mining for sub samples gives me the shivers
Right, an hour of fun over, back to work…
There are 1529 transgender females - in a mix of mens and womens prisons.
If all 1529, 100%, were in womens prisons that gives a womens prisons population of 11554 of which 13.2% would be transgender females. The reality is it will be in double figures as a total and much less than 1% as a proportion
It is a favourite approach of people with strong ideology to reject looking for/at evidence on something they hold to be true. If she's making a bit claim about the reasons for the Southport murders then it certainly would be prudent and responsible to have some evidence to support that, rather than just shit stirring for votes.
My friend moved in to a new build in 2015.
Now the plot numbers do not align to the house numbers, so for example, plot 47 is house number 33, plot number 48 is house number 11.
So my friend was getting billed for the wrong house and EDF arbitrarily decided her bill for 4 years should be £11,000, when the reality is she was using circa £800 a year.
Ended up going to the ombudsman and solicitors who decided she had nothing to pay between 2015 and 2019 as EDF couldn’t confirm the meter details. Then she got the compensation.
Pantsir-S1M air defense system, apparently. No idea how much has actually been delivered.
Aside from details about the purchase of the Pantsir system, the leak includes a 69-page proposal that discusses future cooperation between Saudi Arabia and the sanctioned Russian firms. The proposal outlines three potential contracts.
One contract would cover the construction of maintenance facilities, while another would create a 15,000-square-metre center in Jeddah to train personnel on using the Pantsir system. The third potential contract would include building an assembly plant in Saudi Arabia to produce Pantsir units, and ammunition.
The contract for the assembly plant was due to be signed in the second half of 2022. However, OCCRP was unable to confirm whether this or the other two additional contracts were formally agreed upon, since the leak included documents only until May 2022.
This is a bit worrying:
The deal may have also allowed Russia to gain knowledge of Patriot air defense systems that Saudi Arabia has acquired from the U.S. The Russian side requested and received consent to visit Saudi air defense facilities in 2022, the leaked emails show.
When export deals dried up, so did a lot of production for domestic use.
"Why's our oil refinery on fire? I thought we had a defence system!"
"We do. It's pants, Sir."
She is basically saying she doesn't need any evidence...
I’ll take a wild guess that nothing was delivered and no Russians had a look around the Patriot systems.
Indeed many LD voters now are economically right of Reform voters, especially given the LD heartland is the South of England while Reform's heartland is the redwall, ex industrial cities and depressed seaside towns, just more pro immigration and more pro net zero and more anti Brexit than Reform voters.
If they go with Labour that will be over Brexit but in opposing the tractor tax and cut to WFA the LDs are more aligned with the Tories and Reform now than Labour
It's all a bit arse about face - her personal experience is very valid and a good starting point to look at/for evidence that it's a wider issue, which it may well be, but hanging it on Southport is tasteless at best.
And, in response, I think its fair to say that, sure, one can suggest possibilities, but you should be clear that they are only possibilities and reserve stronger causal language for when you do have that evidence.
I think the 2015 experience means that they may not go beyond Confidence and Supply before 2035-2040 (say). It is likely to require to be post-Davey and Farron, and post those returners such as Tessa Munt, who remember. There's a lot of institutional memories in the LDs.
At this time Orange Bookers plus marginalised Rump Tories may be a more attractive option, which depends on whether the Blues rebuild the current self-dismantled clown car. I think it also depends on the Cons escaping from their current nativist tendencies.
Have come across someone not paying CT for 15 years and every year, a historic bill gets registered against the title or gets paid by a 'showbiz friend'. There is a somewhat odd relationship in the background that was never asked about.
Since house price inflation more than covers the bill, then it appears to make sense to the home owner.
Trade data shows that, in 2023, companies named in the contract delivered trucks to Saudi Arabia. The vehicles are the same type that carry components of the air defense system, including missiles and radio communications.
Also will the US take action against the Saudis?
Ongoing cooperation on the contract would not violate any laws in Saudi Arabia, as the country has not sanctioned the Russian firms. However, experts said Saudi individuals and entities risk getting slapped with U.S. sanctions if they do business with the Russian defense companies.
The U.S. “can impose secondary sanctions on people or companies in other countries if it believes that they have violated its sanctions,” said Agiya Zagrebelska, a sanctions expert at the Economic Security Council of Ukraine, a Kyiv-based research institute.
“There could be potentially individual sanctions," said Anna Borshchevskaya, a senior fellow with the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a think tank that focuses on U.S. interests in the Middle East.
The Saudi Arabian Ministry of Defense did not respond to requests for comment about the contracts, including whether cooperation with the sanctioned Russian firms is ongoing today.
FWIW, I'm disappointed in the LDs opposing the WFA removal and, to some extent, the inheritance tax changes (there's scope for opposition there around the implementation).
It varies though, for the LDs - the common thread is liberalism, but the leadership can be left or right of centre economically. Kennedy was more to the left of centre, in my view (proposed tax increases to fund health and social care IIRC).
'It derives through the French word pancier, "breastplate", from Latin pantex, "belly".'
Utilities are simple business made far more complex by deregulation and piss poor oversight.
Anything being exported is not being sent to the war.
I think this is a major reason as to why Saudi has yet to receive permission to purchase F35's. Instead, they may buy Turkey's Kaan (*) jets.
(*) My mind says "Khaaaaannnn!" when I read that name...
@EdConwaySky
Three minutes in and she's already said the word "growth" eight times
I can see that for Council Tax it would be down to lack of capacity and 20 years of resource slashing.
But Electrics? I once had my neighbour electricity thrown into chaos because the Electric Company had swapped over 27A not 27. Took years to sort and I kept very quiet on that one.
And having been here about 12 years I still get certain financial reports from the previous people. I have passed it on a dozen times but they have not changed it, so now it gets shredded.
What are they proposing? Exactly what you'd expect from them - absolutely nothing new that hasn't been discussed for years, or isn't already happening.
Lots of new reservoirs - many of these have been in the pipeline for years and are at various planning stages. Oxford to Cambridge - years of talking. New runways - decades. Of course, many Labour MPs (including Starmer) have been at the heart of stopping all of these projects over the years.
When they had the actual chance to do something, like with tech and AI, they stopped the investment because of politics, Sunak proposed it.
Let's also not forget that the budget (and Rayner's crap) itself will have increased the cost for all of these growth potentials.
More evidence that they came into power, after 14 years away, without a single original thought or policy.
However I'm delighted that the LDs are opposing Labour in Labour's timidity in getting closer to Europe, and Labour's tardiness in sorting out support of carers. These are distinctive LD policies and popular as well.
As in the New Testament "Breastplate of Righteousness" from St Paul's "Whole Armour of God" illustration. Quite matchy for nationalists trying to talk up the Orthodox Empire, as Soviet and Russian leaders did.
Western Evangelicals love it, especially those Usonian ones who find anything except money and power too challenging to deal with.
Also in Celtic Tradition - via the St Patrick's Breastplate Irish Lorica (which word has its roots in 'body armour, such as chainmail').
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorica_(prayer)
The government equivalent of me finding a £10 down the back of the sofa and spending it on a takeaway as a way to boost GDP.
...and that is the real problem: learned helplessness. If the Bank of England is causing a recession by quantitative tightening, then fire the BOE head, instal another one, and slow it down. If social media is causing problems thru engagement algorithms, then ban them. If lack of houses is causing problems, build more houses. And so on, and so on, and so on.
Most Labour and Lib Dem supporters approve of means testing WFA.
Mostly growth in the UK is driven by global economics and our demographics. Voters mostly reward and punish our politicians based on chance and things out of their control, so politicians may as well play the game the best they can.
(*) At the time; I presume it still is.
Rachel says a third runway at Heathrow would increase GDP by 0.043% by 2050? Staggering.
Oliver Johnson
@BristOliver
Beyond the shortsightedness, one of the most depressing things about this is the sheer penny pinching. You don't need advanced maths to tell that you can't plug a £22bn black hole by scrapping a programme that costs £6m/year
https://x.com/BristOliver/status/1884522460281782633
Education is going to go wrong for them. Phillipson is hapless. Starmer will be fuming that he got it wrong at PMQs last week (and Badenoch was right) and had to correct the record, because of her.
I presume the novel super-computer is still cancelled that would have provided capacity for solving scientific problems that is currently only available in US and China.
Building some roads and green lighting a new development for some homes != Silicon Valley
Rachel Reeves will not be telling the truth Starmers deregulation nonsense is another teminological inexactitude..
You can tell when politicians (in general) lie. Their lips move .
https://www.wandsworthlibdems.uk/local-news/article/no-to-heathrow-expansion
https://www.monicaharding.org/updates/2025/28/01/writing-with-my-fellow-lib-dem-mps-to-the-transport-secretary-about-the-heathrow-third-runway-proposals
https://x.com/wahlen_de/status/1884480924743512145
Union: 29% (+1)
AfD: 23% (+4)
SPD: 15% (-4)
GRÜNE: 13% (-2)
BSW: 6%
LINKE: 5% (+1)
FDP: 3% (-1)
Sonstige: 5% (-1)
No third runway, no HS2 expansion, no Stonehenge tunnel, no Brynglas Tunnel bypass….
They have been replaced by liberal anti Brexit former Cameroon Tories on the whole and most LD seats now were won by Cameron in 2015
She has a tin ear for this stuff…
I think the bigger issue will be the Lib Dems. Or even the Tories. Given the overwhelming support for the environment across all parties, there is a gap for an Australian-style teal party to balance NIMBYism with green stuff - your RSPB member, for example.
I think PB misses that deep emotional/spiritual tie people have to the trees, the rivers, the hills. There is a reason why the newt stuff is so effective.
It's an odd fight to pick which she may well lose.
She should have concentrated on Gatwick expansion which costs a fraction of Heathrow3 and delivers similar benefits. It is also a hub. There are 220 overseas destinations from Gatwick as well as Aberdeen, Edinburgh etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brill_Tramway
So, tldr, they've chosen to be defined by something which (i) is likely to disappoint and (ii) they don't have much control over. But they don't listen to me, they've gone and said it now - "growth is our defining mission" - so they need two things. First and foremost, they need to get lucky on the global situation (since the biggest influence on our economy is the world economy). Second, they need to forget about the long term, solving our deep seated problems, all of that crap, in favour of some really effective short-termism, ie lots of initiatives paying quick dividends. Fingers crossed for both.
I suspect they’ll do it right at the end of the war, as a symbolic fcuk you Putin.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/jan/29/heathrow-third-runway-a-saga-of-promises-protest-and-u-turns
Could it set up a juicy feud with Kier and Rach?
Instead of dredging an island - which limits it to a number of very shallow areas - use concrete gravity structures. Think Statfyord B.
Bit like table, with a flat top, legs and at the bottom a cellular structure for buoyancy. Since this is for shallow water, the legs will be a lot shorter than the oil platforms.
Build them in a dry dock - each one, 500 meters by 200, say. Float them out, sail them to their destination, sink in place.
Worked for me and heroin. First time I hated it, just puked a lot
Second time? Ahhhhhhh
I was quite surprised by how personally popular he is with young Saudis on my recent study trip to Jeddah. They like him because he has genuine affection for the country and its culture. He's seen as less of a dissolute dilettante than many of the other members of the royal family. The reality may be different of course but he's projected the image very well. What also works in his favour is that he has never studied abroad and never been in the Saudi armed forces. The latter is widely, and probably correctly perceived, as the principle tool the US uses to assure its dominance over the Kingdom.
Aside from their shared geopolitical interests, KSA and the Russian Federation have some similarities. They are both hydrocarbon fuelled oligarchies with a penchant for social conservatism and doing SMOs on neighbouring countries. It's just that the UK exhibits venal obsequiousness to one and irrational dread to the other.
*dependent on which side of the fence the person expressing it is
And I guess they are trying to promote in some of the local Labour constituencies to build their wedge outwards.