Here's an idea. Instead of simply claiming mental health conditions aren't real, how about exerting some effort to explain why the rates are soaring? And make plans to treat and prevent them? Just a thought.
100% agree. It can take around 4 months to access any kind of mental health support other than medication on the NHS. Sort that out first and then talk about reforming benefits otherwise you're stranding people with no support or income. There are so many people who think that mental health issues are just feeling a bit sad. It can be just as crippling as a physical illness.
Fundamental thing being missed about the welfare rebellion. The legislation itself is wrong. 100% wrong. The welfare bill does need to be reduced. But targeting people with genuine disabilities, like MS and Parkinson, via their PIP payments is not the way to do it.
Surely this is just targeting people with the very lowest level of disability. To get the lowest level of Daily Living PIP you will not only need 8 points but at least one measure must score at least 4 points, at the moment you could get it for four measures all scoring 2.
Is there anyone who doesn't think the government should give them more money?
Why ?
A lot of this is down to a fall in demand for courses. Giving them more money won’t change that.
Is it? Universities lose money on every home student they teach, because the government caps the fees at below-cost. For a while, the plan was to shimmy round that by bringing in lots of foreign students paying shedloads. For various reasons (including, but not restricted to, fear of numbers of people coming to the UK) that model has blown up.
Suspect that puts universities in the same basket as a lot of other institutions. Yes they need more funding, yes that probably has to come from the taxpayer, no people won't be happy if the University of Theirtown closes down...
... but God forbid that taxes go up to pay for it.
Which is why I think they should go for a merging of technical and academic - apprenticeships need an academic component, some rigour and transferability. The universities could provide that in partnership with the employers.
You mean they could be like polytechics and technical colleges?
Both technical and academic under a single roof - instead of having the iron dividing line between academic and blue collar, mix and match.
The Elon Musk effect continues as Europe’s Tesla sales drop for fifth month in a row
Tesla's sales in Europe have plummeted for the fifth consecutive month, with new figures revealing a significant 28 per cent drop in May.
So? What will be the story in June when they top the sales chart again?
That Elon Musk has shut up about politics? That's the problem, not the cars.
No, the problem is maths. They are lapping 2025 figures vs 2024 figures. 2024 includes sales of the best selling car globally in 2024. Vs no sales in 2025. Deliveries only started properly in June.
The narrative is "nobody wants to buy a Tesla". Which is about to get demolished by like for like sales numbers in June.
What does "They are lapping 2025 figures vs 2024 figures" mean?
"Tesla’s UK car sales drop and took a major hit in May 2025, with a drop of over 45 percent compared to the same month last year. According to early data from various sources online suggest, Tesla registered only 1,758 cars, down sharply from 3,244 in May 2024. This decline happened even as the UK’s overall new car market grew by 4.3 percent year-on-year, with battery-electric vehicle (BEV) sales jumping by 28 percent. In short, more people are buying EVs — just not from Tesla."
A drop of 45%. Vs the same month in 2024.
In 2025 they were not selling the Model Y In 2024 they were selling the Model Y In 2024 the Model Y was the best selling car in the world
My point is simple - this news agenda is deliberately misleading.
You are also being a bit misleading; there was (and is) plenty of "legacy" Tesla Model Y stock available for sale, often at very good prices.
So it is not the case that Model Y sales dropped to zero in May due to the existence of the new Model Y.
Guido can exclusively reveal that in the background Labour has been busy negotiating a one in, one out asylum seeker deal with the French for revelation within days. It’s a big policy – intended to be unveiled for Starmer’s one-year anniversary as a rabbit…
The policy is intended to break the small boats model – a percentage of asylum seekers will be returned to France on landing while the same number of applicants at the asylum processing centre in Paris will be accepted.
If all landings are immediately sent back to France then it could work but lets wait the details
What’s to stop them just trying again? Once returned to France?
And if its a percentage of those that land flown back to CDG then are we selecting randomly? Courts involved? Are they all going to the sauna at the hotel until, we decide?
What happens if it works and the number drops close to zero? What incentive would the French then have to continue the agreement?
I would just add there has been an increase in the use of private yachts ferrying immigrants well away from Dover, and these yachts can land unchallenged almost anywhere
I don't where our friend has found his figures, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if he was right. The Essex coast has many small creeks where yachts etc could land groups of migrants and while Essex is supposed to be a hotbed of Reform supporters opposed to immigration, the lure of a quick buck is very strong. I don't (can't) frequent yachting circles now, but as I say, I wouldn't be at all surprised.
Fundamental thing being missed about the welfare rebellion. The legislation itself is wrong. 100% wrong. The welfare bill does need to be reduced. But targeting people with genuine disabilities, like MS and Parkinson, via their PIP payments is not the way to do it.
I thought the whole point was that PIP started off with that, but now there are large numbers of claimants on it for things like anxiety and mental health and that later group is the one being targeted by this welfare reform bill?
No, its not. It would be get rare to get PIP for daily living activities because of 'anxiety' You get points tallied for the effect of your disability on the following sorts of daily activity
Going to the toilet Washing Dressing and undressing Communicating with others Making budgeting decisions Taking medication Understanding communication, verbal and otherwise Preparing a simple meal from scratch Etc
If your diagnosis is 'anxiety' you would need to demonstrate to the assessors how that impacts your ability to do the above, what help you need to do them and what happens if you do not have that help before any points would be awarded
For the mobility aspect of PIP the points are awarded for Making and planning a journey and Ability to move 50m and then 200m without assistance
I have certainly seen DL awarded for mental health conditions. Usually on the basis that you are too depressed to clean, or wash your clothes, etc.
The Elon Musk effect continues as Europe’s Tesla sales drop for fifth month in a row
Tesla's sales in Europe have plummeted for the fifth consecutive month, with new figures revealing a significant 28 per cent drop in May.
So? What will be the story in June when they top the sales chart again?
That Elon Musk has shut up about politics? That's the problem, not the cars.
No, the problem is maths. They are lapping 2025 figures vs 2024 figures. 2024 includes sales of the best selling car globally in 2024. Vs no sales in 2025. Deliveries only started properly in June.
The narrative is "nobody wants to buy a Tesla". Which is about to get demolished by like for like sales numbers in June.
What does "They are lapping 2025 figures vs 2024 figures" mean?
"Tesla’s UK car sales drop and took a major hit in May 2025, with a drop of over 45 percent compared to the same month last year. According to early data from various sources online suggest, Tesla registered only 1,758 cars, down sharply from 3,244 in May 2024. This decline happened even as the UK’s overall new car market grew by 4.3 percent year-on-year, with battery-electric vehicle (BEV) sales jumping by 28 percent. In short, more people are buying EVs — just not from Tesla."
A drop of 45%. Vs the same month in 2024.
In 2025 they were not selling the Model Y In 2024 they were selling the Model Y In 2024 the Model Y was the best selling car in the world
My point is simple - this news agenda is deliberately misleading.
You are also being a bit misleading; there was (and is) plenty of "legacy" Tesla Model Y stock available for sale, often at very good prices.
So it is not the case that Model Y sales dropped to zero in May due to the existence of the new Model Y.
Here you go: here's Tesla's inventory of new, available for delivery now, Model Ys in the UK.
The new town is welcome, although 25,000 homes sounds more like a new housing estate.
But we need to do this somewhere else and not make the country even more reliant on London.
Is calling it a 'new town' a way to tap into central government funding?
There's something screwy somewhere, perhaps. 50k people give or take on 70 acres does not quite add up.
That is 600-700 per acre. The Barbican is 228 per acre.
It can be done, but it would be a surprise there.
Kowloon Walled City had almost 50,000 people in just six acres. So this would be less than one tenth the population density.
I lived for six years in the second most densely populated city in the world. 38 000 per square kilometre. The only real hassle was when the next door temple had their annual 72 hour Chinese Opera.
The Elon Musk effect continues as Europe’s Tesla sales drop for fifth month in a row
Tesla's sales in Europe have plummeted for the fifth consecutive month, with new figures revealing a significant 28 per cent drop in May.
So? What will be the story in June when they top the sales chart again?
Surprise that Tesla have actually sold some cars - personally I don’t see any reason why sales will improve. The new car looks little different from the old one
Putting aside all the Musk stuff, in my humble opinion Tesla's are starting to look really dated now.
They are looking a bit dated.
For a long time, there was essentially no competition - and what there was was crap (see the Ford E-Mustang). And so Tesla got ... if not complacent, then at least comfortable. Their focus shifted to the Cybertruck, to the new Roadster and to the Semi truck. On the software side, self driving was all.
Now, Tesla has decent competition for the first time, and they haven't really refreshed their model lineup. And there's been this discontinuity caused by Elon pissing off his natural supporters.
It's a perfect storm for them to lose market share.
I think the software / UI is still if not ahead of the game, at the leading edge, but externally the shapes look old now. Now I am not exactly sold on the KIA Cyberpunk look or the BMW disgusting frontends and not sure what Mercs are up to. While VW / Audi have Windows Vista-esque shit software (which they hope to rectify after buying Rivian). But Tesla definitely now lacking lots of very interesting features that the Chinese by processing of throwing the kitchen sink at everything have come up with.
Here's an idea. Instead of simply claiming mental health conditions aren't real, how about exerting some effort to explain why the rates are soaring? And make plans to treat and prevent them? Just a thought.
Its complex isn't it? I see a lot of students claiming lots of things that will potentially game the system. The uni has a system of allowing students to get DAPs (disability access plans). Quite often these will get the student extra time in exams (typically 20 % longer) than students without a DAP. Or they might get rest breaks (10 minutes every hour). Its a significant chunk of the study body.
Now I cannot know if all are genuine. Maybe they are. But I strongly suspect that many have realised that getting a DAP gives them an advantage so they find a way to get it.
On mental health conditions, I think we need to be sympathetic and have a culture that is supportive, but also one where people have responsibilities too. I've been blessed in my life with my mental health. I don't think I've ever been depressed, for instance (other than short term after being dumped by a girl I really liked). So I don't know how it feels. But there are plenty of people who do and can advise on how to cope best.
Is there anyone who doesn't think the government should give them more money?
Why ?
A lot of this is down to a fall in demand for courses. Giving them more money won’t change that.
Is it? Universities lose money on every home student they teach, because the government caps the fees at below-cost. For a while, the plan was to shimmy round that by bringing in lots of foreign students paying shedloads. For various reasons (including, but not restricted to, fear of numbers of people coming to the UK) that model has blown up.
Suspect that puts universities in the same basket as a lot of other institutions. Yes they need more funding, yes that probably has to come from the taxpayer, no people won't be happy if the University of Theirtown closes down...
... but God forbid that taxes go up to pay for it.
Do they?
Thinking back to my own University days there were about 200 students in the lecture hall. Each student is paying close to £8000 in fees per annum.
That cohort then is paying between them £1.6mn in fees, even if they're all home students.
If the universities aren't able to make money on that, then maybe their costs are too high, rather than fees too low.
Some subjects they absolutely don't get close to covering the cost. Basically, most STEM subjects. Also, students are way more demanding now in what they expect the university to provide and since the government made it a market, they all have to provide these things.
For STEM subjects that are lecture theatre based I don't see why they can't make money, if ran efficiently. The latter part is an issue though.
For medicine/engineering etc there's more involved but compare the class sizes in lecture theatres to the class sizes in primary/high schools and there's little reason why lecture theatre-based courses aren't making money from home students.
Especially when students maybe have about 12-15 hours of lectures a week, not full time.
Other than maths, no STEM subject is just lecture thearte based, they all need labs and they are very expensive to run. Also, they aren't part-time, STEM subjects often are basically in either lectures or labs closer to 20-30hrs a week.
I definitely think in general universities aren't run very efficiently, but it is widely acknowledged that things like Chemistry, easily cost £15k / year / student to run due to all the extras that are required to be provided.
Actually even maths now isn't just sit in the lecture theatre and write down all this crazy stuff off the blackboard. There is a lot of interest in theory of ML, application of ML to solving really hard problems, and then you need PC labs with GPU clusters.
The cap on fees is ridiculous. The demand is there from the students but universities are suffering from inflation just as the wider economy is too. And add in the NI changes. Plus Uni academics have had the same pay deflation as medics over the same time.
It also a nonsense as some (well one) on here seem to believe a STEM course can be entirely lecture based. What world is he/she living on?
And lastly - the cap on fees is disadvantaging UK citizens. I'm admissions tutor for my course and I have been told that we will likely be in clearing for overseas students, but NOT for home. The uni sees overseas as more attractive because they pay more.
I have no doubt that universities could be better run. We employ a lot of staff that never teach students or do research. Bath has a very well resourced widening access team, aiming to get students from poorer, disadvantaged backgrounds to uni. Its a laudable aim but we pour money into it for relatively few bums on seats. Academics are constantly wasting time on admin tasks that aren't really important. And DEI plays a role here as we have to be hitting all our DEI targets etc.
But frankly the big one is the fees. Let unis charge more and let it become a proper market.
I never said all courses are entirely lecture based, however many courses are yet still face the same close to £10k in fees so swings and roundabouts.
For STEM subjects that are lecture based... Which ones are those then?
Economics if you class the quantitative side as STEM, that's what I studied my BSc in and it was predominantly lecture based.
As far as I understand it most mathematics/statistical courses, theoretical physics, computer science, quantitative economics etc are still predominantly lecture based at an undergraduate level.
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
Economics is not a science. And you are missing the small group teaching element - did you never have tutorials, workshops etc?
Have you never heard of BSc (Econ)?
My degree is also titled as a BSc(Econ) and like Barty I am a questionable economist. Scientific rigour is certainly missing. Although in my favour (and not Barty's) I think the Laffer Curve is nonsense.
The Laffer Curve is not nonsense, but most applications of it are.
Too often, including by Laffer himself, the Curve is used as a justification to cut the top-rate of tax on the highest earners without any evidence as to whether or why we are past the peak for that rate . . . while ignoring significantly real higher rates of tax that exist which are far more distorting, such as our cliff edges.
There are countless stories of people changing their behaviour at cliff edges, where tax rates approach or even exceed 100%, because they're rational. That's Laffer in action, rather than piddling about at 45p or whatever.
Is there anyone who doesn't think the government should give them more money?
Why ?
A lot of this is down to a fall in demand for courses. Giving them more money won’t change that.
Is it? Universities lose money on every home student they teach, because the government caps the fees at below-cost. For a while, the plan was to shimmy round that by bringing in lots of foreign students paying shedloads. For various reasons (including, but not restricted to, fear of numbers of people coming to the UK) that model has blown up.
Suspect that puts universities in the same basket as a lot of other institutions. Yes they need more funding, yes that probably has to come from the taxpayer, no people won't be happy if the University of Theirtown closes down...
... but God forbid that taxes go up to pay for it.
Do they?
Thinking back to my own University days there were about 200 students in the lecture hall. Each student is paying close to £8000 in fees per annum.
That cohort then is paying between them £1.6mn in fees, even if they're all home students.
If the universities aren't able to make money on that, then maybe their costs are too high, rather than fees too low.
Some subjects they absolutely don't get close to covering the cost. Basically, most STEM subjects. Also, students are way more demanding now in what they expect the university to provide and since the government made it a market, they all have to provide these things.
For STEM subjects that are lecture theatre based I don't see why they can't make money, if ran efficiently. The latter part is an issue though.
For medicine/engineering etc there's more involved but compare the class sizes in lecture theatres to the class sizes in primary/high schools and there's little reason why lecture theatre-based courses aren't making money from home students.
Especially when students maybe have about 12-15 hours of lectures a week, not full time.
Other than maths, no STEM subject is just lecture thearte based, they all need labs and they are very expensive to run. Also, they aren't part-time, STEM subjects often are basically in either lectures or labs closer to 20-30hrs a week.
I definitely think in general universities aren't run very efficiently, but it is widely acknowledged that things like Chemistry, easily cost £15k / year / student to run due to all the extras that are required to be provided.
Actually even maths now isn't just sit in the lecture theatre and write down all this crazy stuff off the blackboard. There is a lot of interest in theory of ML, application of ML to solving really hard problems, and then you need PC labs with GPU clusters.
The cap on fees is ridiculous. The demand is there from the students but universities are suffering from inflation just as the wider economy is too. And add in the NI changes. Plus Uni academics have had the same pay deflation as medics over the same time.
It also a nonsense as some (well one) on here seem to believe a STEM course can be entirely lecture based. What world is he/she living on?
And lastly - the cap on fees is disadvantaging UK citizens. I'm admissions tutor for my course and I have been told that we will likely be in clearing for overseas students, but NOT for home. The uni sees overseas as more attractive because they pay more.
I have no doubt that universities could be better run. We employ a lot of staff that never teach students or do research. Bath has a very well resourced widening access team, aiming to get students from poorer, disadvantaged backgrounds to uni. Its a laudable aim but we pour money into it for relatively few bums on seats. Academics are constantly wasting time on admin tasks that aren't really important. And DEI plays a role here as we have to be hitting all our DEI targets etc.
But frankly the big one is the fees. Let unis charge more and let it become a proper market.
I never said all courses are entirely lecture based, however many courses are yet still face the same close to £10k in fees so swings and roundabouts.
For STEM subjects that are lecture based... Which ones are those then?
Economics if you class the quantitative side as STEM, that's what I studied my BSc in and it was predominantly lecture based.
As far as I understand it most mathematics/statistical courses, theoretical physics, computer science, quantitative economics etc are still predominantly lecture based at an undergraduate level.
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
Economics is not a science. And you are missing the small group teaching element - did you never have tutorials, workshops etc?
Have you never heard of BSc (Econ)?
My degree is also titled as a BSc(Econ) and like Barty I am a questionable economist. Scientific rigour is certainly missing. Although in my favour (and not Barty's) I think the Laffer Curve is nonsense.
The Laffer Curve is not nonsense, but most applications of it are.
Too often, including by Laffer himself, the Curve is used as a justification to cut the top-rate of tax on the highest earners without any evidence as to whether or why we are past the peak for that rate . . . while ignoring significantly real higher rates of tax that exist which are far more distorting, such as our cliff edges.
There are countless stories of people changing their behaviour at cliff edges, where tax rates approach or even exceed 100%, because they're rational. That's Laffer in action, rather than piddling about at 45p or whatever.
I’ve sat across from people saying they don’t want to work more hours, because of benefit withdrawal creating an 80% effective tax rate on the extra hours.
Here's an idea. Instead of simply claiming mental health conditions aren't real, how about exerting some effort to explain why the rates are soaring? And make plans to treat and prevent them? Just a thought.
Its complex isn't it? I see a lot of students claiming lots of things that will potentially game the system. The uni has a system of allowing students to get DAPs (disability access plans). Quite often these will get the student extra time in exams (typically 20 % longer) than students without a DAP. Or they might get rest breaks (10 minutes every hour). Its a significant chunk of the study body.
Now I cannot know if all are genuine. Maybe they are. But I strongly suspect that many have realised that getting a DAP gives them an advantage so they find a way to get it..
On mental health conditions, I think we need to be sympathetic and have a culture that is supportive, but also one where people have responsibilities too. I've been blessed in my life with my mental health. I don't think I've ever been depressed, for instance (other than short term after being dumped by a girl I really liked). So I don't know how it feels. But there are plenty of people who do and can advise on how to cope best.
Also if you feel everybody else around you is getting it, that in turn makes you anxious. Also, speaking to academics, the graduate market is very tough competition due to shear number of graduates and a fair amount of grade inflation means 2:1 is defacto standard. In addition to the wide use of AI to do the first sifts of CVs and requesting full transcripts of marks, has resulted in students being incredibly worried about every single assessment having some major impact on their future prospects. That sounds like very easy to feel under a lot of pressure and anxious.
Where in my day as an undergrad, a lot of people slacked for periods of time and thought well as long as get the 2:1 in the end, there is still loads of graduate jobs out there.
Is there anyone who doesn't think the government should give them more money?
Why ?
A lot of this is down to a fall in demand for courses. Giving them more money won’t change that.
Is it? Universities lose money on every home student they teach, because the government caps the fees at below-cost. For a while, the plan was to shimmy round that by bringing in lots of foreign students paying shedloads. For various reasons (including, but not restricted to, fear of numbers of people coming to the UK) that model has blown up.
Suspect that puts universities in the same basket as a lot of other institutions. Yes they need more funding, yes that probably has to come from the taxpayer, no people won't be happy if the University of Theirtown closes down...
... but God forbid that taxes go up to pay for it.
Do they?
Thinking back to my own University days there were about 200 students in the lecture hall. Each student is paying close to £8000 in fees per annum.
That cohort then is paying between them £1.6mn in fees, even if they're all home students.
If the universities aren't able to make money on that, then maybe their costs are too high, rather than fees too low.
Some subjects they absolutely don't get close to covering the cost. Basically, most STEM subjects. Also, students are way more demanding now in what they expect the university to provide and since the government made it a market, they all have to provide these things.
For STEM subjects that are lecture theatre based I don't see why they can't make money, if ran efficiently. The latter part is an issue though.
For medicine/engineering etc there's more involved but compare the class sizes in lecture theatres to the class sizes in primary/high schools and there's little reason why lecture theatre-based courses aren't making money from home students.
Especially when students maybe have about 12-15 hours of lectures a week, not full time.
Other than maths, no STEM subject is just lecture thearte based, they all need labs and they are very expensive to run. Also, they aren't part-time, STEM subjects often are basically in either lectures or labs closer to 20-30hrs a week.
I definitely think in general universities aren't run very efficiently, but it is widely acknowledged that things like Chemistry, easily cost £15k / year / student to run due to all the extras that are required to be provided.
Actually even maths now isn't just sit in the lecture theatre and write down all this crazy stuff off the blackboard. There is a lot of interest in theory of ML, application of ML to solving really hard problems, and then you need PC labs with GPU clusters.
The cap on fees is ridiculous. The demand is there from the students but universities are suffering from inflation just as the wider economy is too. And add in the NI changes. Plus Uni academics have had the same pay deflation as medics over the same time.
It also a nonsense as some (well one) on here seem to believe a STEM course can be entirely lecture based. What world is he/she living on?
And lastly - the cap on fees is disadvantaging UK citizens. I'm admissions tutor for my course and I have been told that we will likely be in clearing for overseas students, but NOT for home. The uni sees overseas as more attractive because they pay more.
I have no doubt that universities could be better run. We employ a lot of staff that never teach students or do research. Bath has a very well resourced widening access team, aiming to get students from poorer, disadvantaged backgrounds to uni. Its a laudable aim but we pour money into it for relatively few bums on seats. Academics are constantly wasting time on admin tasks that aren't really important. And DEI plays a role here as we have to be hitting all our DEI targets etc.
But frankly the big one is the fees. Let unis charge more and let it become a proper market.
I never said all courses are entirely lecture based, however many courses are yet still face the same close to £10k in fees so swings and roundabouts.
For STEM subjects that are lecture based... Which ones are those then?
Economics if you class the quantitative side as STEM, that's what I studied my BSc in and it was predominantly lecture based.
As far as I understand it most mathematics/statistical courses, theoretical physics, computer science, quantitative economics etc are still predominantly lecture based at an undergraduate level.
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
Economics is not a science. And you are missing the small group teaching element - did you never have tutorials, workshops etc?
Have you never heard of BSc (Econ)?
My degree is also titled as a BSc(Econ) and like Barty I am a questionable economist. Scientific rigour is certainly missing. Although in my favour (and not Barty's) I think the Laffer Curve is nonsense.
The Laffer Curve is not nonsense, but most applications of it are.
Too often, including by Laffer himself, the Curve is used as a justification to cut the top-rate of tax on the highest earners without any evidence as to whether or why we are past the peak for that rate . . . while ignoring significantly real higher rates of tax that exist which are far more distorting, such as our cliff edges.
There are countless stories of people changing their behaviour at cliff edges, where tax rates approach or even exceed 100%, because they're rational. That's Laffer in action, rather than piddling about at 45p or whatever.
I’ve sat across from people saying they don’t want to work more hours, because of benefit withdrawal creating an 80% effective tax rate on the extra hours.
If that isn’t Laffer Curve behaviour, what is?
Same. Or that they'll only work if they can get cash in hand.
The Elon Musk effect continues as Europe’s Tesla sales drop for fifth month in a row
Tesla's sales in Europe have plummeted for the fifth consecutive month, with new figures revealing a significant 28 per cent drop in May.
So? What will be the story in June when they top the sales chart again?
Surprise that Tesla have actually sold some cars - personally I don’t see any reason why sales will improve. The new car looks little different from the old one
Putting aside all the Musk stuff, in my humble opinion Tesla's are starting to look really dated now.
They are looking a bit dated.
For a long time, there was essentially no competition - and what there was was crap (see the Ford E-Mustang). And so Tesla got ... if not complacent, then at least comfortable. Their focus shifted to the Cybertruck, to the new Roadster and to the Semi truck. On the software side, self driving was all.
Now, Tesla has decent competition for the first time, and they haven't really refreshed their model lineup. And there's been this discontinuity caused by Elon pissing off his natural supporters.
It's a perfect storm for them to lose market share.
I think the software / UI is still if not ahead of the game, at the leading edge, but externally the shapes look old now. Now I am not exactly sold on the KIA Cyberpunk look or the BMW disgusting frontends and not sure what Mercs are up to. While VW / Audi have Windows Vista-esque shit software (which they hope to rectify after buying Rivian). But Tesla definitely now lacking lots of very interesting features that the Chinese by processing of throwing the kitchen sink at everything have come up with.
Their software is absolutely miles better than Ford, VW and Chevrolet.
But the software on my wife's Fiat 500E's is (rather to my surprise) really good (with the exception of the fact that it still - weirdly - requires you to press a button on the dashboard to turn it on. And only then can you put it in Drive.
The Rivian software is also a near perfect copy of Tesla's.
Here's an idea. Instead of simply claiming mental health conditions aren't real, how about exerting some effort to explain why the rates are soaring? And make plans to treat and prevent them? Just a thought.
I agree but part of the soaring levels is surely better identification and recognition of mental health issues.
The suicide rate in the general population has fallen over the last 40 heads suggests that is a large part of it, albeit is has increased somewhat in the last 15.
I like that primary schools are teaching children about their emotions a lot more than when I was a child. Prevention of mental health issues is better than a cure.
Is there anyone who doesn't think the government should give them more money?
Why ?
A lot of this is down to a fall in demand for courses. Giving them more money won’t change that.
Is it? Universities lose money on every home student they teach, because the government caps the fees at below-cost. For a while, the plan was to shimmy round that by bringing in lots of foreign students paying shedloads. For various reasons (including, but not restricted to, fear of numbers of people coming to the UK) that model has blown up.
Suspect that puts universities in the same basket as a lot of other institutions. Yes they need more funding, yes that probably has to come from the taxpayer, no people won't be happy if the University of Theirtown closes down...
... but God forbid that taxes go up to pay for it.
Do they?
Thinking back to my own University days there were about 200 students in the lecture hall. Each student is paying close to £8000 in fees per annum.
That cohort then is paying between them £1.6mn in fees, even if they're all home students.
If the universities aren't able to make money on that, then maybe their costs are too high, rather than fees too low.
Some subjects they absolutely don't get close to covering the cost. Basically, most STEM subjects. Also, students are way more demanding now in what they expect the university to provide and since the government made it a market, they all have to provide these things.
For STEM subjects that are lecture theatre based I don't see why they can't make money, if ran efficiently. The latter part is an issue though.
For medicine/engineering etc there's more involved but compare the class sizes in lecture theatres to the class sizes in primary/high schools and there's little reason why lecture theatre-based courses aren't making money from home students.
Especially when students maybe have about 12-15 hours of lectures a week, not full time.
Other than maths, no STEM subject is just lecture thearte based, they all need labs and they are very expensive to run. Also, they aren't part-time, STEM subjects often are basically in either lectures or labs closer to 20-30hrs a week.
I definitely think in general universities aren't run very efficiently, but it is widely acknowledged that things like Chemistry, easily cost £15k / year / student to run due to all the extras that are required to be provided.
Actually even maths now isn't just sit in the lecture theatre and write down all this crazy stuff off the blackboard. There is a lot of interest in theory of ML, application of ML to solving really hard problems, and then you need PC labs with GPU clusters.
The cap on fees is ridiculous. The demand is there from the students but universities are suffering from inflation just as the wider economy is too. And add in the NI changes. Plus Uni academics have had the same pay deflation as medics over the same time.
It also a nonsense as some (well one) on here seem to believe a STEM course can be entirely lecture based. What world is he/she living on?
And lastly - the cap on fees is disadvantaging UK citizens. I'm admissions tutor for my course and I have been told that we will likely be in clearing for overseas students, but NOT for home. The uni sees overseas as more attractive because they pay more.
I have no doubt that universities could be better run. We employ a lot of staff that never teach students or do research. Bath has a very well resourced widening access team, aiming to get students from poorer, disadvantaged backgrounds to uni. Its a laudable aim but we pour money into it for relatively few bums on seats. Academics are constantly wasting time on admin tasks that aren't really important. And DEI plays a role here as we have to be hitting all our DEI targets etc.
But frankly the big one is the fees. Let unis charge more and let it become a proper market.
I never said all courses are entirely lecture based, however many courses are yet still face the same close to £10k in fees so swings and roundabouts.
For STEM subjects that are lecture based... Which ones are those then?
Economics if you class the quantitative side as STEM, that's what I studied my BSc in and it was predominantly lecture based.
As far as I understand it most mathematics/statistical courses, theoretical physics, computer science, quantitative economics etc are still predominantly lecture based at an undergraduate level.
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
Economics is not a science. And you are missing the small group teaching element - did you never have tutorials, workshops etc?
Have you never heard of BSc (Econ)?
My degree is also titled as a BSc(Econ) and like Barty I am a questionable economist. Scientific rigour is certainly missing. Although in my favour (and not Barty's) I think the Laffer Curve is nonsense.
The Laffer Curve is not nonsense, but most applications of it are.
Too often, including by Laffer himself, the Curve is used as a justification to cut the top-rate of tax on the highest earners without any evidence as to whether or why we are past the peak for that rate . . . while ignoring significantly real higher rates of tax that exist which are far more distorting, such as our cliff edges.
There are countless stories of people changing their behaviour at cliff edges, where tax rates approach or even exceed 100%, because they're rational. That's Laffer in action, rather than piddling about at 45p or whatever.
So in practice the Laffer Curve doesn't work. Thank you for clearing that up.
Fundamental thing being missed about the welfare rebellion. The legislation itself is wrong. 100% wrong. The welfare bill does need to be reduced. But targeting people with genuine disabilities, like MS and Parkinson, via their PIP payments is not the way to do it.
I thought the whole point was that PIP started off with that, but now there are large numbers of claimants on it for things like anxiety and mental health and that later group is the one being targeted by this welfare reform bill?
No, its not. It would be get rare to get PIP for daily living activities because of 'anxiety' You get points tallied for the effect of your disability on the following sorts of daily activity
Going to the toilet Washing Dressing and undressing Communicating with others Making budgeting decisions Taking medication Understanding communication, verbal and otherwise Preparing a simple meal from scratch Etc
If your diagnosis is 'anxiety' you would need to demonstrate to the assessors how that impacts your ability to do the above, what help you need to do them and what happens if you do not have that help before any points would be awarded
For the mobility aspect of PIP the points are awarded for Making and planning a journey and Ability to move 50m and then 200m without assistance
I have certainly seen DL awarded for mental health conditions. Usually on the basis that you are too depressed to clean, or wash your clothes, etc.
I didn't say it wasn't awarded for mental health conditions. If your medical evidence and assessment supports an impact on your ability to do some, one or all of the activities then the extent to which that happens will determine the level of any support. Anxiety is often, rather than an isolated condition, an effect of underlying mental or physical health issues. In and of itself its not likely to lead to a long term PIP award or LCWRA UC
The Elon Musk effect continues as Europe’s Tesla sales drop for fifth month in a row
Tesla's sales in Europe have plummeted for the fifth consecutive month, with new figures revealing a significant 28 per cent drop in May.
So? What will be the story in June when they top the sales chart again?
Surprise that Tesla have actually sold some cars - personally I don’t see any reason why sales will improve. The new car looks little different from the old one
Putting aside all the Musk stuff, in my humble opinion Tesla's are starting to look really dated now.
They are looking a bit dated.
For a long time, there was essentially no competition - and what there was was crap (see the Ford E-Mustang). And so Tesla got ... if not complacent, then at least comfortable. Their focus shifted to the Cybertruck, to the new Roadster and to the Semi truck. On the software side, self driving was all.
Now, Tesla has decent competition for the first time, and they haven't really refreshed their model lineup. And there's been this discontinuity caused by Elon pissing off his natural supporters.
It's a perfect storm for them to lose market share.
I think the software / UI is still if not ahead of the game, at the leading edge, but externally the shapes look old now. Now I am not exactly sold on the KIA Cyberpunk look or the BMW disgusting frontends and not sure what Mercs are up to. While VW / Audi have Windows Vista-esque shit software (which they hope to rectify after buying Rivian). But Tesla definitely now lacking lots of very interesting features that the Chinese by processing of throwing the kitchen sink at everything have come up with.
Their software is absolutely miles better than Ford, VW and Chevrolet.
But the software on my wife's Fiat 500E's is (rather to my surprise) really good (with the exception of the fact that it still - weirdly - requires you to press a button on the dashboard to turn it on. And only then can you put it in Drive.
The Rivian software is also a near perfect copy of Tesla's.
Maybe its just me, but I find myself looking back at a lot of the higher-end German cars from 10 years ago and I still think they look great even today, better than the modern equivalents.
Is there anyone who doesn't think the government should give them more money?
Why ?
A lot of this is down to a fall in demand for courses. Giving them more money won’t change that.
Is it? Universities lose money on every home student they teach, because the government caps the fees at below-cost. For a while, the plan was to shimmy round that by bringing in lots of foreign students paying shedloads. For various reasons (including, but not restricted to, fear of numbers of people coming to the UK) that model has blown up.
Suspect that puts universities in the same basket as a lot of other institutions. Yes they need more funding, yes that probably has to come from the taxpayer, no people won't be happy if the University of Theirtown closes down...
... but God forbid that taxes go up to pay for it.
Do they?
Thinking back to my own University days there were about 200 students in the lecture hall. Each student is paying close to £8000 in fees per annum.
That cohort then is paying between them £1.6mn in fees, even if they're all home students.
If the universities aren't able to make money on that, then maybe their costs are too high, rather than fees too low.
Some subjects they absolutely don't get close to covering the cost. Basically, most STEM subjects. Also, students are way more demanding now in what they expect the university to provide and since the government made it a market, they all have to provide these things.
For STEM subjects that are lecture theatre based I don't see why they can't make money, if ran efficiently. The latter part is an issue though.
For medicine/engineering etc there's more involved but compare the class sizes in lecture theatres to the class sizes in primary/high schools and there's little reason why lecture theatre-based courses aren't making money from home students.
Especially when students maybe have about 12-15 hours of lectures a week, not full time.
Other than maths, no STEM subject is just lecture thearte based, they all need labs and they are very expensive to run. Also, they aren't part-time, STEM subjects often are basically in either lectures or labs closer to 20-30hrs a week.
I definitely think in general universities aren't run very efficiently, but it is widely acknowledged that things like Chemistry, easily cost £15k / year / student to run due to all the extras that are required to be provided.
Actually even maths now isn't just sit in the lecture theatre and write down all this crazy stuff off the blackboard. There is a lot of interest in theory of ML, application of ML to solving really hard problems, and then you need PC labs with GPU clusters.
The cap on fees is ridiculous. The demand is there from the students but universities are suffering from inflation just as the wider economy is too. And add in the NI changes. Plus Uni academics have had the same pay deflation as medics over the same time.
It also a nonsense as some (well one) on here seem to believe a STEM course can be entirely lecture based. What world is he/she living on?
And lastly - the cap on fees is disadvantaging UK citizens. I'm admissions tutor for my course and I have been told that we will likely be in clearing for overseas students, but NOT for home. The uni sees overseas as more attractive because they pay more.
I have no doubt that universities could be better run. We employ a lot of staff that never teach students or do research. Bath has a very well resourced widening access team, aiming to get students from poorer, disadvantaged backgrounds to uni. Its a laudable aim but we pour money into it for relatively few bums on seats. Academics are constantly wasting time on admin tasks that aren't really important. And DEI plays a role here as we have to be hitting all our DEI targets etc.
But frankly the big one is the fees. Let unis charge more and let it become a proper market.
I never said all courses are entirely lecture based, however many courses are yet still face the same close to £10k in fees so swings and roundabouts.
For STEM subjects that are lecture based... Which ones are those then?
Economics if you class the quantitative side as STEM, that's what I studied my BSc in and it was predominantly lecture based.
As far as I understand it most mathematics/statistical courses, theoretical physics, computer science, quantitative economics etc are still predominantly lecture based at an undergraduate level.
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
Economics is not a science. And you are missing the small group teaching element - did you never have tutorials, workshops etc?
Have you never heard of BSc (Econ)?
My degree is also titled as a BSc(Econ) and like Barty I am a questionable economist. Scientific rigour is certainly missing. Although in my favour (and not Barty's) I think the Laffer Curve is nonsense.
The Laffer Curve is not nonsense, but most applications of it are.
Too often, including by Laffer himself, the Curve is used as a justification to cut the top-rate of tax on the highest earners without any evidence as to whether or why we are past the peak for that rate . . . while ignoring significantly real higher rates of tax that exist which are far more distorting, such as our cliff edges.
There are countless stories of people changing their behaviour at cliff edges, where tax rates approach or even exceed 100%, because they're rational. That's Laffer in action, rather than piddling about at 45p or whatever.
So in practice the Laffer Curve doesn't work. Thank you for clearing that up.
The Laffer Curve really just proffers the trivial points that if the government taxes at 0% it'll get no income, and if it taxes at 100% it'll get no income. The actual curve bit is just simplistic silliness that you shouldn't be basing entire economic models on.
Paris, New York, Barcelona have higher density square km sections.
From the website of the developer, it seems to be more scattered than a single block - like say the National Forest in Leics compared to continuous woodland.
Jofra Archer is in line for a first Test appearance in more than four years after being named in England's 14-man squad for next week's match against India at Edgbaston. One scenario could be for Archer to sit out the Edgbaston Test, spend the week around the England team, then be available for the third Test at Lord's the following week.
Is there anyone who doesn't think the government should give them more money?
Why ?
A lot of this is down to a fall in demand for courses. Giving them more money won’t change that.
Is it? Universities lose money on every home student they teach, because the government caps the fees at below-cost. For a while, the plan was to shimmy round that by bringing in lots of foreign students paying shedloads. For various reasons (including, but not restricted to, fear of numbers of people coming to the UK) that model has blown up.
Suspect that puts universities in the same basket as a lot of other institutions. Yes they need more funding, yes that probably has to come from the taxpayer, no people won't be happy if the University of Theirtown closes down...
... but God forbid that taxes go up to pay for it.
Do they?
Thinking back to my own University days there were about 200 students in the lecture hall. Each student is paying close to £8000 in fees per annum.
That cohort then is paying between them £1.6mn in fees, even if they're all home students.
If the universities aren't able to make money on that, then maybe their costs are too high, rather than fees too low.
Some subjects they absolutely don't get close to covering the cost. Basically, most STEM subjects. Also, students are way more demanding now in what they expect the university to provide and since the government made it a market, they all have to provide these things.
For STEM subjects that are lecture theatre based I don't see why they can't make money, if ran efficiently. The latter part is an issue though.
For medicine/engineering etc there's more involved but compare the class sizes in lecture theatres to the class sizes in primary/high schools and there's little reason why lecture theatre-based courses aren't making money from home students.
Especially when students maybe have about 12-15 hours of lectures a week, not full time.
Other than maths, no STEM subject is just lecture thearte based, they all need labs and they are very expensive to run. Also, they aren't part-time, STEM subjects often are basically in either lectures or labs closer to 20-30hrs a week.
I definitely think in general universities aren't run very efficiently, but it is widely acknowledged that things like Chemistry, easily cost £15k / year / student to run due to all the extras that are required to be provided.
Actually even maths now isn't just sit in the lecture theatre and write down all this crazy stuff off the blackboard. There is a lot of interest in theory of ML, application of ML to solving really hard problems, and then you need PC labs with GPU clusters.
The cap on fees is ridiculous. The demand is there from the students but universities are suffering from inflation just as the wider economy is too. And add in the NI changes. Plus Uni academics have had the same pay deflation as medics over the same time.
It also a nonsense as some (well one) on here seem to believe a STEM course can be entirely lecture based. What world is he/she living on?
And lastly - the cap on fees is disadvantaging UK citizens. I'm admissions tutor for my course and I have been told that we will likely be in clearing for overseas students, but NOT for home. The uni sees overseas as more attractive because they pay more.
I have no doubt that universities could be better run. We employ a lot of staff that never teach students or do research. Bath has a very well resourced widening access team, aiming to get students from poorer, disadvantaged backgrounds to uni. Its a laudable aim but we pour money into it for relatively few bums on seats. Academics are constantly wasting time on admin tasks that aren't really important. And DEI plays a role here as we have to be hitting all our DEI targets etc.
But frankly the big one is the fees. Let unis charge more and let it become a proper market.
I never said all courses are entirely lecture based, however many courses are yet still face the same close to £10k in fees so swings and roundabouts.
For STEM subjects that are lecture based... Which ones are those then?
Economics if you class the quantitative side as STEM, that's what I studied my BSc in and it was predominantly lecture based.
As far as I understand it most mathematics/statistical courses, theoretical physics, computer science, quantitative economics etc are still predominantly lecture based at an undergraduate level.
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
Economics is not a science. And you are missing the small group teaching element - did you never have tutorials, workshops etc?
Have you never heard of BSc (Econ)?
My degree is also titled as a BSc(Econ) and like Barty I am a questionable economist. Scientific rigour is certainly missing. Although in my favour (and not Barty's) I think the Laffer Curve is nonsense.
I'm not an economist so feel free to ignore this uneducated post. I think the Laffer curve exists, but its not a simple curve. And its different for different people. In fact its unbelievably complex. So the extremes of 100 % taxation or 0 % taxation are clear, but everything in the middle is impossible to really work out.
Covid showed us that people adapt to new situations in both predictable and unpredictable ways. Some people isolated themselves before lockdowns. Others had last flings of excess. How a lump of humanity will behave in relation to a change in tax law is not simple to predict.
When I read Economics fifty years ago I came to the conclusion it was just a subset of mass psychology. Come exam time this did not earn me the recognition I deserved.
I don't believe that is an enormously original observation.
If only I'd read some books I would have known that.
Jofra Archer is in line for a first Test appearance in more than four years after being named in England's 14-man squad for next week's match against India at Edgbaston.
Aggers was suggesting it might have been better to have more county games under his belt but fingers crossed. At his best and fit he is an amazing fast bowler.
💥 David Cameron thinks Robert Jenrick should be the next Tory leader 💥 Tory strategists say the best they can do is to try to salvage 80 seats 💥Kemi’s vision for Britain: “the same but less crap” 💥Boris Johnson has a 5 point plan for his return
Jofra Archer is in line for a first Test appearance in more than four years after being named in England's 14-man squad for next week's match against India at Edgbaston.
Aggers was suggesting it might have been better to have more county games under his belt but fingers crossed. At his best and fit he is an amazing fast bowler.
Aren't they back to T20 games over the next couple of games so there isn't any more red ball for a bit. It could be they just get him training with the squad with the red ball, rather than yet more white ball cricket.
"A tube passenger who killed a commuter with one punch after he brushed past him on an escalator will serve less than five and a half years in jail before being eligible for parole. Rakeem Miles, 23, was convicted of manslaughter at Inner London crown court and sentenced to eight years in jail over the death of Samuel Winter, 28, last August."
"A tube passenger who killed a commuter with one punch after he brushed past him on an escalator will serve less than five and a half years in jail before being eligible for parole. Rakeem Miles, 23, was convicted of manslaughter at Inner London crown court and sentenced to eight years in jail over the death of Samuel Winter, 28, last August."
Becoming eligible for parole is not the same as "will be released" of course. It merely means that he will be eligible to come up in front of the parole board.
The Elon Musk effect continues as Europe’s Tesla sales drop for fifth month in a row
Tesla's sales in Europe have plummeted for the fifth consecutive month, with new figures revealing a significant 28 per cent drop in May.
So? What will be the story in June when they top the sales chart again?
That Elon Musk has shut up about politics? That's the problem, not the cars.
No, the problem is maths. They are lapping 2025 figures vs 2024 figures. 2024 includes sales of the best selling car globally in 2024. Vs no sales in 2025. Deliveries only started properly in June.
The narrative is "nobody wants to buy a Tesla". Which is about to get demolished by like for like sales numbers in June.
What does "They are lapping 2025 figures vs 2024 figures" mean?
"Tesla’s UK car sales drop and took a major hit in May 2025, with a drop of over 45 percent compared to the same month last year. According to early data from various sources online suggest, Tesla registered only 1,758 cars, down sharply from 3,244 in May 2024. This decline happened even as the UK’s overall new car market grew by 4.3 percent year-on-year, with battery-electric vehicle (BEV) sales jumping by 28 percent. In short, more people are buying EVs — just not from Tesla."
A drop of 45%. Vs the same month in 2024.
In 2025 they were not selling the Model Y In 2024 they were selling the Model Y In 2024 the Model Y was the best selling car in the world
My point is simple - this news agenda is deliberately misleading.
You are also being a bit misleading; there was (and is) plenty of "legacy" Tesla Model Y stock available for sale, often at very good prices.
So it is not the case that Model Y sales dropped to zero in May due to the existence of the new Model Y.
I made a video where there were literally 11 cars left in UK inventory. So I do speak with facts in mind.
Is there anyone who doesn't think the government should give them more money?
Why ?
A lot of this is down to a fall in demand for courses. Giving them more money won’t change that.
Is it? Universities lose money on every home student they teach, because the government caps the fees at below-cost. For a while, the plan was to shimmy round that by bringing in lots of foreign students paying shedloads. For various reasons (including, but not restricted to, fear of numbers of people coming to the UK) that model has blown up.
Suspect that puts universities in the same basket as a lot of other institutions. Yes they need more funding, yes that probably has to come from the taxpayer, no people won't be happy if the University of Theirtown closes down...
... but God forbid that taxes go up to pay for it.
Do they?
Thinking back to my own University days there were about 200 students in the lecture hall. Each student is paying close to £8000 in fees per annum.
That cohort then is paying between them £1.6mn in fees, even if they're all home students.
If the universities aren't able to make money on that, then maybe their costs are too high, rather than fees too low.
Some subjects they absolutely don't get close to covering the cost. Basically, most STEM subjects. Also, students are way more demanding now in what they expect the university to provide and since the government made it a market, they all have to provide these things.
For STEM subjects that are lecture theatre based I don't see why they can't make money, if ran efficiently. The latter part is an issue though.
For medicine/engineering etc there's more involved but compare the class sizes in lecture theatres to the class sizes in primary/high schools and there's little reason why lecture theatre-based courses aren't making money from home students.
Especially when students maybe have about 12-15 hours of lectures a week, not full time.
Other than maths, no STEM subject is just lecture thearte based, they all need labs and they are very expensive to run. Also, they aren't part-time, STEM subjects often are basically in either lectures or labs closer to 20-30hrs a week.
I definitely think in general universities aren't run very efficiently, but it is widely acknowledged that things like Chemistry, easily cost £15k / year / student to run due to all the extras that are required to be provided.
Actually even maths now isn't just sit in the lecture theatre and write down all this crazy stuff off the blackboard. There is a lot of interest in theory of ML, application of ML to solving really hard problems, and then you need PC labs with GPU clusters.
The cap on fees is ridiculous. The demand is there from the students but universities are suffering from inflation just as the wider economy is too. And add in the NI changes. Plus Uni academics have had the same pay deflation as medics over the same time.
It also a nonsense as some (well one) on here seem to believe a STEM course can be entirely lecture based. What world is he/she living on?
And lastly - the cap on fees is disadvantaging UK citizens. I'm admissions tutor for my course and I have been told that we will likely be in clearing for overseas students, but NOT for home. The uni sees overseas as more attractive because they pay more.
I have no doubt that universities could be better run. We employ a lot of staff that never teach students or do research. Bath has a very well resourced widening access team, aiming to get students from poorer, disadvantaged backgrounds to uni. Its a laudable aim but we pour money into it for relatively few bums on seats. Academics are constantly wasting time on admin tasks that aren't really important. And DEI plays a role here as we have to be hitting all our DEI targets etc.
But frankly the big one is the fees. Let unis charge more and let it become a proper market.
I never said all courses are entirely lecture based, however many courses are yet still face the same close to £10k in fees so swings and roundabouts.
For STEM subjects that are lecture based... Which ones are those then?
Economics if you class the quantitative side as STEM, that's what I studied my BSc in and it was predominantly lecture based.
As far as I understand it most mathematics/statistical courses, theoretical physics, computer science, quantitative economics etc are still predominantly lecture based at an undergraduate level.
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
Economics is not a science. And you are missing the small group teaching element - did you never have tutorials, workshops etc?
Have you never heard of BSc (Econ)?
My degree is also titled as a BSc(Econ) and like Barty I am a questionable economist. Scientific rigour is certainly missing. Although in my favour (and not Barty's) I think the Laffer Curve is nonsense.
The Laffer Curve is not nonsense, but most applications of it are.
Too often, including by Laffer himself, the Curve is used as a justification to cut the top-rate of tax on the highest earners without any evidence as to whether or why we are past the peak for that rate . . . while ignoring significantly real higher rates of tax that exist which are far more distorting, such as our cliff edges.
There are countless stories of people changing their behaviour at cliff edges, where tax rates approach or even exceed 100%, because they're rational. That's Laffer in action, rather than piddling about at 45p or whatever.
So in practice the Laffer Curve doesn't work. Thank you for clearing that up.
The Laffer Curve really just proffers the trivial points that if the government taxes at 0% it'll get no income, and if it taxes at 100% it'll get no income. The actual curve bit is just simplistic silliness that you shouldn't be basing entire economic models on.
Also short term v long term. If people have got kids in a good school they aren't moving because of a 60% top rate of tax.
But some people might not move to that country in the first place, or decide to move before those kids come along. That's the danger in Scotland with our higher taxes - we won't know for some time (or at all) if they've had a negative impact on growth.
I have just been asked to write about A PARTICULAR SUBJECT
This has happened before. Difference this time is that it’s a well known foreign magazine. They’ve noticed my flinty opinions and are so keen on them they are happy for me to write in English and then they will translate into foreign
Is there anyone who doesn't think the government should give them more money?
Why ?
A lot of this is down to a fall in demand for courses. Giving them more money won’t change that.
Is it? Universities lose money on every home student they teach, because the government caps the fees at below-cost. For a while, the plan was to shimmy round that by bringing in lots of foreign students paying shedloads. For various reasons (including, but not restricted to, fear of numbers of people coming to the UK) that model has blown up.
Suspect that puts universities in the same basket as a lot of other institutions. Yes they need more funding, yes that probably has to come from the taxpayer, no people won't be happy if the University of Theirtown closes down...
... but God forbid that taxes go up to pay for it.
Do they?
Thinking back to my own University days there were about 200 students in the lecture hall. Each student is paying close to £8000 in fees per annum.
That cohort then is paying between them £1.6mn in fees, even if they're all home students.
If the universities aren't able to make money on that, then maybe their costs are too high, rather than fees too low.
Some subjects they absolutely don't get close to covering the cost. Basically, most STEM subjects. Also, students are way more demanding now in what they expect the university to provide and since the government made it a market, they all have to provide these things.
For STEM subjects that are lecture theatre based I don't see why they can't make money, if ran efficiently. The latter part is an issue though.
For medicine/engineering etc there's more involved but compare the class sizes in lecture theatres to the class sizes in primary/high schools and there's little reason why lecture theatre-based courses aren't making money from home students.
Especially when students maybe have about 12-15 hours of lectures a week, not full time.
Other than maths, no STEM subject is just lecture thearte based, they all need labs and they are very expensive to run. Also, they aren't part-time, STEM subjects often are basically in either lectures or labs closer to 20-30hrs a week.
I definitely think in general universities aren't run very efficiently, but it is widely acknowledged that things like Chemistry, easily cost £15k / year / student to run due to all the extras that are required to be provided.
Actually even maths now isn't just sit in the lecture theatre and write down all this crazy stuff off the blackboard. There is a lot of interest in theory of ML, application of ML to solving really hard problems, and then you need PC labs with GPU clusters.
The cap on fees is ridiculous. The demand is there from the students but universities are suffering from inflation just as the wider economy is too. And add in the NI changes. Plus Uni academics have had the same pay deflation as medics over the same time.
It also a nonsense as some (well one) on here seem to believe a STEM course can be entirely lecture based. What world is he/she living on?
And lastly - the cap on fees is disadvantaging UK citizens. I'm admissions tutor for my course and I have been told that we will likely be in clearing for overseas students, but NOT for home. The uni sees overseas as more attractive because they pay more.
I have no doubt that universities could be better run. We employ a lot of staff that never teach students or do research. Bath has a very well resourced widening access team, aiming to get students from poorer, disadvantaged backgrounds to uni. Its a laudable aim but we pour money into it for relatively few bums on seats. Academics are constantly wasting time on admin tasks that aren't really important. And DEI plays a role here as we have to be hitting all our DEI targets etc.
But frankly the big one is the fees. Let unis charge more and let it become a proper market.
I never said all courses are entirely lecture based, however many courses are yet still face the same close to £10k in fees so swings and roundabouts.
For STEM subjects that are lecture based... Which ones are those then?
Economics if you class the quantitative side as STEM, that's what I studied my BSc in and it was predominantly lecture based.
As far as I understand it most mathematics/statistical courses, theoretical physics, computer science, quantitative economics etc are still predominantly lecture based at an undergraduate level.
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
Economics is not a science. And you are missing the small group teaching element - did you never have tutorials, workshops etc?
Have you never heard of BSc (Econ)?
My degree is also titled as a BSc(Econ) and like Barty I am a questionable economist. Scientific rigour is certainly missing. Although in my favour (and not Barty's) I think the Laffer Curve is nonsense.
The Laffer Curve is not nonsense, but most applications of it are.
Too often, including by Laffer himself, the Curve is used as a justification to cut the top-rate of tax on the highest earners without any evidence as to whether or why we are past the peak for that rate . . . while ignoring significantly real higher rates of tax that exist which are far more distorting, such as our cliff edges.
There are countless stories of people changing their behaviour at cliff edges, where tax rates approach or even exceed 100%, because they're rational. That's Laffer in action, rather than piddling about at 45p or whatever.
So in practice the Laffer Curve doesn't work. Thank you for clearing that up.
The Laffer Curve really just proffers the trivial points that if the government taxes at 0% it'll get no income, and if it taxes at 100% it'll get no income. The actual curve bit is just simplistic silliness that you shouldn't be basing entire economic models on.
Also short term v long term. If people have got kids in a good school they aren't moving because of a 60% top rate of tax.
But some people might not move to that country in the first place, or decide to move before those kids come along. That's the danger in Scotland with our higher taxes - we won't know for some time (or at all) if they've had a negative impact on growth.
Between 0% and 100% there is a complex function. Claiming that since there isn’t a single, simple curve, Lagfer was wrong and you can tax away as you like is equally silly.
Anecdotally, 50% tax on income seems to be a mental milestone for quite a few - that’s where it starts altering behaviour, for them.
Mr dog makes it to his eighteenth country (Copenhagen for scale)
Very nice. There are some great bars on that canal. Once sat there with my then wife and we got agreeably drunk of a sunny afternoon. Copenhagen is fun
Paris, New York, Barcelona have higher density square km sections.
From the website of the developer, it seems to be more scattered than a single block - like say the National Forest in Leics compared to continuous woodland.
Here's an idea. Instead of simply claiming mental health conditions aren't real, how about exerting some effort to explain why the rates are soaring? And make plans to treat and prevent them? Just a thought.
It's likely rates are mostly soaring because diagnosis is increasing. (I'm not saying that's a good or bad thing).
Mr dog makes it to his eighteenth country (Copenhagen for scale)
Very nice. There are some great bars on that canal. Once sat there with my then wife and we got agreeably drunk of a sunny afternoon. Copenhagen is fun
A tempting suggestion, but the afternoon ferry to Norway awaits shortly
So far every border we have crossed has been manned, with checks on the entered side. It seems the days of unmanned borders is coming to an end
Is there anyone who doesn't think the government should give them more money?
Why ?
A lot of this is down to a fall in demand for courses. Giving them more money won’t change that.
Is it? Universities lose money on every home student they teach, because the government caps the fees at below-cost. For a while, the plan was to shimmy round that by bringing in lots of foreign students paying shedloads. For various reasons (including, but not restricted to, fear of numbers of people coming to the UK) that model has blown up.
Suspect that puts universities in the same basket as a lot of other institutions. Yes they need more funding, yes that probably has to come from the taxpayer, no people won't be happy if the University of Theirtown closes down...
... but God forbid that taxes go up to pay for it.
Do they?
Thinking back to my own University days there were about 200 students in the lecture hall. Each student is paying close to £8000 in fees per annum.
That cohort then is paying between them £1.6mn in fees, even if they're all home students.
If the universities aren't able to make money on that, then maybe their costs are too high, rather than fees too low.
Some subjects they absolutely don't get close to covering the cost. Basically, most STEM subjects. Also, students are way more demanding now in what they expect the university to provide and since the government made it a market, they all have to provide these things.
For STEM subjects that are lecture theatre based I don't see why they can't make money, if ran efficiently. The latter part is an issue though.
For medicine/engineering etc there's more involved but compare the class sizes in lecture theatres to the class sizes in primary/high schools and there's little reason why lecture theatre-based courses aren't making money from home students.
Especially when students maybe have about 12-15 hours of lectures a week, not full time.
Other than maths, no STEM subject is just lecture thearte based, they all need labs and they are very expensive to run. Also, they aren't part-time, STEM subjects often are basically in either lectures or labs closer to 20-30hrs a week.
I definitely think in general universities aren't run very efficiently, but it is widely acknowledged that things like Chemistry, easily cost £15k / year / student to run due to all the extras that are required to be provided.
Actually even maths now isn't just sit in the lecture theatre and write down all this crazy stuff off the blackboard. There is a lot of interest in theory of ML, application of ML to solving really hard problems, and then you need PC labs with GPU clusters.
The cap on fees is ridiculous. The demand is there from the students but universities are suffering from inflation just as the wider economy is too. And add in the NI changes. Plus Uni academics have had the same pay deflation as medics over the same time.
It also a nonsense as some (well one) on here seem to believe a STEM course can be entirely lecture based. What world is he/she living on?
And lastly - the cap on fees is disadvantaging UK citizens. I'm admissions tutor for my course and I have been told that we will likely be in clearing for overseas students, but NOT for home. The uni sees overseas as more attractive because they pay more.
I have no doubt that universities could be better run. We employ a lot of staff that never teach students or do research. Bath has a very well resourced widening access team, aiming to get students from poorer, disadvantaged backgrounds to uni. Its a laudable aim but we pour money into it for relatively few bums on seats. Academics are constantly wasting time on admin tasks that aren't really important. And DEI plays a role here as we have to be hitting all our DEI targets etc.
But frankly the big one is the fees. Let unis charge more and let it become a proper market.
I never said all courses are entirely lecture based, however many courses are yet still face the same close to £10k in fees so swings and roundabouts.
For STEM subjects that are lecture based... Which ones are those then?
Economics if you class the quantitative side as STEM, that's what I studied my BSc in and it was predominantly lecture based.
As far as I understand it most mathematics/statistical courses, theoretical physics, computer science, quantitative economics etc are still predominantly lecture based at an undergraduate level.
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
Economics is not a science. And you are missing the small group teaching element - did you never have tutorials, workshops etc?
Have you never heard of BSc (Econ)?
My degree is also titled as a BSc(Econ) and like Barty I am a questionable economist. Scientific rigour is certainly missing. Although in my favour (and not Barty's) I think the Laffer Curve is nonsense.
The Laffer Curve is not nonsense, but most applications of it are.
Too often, including by Laffer himself, the Curve is used as a justification to cut the top-rate of tax on the highest earners without any evidence as to whether or why we are past the peak for that rate . . . while ignoring significantly real higher rates of tax that exist which are far more distorting, such as our cliff edges.
There are countless stories of people changing their behaviour at cliff edges, where tax rates approach or even exceed 100%, because they're rational. That's Laffer in action, rather than piddling about at 45p or whatever.
So in practice the Laffer Curve doesn't work. Thank you for clearing that up.
The Laffer Curve really just proffers the trivial points that if the government taxes at 0% it'll get no income, and if it taxes at 100% it'll get no income. The actual curve bit is just simplistic silliness that you shouldn't be basing entire economic models on.
Also short term v long term. If people have got kids in a good school they aren't moving because of a 60% top rate of tax.
But some people might not move to that country in the first place, or decide to move before those kids come along. That's the danger in Scotland with our higher taxes - we won't know for some time (or at all) if they've had a negative impact on growth.
Weirdly enough, the places where these people leave to when the 60% top rate comes in also have top schools. Amazingly these places, by having nice lifestyles, low taxes and being attractive to the wealthy are able to attract very good teachers and educational administrators as well as the rich parents of their young charges.
So the kids of the wealthy who leave who aren’t already boarding start boarding or go to one of the myriad of very good international schools in Geneva, Zurich, Dubai, Singapore etc.
The idea that kids being at a good day school in London or elsewhere is a huge restraint compared to the push from massive taxation is weak.
I have just been asked to write about A PARTICULAR SUBJECT
This has happened before. Difference this time is that it’s a well known foreign magazine. They’ve noticed my flinty opinions and are so keen on them they are happy for me to write in English and then they will translate into foreign
Hah. I’m becoming an international expert!
Have you ever considered writing a book about what Bangkok was like in the 80s and 90s?
I have just been asked to write about A PARTICULAR SUBJECT
This has happened before. Difference this time is that it’s a well known foreign magazine. They’ve noticed my flinty opinions and are so keen on them they are happy for me to write in English and then they will translate into foreign
Is there anyone who doesn't think the government should give them more money?
Why ?
A lot of this is down to a fall in demand for courses. Giving them more money won’t change that.
Is it? Universities lose money on every home student they teach, because the government caps the fees at below-cost. For a while, the plan was to shimmy round that by bringing in lots of foreign students paying shedloads. For various reasons (including, but not restricted to, fear of numbers of people coming to the UK) that model has blown up.
Suspect that puts universities in the same basket as a lot of other institutions. Yes they need more funding, yes that probably has to come from the taxpayer, no people won't be happy if the University of Theirtown closes down...
... but God forbid that taxes go up to pay for it.
Do they?
Thinking back to my own University days there were about 200 students in the lecture hall. Each student is paying close to £8000 in fees per annum.
That cohort then is paying between them £1.6mn in fees, even if they're all home students.
If the universities aren't able to make money on that, then maybe their costs are too high, rather than fees too low.
Some subjects they absolutely don't get close to covering the cost. Basically, most STEM subjects. Also, students are way more demanding now in what they expect the university to provide and since the government made it a market, they all have to provide these things.
For STEM subjects that are lecture theatre based I don't see why they can't make money, if ran efficiently. The latter part is an issue though.
For medicine/engineering etc there's more involved but compare the class sizes in lecture theatres to the class sizes in primary/high schools and there's little reason why lecture theatre-based courses aren't making money from home students.
Especially when students maybe have about 12-15 hours of lectures a week, not full time.
Other than maths, no STEM subject is just lecture thearte based, they all need labs and they are very expensive to run. Also, they aren't part-time, STEM subjects often are basically in either lectures or labs closer to 20-30hrs a week.
I definitely think in general universities aren't run very efficiently, but it is widely acknowledged that things like Chemistry, easily cost £15k / year / student to run due to all the extras that are required to be provided.
Actually even maths now isn't just sit in the lecture theatre and write down all this crazy stuff off the blackboard. There is a lot of interest in theory of ML, application of ML to solving really hard problems, and then you need PC labs with GPU clusters.
The cap on fees is ridiculous. The demand is there from the students but universities are suffering from inflation just as the wider economy is too. And add in the NI changes. Plus Uni academics have had the same pay deflation as medics over the same time.
It also a nonsense as some (well one) on here seem to believe a STEM course can be entirely lecture based. What world is he/she living on?
And lastly - the cap on fees is disadvantaging UK citizens. I'm admissions tutor for my course and I have been told that we will likely be in clearing for overseas students, but NOT for home. The uni sees overseas as more attractive because they pay more.
I have no doubt that universities could be better run. We employ a lot of staff that never teach students or do research. Bath has a very well resourced widening access team, aiming to get students from poorer, disadvantaged backgrounds to uni. Its a laudable aim but we pour money into it for relatively few bums on seats. Academics are constantly wasting time on admin tasks that aren't really important. And DEI plays a role here as we have to be hitting all our DEI targets etc.
But frankly the big one is the fees. Let unis charge more and let it become a proper market.
I never said all courses are entirely lecture based, however many courses are yet still face the same close to £10k in fees so swings and roundabouts.
For STEM subjects that are lecture based... Which ones are those then?
Economics if you class the quantitative side as STEM, that's what I studied my BSc in and it was predominantly lecture based.
As far as I understand it most mathematics/statistical courses, theoretical physics, computer science, quantitative economics etc are still predominantly lecture based at an undergraduate level.
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
Economics is not a science. And you are missing the small group teaching element - did you never have tutorials, workshops etc?
Economics can be a BSc or a BA depending upon the course. For my course it depended upon which modules you took, you needed enough mathematical ones, which I preferred anyway, to get awarded the BSc.
Yes there were tutorials but that was only a few hours per week and led by postgrad students.
Is there anyone who doesn't think the government should give them more money?
Why ?
A lot of this is down to a fall in demand for courses. Giving them more money won’t change that.
Is it? Universities lose money on every home student they teach, because the government caps the fees at below-cost. For a while, the plan was to shimmy round that by bringing in lots of foreign students paying shedloads. For various reasons (including, but not restricted to, fear of numbers of people coming to the UK) that model has blown up.
Suspect that puts universities in the same basket as a lot of other institutions. Yes they need more funding, yes that probably has to come from the taxpayer, no people won't be happy if the University of Theirtown closes down...
... but God forbid that taxes go up to pay for it.
Do they?
Thinking back to my own University days there were about 200 students in the lecture hall. Each student is paying close to £8000 in fees per annum.
That cohort then is paying between them £1.6mn in fees, even if they're all home students.
If the universities aren't able to make money on that, then maybe their costs are too high, rather than fees too low.
Some subjects they absolutely don't get close to covering the cost. Basically, most STEM subjects. Also, students are way more demanding now in what they expect the university to provide and since the government made it a market, they all have to provide these things.
For STEM subjects that are lecture theatre based I don't see why they can't make money, if ran efficiently. The latter part is an issue though.
For medicine/engineering etc there's more involved but compare the class sizes in lecture theatres to the class sizes in primary/high schools and there's little reason why lecture theatre-based courses aren't making money from home students.
Especially when students maybe have about 12-15 hours of lectures a week, not full time.
Other than maths, no STEM subject is just lecture thearte based, they all need labs and they are very expensive to run. Also, they aren't part-time, STEM subjects often are basically in either lectures or labs closer to 20-30hrs a week.
I definitely think in general universities aren't run very efficiently, but it is widely acknowledged that things like Chemistry, easily cost £15k / year / student to run due to all the extras that are required to be provided.
Actually even maths now isn't just sit in the lecture theatre and write down all this crazy stuff off the blackboard. There is a lot of interest in theory of ML, application of ML to solving really hard problems, and then you need PC labs with GPU clusters.
The cap on fees is ridiculous. The demand is there from the students but universities are suffering from inflation just as the wider economy is too. And add in the NI changes. Plus Uni academics have had the same pay deflation as medics over the same time.
It also a nonsense as some (well one) on here seem to believe a STEM course can be entirely lecture based. What world is he/she living on?
And lastly - the cap on fees is disadvantaging UK citizens. I'm admissions tutor for my course and I have been told that we will likely be in clearing for overseas students, but NOT for home. The uni sees overseas as more attractive because they pay more.
I have no doubt that universities could be better run. We employ a lot of staff that never teach students or do research. Bath has a very well resourced widening access team, aiming to get students from poorer, disadvantaged backgrounds to uni. Its a laudable aim but we pour money into it for relatively few bums on seats. Academics are constantly wasting time on admin tasks that aren't really important. And DEI plays a role here as we have to be hitting all our DEI targets etc.
But frankly the big one is the fees. Let unis charge more and let it become a proper market.
I never said all courses are entirely lecture based, however many courses are yet still face the same close to £10k in fees so swings and roundabouts.
For STEM subjects that are lecture based... Which ones are those then?
Economics if you class the quantitative side as STEM, that's what I studied my BSc in and it was predominantly lecture based.
As far as I understand it most mathematics/statistical courses, theoretical physics, computer science, quantitative economics etc are still predominantly lecture based at an undergraduate level.
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
Economics is not a science. And you are missing the small group teaching element - did you never have tutorials, workshops etc?
Have you never heard of BSc (Econ)?
My degree is also titled as a BSc(Econ) and like Barty I am a questionable economist. Scientific rigour is certainly missing. Although in my favour (and not Barty's) I think the Laffer Curve is nonsense.
The Laffer Curve is not nonsense, but most applications of it are.
Too often, including by Laffer himself, the Curve is used as a justification to cut the top-rate of tax on the highest earners without any evidence as to whether or why we are past the peak for that rate . . . while ignoring significantly real higher rates of tax that exist which are far more distorting, such as our cliff edges.
There are countless stories of people changing their behaviour at cliff edges, where tax rates approach or even exceed 100%, because they're rational. That's Laffer in action, rather than piddling about at 45p or whatever.
So in practice the Laffer Curve doesn't work. Thank you for clearing that up.
The Laffer Curve really just proffers the trivial points that if the government taxes at 0% it'll get no income, and if it taxes at 100% it'll get no income. The actual curve bit is just simplistic silliness that you shouldn't be basing entire economic models on.
Also short term v long term. If people have got kids in a good school they aren't moving because of a 60% top rate of tax.
But some people might not move to that country in the first place, or decide to move before those kids come along. That's the danger in Scotland with our higher taxes - we won't know for some time (or at all) if they've had a negative impact on growth.
Weirdly enough, the places where these people leave to when the 60% top rate comes in also have top schools. Amazingly these places, by having nice lifestyles, low taxes and being attractive to the wealthy are able to attract very good teachers and educational administrators as well as the rich parents of their young charges.
So the kids of the wealthy who leave who aren’t already boarding start boarding or go to one of the myriad of very good international schools in Geneva, Zurich, Dubai, Singapore etc.
The idea that kids being at a good day school in London or elsewhere is a huge restraint compared to the push from massive taxation is weak.
Changing schools at other than the traditional break points is definitely discouraging to moving around.
I have just been asked to write about A PARTICULAR SUBJECT
This has happened before. Difference this time is that it’s a well known foreign magazine. They’ve noticed my flinty opinions and are so keen on them they are happy for me to write in English and then they will translate into foreign
Hah. I’m becoming an international expert!
Is the subject about hookers and drugs?
No, but I could indeed write with even greater authority on Hookers and Drugs
Is there anyone who doesn't think the government should give them more money?
Why ?
A lot of this is down to a fall in demand for courses. Giving them more money won’t change that.
Is it? Universities lose money on every home student they teach, because the government caps the fees at below-cost. For a while, the plan was to shimmy round that by bringing in lots of foreign students paying shedloads. For various reasons (including, but not restricted to, fear of numbers of people coming to the UK) that model has blown up.
Suspect that puts universities in the same basket as a lot of other institutions. Yes they need more funding, yes that probably has to come from the taxpayer, no people won't be happy if the University of Theirtown closes down...
... but God forbid that taxes go up to pay for it.
Do they?
Thinking back to my own University days there were about 200 students in the lecture hall. Each student is paying close to £8000 in fees per annum.
That cohort then is paying between them £1.6mn in fees, even if they're all home students.
If the universities aren't able to make money on that, then maybe their costs are too high, rather than fees too low.
Some subjects they absolutely don't get close to covering the cost. Basically, most STEM subjects. Also, students are way more demanding now in what they expect the university to provide and since the government made it a market, they all have to provide these things.
For STEM subjects that are lecture theatre based I don't see why they can't make money, if ran efficiently. The latter part is an issue though.
For medicine/engineering etc there's more involved but compare the class sizes in lecture theatres to the class sizes in primary/high schools and there's little reason why lecture theatre-based courses aren't making money from home students.
Especially when students maybe have about 12-15 hours of lectures a week, not full time.
Other than maths, no STEM subject is just lecture thearte based, they all need labs and they are very expensive to run. Also, they aren't part-time, STEM subjects often are basically in either lectures or labs closer to 20-30hrs a week.
I definitely think in general universities aren't run very efficiently, but it is widely acknowledged that things like Chemistry, easily cost £15k / year / student to run due to all the extras that are required to be provided.
Actually even maths now isn't just sit in the lecture theatre and write down all this crazy stuff off the blackboard. There is a lot of interest in theory of ML, application of ML to solving really hard problems, and then you need PC labs with GPU clusters.
The cap on fees is ridiculous. The demand is there from the students but universities are suffering from inflation just as the wider economy is too. And add in the NI changes. Plus Uni academics have had the same pay deflation as medics over the same time.
It also a nonsense as some (well one) on here seem to believe a STEM course can be entirely lecture based. What world is he/she living on?
And lastly - the cap on fees is disadvantaging UK citizens. I'm admissions tutor for my course and I have been told that we will likely be in clearing for overseas students, but NOT for home. The uni sees overseas as more attractive because they pay more.
I have no doubt that universities could be better run. We employ a lot of staff that never teach students or do research. Bath has a very well resourced widening access team, aiming to get students from poorer, disadvantaged backgrounds to uni. Its a laudable aim but we pour money into it for relatively few bums on seats. Academics are constantly wasting time on admin tasks that aren't really important. And DEI plays a role here as we have to be hitting all our DEI targets etc.
But frankly the big one is the fees. Let unis charge more and let it become a proper market.
I never said all courses are entirely lecture based, however many courses are yet still face the same close to £10k in fees so swings and roundabouts.
For STEM subjects that are lecture based... Which ones are those then?
Economics if you class the quantitative side as STEM, that's what I studied my BSc in and it was predominantly lecture based.
As far as I understand it most mathematics/statistical courses, theoretical physics, computer science, quantitative economics etc are still predominantly lecture based at an undergraduate level.
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
Economics is not a science. And you are missing the small group teaching element - did you never have tutorials, workshops etc?
Have you never heard of BSc (Econ)?
My degree is also titled as a BSc(Econ) and like Barty I am a questionable economist. Scientific rigour is certainly missing. Although in my favour (and not Barty's) I think the Laffer Curve is nonsense.
The Laffer Curve is not nonsense, but most applications of it are.
Too often, including by Laffer himself, the Curve is used as a justification to cut the top-rate of tax on the highest earners without any evidence as to whether or why we are past the peak for that rate . . . while ignoring significantly real higher rates of tax that exist which are far more distorting, such as our cliff edges.
There are countless stories of people changing their behaviour at cliff edges, where tax rates approach or even exceed 100%, because they're rational. That's Laffer in action, rather than piddling about at 45p or whatever.
So in practice the Laffer Curve doesn't work. Thank you for clearing that up.
The Laffer Curve really just proffers the trivial points that if the government taxes at 0% it'll get no income, and if it taxes at 100% it'll get no income. The actual curve bit is just simplistic silliness that you shouldn't be basing entire economic models on.
Also short term v long term. If people have got kids in a good school they aren't moving because of a 60% top rate of tax.
But some people might not move to that country in the first place, or decide to move before those kids come along. That's the danger in Scotland with our higher taxes - we won't know for some time (or at all) if they've had a negative impact on growth.
Weirdly enough, the places where these people leave to when the 60% top rate comes in also have top schools. Amazingly these places, by having nice lifestyles, low taxes and being attractive to the wealthy are able to attract very good teachers and educational administrators as well as the rich parents of their young charges.
So the kids of the wealthy who leave who aren’t already boarding start boarding or go to one of the myriad of very good international schools in Geneva, Zurich, Dubai, Singapore etc.
The idea that kids being at a good day school in London or elsewhere is a huge restraint compared to the push from massive taxation is weak.
I meant if the kids are already in a school, already in a family home etc etc
The Elon Musk effect continues as Europe’s Tesla sales drop for fifth month in a row
Tesla's sales in Europe have plummeted for the fifth consecutive month, with new figures revealing a significant 28 per cent drop in May.
So? What will be the story in June when they top the sales chart again?
That Elon Musk has shut up about politics? That's the problem, not the cars.
No, the problem is maths. They are lapping 2025 figures vs 2024 figures. 2024 includes sales of the best selling car globally in 2024. Vs no sales in 2025. Deliveries only started properly in June.
The narrative is "nobody wants to buy a Tesla". Which is about to get demolished by like for like sales numbers in June.
What does "They are lapping 2025 figures vs 2024 figures" mean?
"Tesla’s UK car sales drop and took a major hit in May 2025, with a drop of over 45 percent compared to the same month last year. According to early data from various sources online suggest, Tesla registered only 1,758 cars, down sharply from 3,244 in May 2024. This decline happened even as the UK’s overall new car market grew by 4.3 percent year-on-year, with battery-electric vehicle (BEV) sales jumping by 28 percent. In short, more people are buying EVs — just not from Tesla."
A drop of 45%. Vs the same month in 2024.
In 2025 they were not selling the Model Y In 2024 they were selling the Model Y In 2024 the Model Y was the best selling car in the world
My point is simple - this news agenda is deliberately misleading.
You are also being a bit misleading; there was (and is) plenty of "legacy" Tesla Model Y stock available for sale, often at very good prices.
So it is not the case that Model Y sales dropped to zero in May due to the existence of the new Model Y.
I made a video where there were literally 11 cars left in UK inventory. So I do speak with facts in mind.
I found these in 30 seconds on Tesla's UK website. All legacy model Ys. All available new for delivery now.
And these are hardly the only legacy Model Y's on there. They're just first ones on the first few pages.
And as it's currently the end of June, so I think we can reasonably conclude they sold some last month.
"A tube passenger who killed a commuter with one punch after he brushed past him on an escalator will serve less than five and a half years in jail before being eligible for parole. Rakeem Miles, 23, was convicted of manslaughter at Inner London crown court and sentenced to eight years in jail over the death of Samuel Winter, 28, last August."
Here's an idea. Instead of simply claiming mental health conditions aren't real, how about exerting some effort to explain why the rates are soaring? And make plans to treat and prevent them? Just a thought.
We could nationally commission some effective mental health apps for not much money and a lot of impact... but we don't.
The Elon Musk effect continues as Europe’s Tesla sales drop for fifth month in a row
Tesla's sales in Europe have plummeted for the fifth consecutive month, with new figures revealing a significant 28 per cent drop in May.
So? What will be the story in June when they top the sales chart again?
That Elon Musk has shut up about politics? That's the problem, not the cars.
No, the problem is maths. They are lapping 2025 figures vs 2024 figures. 2024 includes sales of the best selling car globally in 2024. Vs no sales in 2025. Deliveries only started properly in June.
The narrative is "nobody wants to buy a Tesla". Which is about to get demolished by like for like sales numbers in June.
Have you noticed any change in comments to your Tesla Youtube channel since Musk split from Trump?
Is there anyone who doesn't think the government should give them more money?
Why ?
A lot of this is down to a fall in demand for courses. Giving them more money won’t change that.
Is it? Universities lose money on every home student they teach, because the government caps the fees at below-cost. For a while, the plan was to shimmy round that by bringing in lots of foreign students paying shedloads. For various reasons (including, but not restricted to, fear of numbers of people coming to the UK) that model has blown up.
Suspect that puts universities in the same basket as a lot of other institutions. Yes they need more funding, yes that probably has to come from the taxpayer, no people won't be happy if the University of Theirtown closes down...
... but God forbid that taxes go up to pay for it.
Do they?
Thinking back to my own University days there were about 200 students in the lecture hall. Each student is paying close to £8000 in fees per annum.
That cohort then is paying between them £1.6mn in fees, even if they're all home students.
If the universities aren't able to make money on that, then maybe their costs are too high, rather than fees too low.
Some subjects they absolutely don't get close to covering the cost. Basically, most STEM subjects. Also, students are way more demanding now in what they expect the university to provide and since the government made it a market, they all have to provide these things.
For STEM subjects that are lecture theatre based I don't see why they can't make money, if ran efficiently. The latter part is an issue though.
For medicine/engineering etc there's more involved but compare the class sizes in lecture theatres to the class sizes in primary/high schools and there's little reason why lecture theatre-based courses aren't making money from home students.
Especially when students maybe have about 12-15 hours of lectures a week, not full time.
Other than maths, no STEM subject is just lecture thearte based, they all need labs and they are very expensive to run. Also, they aren't part-time, STEM subjects often are basically in either lectures or labs closer to 20-30hrs a week.
I definitely think in general universities aren't run very efficiently, but it is widely acknowledged that things like Chemistry, easily cost £15k / year / student to run due to all the extras that are required to be provided.
Actually even maths now isn't just sit in the lecture theatre and write down all this crazy stuff off the blackboard. There is a lot of interest in theory of ML, application of ML to solving really hard problems, and then you need PC labs with GPU clusters.
The cap on fees is ridiculous. The demand is there from the students but universities are suffering from inflation just as the wider economy is too. And add in the NI changes. Plus Uni academics have had the same pay deflation as medics over the same time.
It also a nonsense as some (well one) on here seem to believe a STEM course can be entirely lecture based. What world is he/she living on?
And lastly - the cap on fees is disadvantaging UK citizens. I'm admissions tutor for my course and I have been told that we will likely be in clearing for overseas students, but NOT for home. The uni sees overseas as more attractive because they pay more.
I have no doubt that universities could be better run. We employ a lot of staff that never teach students or do research. Bath has a very well resourced widening access team, aiming to get students from poorer, disadvantaged backgrounds to uni. Its a laudable aim but we pour money into it for relatively few bums on seats. Academics are constantly wasting time on admin tasks that aren't really important. And DEI plays a role here as we have to be hitting all our DEI targets etc.
But frankly the big one is the fees. Let unis charge more and let it become a proper market.
I never said all courses are entirely lecture based, however many courses are yet still face the same close to £10k in fees so swings and roundabouts.
For STEM subjects that are lecture based... Which ones are those then?
Economics if you class the quantitative side as STEM, that's what I studied my BSc in and it was predominantly lecture based.
As far as I understand it most mathematics/statistical courses, theoretical physics, computer science, quantitative economics etc are still predominantly lecture based at an undergraduate level.
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
Economics is not a science. And you are missing the small group teaching element - did you never have tutorials, workshops etc?
Have you never heard of BSc (Econ)?
My degree is also titled as a BSc(Econ) and like Barty I am a questionable economist. Scientific rigour is certainly missing. Although in my favour (and not Barty's) I think the Laffer Curve is nonsense.
The Laffer Curve is not nonsense, but most applications of it are.
Too often, including by Laffer himself, the Curve is used as a justification to cut the top-rate of tax on the highest earners without any evidence as to whether or why we are past the peak for that rate . . . while ignoring significantly real higher rates of tax that exist which are far more distorting, such as our cliff edges.
There are countless stories of people changing their behaviour at cliff edges, where tax rates approach or even exceed 100%, because they're rational. That's Laffer in action, rather than piddling about at 45p or whatever.
I’ve sat across from people saying they don’t want to work more hours, because of benefit withdrawal creating an 80% effective tax rate on the extra hours.
Is there anyone who doesn't think the government should give them more money?
Why ?
A lot of this is down to a fall in demand for courses. Giving them more money won’t change that.
Is it? Universities lose money on every home student they teach, because the government caps the fees at below-cost. For a while, the plan was to shimmy round that by bringing in lots of foreign students paying shedloads. For various reasons (including, but not restricted to, fear of numbers of people coming to the UK) that model has blown up.
Suspect that puts universities in the same basket as a lot of other institutions. Yes they need more funding, yes that probably has to come from the taxpayer, no people won't be happy if the University of Theirtown closes down...
... but God forbid that taxes go up to pay for it.
Do they?
Thinking back to my own University days there were about 200 students in the lecture hall. Each student is paying close to £8000 in fees per annum.
That cohort then is paying between them £1.6mn in fees, even if they're all home students.
If the universities aren't able to make money on that, then maybe their costs are too high, rather than fees too low.
Some subjects they absolutely don't get close to covering the cost. Basically, most STEM subjects. Also, students are way more demanding now in what they expect the university to provide and since the government made it a market, they all have to provide these things.
For STEM subjects that are lecture theatre based I don't see why they can't make money, if ran efficiently. The latter part is an issue though.
For medicine/engineering etc there's more involved but compare the class sizes in lecture theatres to the class sizes in primary/high schools and there's little reason why lecture theatre-based courses aren't making money from home students.
Especially when students maybe have about 12-15 hours of lectures a week, not full time.
Other than maths, no STEM subject is just lecture thearte based, they all need labs and they are very expensive to run. Also, they aren't part-time, STEM subjects often are basically in either lectures or labs closer to 20-30hrs a week.
I definitely think in general universities aren't run very efficiently, but it is widely acknowledged that things like Chemistry, easily cost £15k / year / student to run due to all the extras that are required to be provided.
Actually even maths now isn't just sit in the lecture theatre and write down all this crazy stuff off the blackboard. There is a lot of interest in theory of ML, application of ML to solving really hard problems, and then you need PC labs with GPU clusters.
The cap on fees is ridiculous. The demand is there from the students but universities are suffering from inflation just as the wider economy is too. And add in the NI changes. Plus Uni academics have had the same pay deflation as medics over the same time.
It also a nonsense as some (well one) on here seem to believe a STEM course can be entirely lecture based. What world is he/she living on?
And lastly - the cap on fees is disadvantaging UK citizens. I'm admissions tutor for my course and I have been told that we will likely be in clearing for overseas students, but NOT for home. The uni sees overseas as more attractive because they pay more.
I have no doubt that universities could be better run. We employ a lot of staff that never teach students or do research. Bath has a very well resourced widening access team, aiming to get students from poorer, disadvantaged backgrounds to uni. Its a laudable aim but we pour money into it for relatively few bums on seats. Academics are constantly wasting time on admin tasks that aren't really important. And DEI plays a role here as we have to be hitting all our DEI targets etc.
But frankly the big one is the fees. Let unis charge more and let it become a proper market.
I never said all courses are entirely lecture based, however many courses are yet still face the same close to £10k in fees so swings and roundabouts.
For STEM subjects that are lecture based... Which ones are those then?
Economics if you class the quantitative side as STEM, that's what I studied my BSc in and it was predominantly lecture based.
As far as I understand it most mathematics/statistical courses, theoretical physics, computer science, quantitative economics etc are still predominantly lecture based at an undergraduate level.
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
Economics is not a science. And you are missing the small group teaching element - did you never have tutorials, workshops etc?
Have you never heard of BSc (Econ)?
My degree is also titled as a BSc(Econ) and like Barty I am a questionable economist. Scientific rigour is certainly missing. Although in my favour (and not Barty's) I think the Laffer Curve is nonsense.
The Laffer Curve is not nonsense, but most applications of it are.
Too often, including by Laffer himself, the Curve is used as a justification to cut the top-rate of tax on the highest earners without any evidence as to whether or why we are past the peak for that rate . . . while ignoring significantly real higher rates of tax that exist which are far more distorting, such as our cliff edges.
There are countless stories of people changing their behaviour at cliff edges, where tax rates approach or even exceed 100%, because they're rational. That's Laffer in action, rather than piddling about at 45p or whatever.
So in practice the Laffer Curve doesn't work. Thank you for clearing that up.
The Laffer Curve really just proffers the trivial points that if the government taxes at 0% it'll get no income, and if it taxes at 100% it'll get no income. The actual curve bit is just simplistic silliness that you shouldn't be basing entire economic models on.
Also short term v long term. If people have got kids in a good school they aren't moving because of a 60% top rate of tax.
But some people might not move to that country in the first place, or decide to move before those kids come along. That's the danger in Scotland with our higher taxes - we won't know for some time (or at all) if they've had a negative impact on growth.
Weirdly enough, the places where these people leave to when the 60% top rate comes in also have top schools. Amazingly these places, by having nice lifestyles, low taxes and being attractive to the wealthy are able to attract very good teachers and educational administrators as well as the rich parents of their young charges.
So the kids of the wealthy who leave who aren’t already boarding start boarding or go to one of the myriad of very good international schools in Geneva, Zurich, Dubai, Singapore etc.
The idea that kids being at a good day school in London or elsewhere is a huge restraint compared to the push from massive taxation is weak.
Changing schools at other than the traditional break points is definitely discouraging to moving around.
I have met a couple of families who are leaving who have had concerns and they have both approached it by the husband moving offshore with the business and the money, selling the UK assets and renting a UK property for the wife and children during term time. It’s not perfect but it’s happening.
Otherwise the schools are good and there isn’t the major fear of downgrading the children’s education.
Mr dog makes it to his eighteenth country (Copenhagen for scale)
Very nice. There are some great bars on that canal. Once sat there with my then wife and we got agreeably drunk of a sunny afternoon. Copenhagen is fun
A tempting suggestion, but the afternoon ferry to Norway awaits shortly
So far every border we have crossed has been manned, with checks on the entered side. It seems the days of unmanned borders is coming to an end
Yes they are and it’s sad. Someone wrote about it in the Spec
Here's an idea. Instead of simply claiming mental health conditions aren't real, how about exerting some effort to explain why the rates are soaring? And make plans to treat and prevent them? Just a thought.
100% agree. It can take around 4 months to access any kind of mental health support other than medication on the NHS. Sort that out first and then talk about reforming benefits otherwise you're stranding people with no support or income. There are so many people who think that mental health issues are just feeling a bit sad. It can be just as crippling as a physical illness.
4 months for any kind, yes. For specifics, the waiting list for adult ADHD assessment in my area is 2 and a half years. That's just to get on a list to see a prescriber. For adult autism it is seven years as long as you don't present a physical threat to yourself or others. Commit a crime or suicide to get a diagnosis. Imagine if it were that for cancer...
Guido can exclusively reveal that in the background Labour has been busy negotiating a one in, one out asylum seeker deal with the French for revelation within days. It’s a big policy – intended to be unveiled for Starmer’s one-year anniversary as a rabbit…
The policy is intended to break the small boats model – a percentage of asylum seekers will be returned to France on landing while the same number of applicants at the asylum processing centre in Paris will be accepted.
I'm sure this got trailed shortly after the election, then vanished without trace.
I can't see why the French would agree to this unless there is a catch we're not being told about. It's generally assumed that the French would prefer their asylum seekers to find their way to the UK, which is why they don't try very hard to stop them boarding boats in the first place.
If the French agree to accept boat returnees back, it will kill the boats dead - that's the point of the returns. So any deal with the French where the carrot for the French is per returnee will be a bad deal for France. We could pay them £1m a returnee, and they'd still get virtually nothing after the first couple of weeks as £1m * zero is still zero.
So either: a) This agreement isn't going to let us return all the boat arrivals, and thus the boats won't stop b) There is some other massive carrot been given the French that hasn't been leaked yet c) The French are terrible at negotiating or d) This is the agreement Starmer would like, but the French won't agree it in a million years.
My money is on some combination of (a) and (b) in which we pay the French loads of money and fail to return enough people to stop the boats.
I've made sure I've laid in enough salt for the YouGov MRP this morning though they did the LD seat number right last year. Perhaps they have it right now...
East Ham would end up 42% Labour, 15% Green, 14% Reform, 10% Conservative and 10% Other. I'm a long way from convinced by that given current trends.
MRPs missed the locally based Independents last time and could well do so again as that vote is concentrated in perhaps 30 seats.
YouGov said they may be missing some independents as they aren't asking about individual candidates at this stage (as candidates aren't known).
Overall, I would say this MRP feels more sensible than the other one. Main surprise is they have Reform winning seats in Scotland (Dumfries and DCT from the Cons and Ayr from Lab)
I was playimg about with figures after looking at the MRPs with a Tory 'Lib Dem 2015' collapse to almost extinction and was drawing up a list of seats i cannot see the Tories losing under any circumstances next time. I currently see no way they lose
Harrow East Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner Croydon South Hertsmere Windsor Beaconsfield Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk Dumfriesshire Mid Bucks Rutland and Stamford Kenilworth and Southam Chester South and Eddisbury
So in my mind the absolute worst case Tory result (this time) is just over 10 seats
In all likelihood I think 20 is probably their true floor and 200 their absolute ceiling on recovery to mid twenties % with Ref and Lab on similar
"A tube passenger who killed a commuter with one punch after he brushed past him on an escalator will serve less than five and a half years in jail before being eligible for parole. Rakeem Miles, 23, was convicted of manslaughter at Inner London crown court and sentenced to eight years in jail over the death of Samuel Winter, 28, last August."
Still no clue as to his housing status.
This is such a sad case. The poor victim looks like he wouldn’t say boo to a goose, and from what we know of him, was a kind and compassionate young man.
Guido can exclusively reveal that in the background Labour has been busy negotiating a one in, one out asylum seeker deal with the French for revelation within days. It’s a big policy – intended to be unveiled for Starmer’s one-year anniversary as a rabbit…
The policy is intended to break the small boats model – a percentage of asylum seekers will be returned to France on landing while the same number of applicants at the asylum processing centre in Paris will be accepted.
I'm sure this got trailed shortly after the election, then vanished without trace.
I can't see why the French would agree to this unless there is a catch we're not being told about. It's generally assumed that the French would prefer their asylum seekers to find their way to the UK, which is why they don't try very hard to stop them boarding boats in the first place.
If the French agree to accept boat returnees back, it will kill the boats dead - that's the point of the returns. So any deal with the French where the carrot for the French is per returnee will be a bad deal for France. We could pay them £1m a returnee, and they'd still get virtually nothing after the first couple of weeks as £1m * zero is still zero.
So either: a) This agreement isn't going to let us return all the boat arrivals, and thus the boats won't stop b) There is some other massive carrot been given the French that hasn't been leaked yet c) The French are terrible at negotiating or d) This is the agreement Starmer would like, but the French won't agree it in a million years.
My money is on some combination of (a) and (b) in which we pay the French loads of money and fail to return enough people to stop the boats.
I have just been asked to write about A PARTICULAR SUBJECT
This has happened before. Difference this time is that it’s a well known foreign magazine. They’ve noticed my flinty opinions and are so keen on them they are happy for me to write in English and then they will translate into foreign
Hah. I’m becoming an international expert!
The paradox is that if you are right about APS then you could get APS to write the article for you and translate it. Or they could.
Unless you mean age verification on porn sites which we discussed earlier.
"DAN HODGES: Keir Starmer's time is up and his party 'have had enough'. That's the withering verdict from his own MPs... and this is what they tell me is coming next"
Of course, this is Hodges we're dealing with here, but if he's right I wonder if Sir Keir's 'noises off' will be recorded as his death knell, akin to 'crisis what crisis?', 'basket of deplorables' etc. That moment when the person in charge seems irreparably aloof and high handed.
The issue here is that assuming Starmer doesn't leave voluntarily, then they can't just VONC him. Someone has to stand against him directly and then it goes to the members to vote.
If it's going to happen the realistic timeframe is May 26 - especially if Lab come 3rd in Scotland and Wales
I have just been asked to write about A PARTICULAR SUBJECT
This has happened before. Difference this time is that it’s a well known foreign magazine. They’ve noticed my flinty opinions and are so keen on them they are happy for me to write in English and then they will translate into foreign
"DAN HODGES: Keir Starmer's time is up and his party 'have had enough'. That's the withering verdict from his own MPs... and this is what they tell me is coming next"
Of course, this is Hodges we're dealing with here, but if he's right I wonder if Sir Keir's 'noises off' will be recorded as his death knell, akin to 'crisis what crisis?', 'basket of deplorables' etc. That moment when the person in charge seems irreparably aloof and high handed.
The issue here is that assuming Starmer doesn't leave voluntarily, then they can't just VONC him. Someone has to stand against him directly and then it goes to the members to vote.
If it's going to happen the realistic timeframe is May 26 - especially if Lab come 3rd in Scotland and Wales
"DAN HODGES: Keir Starmer's time is up and his party 'have had enough'. That's the withering verdict from his own MPs... and this is what they tell me is coming next"
Of course, this is Hodges we're dealing with here, but if he's right I wonder if Sir Keir's 'noises off' will be recorded as his death knell, akin to 'crisis what crisis?', 'basket of deplorables' etc. That moment when the person in charge seems irreparably aloof and high handed.
The issue here is that assuming Starmer doesn't leave voluntarily, then they can't just VONC him. Someone has to stand against him directly and then it goes to the members to vote.
If it's going to happen the realistic timeframe is May 26 - especially if Lab come 3rd in Scotland and Wales
A small point, but this was reported in The Guardian live blog a couple of hours ago:
"In her response to Starmer, Badenoch suggested that, if the US were to use its based on Diego Garcia to launch an attack on a country like Iran, the UK would have to notify Mauritius first under the terms of the government’s Chagos Islands deal.
In response, Starmer said this was not true. He said:
In relation to Diego Garcia, let me disabuse her. We do not have to give Mauritius advance notice under the treaty."
Whilst I'm musing on the subject of MRPs and seats, the nature of FPTP and 4.75 party politics (Greens got an upgrade of 0.25) means that on getting 40% in any seat you're pretty much guaranteed to win it. At 35% you're likely to win it, at 30% youve a chance. Thus a party on mid thirties or above in polling is going to win massively, everywhere, at 30% if you are 5% clear you almost certainly get a majority or working minority Conversely, once you hit 20% nationally, Unless your vote is hopelessly equally spread you are definitely winning your best seats My point (such as it is) is that 26, 23, 18, 15, 11 is within MoE of a VERY different HoC
"DAN HODGES: Keir Starmer's time is up and his party 'have had enough'. That's the withering verdict from his own MPs... and this is what they tell me is coming next"
Of course, this is Hodges we're dealing with here, but if he's right I wonder if Sir Keir's 'noises off' will be recorded as his death knell, akin to 'crisis what crisis?', 'basket of deplorables' etc. That moment when the person in charge seems irreparably aloof and high handed.
The issue here is that assuming Starmer doesn't leave voluntarily, then they can't just VONC him. Someone has to stand against him directly and then it goes to the members to vote.
If it's going to happen the realistic timeframe is May 26 - especially if Lab come 3rd in Scotland and Wales
Mr dog makes it to his eighteenth country (Copenhagen for scale)
Very nice. There are some great bars on that canal. Once sat there with my then wife and we got agreeably drunk of a sunny afternoon. Copenhagen is fun
A tempting suggestion, but the afternoon ferry to Norway awaits shortly
So far every border we have crossed has been manned, with checks on the entered side. It seems the days of unmanned borders is coming to an end
Yes they are and it’s sad. Someone wrote about it in the Spec
A small point, but this was reported in The Guardian live blog a couple of hours ago:
"In her response to Starmer, Badenoch suggested that, if the US were to use its based on Diego Garcia to launch an attack on a country like Iran, the UK would have to notify Mauritius first under the terms of the government’s Chagos Islands deal.
In response, Starmer said this was not true. He said:
In relation to Diego Garcia, let me disabuse her. We do not have to give Mauritius advance notice under the treaty."
They said "prompt notice" I think in the document. Which could mean telling them shortly afterward, not before.
"DAN HODGES: Keir Starmer's time is up and his party 'have had enough'. That's the withering verdict from his own MPs... and this is what they tell me is coming next"
Of course, this is Hodges we're dealing with here, but if he's right I wonder if Sir Keir's 'noises off' will be recorded as his death knell, akin to 'crisis what crisis?', 'basket of deplorables' etc. That moment when the person in charge seems irreparably aloof and high handed.
The issue here is that assuming Starmer doesn't leave voluntarily, then they can't just VONC him. Someone has to stand against him directly and then it goes to the members to vote.
If it's going to happen the realistic timeframe is May 26 - especially if Lab come 3rd in Scotland and Wales
(4th in Wales) 😉
Behind Plaid, Ref and who else?
In votes they probably hold 3rd, but if they really get hammered by the voters I can see Tories pipping them for seats with a fortunate spread. That's NOT a prediction and isnt likely but they are close enough in some of the polling that if the voters really want to hammer them and they have gone a bit backwards (let's say they are polling slightly behind Tories nationally in third by next May) then its not impossible. 10% chance right now I think
7 points and 5 points difference in the last 2 polls, 2 point swing between them and its drawn into mathematically possible to tie or lose on seats depending how the votes spread
A small point, but this was reported in The Guardian live blog a couple of hours ago:
"In her response to Starmer, Badenoch suggested that, if the US were to use its based on Diego Garcia to launch an attack on a country like Iran, the UK would have to notify Mauritius first under the terms of the government’s Chagos Islands deal.
In response, Starmer said this was not true. He said:
In relation to Diego Garcia, let me disabuse her. We do not have to give Mauritius advance notice under the treaty."
They said "prompt notice" I think in the document. Which could mean telling them shortly afterward, not before.
After which it would hardly be unknown to the rest of the world anyway.
Of all the aspects of the deal, this seems a bit nothingburger.
"DAN HODGES: Keir Starmer's time is up and his party 'have had enough'. That's the withering verdict from his own MPs... and this is what they tell me is coming next"
Of course, this is Hodges we're dealing with here, but if he's right I wonder if Sir Keir's 'noises off' will be recorded as his death knell, akin to 'crisis what crisis?', 'basket of deplorables' etc. That moment when the person in charge seems irreparably aloof and high handed.
The issue here is that assuming Starmer doesn't leave voluntarily, then they can't just VONC him. Someone has to stand against him directly and then it goes to the members to vote.
If it's going to happen the realistic timeframe is May 26 - especially if Lab come 3rd in Scotland and Wales
(4th in Wales) 😉
Are you expecting a Green or LD surge?
Greens nil points, LDs might get 7% and 4 or 5 seats
Guido can exclusively reveal that in the background Labour has been busy negotiating a one in, one out asylum seeker deal with the French for revelation within days. It’s a big policy – intended to be unveiled for Starmer’s one-year anniversary as a rabbit…
The policy is intended to break the small boats model – a percentage of asylum seekers will be returned to France on landing while the same number of applicants at the asylum processing centre in Paris will be accepted.
I'm sure this got trailed shortly after the election, then vanished without trace.
I can't see why the French would agree to this unless there is a catch we're not being told about. It's generally assumed that the French would prefer their asylum seekers to find their way to the UK, which is why they don't try very hard to stop them boarding boats in the first place.
If the French agree to accept boat returnees back, it will kill the boats dead - that's the point of the returns. So any deal with the French where the carrot for the French is per returnee will be a bad deal for France. We could pay them £1m a returnee, and they'd still get virtually nothing after the first couple of weeks as £1m * zero is still zero.
So either: a) This agreement isn't going to let us return all the boat arrivals, and thus the boats won't stop b) There is some other massive carrot been given the French that hasn't been leaked yet c) The French are terrible at negotiating or d) This is the agreement Starmer would like, but the French won't agree it in a million years.
My money is on some combination of (a) and (b) in which we pay the French loads of money and fail to return enough people to stop the boats.
We've already given the French lots of carrots.
Indeed. We currently pay the French loads of money without making an appreciable dent in the boat numbers.
In what parallel universe would the French be keen to end this handy cash cow which also rids them of thousands of unwanted migrants with a deal from which they get nothing.
Thinking about it, I think if I was negotiating with the French, I would try and align all our incentives. I'd try for a deal something like this: Give them £500m a year to "help police the border". Every illegal arrival is £10k deducted from this, so if arrivals continue at the present rate, they get £0. As a goodwill gesture, we don't deduct the £10k for an illegal who is accepted for immediate return.
Boom. Incentives align. Everyone wins if there are zero arrivals. The French get a pile of cash for nothing. We get to return every arrival immediately, so shortly afterwards there are zero arrivals. It costs almost nothing to police, beyond the odd UK coastguard sweep to round up the ones trying to make it into the black economy. We save more on asylum hotels than we are paying the French.
I have just been asked to write about A PARTICULAR SUBJECT
This has happened before. Difference this time is that it’s a well known foreign magazine. They’ve noticed my flinty opinions and are so keen on them they are happy for me to write in English and then they will translate into foreign
I have just been asked to write about A PARTICULAR SUBJECT
This has happened before. Difference this time is that it’s a well known foreign magazine. They’ve noticed my flinty opinions and are so keen on them they are happy for me to write in English and then they will translate into foreign
I was playimg about with figures after looking at the MRPs with a Tory 'Lib Dem 2015' collapse to almost extinction and was drawing up a list of seats i cannot see the Tories losing under any circumstances next time. I currently see no way they lose
Harrow East Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner Croydon South Hertsmere Windsor Beaconsfield Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk Dumfriesshire Mid Bucks Rutland and Stamford Kenilworth and Southam Chester South and Eddisbury
So in my mind the absolute worst case Tory result (this time) is just over 10 seats
In all likelihood I think 20 is probably their true floor and 200 their absolute ceiling on recovery to mid twenties % with Ref and Lab on similar
And we are within movement seen during the first half of 2025 of all of those happening
I haven't checked the others but why on earth could the Tories not lose Windsor. This area has been strong for the LDs and although boundary changes made it safer for the Tories the last result was:
Con 16.5K Lab 10K LD 9.5K
That looks very winnable to me for the LDs and certainly not in the Tory rock solid category.
On another matter I notice that the MRP today gave a few seats to Reform in Devon and Cornwall with 4 party splits and all quite close. I suspect tactical voting will give some of those to the LDs who will target and squeeze the Tory/Lab vote.
Is there anyone who doesn't think the government should give them more money?
Why ?
A lot of this is down to a fall in demand for courses. Giving them more money won’t change that.
Is it? Universities lose money on every home student they teach, because the government caps the fees at below-cost. For a while, the plan was to shimmy round that by bringing in lots of foreign students paying shedloads. For various reasons (including, but not restricted to, fear of numbers of people coming to the UK) that model has blown up.
Suspect that puts universities in the same basket as a lot of other institutions. Yes they need more funding, yes that probably has to come from the taxpayer, no people won't be happy if the University of Theirtown closes down...
... but God forbid that taxes go up to pay for it.
Do they?
Thinking back to my own University days there were about 200 students in the lecture hall. Each student is paying close to £8000 in fees per annum.
That cohort then is paying between them £1.6mn in fees, even if they're all home students.
If the universities aren't able to make money on that, then maybe their costs are too high, rather than fees too low.
Some subjects they absolutely don't get close to covering the cost. Basically, most STEM subjects. Also, students are way more demanding now in what they expect the university to provide and since the government made it a market, they all have to provide these things.
For STEM subjects that are lecture theatre based I don't see why they can't make money, if ran efficiently. The latter part is an issue though.
For medicine/engineering etc there's more involved but compare the class sizes in lecture theatres to the class sizes in primary/high schools and there's little reason why lecture theatre-based courses aren't making money from home students.
Especially when students maybe have about 12-15 hours of lectures a week, not full time.
Other than maths, no STEM subject is just lecture thearte based, they all need labs and they are very expensive to run. Also, they aren't part-time, STEM subjects often are basically in either lectures or labs closer to 20-30hrs a week.
I definitely think in general universities aren't run very efficiently, but it is widely acknowledged that things like Chemistry, easily cost £15k / year / student to run due to all the extras that are required to be provided.
Actually even maths now isn't just sit in the lecture theatre and write down all this crazy stuff off the blackboard. There is a lot of interest in theory of ML, application of ML to solving really hard problems, and then you need PC labs with GPU clusters.
The cap on fees is ridiculous. The demand is there from the students but universities are suffering from inflation just as the wider economy is too. And add in the NI changes. Plus Uni academics have had the same pay deflation as medics over the same time.
It also a nonsense as some (well one) on here seem to believe a STEM course can be entirely lecture based. What world is he/she living on?
And lastly - the cap on fees is disadvantaging UK citizens. I'm admissions tutor for my course and I have been told that we will likely be in clearing for overseas students, but NOT for home. The uni sees overseas as more attractive because they pay more.
I have no doubt that universities could be better run. We employ a lot of staff that never teach students or do research. Bath has a very well resourced widening access team, aiming to get students from poorer, disadvantaged backgrounds to uni. Its a laudable aim but we pour money into it for relatively few bums on seats. Academics are constantly wasting time on admin tasks that aren't really important. And DEI plays a role here as we have to be hitting all our DEI targets etc.
But frankly the big one is the fees. Let unis charge more and let it become a proper market.
I never said all courses are entirely lecture based, however many courses are yet still face the same close to £10k in fees so swings and roundabouts.
For STEM subjects that are lecture based... Which ones are those then?
Economics if you class the quantitative side as STEM, that's what I studied my BSc in and it was predominantly lecture based.
As far as I understand it most mathematics/statistical courses, theoretical physics, computer science, quantitative economics etc are still predominantly lecture based at an undergraduate level.
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
Economics is not a science. And you are missing the small group teaching element - did you never have tutorials, workshops etc?
Have you never heard of BSc (Econ)?
My degree is also titled as a BSc(Econ) and like Barty I am a questionable economist. Scientific rigour is certainly missing. Although in my favour (and not Barty's) I think the Laffer Curve is nonsense.
The Laffer Curve is not nonsense, but most applications of it are.
Too often, including by Laffer himself, the Curve is used as a justification to cut the top-rate of tax on the highest earners without any evidence as to whether or why we are past the peak for that rate . . . while ignoring significantly real higher rates of tax that exist which are far more distorting, such as our cliff edges.
There are countless stories of people changing their behaviour at cliff edges, where tax rates approach or even exceed 100%, because they're rational. That's Laffer in action, rather than piddling about at 45p or whatever.
So in practice the Laffer Curve doesn't work. Thank you for clearing that up.
In practice it absolutely works.
Like all economics how it works is a matter for debate.
I have just been asked to write about A PARTICULAR SUBJECT
This has happened before. Difference this time is that it’s a well known foreign magazine. They’ve noticed my flinty opinions and are so keen on them they are happy for me to write in English and then they will translate into foreign
Hah. I’m becoming an international expert!
This has always confused me. Isn't the clever use of a language lost once translated?
On another matter, I noted you said, yesterday I think, you were looking for a life change in the next few years. What did you have in mind?
I was playimg about with figures after looking at the MRPs with a Tory 'Lib Dem 2015' collapse to almost extinction and was drawing up a list of seats i cannot see the Tories losing under any circumstances next time. I currently see no way they lose
Harrow East Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner Croydon South Hertsmere Windsor Beaconsfield Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk Dumfriesshire Mid Bucks Rutland and Stamford Kenilworth and Southam Chester South and Eddisbury
So in my mind the absolute worst case Tory result (this time) is just over 10 seats
In all likelihood I think 20 is probably their true floor and 200 their absolute ceiling on recovery to mid twenties % with Ref and Lab on similar
And we are within movement seen during the first half of 2025 of all of those happening
I haven't checked the others but why on earth could the Tories not lose Windsor. This area has been strong for the LDs and although boundary changes made it safer for the Tories the last result was:
Con 16.5K Lab 10K LD 9.5K
That looks very winnable to me for the LDs and certainly not in the Tory rock solid category.
On another matter I notice that the MRP today gave a few seats to Reform in Devon and Cornwall with 4 party splits and all quite close. I suspect tactical voting will give some of those to the LDs who will target and squeeze the Tory/Lab vote.
LDs even at their height never broke 30% in Windsor, its not particularly strong for them and its not particularly Reformy territory to see further Tory drift (who are already bottom feeding on 36%) 18th safest seat on swing required
On Devon etc why would LDs get tactical votes in 4 party splits seats? Tactical votes are when its one vs another
I have just been asked to write about A PARTICULAR SUBJECT
This has happened before. Difference this time is that it’s a well known foreign magazine. They’ve noticed my flinty opinions and are so keen on them they are happy for me to write in English and then they will translate into foreign
Hah. I’m becoming an international expert!
This has always confused me. Isn't the clever use of a language lost once translated?
On another matter, I noted you said, yesterday I think, you were looking for a life change in the next few years. What did you have in mind?
I have just been asked to write about A PARTICULAR SUBJECT
This has happened before. Difference this time is that it’s a well known foreign magazine. They’ve noticed my flinty opinions and are so keen on them they are happy for me to write in English and then they will translate into foreign
Hah. I’m becoming an international expert!
This has always confused me. Isn't the clever use of a language lost once translated?
On another matter, I noted you said, yesterday I think, you were looking for a life change in the next few years. What did you have in mind?
I think the true skill of translation is to take well written text, clever use of language and translate it into another language in such a way that the cleverness and quality of text is preserved.
I have just been asked to write about A PARTICULAR SUBJECT
This has happened before. Difference this time is that it’s a well known foreign magazine. They’ve noticed my flinty opinions and are so keen on them they are happy for me to write in English and then they will translate into foreign
Hah. I’m becoming an international expert!
This has always confused me. Isn't the clever use of a language lost once translated?
On another matter, I noted you said, yesterday I think, you were looking for a life change in the next few years. What did you have in mind?
A literal translation is likely to lose something, but a top quality translator will be able make a translation that is less literally accurate, but better preserves the clever plays on words, etc.
I have just been asked to write about A PARTICULAR SUBJECT
This has happened before. Difference this time is that it’s a well known foreign magazine. They’ve noticed my flinty opinions and are so keen on them they are happy for me to write in English and then they will translate into foreign
Hah. I’m becoming an international expert!
This has always confused me. Isn't the clever use of a language lost once translated?
On another matter, I noted you said, yesterday I think, you were looking for a life change in the next few years. What did you have in mind?
U.S. intelligence believes Pakistan is developing an ICBM capable of reaching the U.S., likely to deter American involvement in a future conflict with India. Officials warn that deploying such a weapon would make Pakistan a nuclear threat, not a partner. https://x.com/Osint613/status/1938211019446239409
I have just been asked to write about A PARTICULAR SUBJECT
This has happened before. Difference this time is that it’s a well known foreign magazine. They’ve noticed my flinty opinions and are so keen on them they are happy for me to write in English and then they will translate into foreign
Hah. I’m becoming an international expert!
This has always confused me. Isn't the clever use of a language lost once translated?
On another matter, I noted you said, yesterday I think, you were looking for a life change in the next few years. What did you have in mind?
A literal translation is likely to lose something, but a top quality translator will be able make a translation that is less literally accurate, but better preserves the clever plays on words, etc.
There are umpteen types of translation, and it varies according to many factors.
The best examples of different audience needs are probably bibles translations.
Paywall in other words. The BBC is skint, and co-production money has dried up.
And sod soft power. Who needs Americans to care about Blighty?
$9 a month for basically BBC News Channel seems a tad steep….while not charging for podcasts. I presume you also still get the ads on the News channel stream.
Comments
So it is not the case that Model Y sales dropped to zero in May due to the existence of the new Model Y.
The Essex coast has many small creeks where yachts etc could land groups of migrants and while Essex is supposed to be a hotbed of Reform supporters opposed to immigration, the lure of a quick buck is very strong.
I don't (can't) frequent yachting circles now, but as I say, I wouldn't be at all surprised.
https://www.tesla.com/en_GB/inventory/new/my?arrangeby=plh&zip=WC1H 8AN&range=0
38 000 per square kilometre.
The only real hassle was when the next door temple had their annual 72 hour Chinese Opera.
Now I cannot know if all are genuine. Maybe they are. But I strongly suspect that many have realised that getting a DAP gives them an advantage so they find a way to get it.
On mental health conditions, I think we need to be sympathetic and have a culture that is supportive, but also one where people have responsibilities too. I've been blessed in my life with my mental health. I don't think I've ever been depressed, for instance (other than short term after being dumped by a girl I really liked). So I don't know how it feels. But there are plenty of people who do and can advise on how to cope best.
Too often, including by Laffer himself, the Curve is used as a justification to cut the top-rate of tax on the highest earners without any evidence as to whether or why we are past the peak for that rate . . . while ignoring significantly real higher rates of tax that exist which are far more distorting, such as our cliff edges.
There are countless stories of people changing their behaviour at cliff edges, where tax rates approach or even exceed 100%, because they're rational. That's Laffer in action, rather than piddling about at 45p or whatever.
If that isn’t Laffer Curve behaviour, what is?
Where in my day as an undergrad, a lot of people slacked for periods of time and thought well as long as get the 2:1 in the end, there is still loads of graduate jobs out there.
But the software on my wife's Fiat 500E's is (rather to my surprise) really good (with the exception of the fact that it still - weirdly - requires you to press a button on the dashboard to turn it on. And only then can you put it in Drive.
The Rivian software is also a near perfect copy of Tesla's.
The suicide rate in the general population has fallen over the last 40 heads suggests that is a large part of it, albeit is has increased somewhat in the last 15.
I like that primary schools are teaching children about their emotions a lot more than when I was a child. Prevention of mental health issues is better than a cure.
Anxiety is often, rather than an isolated condition, an effect of underlying mental or physical health issues. In and of itself its not likely to lead to a long term PIP award or LCWRA UC
Do you have a modern successful development in a modern city with similar density?
The most densely populated sq km in the UK (obvs a different measure) is perhaps about 25k people. Here is an interesting piece by someone who went looking for it:
https://www.statsmapsnpix.com/2023/02/where-is-most-densely-populated-square.html
Paris, New York, Barcelona have higher density square km sections.
From the website of the developer, it seems to be more scattered than a single block - like say the National Forest in Leics compared to continuous woodland.
Video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95lby5LLTRI
"A tube passenger who killed a commuter with one punch after he brushed past him on an escalator will serve less than five and a half years in jail before being eligible for parole. Rakeem Miles, 23, was convicted of manslaughter at Inner London crown court and sentenced to eight years in jail over the death of Samuel Winter, 28, last August."
(Injuries, no fatalities)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c2k1gy4w38nt
But some people might not move to that country in the first place, or decide to move before those kids come along. That's the danger in Scotland with our higher taxes - we won't know for some time (or at all) if they've had a negative impact on growth.
This has happened before. Difference this time is that it’s a well known foreign magazine. They’ve noticed my flinty opinions and are so keen on them they are happy for me to write in English and then they will translate into foreign
Hah. I’m becoming an international expert!
Anecdotally, 50% tax on income seems to be a mental milestone for quite a few - that’s where it starts altering behaviour, for them.
Basically: you can fit an awful lot of people in a very small area.
So far every border we have crossed has been manned, with checks on the entered side. It seems the days of unmanned borders is coming to an end
I can do some brutal stuff professionally, I was once compared to a psychopath when Mark Reckless defected.
‘I am not supposed to swear but the man’s a [the word that gets you banned on PB] and he deserved a red hot poker up his arse.’
So the kids of the wealthy who leave who aren’t already boarding start boarding or go to one of the myriad of very good international schools in Geneva, Zurich, Dubai, Singapore etc.
The idea that kids being at a good day school in London or elsewhere is a huge restraint compared to the push from massive taxation is weak.
And these are hardly the only legacy Model Y's on there. They're just first ones on the first few pages.
And as it's currently the end of June, so I think we can reasonably conclude they sold some last month.
---
https://www.tesla.com/en_GB/my/order/XP7Y246_4a106cc917dfdaa8c3eff76103c2161f?titleStatus=new&redirect=no#overview
https://www.tesla.com/en_GB/my/order/LRWY260_883030bedfb59a92e5ebc52a457d6c9f?titleStatus=new&redirect=no#overview
https://www.tesla.com/en_GB/my/order/XP7Y258_eb439ee023aa3b3d5dc00ff4f5025c45?titleStatus=new&redirect=no#overview
https://www.tesla.com/en_GB/my/order/XP7Y258_eb439ee023aa3b3d5dc00ff4f5025c45?titleStatus=new&redirect=no#overview
https://www.tesla.com/en_GB/my/order/XP7Y246_ff09605203ac6327303cf5d8f99ac282?titleStatus=new&redirect=no#overview
https://www.tesla.com/en_GB/my/order/XP7Y246_59347a280905f45101a296502ef7de10?titleStatus=new&redirect=no#overview
https://www.tesla.com/en_GB/my/order/LRWY282_c820cd3cfce3ec84607e8a89a9491ce2?titleStatus=new&redirect=no#overview
https://www.tesla.com/en_GB/my/order/XP7Y282_50a3eace133514acc06837230e7dd77d?titleStatus=new&redirect=no#overview
https://www.tesla.com/en_GB/my/order/XP7Y330_01316b431b4ace92da9b9d57cec78597?titleStatus=new&redirect=no#overview
https://www.tesla.com/en_GB/my/order/XP7Y246_496e1bbe452c97249961da07b2908d5e?titleStatus=new&redirect=no#overview
https://www.tesla.com/en_GB/my/order/XP7Y294_c9e4d9ee302f1ede057088f43cba59ed?titleStatus=new&redirect=no#overview
https://www.tesla.com/en_GB/my/order/XP7Y258_08414c457b7f6b96497bfa4bf269bcb4?titleStatus=new&redirect=no#overview
Otherwise the schools are good and there isn’t the major fear of downgrading the children’s education.
https://src.spectator.co.uk/article/how-schengen-divided-europe/
For specifics, the waiting list for adult ADHD assessment in my area is 2 and a half years. That's just to get on a list to see a prescriber.
For adult autism it is seven years as long as you don't present a physical threat to yourself or others.
Commit a crime or suicide to get a diagnosis.
Imagine if it were that for cancer...
I can't see why the French would agree to this unless there is a catch we're not being told about. It's generally assumed that the French would prefer their asylum seekers to find their way to the UK, which is why they don't try very hard to stop them boarding boats in the first place.
If the French agree to accept boat returnees back, it will kill the boats dead - that's the point of the returns. So any deal with the French where the carrot for the French is per returnee will be a bad deal for France. We could pay them £1m a returnee, and they'd still get virtually nothing after the first couple of weeks as £1m * zero is still zero.
So either:
a) This agreement isn't going to let us return all the boat arrivals, and thus the boats won't stop
b) There is some other massive carrot been given the French that hasn't been leaked yet
c) The French are terrible at negotiating
or
d) This is the agreement Starmer would like, but the French won't agree it in a million years.
My money is on some combination of (a) and (b) in which we pay the French loads of money and fail to return enough people to stop the boats.
Overall, I would say this MRP feels more sensible than the other one. Main surprise is they have Reform winning seats in Scotland (Dumfries and DCT from the Cons and Ayr from Lab)
Harrow East
Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner
Croydon South
Hertsmere
Windsor
Beaconsfield
Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk
Dumfriesshire
Mid Bucks
Rutland and Stamford
Kenilworth and Southam
Chester South and Eddisbury
So in my mind the absolute worst case Tory result (this time) is just over 10 seats
In all likelihood I think 20 is probably their true floor and 200 their absolute ceiling on recovery to mid twenties % with Ref and Lab on similar
For the others I currently think
LDs 30 floor. 90 ceiling
Greens 2 floor 10 ceiling
Labour 80 floor 330 ceiling
Reform 50 floor 400 ceiling
And we are within movement seen during the first half of 2025 of all of those happening
Unless you mean age verification on porn sites which we discussed earlier.
If it's going to happen the realistic timeframe is May 26 - especially if Lab come 3rd in Scotland and Wales
"In her response to Starmer, Badenoch suggested that, if the US were to use its based on Diego Garcia to launch an attack on a country like Iran, the UK would have to notify Mauritius first under the terms of the government’s Chagos Islands deal.
In response, Starmer said this was not true. He said:
In relation to Diego Garcia, let me disabuse her. We do not have to give Mauritius advance notice under the treaty."
Thus a party on mid thirties or above in polling is going to win massively, everywhere, at 30% if you are 5% clear you almost certainly get a majority or working minority
Conversely, once you hit 20% nationally, Unless your vote is hopelessly equally spread you are definitely winning your best seats
My point (such as it is) is that 26, 23, 18, 15, 11 is within MoE of a VERY different HoC
That's NOT a prediction and isnt likely but they are close enough in some of the polling that if the voters really want to hammer them and they have gone a bit backwards (let's say they are polling slightly behind Tories nationally in third by next May) then its not impossible. 10% chance right now I think
7 points and 5 points difference in the last 2 polls, 2 point swing between them and its drawn into mathematically possible to tie or lose on seats depending how the votes spread
Of all the aspects of the deal, this seems a bit nothingburger.
In what parallel universe would the French be keen to end this handy cash cow which also rids them of thousands of unwanted migrants with a deal from which they get nothing.
Thinking about it, I think if I was negotiating with the French, I would try and align all our incentives. I'd try for a deal something like this: Give them £500m a year to "help police the border". Every illegal arrival is £10k deducted from this, so if arrivals continue at the present rate, they get £0. As a goodwill gesture, we don't deduct the £10k for an illegal who is accepted for immediate return.
Boom. Incentives align. Everyone wins if there are zero arrivals. The French get a pile of cash for nothing. We get to return every arrival immediately, so shortly afterwards there are zero arrivals. It costs almost nothing to police, beyond the odd UK coastguard sweep to round up the ones trying to make it into the black economy. We save more on asylum hotels than we are paying the French.
Con 16.5K
Lab 10K
LD 9.5K
That looks very winnable to me for the LDs and certainly not in the Tory rock solid category.
On another matter I notice that the MRP today gave a few seats to Reform in Devon and Cornwall with 4 party splits and all quite close. I suspect tactical voting will give some of those to the LDs who will target and squeeze the Tory/Lab vote.
Like all economics how it works is a matter for debate.
On another matter, I noted you said, yesterday I think, you were looking for a life change in the next few years. What did you have in mind?
On Devon etc why would LDs get tactical votes in 4 party splits seats?
Tactical votes are when its one vs another
Watch this space...
https://xcancel.com/YouGov/status/1937796719988625705#m
JD Vance is evidently involved; one county - Monroe County - has banned "The Complete Book of Cats" from school libraries. And Calvin and Hobbes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kyGA3G9raJI
(This is not new, but I'm just catching up.)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2vgkn7w10o
Paywall in other words. The BBC is skint, and co-production money has dried up.
And sod soft power. Who needs Americans to care about Blighty?
https://x.com/Osint613/status/1938211019446239409
The best examples of different audience needs are probably bibles translations.