Now that Xitter is revealing the locations of various accounts, a swathe of cultural rightish accounts have been revealed to be be (in come cases quite sophisticated) Russian disinfo mills.
Has anyone spotted equivalent leftish accounts who also turn out to be located in Eastern Europe / the Russian Federation? Russia is notorious for playing both sides of cultural conflicts in the countries they target.
I've seen mention but no specific identified reports, but OTOH i have not gone and looked very hard.
The public has no right to know if ministers have criminal convictions, the government’s information watchdog has ruled.
In a ruling published on November 12, the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) rejected an appeal by The Times to force the Cabinet Office to disclose how many ministers had declared a prior criminal conviction before taking office. Officials refused to confirm or deny whether it recorded this information, and the transparency regulator ruled that ministers’ right to privacy trumped the public’s right to know.
The decision, which The Times intends to appeal against, comes after Louise Haigh’s failure to declare a fraud conviction led to her resignation as transport secretary last year.
Surely courts and criminal convictions are public records until deemed spent?
But knowing whether Joe Bloggs done for shoplifting in 2012 is one and the same Joe Bloggs as Rt Hon J. Bloggs MP MInister for Prisons is a matter of personal data. Which is restricted. Maybe that is the logic?
There are several licensed professions- law, finance etc- where a criminal conviction bars people from entering them at all, so even if we allow that a conviction should not bar an individual from public office, it is outrageous that the voters are not allowed to know that one individual or another has such a conviction. How can convicted criminals be allowed to make the law, either as a member of the legislature or as a minister if the people they supposedly serve are totally unaware of such a conflict of interest.
Exactly my thought.
Are we really saying our politicians should be held to lesser standards than... lawyers and bankers ?
Or we try to hold lawyers and bankers to higher standards because of the ample evidence that they are a bunch of crooks and cheats?
Unfortunately I think UK insurance companies have more in common with those in the USA than with those in Europe. An insurance-based system does seem to work in Europe and my perception is that it's because the companies aren't out to screw the customer for every last penny.
I was being mischievous. I very much doubt the average Reform voters has any clue that their healthcare could cost them £420 a month.
This guy is getting away with blue murder and very few are calling him out. I am particularly disappointed with the Conservatives, they seem to look upon this outrageous clown as a friend and ally on the basis of my enemy's enemy is my friend.
I am no friend of Reform, but it is delusional to think they intend under any circumstances to stop the NHS being universal and free at the point of delivery.
Reform, now that they have a chance of being elected, have shifted to the social democrat centre + mostly closed borders + nationalism. No-one has any chance at all of being elected without retaining the post WWII social democratic deal. Everyone tinkers with it; no-one has yet thought of an electable way of shifting it.
You say this weekly, it doesn’t make it any more true. Reform model themselves on MAGA. MAGA also depend on the votes of poorer people on Govt-funded healthcare, but they’ve still slashed that healthcare. Reform will too.
Farage cannot govern by executive order, he would need parliament to vote to get rid of the NHS.
Given the rabble of malcontents 300 Reform MPs would be I cannot see that happening.
The bigger threat to the NHS would be a financial crisis and crashed economy.
If he has a 200 majority the HoC won't be a problem, and don't you fancy being a Reform Peer? I'm putting my name down.
How useful has Labour's big majority been at getting welfare reforms done ?
Not that Farage is going to get a 200 majority.
Starmer could probably have got it through if he'd shown a bit of leadership and not folded like a cheap suit with the early WFA test.
Now that Xitter is revealing the locations of various accounts, a swathe of cultural rightish accounts have been revealed to be be (in come cases quite sophisticated) Russian disinfo mills.
Has anyone spotted equivalent leftish accounts who also turn out to be located in Eastern Europe / the Russian Federation? Russia is notorious for playing both sides of cultural conflicts in the countries they target.
I've seen mention but no specific identified reports, but OTOH i have not gone and looked very hard.
We should ask our Saturday trolls. They are sure to tell us.
Now that Xitter is revealing the locations of various accounts, a swathe of cultural rightish accounts have been revealed to be be (in come cases quite sophisticated) Russian disinfo mills.
Has anyone spotted equivalent leftish accounts who also turn out to be located in Eastern Europe / the Russian Federation? Russia is notorious for playing both sides of cultural conflicts in the countries they target.
Now that Xitter is revealing the locations of various accounts, a swathe of cultural rightish accounts have been revealed to be be (in come cases quite sophisticated) Russian disinfo mills.
Has anyone spotted equivalent leftish accounts who also turn out to be located in Eastern Europe / the Russian Federation? Russia is notorious for playing both sides of cultural conflicts in the countries they target.
I've seen mention but no specific identified reports, but OTOH i have not gone and looked very hard.
There are two possible explanations for the international MAGA accounts.
1. This is the Russians trying to influence US politics by signing up international trolls 2. This is MAGA apparatchiks signing up international trolls
It’s not impossible some of it is the latter. Whether that’s better or worse for US democracy I don’t know.
Has anyone run the rule over “British” edgelord accounts?
Now that Xitter is revealing the locations of various accounts, a swathe of cultural rightish accounts have been revealed to be be (in come cases quite sophisticated) Russian disinfo mills.
Has anyone spotted equivalent leftish accounts who also turn out to be located in Eastern Europe / the Russian Federation? Russia is notorious for playing both sides of cultural conflicts in the countries they target.
I've seen mention but no specific identified reports, but OTOH i have not gone and looked very hard.
There are two possible explanations for the international MAGA accounts.
1. This is the Russians trying to influence US politics by signing up international trolls 2. This is MAGA apparatchiks signing up international trolls
It’s not impossible some of it is the latter. Whether that’s better or worse for US democracy I don’t know.
Has anyone run the rule over “British” edgelord accounts?
There’s also:
3. People from poorer parts of the world trying to make money out of X payouts or directly out of US MAGAs via other means.
(IIRC back in 2016 some of the biggest MAGA accounts were revealed to be Greek in origin.)
The public has no right to know if ministers have criminal convictions, the government’s information watchdog has ruled.
In a ruling published on November 12, the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) rejected an appeal by The Times to force the Cabinet Office to disclose how many ministers had declared a prior criminal conviction before taking office. Officials refused to confirm or deny whether it recorded this information, and the transparency regulator ruled that ministers’ right to privacy trumped the public’s right to know.
The decision, which The Times intends to appeal against, comes after Louise Haigh’s failure to declare a fraud conviction led to her resignation as transport secretary last year.
Surely courts and criminal convictions are public records until deemed spent?
But knowing whether Joe Bloggs done for shoplifting in 2012 is one and the same Joe Bloggs as Rt Hon J. Bloggs MP MInister for Prisons is a matter of personal data. Which is restricted. Maybe that is the logic?
There are several licensed professions- law, finance etc- where a criminal conviction bars people from entering them at all, so even if we allow that a conviction should not bar an individual from public office, it is outrageous that the voters are not allowed to know that one individual or another has such a conviction. How can convicted criminals be allowed to make the law, either as a member of the legislature or as a minister if the people they supposedly serve are totally unaware of such a conflict of interest.
Exactly my thought.
Are we really saying our politicians should be held to lesser standards than... lawyers and bankers ?
Or we try to hold lawyers and bankers to higher standards because of the ample evidence that they are a bunch of crooks and cheats?
Now that Xitter is revealing the locations of various accounts, a swathe of cultural rightish accounts have been revealed to be be (in come cases quite sophisticated) Russian disinfo mills.
Has anyone spotted equivalent leftish accounts who also turn out to be located in Eastern Europe / the Russian Federation? Russia is notorious for playing both sides of cultural conflicts in the countries they target.
This is where we need Leon's TwiX expertise.
The Soviets were very fond of using “active measures” during the Cold War to destabilise their enemies. The Soviets often took an agnostic, opportunistic approach to internal politics in target countries. Their goal was not to promote a coherent ideology everywhere, but to amplify whatever tensions already existed, regardless of political alignment, as long as it undermined their adversaries.
The “active measures” they employed were dialectical. Ideologically agnostic. They wanted to exploit existing fractures. Not create new ones.
There’s no reason to believe this strategy is any different now.
Unfortunately I think UK insurance companies have more in common with those in the USA than with those in Europe. An insurance-based system does seem to work in Europe and my perception is that it's because the companies aren't out to screw the customer for every last penny.
I was being mischievous. I very much doubt the average Reform voters has any clue that their healthcare could cost them £420 a month.
This guy is getting away with blue murder and very few are calling him out. I am particularly disappointed with the Conservatives, they seem to look upon this outrageous clown as a friend and ally on the basis of my enemy's enemy is my friend.
Replacing something funded through taxes with something paid for per person by individuals will always benefit the richer and disbenefit the poorer.
That doesn't make it wrong, and idealistic communism never happens as an alternative. But it's always the effect.
Indeed, and the Reform voter profile these days covers both bases. Billionaire hedge fund manager and zero hours sparky on family credits.
No prizes for guessing which side of the support base will get shafted in the event of a Reform government. Plus going large on culture and immigration to distract the low income Reform backers from how much the government will be shafting them.
Britain needs nuclear power. Our nuclear projects are the most expensive in the world and among the slowest. Regulators and industry are paralysed by risk aversion. This can change. For Britain to prosper, it must.
Earlier this year, the Prime Minister appointed me to lead a Taskforce to set out a path to getting affordable, fast nuclear power Britain.
Our final report today sets out 47 recommendations, among them:
- Creating a one-stop shop for nuclear approvals, to end the regulatory merry-go-round that delays projects at the moment. - Simplifying environmental rules to avoid extreme outcomes like Hinkley Point C spending £700m on systems to protect one salmon every ten years, while enhancing nuclear's impact on nature. - Limiting the ability of spurious legal challenges to delay nuclear projects, which adds huge cost and delay throughout the supply chain. - Approving fleets of reactors, so that Britain’s nuclear industry can benefit from certainty and economies of scale. - Directing regulators to factor in cost to their behaviour, and changing their culture to allow building cheaply, quickly and safely. - Changing the culture of the nuclear industry to end gold-plating and focus on efficient, safe delivery.
If the government adopts our report in full, it will send a signal to investors that it is serious about pro-growth reform and taking on vested interests for the public good.
A thriving British nuclear industry producing abundant, affordable energy would be good for jobs, good for manufacturing, good for the climate, and good for the cost of living. And it could enable Britain to become an AI and technology superpower.
Britain can be a world leader in this new Industrial Revolution, but only if it has the energy to power it.
Our report is bold, but balanced. Our recommendations, taken together and properly implemented, will forge a clear path for stronger economic growth through improved productivity and innovation. This is a prize worth fighting for.
Unfortunately I think UK insurance companies have more in common with those in the USA than with those in Europe. An insurance-based system does seem to work in Europe and my perception is that it's because the companies aren't out to screw the customer for every last penny.
I was being mischievous. I very much doubt the average Reform voters has any clue that their healthcare could cost them £420 a month.
This guy is getting away with blue murder and very few are calling him out. I am particularly disappointed with the Conservatives, they seem to look upon this outrageous clown as a friend and ally on the basis of my enemy's enemy is my friend.
I am no friend of Reform, but it is delusional to think they intend under any circumstances to stop the NHS being universal and free at the point of delivery.
Reform, now that they have a chance of being elected, have shifted to the social democrat centre + mostly closed borders + nationalism. No-one has any chance at all of being elected without retaining the post WWII social democratic deal. Everyone tinkers with it; no-one has yet thought of an electable way of shifting it.
You say this weekly, it doesn’t make it any more true. Reform model themselves on MAGA. MAGA also depend on the votes of poorer people on Govt-funded healthcare, but they’ve still slashed that healthcare. Reform will too.
Farage cannot govern by executive order, he would need parliament to vote to get rid of the NHS.
Given the rabble of malcontents 300 Reform MPs would be I cannot see that happening.
The bigger threat to the NHS would be a financial crisis and crashed economy.
Unfortunately I think UK insurance companies have more in common with those in the USA than with those in Europe. An insurance-based system does seem to work in Europe and my perception is that it's because the companies aren't out to screw the customer for every last penny.
I was being mischievous. I very much doubt the average Reform voters has any clue that their healthcare could cost them £420 a month.
This guy is getting away with blue murder and very few are calling him out. I am particularly disappointed with the Conservatives, they seem to look upon this outrageous clown as a friend and ally on the basis of my enemy's enemy is my friend.
Replacing something funded through taxes with something paid for per person by individuals will always benefit the richer and disbenefit the poorer.
That doesn't make it wrong, and idealistic communism never happens as an alternative. But it's always the effect.
Indeed, and the Reform voter profile these days covers both bases. Billionaire hedge fund manager and zero hours sparky on family credits.
No prizes for guessing which side of the support base will get shafted in the event of a Reform government. Plus going large on culture and immigration to distract the low income Reform backers from how much the government will be shafting them.
UK MAGA, effectively.
I wonder how many years in government it will take for its inherent contradictions to blow it up ?
The public has no right to know if ministers have criminal convictions, the government’s information watchdog has ruled.
In a ruling published on November 12, the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) rejected an appeal by The Times to force the Cabinet Office to disclose how many ministers had declared a prior criminal conviction before taking office. Officials refused to confirm or deny whether it recorded this information, and the transparency regulator ruled that ministers’ right to privacy trumped the public’s right to know.
The decision, which The Times intends to appeal against, comes after Louise Haigh’s failure to declare a fraud conviction led to her resignation as transport secretary last year.
Surely courts and criminal convictions are public records until deemed spent?
But knowing whether Joe Bloggs done for shoplifting in 2012 is one and the same Joe Bloggs as Rt Hon J. Bloggs MP MInister for Prisons is a matter of personal data. Which is restricted. Maybe that is the logic?
There are several licensed professions- law, finance etc- where a criminal conviction bars people from entering them at all, so even if we allow that a conviction should not bar an individual from public office, it is outrageous that the voters are not allowed to know that one individual or another has such a conviction. How can convicted criminals be allowed to make the law, either as a member of the legislature or as a minister if the people they supposedly serve are totally unaware of such a conflict of interest.
Exactly my thought.
Are we really saying our politicians should be held to lesser standards than... lawyers and bankers ?
Or we try to hold lawyers and bankers to higher standards because of the ample evidence that they are a bunch of crooks and cheats?
Now that Xitter is revealing the locations of various accounts, a swathe of cultural rightish accounts have been revealed to be be (in come cases quite sophisticated) Russian disinfo mills.
Has anyone spotted equivalent leftish accounts who also turn out to be located in Eastern Europe / the Russian Federation? Russia is notorious for playing both sides of cultural conflicts in the countries they target.
This is where we need Leon's TwiX expertise.
The Soviets were very fond of using “active measures” during the Cold War to destabilise their enemies. The Soviets often took an agnostic, opportunistic approach to internal politics in target countries. Their goal was not to promote a coherent ideology everywhere, but to amplify whatever tensions already existed, regardless of political alignment, as long as it undermined their adversaries.
The “active measures” they employed were dialectical. Ideologically agnostic. They wanted to exploit existing fractures. Not create new ones.
There’s no reason to believe this strategy is any different now.
Not just Russians either, there’s an awful lot of people from SE Asia and Africa who have been caught almost exclusively talking politics to Americans, apparently driven by purely commercial reasons that X is paying prolific and engaging commentators in dollars, which when you live in a place where $300/month is a great salary…
Of course the most ‘engaging’ content tends to be at either extreme of the horse shoe of the policial opinion spectrum.
Unfortunately I think UK insurance companies have more in common with those in the USA than with those in Europe. An insurance-based system does seem to work in Europe and my perception is that it's because the companies aren't out to screw the customer for every last penny.
I was being mischievous. I very much doubt the average Reform voters has any clue that their healthcare could cost them £420 a month.
This guy is getting away with blue murder and very few are calling him out. I am particularly disappointed with the Conservatives, they seem to look upon this outrageous clown as a friend and ally on the basis of my enemy's enemy is my friend.
Replacing something funded through taxes with something paid for per person by individuals will always benefit the richer and disbenefit the poorer.
That doesn't make it wrong, and idealistic communism never happens as an alternative. But it's always the effect.
Indeed, and the Reform voter profile these days covers both bases. Billionaire hedge fund manager and zero hours sparky on family credits.
No prizes for guessing which side of the support base will get shafted in the event of a Reform government. Plus going large on culture and immigration to distract the low income Reform backers from how much the government will be shafting them.
UK MAGA, effectively.
I wonder how many years in government it will take for its inherent contradictions to blow it up ?
Why are the fake news accounts overwhelmingly on the right?
Macedonian teenagers in 2016 found that Trump supporters were the most gullible audience.
"The American right, especially the emerging MAGA ecosystem, was simply a dream customer: highly engaged, highly inflamed, and extremely willing to click through to garbage sites that paid out ad revenue...It’s a niche where people are willing to follow a random, anonymous account and treat it as a trusted voice on everything from elections to vaccines to border security – boosting its content to their friends as well." https://x.com/RichardHanania/status/1992778917976101346
Unfortunately I think UK insurance companies have more in common with those in the USA than with those in Europe. An insurance-based system does seem to work in Europe and my perception is that it's because the companies aren't out to screw the customer for every last penny.
I was being mischievous. I very much doubt the average Reform voters has any clue that their healthcare could cost them £420 a month.
This guy is getting away with blue murder and very few are calling him out. I am particularly disappointed with the Conservatives, they seem to look upon this outrageous clown as a friend and ally on the basis of my enemy's enemy is my friend.
Replacing something funded through taxes with something paid for per person by individuals will always benefit the richer and disbenefit the poorer.
That doesn't make it wrong, and idealistic communism never happens as an alternative. But it's always the effect.
Indeed, and the Reform voter profile these days covers both bases. Billionaire hedge fund manager and zero hours sparky on family credits.
No prizes for guessing which side of the support base will get shafted in the event of a Reform government. Plus going large on culture and immigration to distract the low income Reform backers from how much the government will be shafting them.
UK MAGA, effectively.
I wonder how many years in government it will take for its inherent contradictions to blow it up ?
It’s taken 1.5 years for the inherent contradictions in a Labour Government to blow up so we have our yard-stick.
Unfortunately I think UK insurance companies have more in common with those in the USA than with those in Europe. An insurance-based system does seem to work in Europe and my perception is that it's because the companies aren't out to screw the customer for every last penny.
I was being mischievous. I very much doubt the average Reform voters has any clue that their healthcare could cost them £420 a month.
This guy is getting away with blue murder and very few are calling him out. I am particularly disappointed with the Conservatives, they seem to look upon this outrageous clown as a friend and ally on the basis of my enemy's enemy is my friend.
I am no friend of Reform, but it is delusional to think they intend under any circumstances to stop the NHS being universal and free at the point of delivery.
Reform, now that they have a chance of being elected, have shifted to the social democrat centre + mostly closed borders + nationalism. No-one has any chance at all of being elected without retaining the post WWII social democratic deal. Everyone tinkers with it; no-one has yet thought of an electable way of shifting it.
You forget the Trump approach of saying very little, denying what your opponents say and then doing what you want once elected
No, I don't. What I do say is that the UK is not the USA. Six factors: our view of the rule of law, the balance of parliament and government, our disdain for One Man Rule and executive diktat, our non quasi religious mania about politicians, our social democratic history and our media. (And the voters of Clacton's fondness for free Zimmers).
Unfortunately I think UK insurance companies have more in common with those in the USA than with those in Europe. An insurance-based system does seem to work in Europe and my perception is that it's because the companies aren't out to screw the customer for every last penny.
I was being mischievous. I very much doubt the average Reform voters has any clue that their healthcare could cost them £420 a month.
This guy is getting away with blue murder and very few are calling him out. I am particularly disappointed with the Conservatives, they seem to look upon this outrageous clown as a friend and ally on the basis of my enemy's enemy is my friend.
I am no friend of Reform, but it is delusional to think they intend under any circumstances to stop the NHS being universal and free at the point of delivery.
Reform, now that they have a chance of being elected, have shifted to the social democrat centre + mostly closed borders + nationalism. No-one has any chance at all of being elected without retaining the post WWII social democratic deal. Everyone tinkers with it; no-one has yet thought of an electable way of shifting it.
You say this weekly, it doesn’t make it any more true. Reform model themselves on MAGA. MAGA also depend on the votes of poorer people on Govt-funded healthcare, but they’ve still slashed that healthcare. Reform will too.
Farage cannot govern by executive order, he would need parliament to vote to get rid of the NHS.
Given the rabble of malcontents 300 Reform MPs would be I cannot see that happening.
The bigger threat to the NHS would be a financial crisis and crashed economy.
How big an NHS will the IMF let us run?
You keep suggesting we are going to be cap in hand to the IMF but wasn't that supposed to happen in the first 6 months of a Labour government?
Perhaps a small punt on whether the UK has to seek help from the IMF before the next GE? £100 to a charity of the winner's choice?
Now that Xitter is revealing the locations of various accounts, a swathe of cultural rightish accounts have been revealed to be be (in come cases quite sophisticated) Russian disinfo mills.
Has anyone spotted equivalent leftish accounts who also turn out to be located in Eastern Europe / the Russian Federation? Russia is notorious for playing both sides of cultural conflicts in the countries they target.
I've seen mention but no specific identified reports, but OTOH i have not gone and looked very hard.
There are two possible explanations for the international MAGA accounts.
1. This is the Russians trying to influence US politics by signing up international trolls 2. This is MAGA apparatchiks signing up international trolls
It’s not impossible some of it is the latter. Whether that’s better or worse for US democracy I don’t know.
Has anyone run the rule over “British” edgelord accounts?
There’s also:
3. People from poorer parts of the world trying to make money out of X payouts or directly out of US MAGAs via other means.
(IIRC back in 2016 some of the biggest MAGA accounts were revealed to be Greek in origin.)
I have my VPN on Albania right now, and Twitter says my account is based there. Yet I have never been to Albania.
All it has achieved is showing the world where my VPN is set to.
Unfortunately I think UK insurance companies have more in common with those in the USA than with those in Europe. An insurance-based system does seem to work in Europe and my perception is that it's because the companies aren't out to screw the customer for every last penny.
I was being mischievous. I very much doubt the average Reform voters has any clue that their healthcare could cost them £420 a month.
This guy is getting away with blue murder and very few are calling him out. I am particularly disappointed with the Conservatives, they seem to look upon this outrageous clown as a friend and ally on the basis of my enemy's enemy is my friend.
Replacing something funded through taxes with something paid for per person by individuals will always benefit the richer and disbenefit the poorer.
That doesn't make it wrong, and idealistic communism never happens as an alternative. But it's always the effect.
Indeed, and the Reform voter profile these days covers both bases. Billionaire hedge fund manager and zero hours sparky on family credits.
No prizes for guessing which side of the support base will get shafted in the event of a Reform government. Plus going large on culture and immigration to distract the low income Reform backers from how much the government will be shafting them.
UK MAGA, effectively.
I wonder how many years in government it will take for its inherent contradictions to blow it up ?
UK MAGA? Nonsense. The inherent contradiction in a Reform government will arise out of wider and familiar issues: The contradiction of the voters of Clacton wanting low tax and free Zimmers; that of wanting a functioning NHS alongside disdain for non white migration; the contradiction of wanting a well defended Europe at high cost to the USA.
This week's budget has already been written off as the worst budget in my long lifetime by the worst Chancellor ever (Kwasi doesn't count - reign too short).
However, unless I've missed it, the huge myriad of fatal missteps hasn't actually happened yet. It remains possible that Rachel surprises on the upside - not in the eyes of PBers, most of whom she has already lost, but in the eyes of those who would consider voting Labour at some point in the future. I wouldn't write off Rachel or Keir just yet. Though I may have a different view by Thursday.
This is also an important budget for Kemi. She will be replying to the budget statement. She needs to show competence and take her party with her. By next May, with fewer small boats over the winter, and time for more embarrassments, Reform are likely to be less popular than now. I predict she will outlast Starmer.
Kemi has the benefit of being able to attack the last month of shambles rather than having to think on her feet and address what is actually announced in the budget.
This week's budget has already been written off as the worst budget in my long lifetime by the worst Chancellor ever (Kwasi doesn't count - reign too short).
However, unless I've missed it, the huge myriad of fatal missteps hasn't actually happened yet. It remains possible that Rachel surprises on the upside - not in the eyes of PBers, most of whom she has already lost, but in the eyes of those who would consider voting Labour at some point in the future. I wouldn't write off Rachel or Keir just yet. Though I may have a different view by Thursday.
This is also an important budget for Kemi. She will be replying to the budget statement. She needs to show competence and take her party with her. By next May, with fewer small boats over the winter, and time for more embarrassments, Reform are likely to be less popular than now. I predict she will outlast Starmer.
Kemi has the benefit of being able to attack the last month of shambles rather than having to think on her feet and address what is actually announced in the budget.
Plus the "failed to tackle welfare spending" stick to beat Labour MPs with. Of course the response will be that it was all the Tories' fault in the first place.
This week's budget has already been written off as the worst budget in my long lifetime by the worst Chancellor ever (Kwasi doesn't count - reign too short).
However, unless I've missed it, the huge myriad of fatal missteps hasn't actually happened yet. It remains possible that Rachel surprises on the upside - not in the eyes of PBers, most of whom she has already lost, but in the eyes of those who would consider voting Labour at some point in the future. I wouldn't write off Rachel or Keir just yet. Though I may have a different view by Thursday.
This is also an important budget for Kemi. She will be replying to the budget statement. She needs to show competence and take her party with her. By next May, with fewer small boats over the winter, and time for more embarrassments, Reform are likely to be less popular than now. I predict she will outlast Starmer.
Kemi has the benefit of being able to attack the last month of shambles rather than having to think on her feet and address what is actually announced in the budget.
Plus the "failed to tackle welfare spending" stick to beat Labour MPs with. Of course the response will be that it was all the Tories' fault in the first place.
The Tories introduced the 2 child welfare cap Reeves will scrap
This week's budget has already been written off as the worst budget in my long lifetime by the worst Chancellor ever (Kwasi doesn't count - reign too short).
However, unless I've missed it, the huge myriad of fatal missteps hasn't actually happened yet. It remains possible that Rachel surprises on the upside - not in the eyes of PBers, most of whom she has already lost, but in the eyes of those who would consider voting Labour at some point in the future. I wouldn't write off Rachel or Keir just yet. Though I may have a different view by Thursday.
This is also an important budget for Kemi. She will be replying to the budget statement. She needs to show competence and take her party with her. By next May, with fewer small boats over the winter, and time for more embarrassments, Reform are likely to be less popular than now. I predict she will outlast Starmer.
Kemi has the benefit of being able to attack the last month of shambles rather than having to think on her feet and address what is actually announced in the budget.
Plus the "failed to tackle welfare spending" stick to beat Labour MPs with. Of course the response will be that it was all the Tories' fault in the first place.
If the two child cap is abolished, then she ought to go into studs-first on that.
Unfortunately I think UK insurance companies have more in common with those in the USA than with those in Europe. An insurance-based system does seem to work in Europe and my perception is that it's because the companies aren't out to screw the customer for every last penny.
I was being mischievous. I very much doubt the average Reform voters has any clue that their healthcare could cost them £420 a month.
This guy is getting away with blue murder and very few are calling him out. I am particularly disappointed with the Conservatives, they seem to look upon this outrageous clown as a friend and ally on the basis of my enemy's enemy is my friend.
I am no friend of Reform, but it is delusional to think they intend under any circumstances to stop the NHS being universal and free at the point of delivery.
Reform, now that they have a chance of being elected, have shifted to the social democrat centre + mostly closed borders + nationalism. No-one has any chance at all of being elected without retaining the post WWII social democratic deal. Everyone tinkers with it; no-one has yet thought of an electable way of shifting it.
You forget the Trump approach of saying very little, denying what your opponents say and then doing what you want once elected
No, I don't. What I do say is that the UK is not the USA. Six factors: our view of the rule of law, the balance of parliament and government, our disdain for One Man Rule and executive diktat, our non quasi religious mania about politicians, our social democratic history and our media. (And the voters of Clacton's fondness for free Zimmers).
Though given New York has just elected a woke socialist Mayor, Clactor is now closer to Trumpland USA than it is to New York city
Unfortunately I think UK insurance companies have more in common with those in the USA than with those in Europe. An insurance-based system does seem to work in Europe and my perception is that it's because the companies aren't out to screw the customer for every last penny.
I was being mischievous. I very much doubt the average Reform voters has any clue that their healthcare could cost them £420 a month.
This guy is getting away with blue murder and very few are calling him out. I am particularly disappointed with the Conservatives, they seem to look upon this outrageous clown as a friend and ally on the basis of my enemy's enemy is my friend.
Replacing something funded through taxes with something paid for per person by individuals will always benefit the richer and disbenefit the poorer.
That doesn't make it wrong, and idealistic communism never happens as an alternative. But it's always the effect.
Indeed, and the Reform voter profile these days covers both bases. Billionaire hedge fund manager and zero hours sparky on family credits.
No prizes for guessing which side of the support base will get shafted in the event of a Reform government. Plus going large on culture and immigration to distract the low income Reform backers from how much the government will be shafting them.
UK MAGA, effectively.
I wonder how many years in government it will take for its inherent contradictions to blow it up ?
UK MAGA? Nonsense. The inherent contradiction in a Reform government will arise out of wider and familiar issues: The contradiction of the voters of Clacton wanting low tax and free Zimmers; that of wanting a functioning NHS alongside disdain for non white migration; the contradiction of wanting a well defended Europe at high cost to the USA.
If Reform has 400+ MPs I suspect they will use them to vote through things in a way SKS utterly failed to do
Unfortunately I think UK insurance companies have more in common with those in the USA than with those in Europe. An insurance-based system does seem to work in Europe and my perception is that it's because the companies aren't out to screw the customer for every last penny.
I was being mischievous. I very much doubt the average Reform voters has any clue that their healthcare could cost them £420 a month.
This guy is getting away with blue murder and very few are calling him out. I am particularly disappointed with the Conservatives, they seem to look upon this outrageous clown as a friend and ally on the basis of my enemy's enemy is my friend.
I am no friend of Reform, but it is delusional to think they intend under any circumstances to stop the NHS being universal and free at the point of delivery.
Reform, now that they have a chance of being elected, have shifted to the social democrat centre + mostly closed borders + nationalism. No-one has any chance at all of being elected without retaining the post WWII social democratic deal. Everyone tinkers with it; no-one has yet thought of an electable way of shifting it.
You say this weekly, it doesn’t make it any more true. Reform model themselves on MAGA. MAGA also depend on the votes of poorer people on Govt-funded healthcare, but they’ve still slashed that healthcare. Reform will too.
Farage cannot govern by executive order, he would need parliament to vote to get rid of the NHS.
Given the rabble of malcontents 300 Reform MPs would be I cannot see that happening.
The bigger threat to the NHS would be a financial crisis and crashed economy.
How big an NHS will the IMF let us run?
You keep suggesting we are going to be cap in hand to the IMF but wasn't that supposed to happen in the first 6 months of a Labour government?
Perhaps a small punt on whether the UK has to seek help from the IMF before the next GE? £100 to a charity of the winner's choice?
It’s one of those loveable journalistic shorthands. Whenever there’s concern about debt repayments we are going “cap in hand” to the IMF. Who first decided the cap in hand term was the right one for these stories?
It’s up there with some other favourites:
- Brits / Britons deployed in specific contexts (Brits when the active subject, Britons when victims of a disaster or stuck abroad) - “Fury as…” - Romp - Boffins - Bosses (rail bosses, bank bosses, union bosses etc) - Sources close to - Police quiz [suspect]
I think Starmer will survive 2026 in spite of the Labour bloodbath next May.
He won't resign. He thinks he is too important in managing Trump and protecting Ukraine. Although there may be 80+ Labour MPs willing to force a vote against him, there won't be 205+ Labour MPs prepared to actually vote against him. And his cabinet is not going to resign!
Why is he so unpopular? I think it is massive disappointment by supporters in his lack of courage and clarity. It needs a fresh start. So I suspect McSweeney is for the chop after May, followed by a major reset of advisors and Cabinet. There is more upside than downside for Labour in the polls.
Unfortunately I think UK insurance companies have more in common with those in the USA than with those in Europe. An insurance-based system does seem to work in Europe and my perception is that it's because the companies aren't out to screw the customer for every last penny.
I was being mischievous. I very much doubt the average Reform voters has any clue that their healthcare could cost them £420 a month.
This guy is getting away with blue murder and very few are calling him out. I am particularly disappointed with the Conservatives, they seem to look upon this outrageous clown as a friend and ally on the basis of my enemy's enemy is my friend.
How much do you think the NHS costs the average Reform voter at the moment? And is that good value for money?
We spend a very similar percentage of GDP as European peers such as Germany and France.
But the median age in those countries is higher than the UK. And health outcomes can be debated, but we're certainly not an obvious leader of the pack.
I think both sides could do with accepting that the NHS isn't as amazing or awful as some imagine.
The US system, by contrast, is objectively awful. Extremely high cost and worse outcomes at an aggregate level.
I imagine there's lots we could learn from where some European nations deliver better value for money than us.
2023 figures, Germany 11.7%, France 11.5%, UK 11.1% (2022). That 0.6% is quite significant.
The public has no right to know if ministers have criminal convictions, the government’s information watchdog has ruled.
In a ruling published on November 12, the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) rejected an appeal by The Times to force the Cabinet Office to disclose how many ministers had declared a prior criminal conviction before taking office. Officials refused to confirm or deny whether it recorded this information, and the transparency regulator ruled that ministers’ right to privacy trumped the public’s right to know.
The decision, which The Times intends to appeal against, comes after Louise Haigh’s failure to declare a fraud conviction led to her resignation as transport secretary last year.
Surely courts and criminal convictions are public records until deemed spent?
But knowing whether Joe Bloggs done for shoplifting in 2012 is one and the same Joe Bloggs as Rt Hon J. Bloggs MP MInister for Prisons is a matter of personal data. Which is restricted. Maybe that is the logic?
There are several licensed professions- law, finance etc- where a criminal conviction bars people from entering them at all, so even if we allow that a conviction should not bar an individual from public office, it is outrageous that the voters are not allowed to know that one individual or another has such a conviction. How can convicted criminals be allowed to make the law, either as a member of the legislature or as a minister if the people they supposedly serve are totally unaware of such a conflict of interest.
It is not too long since we had a Conservative leadership election dominated by admissions of drug-taking. Did anyone call for their removal from the Commons, or even change their votes? Watching perfectly legal tractor porn, on the other hand...
A few months ago, we were all saying how Your Party would be so damaging for Labour.
If Sultana jumps to the Greens then it is all over I reckon.
The 2 MPs who have recently left the party were her ideological opponents, suggesting she’s winning a battle for control…? If so, she’s not likely to jump to the Greens.
Trouble is that, apart from not liking Starmer's government, and liking Israel's government even less, not much unites the Gaza Indies and funky young Corbynites.
Or hypnoboobs and voters in Waveney Valley.
Which is why it would be risky for the Greens to take on too many of them. Green Party policy is already 'sound', from a left perspective, on Gaza, but on social issues they are more 'woke', to use that vague and lazy term, than any other party.
That was the genius of their positioning and presentation in 2024- really quite woke, but not enough to scare the horses in Ruralshire.
Polanski has rather blown that up, in yet another tick in the "members shouldn't pick the leader" column.
Yet Polanski has achieved record polling numbers for the party, and they’re doing well in by-elections too.
The Greens lost a swing ward they held in Trafford last week to the Tories
The public has no right to know if ministers have criminal convictions, the government’s information watchdog has ruled.
In a ruling published on November 12, the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) rejected an appeal by The Times to force the Cabinet Office to disclose how many ministers had declared a prior criminal conviction before taking office. Officials refused to confirm or deny whether it recorded this information, and the transparency regulator ruled that ministers’ right to privacy trumped the public’s right to know.
The decision, which The Times intends to appeal against, comes after Louise Haigh’s failure to declare a fraud conviction led to her resignation as transport secretary last year.
Surely courts and criminal convictions are public records until deemed spent?
But knowing whether Joe Bloggs done for shoplifting in 2012 is one and the same Joe Bloggs as Rt Hon J. Bloggs MP MInister for Prisons is a matter of personal data. Which is restricted. Maybe that is the logic?
There are several licensed professions- law, finance etc- where a criminal conviction bars people from entering them at all, so even if we allow that a conviction should not bar an individual from public office, it is outrageous that the voters are not allowed to know that one individual or another has such a conviction. How can convicted criminals be allowed to make the law, either as a member of the legislature or as a minister if the people they supposedly serve are totally unaware of such a conflict of interest.
It is not too long since we had a Conservative leadership election dominated by admissions of drug-taking. Did anyone call for their removal from the Commons, or even change their votes? Watching perfectly legal tractor porn, on the other hand...
Indeed, any MP who has smoked cannabis or taken cocaine has also committed a criminal offence even if done only at university or when young, though watching adult porn at work is normally grounds for dismissal it is not a criminal act
Unfortunately I think UK insurance companies have more in common with those in the USA than with those in Europe. An insurance-based system does seem to work in Europe and my perception is that it's because the companies aren't out to screw the customer for every last penny.
I was being mischievous. I very much doubt the average Reform voters has any clue that their healthcare could cost them £420 a month.
This guy is getting away with blue murder and very few are calling him out. I am particularly disappointed with the Conservatives, they seem to look upon this outrageous clown as a friend and ally on the basis of my enemy's enemy is my friend.
I am no friend of Reform, but it is delusional to think they intend under any circumstances to stop the NHS being universal and free at the point of delivery.
Reform, now that they have a chance of being elected, have shifted to the social democrat centre + mostly closed borders + nationalism. No-one has any chance at all of being elected without retaining the post WWII social democratic deal. Everyone tinkers with it; no-one has yet thought of an electable way of shifting it.
You say this weekly, it doesn’t make it any more true. Reform model themselves on MAGA. MAGA also depend on the votes of poorer people on Govt-funded healthcare, but they’ve still slashed that healthcare. Reform will too.
Farage cannot govern by executive order, he would need parliament to vote to get rid of the NHS.
Given the rabble of malcontents 300 Reform MPs would be I cannot see that happening.
The bigger threat to the NHS would be a financial crisis and crashed economy.
How big an NHS will the IMF let us run?
You keep suggesting we are going to be cap in hand to the IMF but wasn't that supposed to happen in the first 6 months of a Labour government?
Perhaps a small punt on whether the UK has to seek help from the IMF before the next GE? £100 to a charity of the winner's choice?
It's just shorthand to wind up the Left about how crap their governance is.
Unfortunately I think UK insurance companies have more in common with those in the USA than with those in Europe. An insurance-based system does seem to work in Europe and my perception is that it's because the companies aren't out to screw the customer for every last penny.
I was being mischievous. I very much doubt the average Reform voters has any clue that their healthcare could cost them £420 a month.
This guy is getting away with blue murder and very few are calling him out. I am particularly disappointed with the Conservatives, they seem to look upon this outrageous clown as a friend and ally on the basis of my enemy's enemy is my friend.
How much do you think the NHS costs the average Reform voter at the moment? And is that good value for money?
We spend a very similar percentage of GDP as European peers such as Germany and France.
But the median age in those countries is higher than the UK. And health outcomes can be debated, but we're certainly not an obvious leader of the pack.
I think both sides could do with accepting that the NHS isn't as amazing or awful as some imagine.
The US system, by contrast, is objectively awful. Extremely high cost and worse outcomes at an aggregate level.
I imagine there's lots we could learn from where some European nations deliver better value for money than us.
2023 figures, Germany 11.7%, France 11.5%, UK 11.1% (2022). That 0.6% is quite significant.
Remarkable that Poland is projected at over $55,000 GDP on a PPP basis.
Not that much, compare the average Poles work ethic to the average French employees work ethic
I’ve worked in French offices. It’s a very different experience to the UK.
They do shorter hours and take longer lunch breaks (ie they actually take lunch breaks). But when they’re working they’re working. Heads down, silence, churning it out. We work longer with no lunch breaks but spend half the day faffing and the other half gossiping.
One reason (not the only one, it’s also structural) why French productivity per hour of labour is so much higher than ours or indeed most developed countries.
Unfortunately I think UK insurance companies have more in common with those in the USA than with those in Europe. An insurance-based system does seem to work in Europe and my perception is that it's because the companies aren't out to screw the customer for every last penny.
I was being mischievous. I very much doubt the average Reform voters has any clue that their healthcare could cost them £420 a month.
This guy is getting away with blue murder and very few are calling him out. I am particularly disappointed with the Conservatives, they seem to look upon this outrageous clown as a friend and ally on the basis of my enemy's enemy is my friend.
I am no friend of Reform, but it is delusional to think they intend under any circumstances to stop the NHS being universal and free at the point of delivery.
Reform, now that they have a chance of being elected, have shifted to the social democrat centre + mostly closed borders + nationalism. No-one has any chance at all of being elected without retaining the post WWII social democratic deal. Everyone tinkers with it; no-one has yet thought of an electable way of shifting it.
You say this weekly, it doesn’t make it any more true. Reform model themselves on MAGA. MAGA also depend on the votes of poorer people on Govt-funded healthcare, but they’ve still slashed that healthcare. Reform will too.
Farage cannot govern by executive order, he would need parliament to vote to get rid of the NHS.
Given the rabble of malcontents 300 Reform MPs would be I cannot see that happening.
The bigger threat to the NHS would be a financial crisis and crashed economy.
How big an NHS will the IMF let us run?
You keep suggesting we are going to be cap in hand to the IMF but wasn't that supposed to happen in the first 6 months of a Labour government?
Perhaps a small punt on whether the UK has to seek help from the IMF before the next GE? £100 to a charity of the winner's choice?
60-62 Spread price on age of posters talking about UK needing to go IMF.
The public has no right to know if ministers have criminal convictions, the government’s information watchdog has ruled.
In a ruling published on November 12, the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) rejected an appeal by The Times to force the Cabinet Office to disclose how many ministers had declared a prior criminal conviction before taking office. Officials refused to confirm or deny whether it recorded this information, and the transparency regulator ruled that ministers’ right to privacy trumped the public’s right to know.
The decision, which The Times intends to appeal against, comes after Louise Haigh’s failure to declare a fraud conviction led to her resignation as transport secretary last year.
Surely courts and criminal convictions are public records until deemed spent?
But knowing whether Joe Bloggs done for shoplifting in 2012 is one and the same Joe Bloggs as Rt Hon J. Bloggs MP MInister for Prisons is a matter of personal data. Which is restricted. Maybe that is the logic?
There are several licensed professions- law, finance etc- where a criminal conviction bars people from entering them at all, so even if we allow that a conviction should not bar an individual from public office, it is outrageous that the voters are not allowed to know that one individual or another has such a conviction. How can convicted criminals be allowed to make the law, either as a member of the legislature or as a minister if the people they supposedly serve are totally unaware of such a conflict of interest.
Exactly my thought.
Are we really saying our politicians should be held to lesser standards than... lawyers and bankers ?
Or we try to hold lawyers and bankers to higher standards because of the ample evidence that they are a bunch of crooks and cheats?
Unfortunately I think UK insurance companies have more in common with those in the USA than with those in Europe. An insurance-based system does seem to work in Europe and my perception is that it's because the companies aren't out to screw the customer for every last penny.
I was being mischievous. I very much doubt the average Reform voters has any clue that their healthcare could cost them £420 a month.
This guy is getting away with blue murder and very few are calling him out. I am particularly disappointed with the Conservatives, they seem to look upon this outrageous clown as a friend and ally on the basis of my enemy's enemy is my friend...
On that score, he's had a fairly free ride for his decade long public dabbling in far right conspiracy theory.
Farage urged to explain conspiracy theories linked to antisemitism he voiced in US media
In appearances on US TV shows and podcasts earlier in his political career, Farage discussed supposed plots by bankers to create a global government, citing Goldman Sachs, the Bilderberg group and the financier George Soros as threats to democracy.
These included six guest slots on the web TV show of the disgraced far-right US conspiracy theorist Alex Jones. Jones was successfully sued by bereaved parents after claiming the 2012 Sandy Hook elementary school massacre was faked.
During one interview with Jones in 2018, Farage argued that “globalists” were trying to engineer a war with Russia “as an argument for us all to surrender our national sovereignty and give it up to a higher global level”.
Farage also appeared six times on the web radio show of Rick Wiles, a far-right, antisemitic American pastor. Here, topics included whether central bankers would soon start to appoint leaders of the UK and US – an idea Farage did not challenge...
As with the schoolboy stuff, who cares? Specifically, which Reform supporters will know who the flip Rick Wiles is and will also object to Farage having appeared on his show? Wait till the Guardian finds out Nige supported President Trump!
"Where there is no [leadership] vacancy, nominations may be sought by potential challengers. In this case any nomination must be supported by 20 per cent of the Commons members of the PLP. Nominations not attaining this threshold shall be null and void. The sitting Leader or Deputy Leader shall not be required to seek nominations in the event of a challenge under this rule."
So about 80 Labour MPs would need to nominate a challenger to Starmer for him to face a leadership contest, a high bar unless the May local and devolved elections next year are abysmal for Labour. There is no mechanism for a VONC in a Labour leader by Labour MPs though under Labour rules as there is for Tory MPs to have a VONC in their leaders now under Tory rules
The public has no right to know if ministers have criminal convictions, the government’s information watchdog has ruled.
In a ruling published on November 12, the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) rejected an appeal by The Times to force the Cabinet Office to disclose how many ministers had declared a prior criminal conviction before taking office. Officials refused to confirm or deny whether it recorded this information, and the transparency regulator ruled that ministers’ right to privacy trumped the public’s right to know.
The decision, which The Times intends to appeal against, comes after Louise Haigh’s failure to declare a fraud conviction led to her resignation as transport secretary last year.
Surely courts and criminal convictions are public records until deemed spent?
But knowing whether Joe Bloggs done for shoplifting in 2012 is one and the same Joe Bloggs as Rt Hon J. Bloggs MP MInister for Prisons is a matter of personal data. Which is restricted. Maybe that is the logic?
There are several licensed professions- law, finance etc- where a criminal conviction bars people from entering them at all, so even if we allow that a conviction should not bar an individual from public office, it is outrageous that the voters are not allowed to know that one individual or another has such a conviction. How can convicted criminals be allowed to make the law, either as a member of the legislature or as a minister if the people they supposedly serve are totally unaware of such a conflict of interest.
Exactly my thought.
Are we really saying our politicians should be held to lesser standards than... lawyers and bankers ?
Or we try to hold lawyers and bankers to higher standards because of the ample evidence that they are a bunch of crooks and cheats?
Unfortunately I think UK insurance companies have more in common with those in the USA than with those in Europe. An insurance-based system does seem to work in Europe and my perception is that it's because the companies aren't out to screw the customer for every last penny.
I was being mischievous. I very much doubt the average Reform voters has any clue that their healthcare could cost them £420 a month.
This guy is getting away with blue murder and very few are calling him out. I am particularly disappointed with the Conservatives, they seem to look upon this outrageous clown as a friend and ally on the basis of my enemy's enemy is my friend.
I am no friend of Reform, but it is delusional to think they intend under any circumstances to stop the NHS being universal and free at the point of delivery.
Reform, now that they have a chance of being elected, have shifted to the social democrat centre + mostly closed borders + nationalism. No-one has any chance at all of being elected without retaining the post WWII social democratic deal. Everyone tinkers with it; no-one has yet thought of an electable way of shifting it.
You say this weekly, it doesn’t make it any more true. Reform model themselves on MAGA. MAGA also depend on the votes of poorer people on Govt-funded healthcare, but they’ve still slashed that healthcare. Reform will too.
Farage cannot govern by executive order, he would need parliament to vote to get rid of the NHS.
Given the rabble of malcontents 300 Reform MPs would be I cannot see that happening.
The bigger threat to the NHS would be a financial crisis and crashed economy.
How big an NHS will the IMF let us run?
You keep suggesting we are going to be cap in hand to the IMF but wasn't that supposed to happen in the first 6 months of a Labour government?
Perhaps a small punt on whether the UK has to seek help from the IMF before the next GE? £100 to a charity of the winner's choice?
It's just shorthand to wind up the Left about how crap their governance is.
On topic, I am about to win my bets that neither Starmer nor Badenoch would be replaced during 2025; the level of media chatter and political backroom plotting almost always over-estimates the likelihood of leaders being replaced, re-enforced by the Tories' recent efforts to make it an annual event as part of the summer 'season'. The 'no change' bet is typically at favourable odds since most punters who bet on those markets do so thinking they see a replacement coming.
For 2026, however, I am less confident. I do suspect the bet on Starmer lasting the year is a more solid one than on Badenoch? Yet BFE has Starmer the more likely to go.
Look at how long recent Conservative leaders have lasted, and compare that with the time left to the 2029 election to see if it is too soon for Kemi's would-be replacement to reach 2029 without being replaced themself.
This millennium:- IDS 2 years Michael Howard 2 years Call Me Dave 11 years Theresa May 3 years Boris 3 years Liz Truss 7 weeks Rishi 2 years
Kemi is nearing IDS and Howard and Rishi levels of tenure and is already long past Truss, she needs to have a good set of local elections next year with some Tory gains in London especially I think to avoid a VONC
The public has no right to know if ministers have criminal convictions, the government’s information watchdog has ruled.
In a ruling published on November 12, the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) rejected an appeal by The Times to force the Cabinet Office to disclose how many ministers had declared a prior criminal conviction before taking office. Officials refused to confirm or deny whether it recorded this information, and the transparency regulator ruled that ministers’ right to privacy trumped the public’s right to know.
The decision, which The Times intends to appeal against, comes after Louise Haigh’s failure to declare a fraud conviction led to her resignation as transport secretary last year.
Surely courts and criminal convictions are public records until deemed spent?
But knowing whether Joe Bloggs done for shoplifting in 2012 is one and the same Joe Bloggs as Rt Hon J. Bloggs MP MInister for Prisons is a matter of personal data. Which is restricted. Maybe that is the logic?
There are several licensed professions- law, finance etc- where a criminal conviction bars people from entering them at all, so even if we allow that a conviction should not bar an individual from public office, it is outrageous that the voters are not allowed to know that one individual or another has such a conviction. How can convicted criminals be allowed to make the law, either as a member of the legislature or as a minister if the people they supposedly serve are totally unaware of such a conflict of interest.
I don't think it's a "conflict of interest". If it is, then it's also a conflict of interest that health ministers were born in NHS hospitals and education ministers often went to state schools. One can make a case that there is a public interest in whether a legislator has a criminal record of some sort, but I think you're rather abusing what "conflict of interest" means.
Unfortunately I think UK insurance companies have more in common with those in the USA than with those in Europe. An insurance-based system does seem to work in Europe and my perception is that it's because the companies aren't out to screw the customer for every last penny.
I was being mischievous. I very much doubt the average Reform voters has any clue that their healthcare could cost them £420 a month.
This guy is getting away with blue murder and very few are calling him out. I am particularly disappointed with the Conservatives, they seem to look upon this outrageous clown as a friend and ally on the basis of my enemy's enemy is my friend.
How much do you think the NHS costs the average Reform voter at the moment? And is that good value for money?
We spend a very similar percentage of GDP as European peers such as Germany and France.
But the median age in those countries is higher than the UK. And health outcomes can be debated, but we're certainly not an obvious leader of the pack.
I think both sides could do with accepting that the NHS isn't as amazing or awful as some imagine.
The US system, by contrast, is objectively awful. Extremely high cost and worse outcomes at an aggregate level.
I imagine there's lots we could learn from where some European nations deliver better value for money than us.
2023 figures, Germany 11.7%, France 11.5%, UK 11.1% (2022). That 0.6% is quite significant.
Remarkable that Poland is projected at over $55,000 GDP on a PPP basis.
Not that much, compare the average Poles work ethic to the average French employees work ethic
I’ve worked in French offices. It’s a very different experience to the UK.
They do shorter hours and take longer lunch breaks (ie they actually take lunch breaks). But when they’re working they’re working. Heads down, silence, churning it out. We work longer with no lunch breaks but spend half the day faffing and the other half gossiping.
One reason (not the only one, it’s also structural) why French productivity per hour of labour is so much higher than ours or indeed most developed countries.
There is some evidence French are more productive when they do work (and most Brits do have a lunch break if shorter than the French do) but that is still not enough for the French to overtake the UK and Germany and let alone the Americans and Australians on gdp per capita especially when you add in their frequent strikes too. The Poles also tend to work longer hours than the French do and also work when they are working without much gossip and faffing about like some Brits, hence the Poles surge in gdp per capita.
Indeed by 2050 it might be Brits seeking free movement to Poland that gets us back into the EEA!
Unfortunately I think UK insurance companies have more in common with those in the USA than with those in Europe. An insurance-based system does seem to work in Europe and my perception is that it's because the companies aren't out to screw the customer for every last penny.
I was being mischievous. I very much doubt the average Reform voters has any clue that their healthcare could cost them £420 a month.
This guy is getting away with blue murder and very few are calling him out. I am particularly disappointed with the Conservatives, they seem to look upon this outrageous clown as a friend and ally on the basis of my enemy's enemy is my friend.
How much do you think the NHS costs the average Reform voter at the moment? And is that good value for money?
We spend a very similar percentage of GDP as European peers such as Germany and France.
But the median age in those countries is higher than the UK. And health outcomes can be debated, but we're certainly not an obvious leader of the pack.
I think both sides could do with accepting that the NHS isn't as amazing or awful as some imagine.
The US system, by contrast, is objectively awful. Extremely high cost and worse outcomes at an aggregate level.
I imagine there's lots we could learn from where some European nations deliver better value for money than us.
2023 figures, Germany 11.7%, France 11.5%, UK 11.1% (2022). That 0.6% is quite significant.
Unfortunately I think UK insurance companies have more in common with those in the USA than with those in Europe. An insurance-based system does seem to work in Europe and my perception is that it's because the companies aren't out to screw the customer for every last penny.
I was being mischievous. I very much doubt the average Reform voters has any clue that their healthcare could cost them £420 a month.
This guy is getting away with blue murder and very few are calling him out. I am particularly disappointed with the Conservatives, they seem to look upon this outrageous clown as a friend and ally on the basis of my enemy's enemy is my friend.
Replacing something funded through taxes with something paid for per person by individuals will always benefit the richer and disbenefit the poorer.
That doesn't make it wrong, and idealistic communism never happens as an alternative. But it's always the effect.
Indeed, and the Reform voter profile these days covers both bases. Billionaire hedge fund manager and zero hours sparky on family credits.
No prizes for guessing which side of the support base will get shafted in the event of a Reform government. Plus going large on culture and immigration to distract the low income Reform backers from how much the government will be shafting them.
UK MAGA, effectively.
I wonder how many years in government it will take for its inherent contradictions to blow it up ?
Unfortunately I think UK insurance companies have more in common with those in the USA than with those in Europe. An insurance-based system does seem to work in Europe and my perception is that it's because the companies aren't out to screw the customer for every last penny.
I was being mischievous. I very much doubt the average Reform voters has any clue that their healthcare could cost them £420 a month.
This guy is getting away with blue murder and very few are calling him out. I am particularly disappointed with the Conservatives, they seem to look upon this outrageous clown as a friend and ally on the basis of my enemy's enemy is my friend.
I am no friend of Reform, but it is delusional to think they intend under any circumstances to stop the NHS being universal and free at the point of delivery.
Reform, now that they have a chance of being elected, have shifted to the social democrat centre + mostly closed borders + nationalism. No-one has any chance at all of being elected without retaining the post WWII social democratic deal. Everyone tinkers with it; no-one has yet thought of an electable way of shifting it.
You say this weekly, it doesn’t make it any more true. Reform model themselves on MAGA. MAGA also depend on the votes of poorer people on Govt-funded healthcare, but they’ve still slashed that healthcare. Reform will too.
Farage cannot govern by executive order, he would need parliament to vote to get rid of the NHS.
Given the rabble of malcontents 300 Reform MPs would be I cannot see that happening.
The bigger threat to the NHS would be a financial crisis and crashed economy.
How big an NHS will the IMF let us run?
You keep suggesting we are going to be cap in hand to the IMF but wasn't that supposed to happen in the first 6 months of a Labour government?
Perhaps a small punt on whether the UK has to seek help from the IMF before the next GE? £100 to a charity of the winner's choice?
It’s one of those loveable journalistic shorthands. Whenever there’s concern about debt repayments we are going “cap in hand” to the IMF. Who first decided the cap in hand term was the right one for these stories?
It’s up there with some other favourites:
- Brits / Britons deployed in specific contexts (Brits when the active subject, Britons when victims of a disaster or stuck abroad) - “Fury as…” - Romp - Boffins - Bosses (rail bosses, bank bosses, union bosses etc) - Sources close to - Police quiz [suspect]
And so on.
Increases to any particular tax are a "raid" on those impacted.
"Where there is no [leadership] vacancy, nominations may be sought by potential challengers. In this case any nomination must be supported by 20 per cent of the Commons members of the PLP. Nominations not attaining this threshold shall be null and void. The sitting Leader or Deputy Leader shall not be required to seek nominations in the event of a challenge under this rule."
So about 80 Labour MPs would need to nominate a challenger to Starmer for him to face a leadership contest, a high bar unless the May local and devolved elections next year are abysmal for Labour. There is no mechanism for a VONC in a Labour leader by Labour MPs though under Labour rules as there is for Tory MPs to have a VONC in their leaders now under Tory rules
The bit I like, though I'm very doubtful it could happen in reality, is that a candidate can be nominated without their consent by their peers.
I also seem to recall that the rules for getting to election after a nomination hits 20% are a bit messy and lacking, no particular set timetable, no particular rules on opening nominations to others for a period of time, and all to be decided by a Starmerite NEC.
The most we have is the precedent of the Owen Smith challenge, and I think the only thing that might have changed since then is some of the link to conference season has been broken (though DYOR, if any such residual link remains then Q4 becomes a more attractive bet).
Unfortunately I think UK insurance companies have more in common with those in the USA than with those in Europe. An insurance-based system does seem to work in Europe and my perception is that it's because the companies aren't out to screw the customer for every last penny.
I was being mischievous. I very much doubt the average Reform voters has any clue that their healthcare could cost them £420 a month.
This guy is getting away with blue murder and very few are calling him out. I am particularly disappointed with the Conservatives, they seem to look upon this outrageous clown as a friend and ally on the basis of my enemy's enemy is my friend.
I am no friend of Reform, but it is delusional to think they intend under any circumstances to stop the NHS being universal and free at the point of delivery.
Reform, now that they have a chance of being elected, have shifted to the social democrat centre + mostly closed borders + nationalism. No-one has any chance at all of being elected without retaining the post WWII social democratic deal. Everyone tinkers with it; no-one has yet thought of an electable way of shifting it.
You say this weekly, it doesn’t make it any more true. Reform model themselves on MAGA. MAGA also depend on the votes of poorer people on Govt-funded healthcare, but they’ve still slashed that healthcare. Reform will too.
Farage cannot govern by executive order, he would need parliament to vote to get rid of the NHS.
Given the rabble of malcontents 300 Reform MPs would be I cannot see that happening.
The bigger threat to the NHS would be a financial crisis and crashed economy.
How big an NHS will the IMF let us run?
You keep suggesting we are going to be cap in hand to the IMF but wasn't that supposed to happen in the first 6 months of a Labour government?
Perhaps a small punt on whether the UK has to seek help from the IMF before the next GE? £100 to a charity of the winner's choice?
It’s one of those loveable journalistic shorthands. Whenever there’s concern about debt repayments we are going “cap in hand” to the IMF. Who first decided the cap in hand term was the right one for these stories?
It’s up there with some other favourites:
- Brits / Britons deployed in specific contexts (Brits when the active subject, Britons when victims of a disaster or stuck abroad) - “Fury as…” - Romp - Boffins - Bosses (rail bosses, bank bosses, union bosses etc) - Sources close to - Police quiz [suspect]
And so on.
Increases to any particular tax are a "raid" on those impacted.
Unfortunately I think UK insurance companies have more in common with those in the USA than with those in Europe. An insurance-based system does seem to work in Europe and my perception is that it's because the companies aren't out to screw the customer for every last penny.
I was being mischievous. I very much doubt the average Reform voters has any clue that their healthcare could cost them £420 a month.
This guy is getting away with blue murder and very few are calling him out. I am particularly disappointed with the Conservatives, they seem to look upon this outrageous clown as a friend and ally on the basis of my enemy's enemy is my friend.
How much do you think the NHS costs the average Reform voter at the moment? And is that good value for money?
We spend a very similar percentage of GDP as European peers such as Germany and France.
But the median age in those countries is higher than the UK. And health outcomes can be debated, but we're certainly not an obvious leader of the pack.
I think both sides could do with accepting that the NHS isn't as amazing or awful as some imagine.
The US system, by contrast, is objectively awful. Extremely high cost and worse outcomes at an aggregate level.
I imagine there's lots we could learn from where some European nations deliver better value for money than us.
2023 figures, Germany 11.7%, France 11.5%, UK 11.1% (2022). That 0.6% is quite significant.
Remarkable that Poland is projected at over $55,000 GDP on a PPP basis.
Not that much, compare the average Poles work ethic to the average French employees work ethic
I’ve worked in French offices. It’s a very different experience to the UK.
They do shorter hours and take longer lunch breaks (ie they actually take lunch breaks). But when they’re working they’re working. Heads down, silence, churning it out. We work longer with no lunch breaks but spend half the day faffing and the other half gossiping.
One reason (not the only one, it’s also structural) why French productivity per hour of labour is so much higher than ours or indeed most developed countries.
That's very interesting, you describe the way I work (except for the shorter hours & longer lunchbreaks). It's a surprise to find I have anything in common with French culture.
Unfortunately I think UK insurance companies have more in common with those in the USA than with those in Europe. An insurance-based system does seem to work in Europe and my perception is that it's because the companies aren't out to screw the customer for every last penny.
I was being mischievous. I very much doubt the average Reform voters has any clue that their healthcare could cost them £420 a month.
This guy is getting away with blue murder and very few are calling him out. I am particularly disappointed with the Conservatives, they seem to look upon this outrageous clown as a friend and ally on the basis of my enemy's enemy is my friend.
How much do you think the NHS costs the average Reform voter at the moment? And is that good value for money?
We spend a very similar percentage of GDP as European peers such as Germany and France.
But the median age in those countries is higher than the UK. And health outcomes can be debated, but we're certainly not an obvious leader of the pack.
I think both sides could do with accepting that the NHS isn't as amazing or awful as some imagine.
The US system, by contrast, is objectively awful. Extremely high cost and worse outcomes at an aggregate level.
I imagine there's lots we could learn from where some European nations deliver better value for money than us.
2023 figures, Germany 11.7%, France 11.5%, UK 11.1% (2022). That 0.6% is quite significant.
Remarkable that Poland is projected at over $55,000 GDP on a PPP basis.
Not that much, compare the average Poles work ethic to the average French employees work ethic
I’ve worked in French offices. It’s a very different experience to the UK.
They do shorter hours and take longer lunch breaks (ie they actually take lunch breaks). But when they’re working they’re working. Heads down, silence, churning it out. We work longer with no lunch breaks but spend half the day faffing and the other half gossiping.
One reason (not the only one, it’s also structural) why French productivity per hour of labour is so much higher than ours or indeed most developed countries.
There is some evidence French are more productive when they do work (and most Brits do have a lunch break if shorter than the French do) but that is still not enough for the French to overtake the UK and Germany and let alone the Americans and Australians on gdp per capita especially when you add in their frequent strikes too. The Poles also tend to work longer hours than the French do and also work when they are working without much gossip and faffing about like some Brits, hence the Poles surge in gdp per capita.
Indeed by 2050 it might be Brits seeking free movement to Poland that gets us back into the EEA!
In the long run productivity increase is about utilisation of new technology.
It is possible UK will get game changing productivity in 2030s thanks to AI (which we wont be blocking with regulation like EU).
Unfortunately I think UK insurance companies have more in common with those in the USA than with those in Europe. An insurance-based system does seem to work in Europe and my perception is that it's because the companies aren't out to screw the customer for every last penny.
I was being mischievous. I very much doubt the average Reform voters has any clue that their healthcare could cost them £420 a month.
This guy is getting away with blue murder and very few are calling him out. I am particularly disappointed with the Conservatives, they seem to look upon this outrageous clown as a friend and ally on the basis of my enemy's enemy is my friend.
I am no friend of Reform, but it is delusional to think they intend under any circumstances to stop the NHS being universal and free at the point of delivery.
Reform, now that they have a chance of being elected, have shifted to the social democrat centre + mostly closed borders + nationalism. No-one has any chance at all of being elected without retaining the post WWII social democratic deal. Everyone tinkers with it; no-one has yet thought of an electable way of shifting it.
You say this weekly, it doesn’t make it any more true. Reform model themselves on MAGA. MAGA also depend on the votes of poorer people on Govt-funded healthcare, but they’ve still slashed that healthcare. Reform will too.
Farage cannot govern by executive order, he would need parliament to vote to get rid of the NHS.
Given the rabble of malcontents 300 Reform MPs would be I cannot see that happening.
The bigger threat to the NHS would be a financial crisis and crashed economy.
How big an NHS will the IMF let us run?
You keep suggesting we are going to be cap in hand to the IMF but wasn't that supposed to happen in the first 6 months of a Labour government?
Perhaps a small punt on whether the UK has to seek help from the IMF before the next GE? £100 to a charity of the winner's choice?
60-62 Spread price on age of posters talking about UK needing to go IMF.
I'm bucking that trend then at 65.
Tbf, most posters under 60 won't remember the IMF loan in 1976.
Unfortunately I think UK insurance companies have more in common with those in the USA than with those in Europe. An insurance-based system does seem to work in Europe and my perception is that it's because the companies aren't out to screw the customer for every last penny.
I was being mischievous. I very much doubt the average Reform voters has any clue that their healthcare could cost them £420 a month.
This guy is getting away with blue murder and very few are calling him out. I am particularly disappointed with the Conservatives, they seem to look upon this outrageous clown as a friend and ally on the basis of my enemy's enemy is my friend.
How much do you think the NHS costs the average Reform voter at the moment? And is that good value for money?
We spend a very similar percentage of GDP as European peers such as Germany and France.
But the median age in those countries is higher than the UK. And health outcomes can be debated, but we're certainly not an obvious leader of the pack.
I think both sides could do with accepting that the NHS isn't as amazing or awful as some imagine.
The US system, by contrast, is objectively awful. Extremely high cost and worse outcomes at an aggregate level.
I imagine there's lots we could learn from where some European nations deliver better value for money than us.
A friend is something of a polyglot. She gets annoyed with people online who are always looking for One Simple Trick to learn a language quickly. There's no such thing, she says. You just have to put the work in.
I feel the same about healthcare policy. People want One Simple Trick to deliver better healthcare at less cost. It doesn't exist. Yes, there are plenty of small things you can do. The healthcare policy research literature is full of international comparisons and proposals, and the NHS is constantly looking at these, piloting schemes and making changes. But switching to, say, the German healthcare system isn't going to spectacularly change the underlying challenges: healthcare costs money and the population is ageing. The research suggests that, more or less, the different delivery systems across Europe don't make that much difference, but the amount you spend does.
Unfortunately I think UK insurance companies have more in common with those in the USA than with those in Europe. An insurance-based system does seem to work in Europe and my perception is that it's because the companies aren't out to screw the customer for every last penny.
I was being mischievous. I very much doubt the average Reform voters has any clue that their healthcare could cost them £420 a month.
This guy is getting away with blue murder and very few are calling him out. I am particularly disappointed with the Conservatives, they seem to look upon this outrageous clown as a friend and ally on the basis of my enemy's enemy is my friend.
How much do you think the NHS costs the average Reform voter at the moment? And is that good value for money?
We spend a very similar percentage of GDP as European peers such as Germany and France.
But the median age in those countries is higher than the UK. And health outcomes can be debated, but we're certainly not an obvious leader of the pack.
I think both sides could do with accepting that the NHS isn't as amazing or awful as some imagine.
The US system, by contrast, is objectively awful. Extremely high cost and worse outcomes at an aggregate level.
I imagine there's lots we could learn from where some European nations deliver better value for money than us.
2023 figures, Germany 11.7%, France 11.5%, UK 11.1% (2022). That 0.6% is quite significant.
Remarkable that Poland is projected at over $55,000 GDP on a PPP basis.
Not that much, compare the average Poles work ethic to the average French employees work ethic
I’ve worked in French offices. It’s a very different experience to the UK.
They do shorter hours and take longer lunch breaks (ie they actually take lunch breaks). But when they’re working they’re working. Heads down, silence, churning it out. We work longer with no lunch breaks but spend half the day faffing and the other half gossiping.
One reason (not the only one, it’s also structural) why French productivity per hour of labour is so much higher than ours or indeed most developed countries.
There is some evidence French are more productive when they do work (and most Brits do have a lunch break if shorter than the French do) but that is still not enough for the French to overtake the UK and Germany and let alone the Americans and Australians on gdp per capita especially when you add in their frequent strikes too. The Poles also tend to work longer hours than the French do and also work when they are working without much gossip and faffing about like some Brits, hence the Poles surge in gdp per capita.
Indeed by 2050 it might be Brits seeking free movement to Poland that gets us back into the EEA!
In the long run productivity increase is about utilisation of new technology.
It is possible UK will get game changing productivity in 2030s thanks to AI (which we wont be blocking with regulation like EU).
Then again, we may just f*ck up as per normal.
Not much help to the average worker though if AI just removes entry level office jobs without creating new jobs to replace them
Unfortunately I think UK insurance companies have more in common with those in the USA than with those in Europe. An insurance-based system does seem to work in Europe and my perception is that it's because the companies aren't out to screw the customer for every last penny.
I was being mischievous. I very much doubt the average Reform voters has any clue that their healthcare could cost them £420 a month.
This guy is getting away with blue murder and very few are calling him out. I am particularly disappointed with the Conservatives, they seem to look upon this outrageous clown as a friend and ally on the basis of my enemy's enemy is my friend.
How much do you think the NHS costs the average Reform voter at the moment? And is that good value for money?
We spend a very similar percentage of GDP as European peers such as Germany and France.
But the median age in those countries is higher than the UK. And health outcomes can be debated, but we're certainly not an obvious leader of the pack.
I think both sides could do with accepting that the NHS isn't as amazing or awful as some imagine.
The US system, by contrast, is objectively awful. Extremely high cost and worse outcomes at an aggregate level.
I imagine there's lots we could learn from where some European nations deliver better value for money than us.
2023 figures, Germany 11.7%, France 11.5%, UK 11.1% (2022). That 0.6% is quite significant.
Remarkable that Poland is projected at over $55,000 GDP on a PPP basis.
Not that much, compare the average Poles work ethic to the average French employees work ethic
I’ve worked in French offices. It’s a very different experience to the UK.
They do shorter hours and take longer lunch breaks (ie they actually take lunch breaks). But when they’re working they’re working. Heads down, silence, churning it out. We work longer with no lunch breaks but spend half the day faffing and the other half gossiping.
One reason (not the only one, it’s also structural) why French productivity per hour of labour is so much higher than ours or indeed most developed countries.
I thought productivity was more to do with the quality of infrastructure and job training, areas where the UK scores low,
If it were all about working heads down for long hours many poor countries would very much richer.
"Where there is no [leadership] vacancy, nominations may be sought by potential challengers. In this case any nomination must be supported by 20 per cent of the Commons members of the PLP. Nominations not attaining this threshold shall be null and void. The sitting Leader or Deputy Leader shall not be required to seek nominations in the event of a challenge under this rule."
Question: Under Labour's rules if X gets the 20% of MPs to nominate, then there is a contest for the leader. Is that contest just between the PM and X, or is there a system where others can join in, and if so what are the conditions (and timetable)?
Sorry to be so ignorant.
Shocking, not knowing the details of Labour's election rules. What is life about? But I think the position is that any Y also needs 20% of MPs, and has IIRC about 10 days to do it.
Unfortunately I think UK insurance companies have more in common with those in the USA than with those in Europe. An insurance-based system does seem to work in Europe and my perception is that it's because the companies aren't out to screw the customer for every last penny.
I was being mischievous. I very much doubt the average Reform voters has any clue that their healthcare could cost them £420 a month.
This guy is getting away with blue murder and very few are calling him out. I am particularly disappointed with the Conservatives, they seem to look upon this outrageous clown as a friend and ally on the basis of my enemy's enemy is my friend.
I am no friend of Reform, but it is delusional to think they intend under any circumstances to stop the NHS being universal and free at the point of delivery.
Reform, now that they have a chance of being elected, have shifted to the social democrat centre + mostly closed borders + nationalism. No-one has any chance at all of being elected without retaining the post WWII social democratic deal. Everyone tinkers with it; no-one has yet thought of an electable way of shifting it.
You say this weekly, it doesn’t make it any more true. Reform model themselves on MAGA. MAGA also depend on the votes of poorer people on Govt-funded healthcare, but they’ve still slashed that healthcare. Reform will too.
Farage cannot govern by executive order, he would need parliament to vote to get rid of the NHS.
Given the rabble of malcontents 300 Reform MPs would be I cannot see that happening.
The bigger threat to the NHS would be a financial crisis and crashed economy.
How big an NHS will the IMF let us run?
You keep suggesting we are going to be cap in hand to the IMF but wasn't that supposed to happen in the first 6 months of a Labour government?
Perhaps a small punt on whether the UK has to seek help from the IMF before the next GE? £100 to a charity of the winner's choice?
60-62 Spread price on age of posters talking about UK needing to go IMF.
I'm bucking that trend then at 65.
Tbf, most posters under 60 won't remember the IMF loan in 1976.
I do. But then I do get reminded about it on here several times per day.
Unfortunately I think UK insurance companies have more in common with those in the USA than with those in Europe. An insurance-based system does seem to work in Europe and my perception is that it's because the companies aren't out to screw the customer for every last penny.
I was being mischievous. I very much doubt the average Reform voters has any clue that their healthcare could cost them £420 a month.
This guy is getting away with blue murder and very few are calling him out. I am particularly disappointed with the Conservatives, they seem to look upon this outrageous clown as a friend and ally on the basis of my enemy's enemy is my friend.
How much do you think the NHS costs the average Reform voter at the moment? And is that good value for money?
We spend a very similar percentage of GDP as European peers such as Germany and France.
But the median age in those countries is higher than the UK. And health outcomes can be debated, but we're certainly not an obvious leader of the pack.
I think both sides could do with accepting that the NHS isn't as amazing or awful as some imagine.
The US system, by contrast, is objectively awful. Extremely high cost and worse outcomes at an aggregate level.
I imagine there's lots we could learn from where some European nations deliver better value for money than us.
2023 figures, Germany 11.7%, France 11.5%, UK 11.1% (2022). That 0.6% is quite significant.
Remarkable that Poland is projected at over $55,000 GDP on a PPP basis.
Not that much, compare the average Poles work ethic to the average French employees work ethic
I’ve worked in French offices. It’s a very different experience to the UK.
They do shorter hours and take longer lunch breaks (ie they actually take lunch breaks). But when they’re working they’re working. Heads down, silence, churning it out. We work longer with no lunch breaks but spend half the day faffing and the other half gossiping.
One reason (not the only one, it’s also structural) why French productivity per hour of labour is so much higher than ours or indeed most developed countries.
There is some evidence French are more productive when they do work (and most Brits do have a lunch break if shorter than the French do) but that is still not enough for the French to overtake the UK and Germany and let alone the Americans and Australians on gdp per capita especially when you add in their frequent strikes too. The Poles also tend to work longer hours than the French do and also work when they are working without much gossip and faffing about like some Brits, hence the Poles surge in gdp per capita.
Indeed by 2050 it might be Brits seeking free movement to Poland that gets us back into the EEA!
In the long run productivity increase is about utilisation of new technology.
It is possible UK will get game changing productivity in 2030s thanks to AI (which we wont be blocking with regulation like EU).
Then again, we may just f*ck up as per normal.
Not much help to the average worker though if AI just removes entry level office jobs without creating new jobs to replace them
Indeed. But the discussion was about productivity. Either people like Roger Bootle are going to be proved right and new jobs will appear as they have with other tech waves or we will have a massive societal problem.
Unfortunately I think UK insurance companies have more in common with those in the USA than with those in Europe. An insurance-based system does seem to work in Europe and my perception is that it's because the companies aren't out to screw the customer for every last penny.
I was being mischievous. I very much doubt the average Reform voters has any clue that their healthcare could cost them £420 a month.
This guy is getting away with blue murder and very few are calling him out. I am particularly disappointed with the Conservatives, they seem to look upon this outrageous clown as a friend and ally on the basis of my enemy's enemy is my friend.
How much do you think the NHS costs the average Reform voter at the moment? And is that good value for money?
We spend a very similar percentage of GDP as European peers such as Germany and France.
But the median age in those countries is higher than the UK. And health outcomes can be debated, but we're certainly not an obvious leader of the pack.
I think both sides could do with accepting that the NHS isn't as amazing or awful as some imagine.
The US system, by contrast, is objectively awful. Extremely high cost and worse outcomes at an aggregate level.
I imagine there's lots we could learn from where some European nations deliver better value for money than us.
2023 figures, Germany 11.7%, France 11.5%, UK 11.1% (2022). That 0.6% is quite significant.
Unfortunately I think UK insurance companies have more in common with those in the USA than with those in Europe. An insurance-based system does seem to work in Europe and my perception is that it's because the companies aren't out to screw the customer for every last penny.
I was being mischievous. I very much doubt the average Reform voters has any clue that their healthcare could cost them £420 a month.
This guy is getting away with blue murder and very few are calling him out. I am particularly disappointed with the Conservatives, they seem to look upon this outrageous clown as a friend and ally on the basis of my enemy's enemy is my friend.
How much do you think the NHS costs the average Reform voter at the moment? And is that good value for money?
We spend a very similar percentage of GDP as European peers such as Germany and France.
But the median age in those countries is higher than the UK. And health outcomes can be debated, but we're certainly not an obvious leader of the pack.
I think both sides could do with accepting that the NHS isn't as amazing or awful as some imagine.
The US system, by contrast, is objectively awful. Extremely high cost and worse outcomes at an aggregate level.
I imagine there's lots we could learn from where some European nations deliver better value for money than us.
2023 figures, Germany 11.7%, France 11.5%, UK 11.1% (2022). That 0.6% is quite significant.
Remarkable that Poland is projected at over $55,000 GDP on a PPP basis.
Not that much, compare the average Poles work ethic to the average French employees work ethic
I’ve worked in French offices. It’s a very different experience to the UK.
They do shorter hours and take longer lunch breaks (ie they actually take lunch breaks). But when they’re working they’re working. Heads down, silence, churning it out. We work longer with no lunch breaks but spend half the day faffing and the other half gossiping.
One reason (not the only one, it’s also structural) why French productivity per hour of labour is so much higher than ours or indeed most developed countries.
I thought productivity was more to do with the quality of infrastructure and job training, areas where the UK scores low,
If it were all about working heads down for long hours many poor countries would very much richer.
Productivity is output value per man-hour worked, so technology that allows more output improves the situation, as does the French model of taking a long break in the middle of the day but keeping your head down when working.
Most poorer countries use labour as a substitute for technology, which is terrible for productivity. Ten men spending all day digging a hole with shovels, that could be done by one man in one hour using a machine, is probably the most obvious example.
Unfortunately I think UK insurance companies have more in common with those in the USA than with those in Europe. An insurance-based system does seem to work in Europe and my perception is that it's because the companies aren't out to screw the customer for every last penny.
I was being mischievous. I very much doubt the average Reform voters has any clue that their healthcare could cost them £420 a month.
This guy is getting away with blue murder and very few are calling him out. I am particularly disappointed with the Conservatives, they seem to look upon this outrageous clown as a friend and ally on the basis of my enemy's enemy is my friend...
On that score, he's had a fairly free ride for his decade long public dabbling in far right conspiracy theory.
Farage urged to explain conspiracy theories linked to antisemitism he voiced in US media
In appearances on US TV shows and podcasts earlier in his political career, Farage discussed supposed plots by bankers to create a global government, citing Goldman Sachs, the Bilderberg group and the financier George Soros as threats to democracy.
These included six guest slots on the web TV show of the disgraced far-right US conspiracy theorist Alex Jones. Jones was successfully sued by bereaved parents after claiming the 2012 Sandy Hook elementary school massacre was faked.
During one interview with Jones in 2018, Farage argued that “globalists” were trying to engineer a war with Russia “as an argument for us all to surrender our national sovereignty and give it up to a higher global level”.
Farage also appeared six times on the web radio show of Rick Wiles, a far-right, antisemitic American pastor. Here, topics included whether central bankers would soon start to appoint leaders of the UK and US – an idea Farage did not challenge...
As with the schoolboy stuff, who cares? Specifically, which Reform supporters will know who the flip Rick Wiles is and will also object to Farage having appeared on his show? Wait till the Guardian finds out Nige supported President Trump!
Not so sure about the other conspiracy stuff but George Soros and the foundations he funds have fingers in many organisations who aim to influence many areas of American society and the wider world in what would be described as a 'Progressive' way. Globalist etc is never a word I would use because it is the language of the loon. But because a well known figure who uses his enormous wealth to influence the world around him is jewish (I assume) should not make him immune from criticism.
Unfortunately I think UK insurance companies have more in common with those in the USA than with those in Europe. An insurance-based system does seem to work in Europe and my perception is that it's because the companies aren't out to screw the customer for every last penny.
I was being mischievous. I very much doubt the average Reform voters has any clue that their healthcare could cost them £420 a month.
This guy is getting away with blue murder and very few are calling him out. I am particularly disappointed with the Conservatives, they seem to look upon this outrageous clown as a friend and ally on the basis of my enemy's enemy is my friend.
Replacing something funded through taxes with something paid for per person by individuals will always benefit the richer and disbenefit the poorer.
That doesn't make it wrong, and idealistic communism never happens as an alternative. But it's always the effect.
Indeed, and the Reform voter profile these days covers both bases. Billionaire hedge fund manager and zero hours sparky on family credits.
I know Starmer and Reeves have been crap but I didn't realise they'd damaged the economy so much that electricians are now on zero hours and family credits.
Unfortunately I think UK insurance companies have more in common with those in the USA than with those in Europe. An insurance-based system does seem to work in Europe and my perception is that it's because the companies aren't out to screw the customer for every last penny.
I was being mischievous. I very much doubt the average Reform voters has any clue that their healthcare could cost them £420 a month.
This guy is getting away with blue murder and very few are calling him out. I am particularly disappointed with the Conservatives, they seem to look upon this outrageous clown as a friend and ally on the basis of my enemy's enemy is my friend.
I am no friend of Reform, but it is delusional to think they intend under any circumstances to stop the NHS being universal and free at the point of delivery.
Reform, now that they have a chance of being elected, have shifted to the social democrat centre + mostly closed borders + nationalism. No-one has any chance at all of being elected without retaining the post WWII social democratic deal. Everyone tinkers with it; no-one has yet thought of an electable way of shifting it.
You say this weekly, it doesn’t make it any more true. Reform model themselves on MAGA. MAGA also depend on the votes of poorer people on Govt-funded healthcare, but they’ve still slashed that healthcare. Reform will too.
Farage cannot govern by executive order, he would need parliament to vote to get rid of the NHS.
Given the rabble of malcontents 300 Reform MPs would be I cannot see that happening.
The bigger threat to the NHS would be a financial crisis and crashed economy.
How big an NHS will the IMF let us run?
You keep suggesting we are going to be cap in hand to the IMF but wasn't that supposed to happen in the first 6 months of a Labour government?
Perhaps a small punt on whether the UK has to seek help from the IMF before the next GE? £100 to a charity of the winner's choice?
60-62 Spread price on age of posters talking about UK needing to go IMF.
I'm bucking that trend then at 65.
Tbf, most posters under 60 won't remember the IMF loan in 1976.
Curiously recent IMF and Trump handouts to Milei also seemed to have passed many young(er) righties by.
Unfortunately I think UK insurance companies have more in common with those in the USA than with those in Europe. An insurance-based system does seem to work in Europe and my perception is that it's because the companies aren't out to screw the customer for every last penny.
I was being mischievous. I very much doubt the average Reform voters has any clue that their healthcare could cost them £420 a month.
This guy is getting away with blue murder and very few are calling him out. I am particularly disappointed with the Conservatives, they seem to look upon this outrageous clown as a friend and ally on the basis of my enemy's enemy is my friend.
Replacing something funded through taxes with something paid for per person by individuals will always benefit the richer and disbenefit the poorer.
That doesn't make it wrong, and idealistic communism never happens as an alternative. But it's always the effect.
Indeed, and the Reform voter profile these days covers both bases. Billionaire hedge fund manager and zero hours sparky on family credits.
No prizes for guessing which side of the support base will get shafted in the event of a Reform government. Plus going large on culture and immigration to distract the low income Reform backers from how much the government will be shafting them.
UK MAGA, effectively.
I wonder how many years in government it will take for its inherent contradictions to blow it up ?
It’s taken 1.5 years for the inherent contradictions in a Labour Government to blow up so we have our yard-stick.
Unfortunately I think UK insurance companies have more in common with those in the USA than with those in Europe. An insurance-based system does seem to work in Europe and my perception is that it's because the companies aren't out to screw the customer for every last penny.
I was being mischievous. I very much doubt the average Reform voters has any clue that their healthcare could cost them £420 a month.
This guy is getting away with blue murder and very few are calling him out. I am particularly disappointed with the Conservatives, they seem to look upon this outrageous clown as a friend and ally on the basis of my enemy's enemy is my friend.
Replacing something funded through taxes with something paid for per person by individuals will always benefit the richer and disbenefit the poorer.
That doesn't make it wrong, and idealistic communism never happens as an alternative. But it's always the effect.
Indeed, and the Reform voter profile these days covers both bases. Billionaire hedge fund manager and zero hours sparky on family credits.
I know Starmer and Reeves have been crap but I didn't realise they'd damaged the economy so much that electricians are now on zero hours and family credits.
Unfortunately I think UK insurance companies have more in common with those in the USA than with those in Europe. An insurance-based system does seem to work in Europe and my perception is that it's because the companies aren't out to screw the customer for every last penny.
I was being mischievous. I very much doubt the average Reform voters has any clue that their healthcare could cost them £420 a month.
This guy is getting away with blue murder and very few are calling him out. I am particularly disappointed with the Conservatives, they seem to look upon this outrageous clown as a friend and ally on the basis of my enemy's enemy is my friend.
How much do you think the NHS costs the average Reform voter at the moment? And is that good value for money?
We spend a very similar percentage of GDP as European peers such as Germany and France.
But the median age in those countries is higher than the UK. And health outcomes can be debated, but we're certainly not an obvious leader of the pack.
I think both sides could do with accepting that the NHS isn't as amazing or awful as some imagine.
The US system, by contrast, is objectively awful. Extremely high cost and worse outcomes at an aggregate level.
I imagine there's lots we could learn from where some European nations deliver better value for money than us.
A friend is something of a polyglot. She gets annoyed with people online who are always looking for One Simple Trick to learn a language quickly. There's no such thing, she says. You just have to put the work in.
I feel the same about healthcare policy. People want One Simple Trick to deliver better healthcare at less cost. It doesn't exist. Yes, there are plenty of small things you can do. The healthcare policy research literature is full of international comparisons and proposals, and the NHS is constantly looking at these, piloting schemes and making changes. But switching to, say, the German healthcare system isn't going to spectacularly change the underlying challenges: healthcare costs money and the population is ageing. The research suggests that, more or less, the different delivery systems across Europe don't make that much difference, but the amount you spend does.
That's part of it. But cast an eye over Taiwan; they seem to be significantly more effective in delivering healthcare.
Unfortunately I think UK insurance companies have more in common with those in the USA than with those in Europe. An insurance-based system does seem to work in Europe and my perception is that it's because the companies aren't out to screw the customer for every last penny.
I was being mischievous. I very much doubt the average Reform voters has any clue that their healthcare could cost them £420 a month.
This guy is getting away with blue murder and very few are calling him out. I am particularly disappointed with the Conservatives, they seem to look upon this outrageous clown as a friend and ally on the basis of my enemy's enemy is my friend.
I am no friend of Reform, but it is delusional to think they intend under any circumstances to stop the NHS being universal and free at the point of delivery.
Reform, now that they have a chance of being elected, have shifted to the social democrat centre + mostly closed borders + nationalism. No-one has any chance at all of being elected without retaining the post WWII social democratic deal. Everyone tinkers with it; no-one has yet thought of an electable way of shifting it.
You say this weekly, it doesn’t make it any more true. Reform model themselves on MAGA. MAGA also depend on the votes of poorer people on Govt-funded healthcare, but they’ve still slashed that healthcare. Reform will too.
Farage cannot govern by executive order, he would need parliament to vote to get rid of the NHS.
Given the rabble of malcontents 300 Reform MPs would be I cannot see that happening.
The bigger threat to the NHS would be a financial crisis and crashed economy.
How big an NHS will the IMF let us run?
You keep suggesting we are going to be cap in hand to the IMF but wasn't that supposed to happen in the first 6 months of a Labour government?
Perhaps a small punt on whether the UK has to seek help from the IMF before the next GE? £100 to a charity of the winner's choice?
60-62 Spread price on age of posters talking about UK needing to go IMF.
I'm bucking that trend then at 65.
Tbf, most posters under 60 won't remember the IMF loan in 1976.
I do. But then I do get reminded about it on here several times per day.
I'm wondering whether it was really that much of a disaster anyway. Embarrassing maybe, but I can't remember it making much difference to our daily lives.
The abiding memory of the 70s for me was the Three-Day Week and associated rolling power cuts. All caused by that crap governance under the Labour government led by... oh... Edward Heath.
Unfortunately I think UK insurance companies have more in common with those in the USA than with those in Europe. An insurance-based system does seem to work in Europe and my perception is that it's because the companies aren't out to screw the customer for every last penny.
I was being mischievous. I very much doubt the average Reform voters has any clue that their healthcare could cost them £420 a month.
This guy is getting away with blue murder and very few are calling him out. I am particularly disappointed with the Conservatives, they seem to look upon this outrageous clown as a friend and ally on the basis of my enemy's enemy is my friend.
I am no friend of Reform, but it is delusional to think they intend under any circumstances to stop the NHS being universal and free at the point of delivery.
Reform, now that they have a chance of being elected, have shifted to the social democrat centre + mostly closed borders + nationalism. No-one has any chance at all of being elected without retaining the post WWII social democratic deal. Everyone tinkers with it; no-one has yet thought of an electable way of shifting it.
You say this weekly, it doesn’t make it any more true. Reform model themselves on MAGA. MAGA also depend on the votes of poorer people on Govt-funded healthcare, but they’ve still slashed that healthcare. Reform will too.
Farage cannot govern by executive order, he would need parliament to vote to get rid of the NHS.
Given the rabble of malcontents 300 Reform MPs would be I cannot see that happening.
The bigger threat to the NHS would be a financial crisis and crashed economy.
How big an NHS will the IMF let us run?
You keep suggesting we are going to be cap in hand to the IMF but wasn't that supposed to happen in the first 6 months of a Labour government?
Perhaps a small punt on whether the UK has to seek help from the IMF before the next GE? £100 to a charity of the winner's choice?
60-62 Spread price on age of posters talking about UK needing to go IMF.
I'm bucking that trend then at 65.
Tbf, most posters under 60 won't remember the IMF loan in 1976.
I do. But then I do get reminded about it on here several times per day.
I'm wondering whether it was really that much of a disaster anyway. Embarrassing maybe, but I can't remember it making much difference to our daily lives.
The abiding memory of the 70s for me was the Three-Day Week and associated rolling power cuts. All caused by that crap governance under the Labour government led by... oh... Edward Heath.
My memories of the Seventies are pretty good ones. My father was doing very well financially, and we had some wonderful holidays in Spain, Switzerland, Devon, Ireland, Brittany.
My first political memory, as it were, was the Queen's Silver Jubilee. We were in Kingsbridge, in South Devon, when suddenly, swarms of police descended on us, and the local traffic warden appeared, wearing white gloves. And, then, suddenly, was a motorcade, bearing the Queen and Prince Philip.
Unfortunately I think UK insurance companies have more in common with those in the USA than with those in Europe. An insurance-based system does seem to work in Europe and my perception is that it's because the companies aren't out to screw the customer for every last penny.
I was being mischievous. I very much doubt the average Reform voters has any clue that their healthcare could cost them £420 a month.
This guy is getting away with blue murder and very few are calling him out. I am particularly disappointed with the Conservatives, they seem to look upon this outrageous clown as a friend and ally on the basis of my enemy's enemy is my friend.
I am no friend of Reform, but it is delusional to think they intend under any circumstances to stop the NHS being universal and free at the point of delivery.
Reform, now that they have a chance of being elected, have shifted to the social democrat centre + mostly closed borders + nationalism. No-one has any chance at all of being elected without retaining the post WWII social democratic deal. Everyone tinkers with it; no-one has yet thought of an electable way of shifting it.
You say this weekly, it doesn’t make it any more true. Reform model themselves on MAGA. MAGA also depend on the votes of poorer people on Govt-funded healthcare, but they’ve still slashed that healthcare. Reform will too.
Farage cannot govern by executive order, he would need parliament to vote to get rid of the NHS.
Given the rabble of malcontents 300 Reform MPs would be I cannot see that happening.
The bigger threat to the NHS would be a financial crisis and crashed economy.
How big an NHS will the IMF let us run?
You keep suggesting we are going to be cap in hand to the IMF but wasn't that supposed to happen in the first 6 months of a Labour government?
Perhaps a small punt on whether the UK has to seek help from the IMF before the next GE? £100 to a charity of the winner's choice?
60-62 Spread price on age of posters talking about UK needing to go IMF.
I'm bucking that trend then at 65.
Tbf, most posters under 60 won't remember the IMF loan in 1976.
I do. But then I do get reminded about it on here several times per day.
I'm wondering whether it was really that much of a disaster anyway. Embarrassing maybe, but I can't remember it making much difference to our daily lives.
The abiding memory of the 70s for me was the Three-Day Week and associated rolling power cuts. All caused by that crap governance under the Labour government led by... oh... Edward Heath.
Harold Wilson/James Callaghan caved to the unions. That led to the IMF in Downing Street. They were...checks notes...oh yes, Labour Prime Ministers....
Unfortunately I think UK insurance companies have more in common with those in the USA than with those in Europe. An insurance-based system does seem to work in Europe and my perception is that it's because the companies aren't out to screw the customer for every last penny.
I was being mischievous. I very much doubt the average Reform voters has any clue that their healthcare could cost them £420 a month.
This guy is getting away with blue murder and very few are calling him out. I am particularly disappointed with the Conservatives, they seem to look upon this outrageous clown as a friend and ally on the basis of my enemy's enemy is my friend.
I am no friend of Reform, but it is delusional to think they intend under any circumstances to stop the NHS being universal and free at the point of delivery.
Reform, now that they have a chance of being elected, have shifted to the social democrat centre + mostly closed borders + nationalism. No-one has any chance at all of being elected without retaining the post WWII social democratic deal. Everyone tinkers with it; no-one has yet thought of an electable way of shifting it.
You say this weekly, it doesn’t make it any more true. Reform model themselves on MAGA. MAGA also depend on the votes of poorer people on Govt-funded healthcare, but they’ve still slashed that healthcare. Reform will too.
Farage cannot govern by executive order, he would need parliament to vote to get rid of the NHS.
Given the rabble of malcontents 300 Reform MPs would be I cannot see that happening.
The bigger threat to the NHS would be a financial crisis and crashed economy.
How big an NHS will the IMF let us run?
You keep suggesting we are going to be cap in hand to the IMF but wasn't that supposed to happen in the first 6 months of a Labour government?
Perhaps a small punt on whether the UK has to seek help from the IMF before the next GE? £100 to a charity of the winner's choice?
60-62 Spread price on age of posters talking about UK needing to go IMF.
I'm bucking that trend then at 65.
Tbf, most posters under 60 won't remember the IMF loan in 1976.
Indeed, I was born in 1975. The irony of the UK IMF pogramme is that the UK didn't actually need it. It was based on economic data that were subsequently revised higher. The utility of the IMF of course is that it allows the government to do stuff that it knows to be necessary but doesn't want to take the blame for - those meanies from Washington made me do it! It provides market participants with some guarantee that things won't blow up and so allows the government to borrow more cheaply. There is too much stigma attached to IMF programmes IMHO.
Unfortunately I think UK insurance companies have more in common with those in the USA than with those in Europe. An insurance-based system does seem to work in Europe and my perception is that it's because the companies aren't out to screw the customer for every last penny.
I was being mischievous. I very much doubt the average Reform voters has any clue that their healthcare could cost them £420 a month.
This guy is getting away with blue murder and very few are calling him out. I am particularly disappointed with the Conservatives, they seem to look upon this outrageous clown as a friend and ally on the basis of my enemy's enemy is my friend.
How much do you think the NHS costs the average Reform voter at the moment? And is that good value for money?
We spend a very similar percentage of GDP as European peers such as Germany and France.
But the median age in those countries is higher than the UK. And health outcomes can be debated, but we're certainly not an obvious leader of the pack.
I think both sides could do with accepting that the NHS isn't as amazing or awful as some imagine.
The US system, by contrast, is objectively awful. Extremely high cost and worse outcomes at an aggregate level.
I imagine there's lots we could learn from where some European nations deliver better value for money than us.
A friend is something of a polyglot. She gets annoyed with people online who are always looking for One Simple Trick to learn a language quickly. There's no such thing, she says. You just have to put the work in.
I feel the same about healthcare policy. People want One Simple Trick to deliver better healthcare at less cost. It doesn't exist. Yes, there are plenty of small things you can do. The healthcare policy research literature is full of international comparisons and proposals, and the NHS is constantly looking at these, piloting schemes and making changes. But switching to, say, the German healthcare system isn't going to spectacularly change the underlying challenges: healthcare costs money and the population is ageing. The research suggests that, more or less, the different delivery systems across Europe don't make that much difference, but the amount you spend does.
That's part of it. But cast an eye over Taiwan; they seem to be significantly more effective in delivering healthcare.
Israel has competing NHS-alikes which might be a more palatable model for both sides of politics. Well, except for the whole Israel thing.
Unfortunately I think UK insurance companies have more in common with those in the USA than with those in Europe. An insurance-based system does seem to work in Europe and my perception is that it's because the companies aren't out to screw the customer for every last penny.
I was being mischievous. I very much doubt the average Reform voters has any clue that their healthcare could cost them £420 a month.
This guy is getting away with blue murder and very few are calling him out. I am particularly disappointed with the Conservatives, they seem to look upon this outrageous clown as a friend and ally on the basis of my enemy's enemy is my friend...
On that score, he's had a fairly free ride for his decade long public dabbling in far right conspiracy theory.
Farage urged to explain conspiracy theories linked to antisemitism he voiced in US media
In appearances on US TV shows and podcasts earlier in his political career, Farage discussed supposed plots by bankers to create a global government, citing Goldman Sachs, the Bilderberg group and the financier George Soros as threats to democracy.
These included six guest slots on the web TV show of the disgraced far-right US conspiracy theorist Alex Jones. Jones was successfully sued by bereaved parents after claiming the 2012 Sandy Hook elementary school massacre was faked.
During one interview with Jones in 2018, Farage argued that “globalists” were trying to engineer a war with Russia “as an argument for us all to surrender our national sovereignty and give it up to a higher global level”.
Farage also appeared six times on the web radio show of Rick Wiles, a far-right, antisemitic American pastor. Here, topics included whether central bankers would soon start to appoint leaders of the UK and US – an idea Farage did not challenge...
As with the schoolboy stuff, who cares? Specifically, which Reform supporters will know who the flip Rick Wiles is and will also object to Farage having appeared on his show? Wait till the Guardian finds out Nige supported President Trump!
Not so sure about the other conspiracy stuff but George Soros and the foundations he funds have fingers in many organisations who aim to influence many areas of American society and the wider world in what would be described as a 'Progressive' way. Globalist etc is never a word I would use because it is the language of the loon. But because a well known figure who uses his enormous wealth to influence the world around him is jewish (I assume) should not make him immune from criticism.
The whole US political system goes out of its way to make it easy for rich people to influence many areas of US policy and society: see Charles Koch, Sheldon Adelson, Elon Musk, Harlan Crow etc. on the right. And yet the one guy on the left, who is also Jewish, attracts outsized opprobrium.
A few months ago, we were all saying how Your Party would be so damaging for Labour.
If Sultana jumps to the Greens then it is all over I reckon.
The 2 MPs who have recently left the party were her ideological opponents, suggesting she’s winning a battle for control…? If so, she’s not likely to jump to the Greens.
Trouble is that, apart from not liking Starmer's government, and liking Israel's government even less, not much unites the Gaza Indies and funky young Corbynites.
Or hypnoboobs and voters in Waveney Valley.
Which is why it would be risky for the Greens to take on too many of them. Green Party policy is already 'sound', from a left perspective, on Gaza, but on social issues they are more 'woke', to use that vague and lazy term, than any other party.
That was the genius of their positioning and presentation in 2024- really quite woke, but not enough to scare the horses in Ruralshire.
Polanski has rather blown that up, in yet another tick in the "members shouldn't pick the leader" column.
Yet Polanski has achieved record polling numbers for the party, and they’re doing well in by-elections too.
The Greens lost a swing ward they held in Trafford last week to the Tories
According to a relative of mine, who lives in Trafford, the Labour admin is very unpopular indeed and I suspect the middle-class voters in Hale have reverted to the Tories as the best way of registering a protest.
I doubt it is much to do with Polanski or his radicalism as I don't really think that has percolated out to the voters yet.
Unfortunately I think UK insurance companies have more in common with those in the USA than with those in Europe. An insurance-based system does seem to work in Europe and my perception is that it's because the companies aren't out to screw the customer for every last penny.
I was being mischievous. I very much doubt the average Reform voters has any clue that their healthcare could cost them £420 a month.
This guy is getting away with blue murder and very few are calling him out. I am particularly disappointed with the Conservatives, they seem to look upon this outrageous clown as a friend and ally on the basis of my enemy's enemy is my friend.
How much do you think the NHS costs the average Reform voter at the moment? And is that good value for money?
We spend a very similar percentage of GDP as European peers such as Germany and France.
But the median age in those countries is higher than the UK. And health outcomes can be debated, but we're certainly not an obvious leader of the pack.
I think both sides could do with accepting that the NHS isn't as amazing or awful as some imagine.
The US system, by contrast, is objectively awful. Extremely high cost and worse outcomes at an aggregate level.
I imagine there's lots we could learn from where some European nations deliver better value for money than us.
A friend is something of a polyglot. She gets annoyed with people online who are always looking for One Simple Trick to learn a language quickly. There's no such thing, she says. You just have to put the work in.
I feel the same about healthcare policy. People want One Simple Trick to deliver better healthcare at less cost. It doesn't exist. Yes, there are plenty of small things you can do. The healthcare policy research literature is full of international comparisons and proposals, and the NHS is constantly looking at these, piloting schemes and making changes. But switching to, say, the German healthcare system isn't going to spectacularly change the underlying challenges: healthcare costs money and the population is ageing. The research suggests that, more or less, the different delivery systems across Europe don't make that much difference, but the amount you spend does.
That's part of it. But cast an eye over Taiwan; they seem to be significantly more effective in delivering healthcare.
Unfortunately I think UK insurance companies have more in common with those in the USA than with those in Europe. An insurance-based system does seem to work in Europe and my perception is that it's because the companies aren't out to screw the customer for every last penny.
I was being mischievous. I very much doubt the average Reform voters has any clue that their healthcare could cost them £420 a month.
This guy is getting away with blue murder and very few are calling him out. I am particularly disappointed with the Conservatives, they seem to look upon this outrageous clown as a friend and ally on the basis of my enemy's enemy is my friend.
Replacing something funded through taxes with something paid for per person by individuals will always benefit the richer and disbenefit the poorer.
That doesn't make it wrong, and idealistic communism never happens as an alternative. But it's always the effect.
Indeed, and the Reform voter profile these days covers both bases. Billionaire hedge fund manager and zero hours sparky on family credits.
I know Starmer and Reeves have been crap but I didn't realise they'd damaged the economy so much that electricians are now on zero hours and family credits.
He was just trying to amp up his point.
I'd expect there are lots of electricians on zero-hour contracts. The construction industry is quite odd in having a very long tail that actually lays bricks, runs pipes and plugs things in. These people who get their hands dirty will typically be self-employed or work for small firms where the boss gets the contracts then calls in his usual team who are on zero-hours contracts. (The main difference is who does the paperwork.)
Unfortunately I think UK insurance companies have more in common with those in the USA than with those in Europe. An insurance-based system does seem to work in Europe and my perception is that it's because the companies aren't out to screw the customer for every last penny.
I was being mischievous. I very much doubt the average Reform voters has any clue that their healthcare could cost them £420 a month.
This guy is getting away with blue murder and very few are calling him out. I am particularly disappointed with the Conservatives, they seem to look upon this outrageous clown as a friend and ally on the basis of my enemy's enemy is my friend.
I am no friend of Reform, but it is delusional to think they intend under any circumstances to stop the NHS being universal and free at the point of delivery.
Reform, now that they have a chance of being elected, have shifted to the social democrat centre + mostly closed borders + nationalism. No-one has any chance at all of being elected without retaining the post WWII social democratic deal. Everyone tinkers with it; no-one has yet thought of an electable way of shifting it.
You say this weekly, it doesn’t make it any more true. Reform model themselves on MAGA. MAGA also depend on the votes of poorer people on Govt-funded healthcare, but they’ve still slashed that healthcare. Reform will too.
Farage cannot govern by executive order, he would need parliament to vote to get rid of the NHS.
Given the rabble of malcontents 300 Reform MPs would be I cannot see that happening.
The bigger threat to the NHS would be a financial crisis and crashed economy.
How big an NHS will the IMF let us run?
You keep suggesting we are going to be cap in hand to the IMF but wasn't that supposed to happen in the first 6 months of a Labour government?
Perhaps a small punt on whether the UK has to seek help from the IMF before the next GE? £100 to a charity of the winner's choice?
60-62 Spread price on age of posters talking about UK needing to go IMF.
I'm bucking that trend then at 65.
Tbf, most posters under 60 won't remember the IMF loan in 1976.
Indeed, I was born in 1975. The irony of the UK IMF pogramme is that the UK didn't actually need it. It was based on economic data that were subsequently revised higher. The utility of the IMF of course is that it allows the government to do stuff that it knows to be necessary but doesn't want to take the blame for - those meanies from Washington made me do it! It provides market participants with some guarantee that things won't blow up and so allows the government to borrow more cheaply. There is too much stigma attached to IMF programmes IMHO.
I've often wondered why the Unions went so completely over the top, in the Winter of 1978/9. Things were gradually improving, in the economy and Northern Ireland, from the start of 1976. 1975 was world communism's high water mark, and it was downhill from there. Labour might well have achieved re-election, without the self-defeating behaviour of trade union leaders.
Unfortunately I think UK insurance companies have more in common with those in the USA than with those in Europe. An insurance-based system does seem to work in Europe and my perception is that it's because the companies aren't out to screw the customer for every last penny.
I was being mischievous. I very much doubt the average Reform voters has any clue that their healthcare could cost them £420 a month.
This guy is getting away with blue murder and very few are calling him out. I am particularly disappointed with the Conservatives, they seem to look upon this outrageous clown as a friend and ally on the basis of my enemy's enemy is my friend.
I am no friend of Reform, but it is delusional to think they intend under any circumstances to stop the NHS being universal and free at the point of delivery.
Reform, now that they have a chance of being elected, have shifted to the social democrat centre + mostly closed borders + nationalism. No-one has any chance at all of being elected without retaining the post WWII social democratic deal. Everyone tinkers with it; no-one has yet thought of an electable way of shifting it.
You say this weekly, it doesn’t make it any more true. Reform model themselves on MAGA. MAGA also depend on the votes of poorer people on Govt-funded healthcare, but they’ve still slashed that healthcare. Reform will too.
Farage cannot govern by executive order, he would need parliament to vote to get rid of the NHS.
Given the rabble of malcontents 300 Reform MPs would be I cannot see that happening.
The bigger threat to the NHS would be a financial crisis and crashed economy.
How big an NHS will the IMF let us run?
You keep suggesting we are going to be cap in hand to the IMF but wasn't that supposed to happen in the first 6 months of a Labour government?
Perhaps a small punt on whether the UK has to seek help from the IMF before the next GE? £100 to a charity of the winner's choice?
60-62 Spread price on age of posters talking about UK needing to go IMF.
I'm bucking that trend then at 65.
Tbf, most posters under 60 won't remember the IMF loan in 1976.
Indeed, I was born in 1975. The irony of the UK IMF pogramme is that the UK didn't actually need it. It was based on economic data that were subsequently revised higher. The utility of the IMF of course is that it allows the government to do stuff that it knows to be necessary but doesn't want to take the blame for - those meanies from Washington made me do it! It provides market participants with some guarantee that things won't blow up and so allows the government to borrow more cheaply. There is too much stigma attached to IMF programmes IMHO.
Perhaps if 'going cap in hand to' could be replaced with 'enlisting the help of'.
Unfortunately I think UK insurance companies have more in common with those in the USA than with those in Europe. An insurance-based system does seem to work in Europe and my perception is that it's because the companies aren't out to screw the customer for every last penny.
I was being mischievous. I very much doubt the average Reform voters has any clue that their healthcare could cost them £420 a month.
This guy is getting away with blue murder and very few are calling him out. I am particularly disappointed with the Conservatives, they seem to look upon this outrageous clown as a friend and ally on the basis of my enemy's enemy is my friend.
Replacing something funded through taxes with something paid for per person by individuals will always benefit the richer and disbenefit the poorer.
That doesn't make it wrong, and idealistic communism never happens as an alternative. But it's always the effect.
Indeed, and the Reform voter profile these days covers both bases. Billionaire hedge fund manager and zero hours sparky on family credits.
I know Starmer and Reeves have been crap but I didn't realise they'd damaged the economy so much that electricians are now on zero hours and family credits.
He was just trying to amp up his point.
I'd expect there are lots of electricians on zero-hour contracts. The construction industry is quite odd in having a very long tail that actually lays bricks, runs pipes and plugs things in. These people who get their hands dirty will typically be self-employed or work for small firms where the boss gets the contracts then calls in his usual team who are on zero-hours contracts. (The main difference is who does the paperwork.)
They will be on CIS, work will appear and they will take it or not depending on how busy they currently are.
But a sparky on universal credit is doing that for reasons - all the ones I know are beyond busy
This week's budget has already been written off as the worst budget in my long lifetime by the worst Chancellor ever (Kwasi doesn't count - reign too short).
However, unless I've missed it, the huge myriad of fatal missteps hasn't actually happened yet. It remains possible that Rachel surprises on the upside - not in the eyes of PBers, most of whom she has already lost, but in the eyes of those who would consider voting Labour at some point in the future. I wouldn't write off Rachel or Keir just yet. Though I may have a different view by Thursday.
This is also an important budget for Kemi. She will be replying to the budget statement. She needs to show competence and take her party with her. By next May, with fewer small boats over the winter, and time for more embarrassments, Reform are likely to be less popular than now. I predict she will outlast Starmer.
Kemi has the benefit of being able to attack the last month of shambles rather than having to think on her feet and address what is actually announced in the budget.
Plus the "failed to tackle welfare spending" stick to beat Labour MPs with. Of course the response will be that it was all the Tories' fault in the first place.
If the two child cap is abolished, then she ought to go into studs-first on that.
What have you got against Brits wanting to have more children? Shall we just import the people we want, bring their (non-limited) families and allow them to take advantage of tax payer funded benefits system?
There must be some sort of rationale behind this comment.
Unfortunately I think UK insurance companies have more in common with those in the USA than with those in Europe. An insurance-based system does seem to work in Europe and my perception is that it's because the companies aren't out to screw the customer for every last penny.
I was being mischievous. I very much doubt the average Reform voters has any clue that their healthcare could cost them £420 a month.
This guy is getting away with blue murder and very few are calling him out. I am particularly disappointed with the Conservatives, they seem to look upon this outrageous clown as a friend and ally on the basis of my enemy's enemy is my friend.
I am no friend of Reform, but it is delusional to think they intend under any circumstances to stop the NHS being universal and free at the point of delivery.
Reform, now that they have a chance of being elected, have shifted to the social democrat centre + mostly closed borders + nationalism. No-one has any chance at all of being elected without retaining the post WWII social democratic deal. Everyone tinkers with it; no-one has yet thought of an electable way of shifting it.
You say this weekly, it doesn’t make it any more true. Reform model themselves on MAGA. MAGA also depend on the votes of poorer people on Govt-funded healthcare, but they’ve still slashed that healthcare. Reform will too.
Farage cannot govern by executive order, he would need parliament to vote to get rid of the NHS.
Given the rabble of malcontents 300 Reform MPs would be I cannot see that happening.
The bigger threat to the NHS would be a financial crisis and crashed economy.
How big an NHS will the IMF let us run?
You keep suggesting we are going to be cap in hand to the IMF but wasn't that supposed to happen in the first 6 months of a Labour government?
Perhaps a small punt on whether the UK has to seek help from the IMF before the next GE? £100 to a charity of the winner's choice?
60-62 Spread price on age of posters talking about UK needing to go IMF.
I'm bucking that trend then at 65.
Tbf, most posters under 60 won't remember the IMF loan in 1976.
Indeed, I was born in 1975. The irony of the UK IMF pogramme is that the UK didn't actually need it. It was based on economic data that were subsequently revised higher. The utility of the IMF of course is that it allows the government to do stuff that it knows to be necessary but doesn't want to take the blame for - those meanies from Washington made me do it! It provides market participants with some guarantee that things won't blow up and so allows the government to borrow more cheaply. There is too much stigma attached to IMF programmes IMHO.
I'm not so sure. I dimly recall findings that countries that had taken IMF or World Bank loans ended up worse off because typically they were required to slash spending and throw everyone out of work – the measures ‘everyone knows to be necessary’ – which can be harmful in the long term.
In all the gloom of today here is a romantic story from history. At the siege of Badajoz in the Peninsula War two Spanish sisters came to a party of British soldiers for help. The younger sister called Juana Maria de Los Dolores de Leon was 14. Immediately Captain Harry Smith dashed forward and took her by the hand. A few days later they were married with Wellington himself giving her away. Many years later Smith was a Baronet and Governor of Cape Colony. He had a town named after him - Harrismith. They also named one after his wife - Ladysmith, scene of another siege.
In all the gloom of today here is a romantic story from history. At the siege of Badajoz in the Peninsula War two Spanish sisters came to a party of British soldiers for help. The younger sister called Juana Maria de Los Dolores de Leon was 14. Immediately Captain Harry Smith dashed forward and took her by the hand. A few days later they were married with Wellington himself giving her away. Many years later Smith was a Baronet and Governor of Cape Colony. He had a town named after him - Harrismith. They also named one after his wife - Ladysmith, scene of another siege.
Marrying 14 year olds is considered somewhat more problematic these days...
In all the gloom of today here is a romantic story from history. At the siege of Badajoz in the Peninsula War two Spanish sisters came to a party of British soldiers for help. The younger sister called Juana Maria de Los Dolores de Leon was 14. Immediately Captain Harry Smith dashed forward and took her by the hand. A few days later they were married with Wellington himself giving her away. Many years later Smith was a Baronet and Governor of Cape Colony. He had a town named after him - Harrismith. They also named one after his wife - Ladysmith, scene of another siege.
Unfortunately I think UK insurance companies have more in common with those in the USA than with those in Europe. An insurance-based system does seem to work in Europe and my perception is that it's because the companies aren't out to screw the customer for every last penny.
I was being mischievous. I very much doubt the average Reform voters has any clue that their healthcare could cost them £420 a month.
This guy is getting away with blue murder and very few are calling him out. I am particularly disappointed with the Conservatives, they seem to look upon this outrageous clown as a friend and ally on the basis of my enemy's enemy is my friend.
I am no friend of Reform, but it is delusional to think they intend under any circumstances to stop the NHS being universal and free at the point of delivery.
Reform, now that they have a chance of being elected, have shifted to the social democrat centre + mostly closed borders + nationalism. No-one has any chance at all of being elected without retaining the post WWII social democratic deal. Everyone tinkers with it; no-one has yet thought of an electable way of shifting it.
You say this weekly, it doesn’t make it any more true. Reform model themselves on MAGA. MAGA also depend on the votes of poorer people on Govt-funded healthcare, but they’ve still slashed that healthcare. Reform will too.
Farage cannot govern by executive order, he would need parliament to vote to get rid of the NHS.
Given the rabble of malcontents 300 Reform MPs would be I cannot see that happening.
The bigger threat to the NHS would be a financial crisis and crashed economy.
How big an NHS will the IMF let us run?
You keep suggesting we are going to be cap in hand to the IMF but wasn't that supposed to happen in the first 6 months of a Labour government?
Perhaps a small punt on whether the UK has to seek help from the IMF before the next GE? £100 to a charity of the winner's choice?
60-62 Spread price on age of posters talking about UK needing to go IMF.
I'm bucking that trend then at 65.
Tbf, most posters under 60 won't remember the IMF loan in 1976.
Indeed, I was born in 1975. The irony of the UK IMF pogramme is that the UK didn't actually need it. It was based on economic data that were subsequently revised higher. The utility of the IMF of course is that it allows the government to do stuff that it knows to be necessary but doesn't want to take the blame for - those meanies from Washington made me do it! It provides market participants with some guarantee that things won't blow up and so allows the government to borrow more cheaply. There is too much stigma attached to IMF programmes IMHO.
I've often wondered why the Unions went so completely over the top, in the Winter of 1978/9. Things were gradually improving, in the economy and Northern Ireland, from the start of 1976. 1975 was world communism's high water mark, and it was downhill from there. Labour might well have achieved re-election, without the self-defeating behaviour of trade union leaders.
Perhaps Sean, they self-defeated on purpose. I've often suspected as much, although I have no direct evidence or even a particularly strong grasp of the history of the period.
Unfortunately I think UK insurance companies have more in common with those in the USA than with those in Europe. An insurance-based system does seem to work in Europe and my perception is that it's because the companies aren't out to screw the customer for every last penny.
I was being mischievous. I very much doubt the average Reform voters has any clue that their healthcare could cost them £420 a month.
This guy is getting away with blue murder and very few are calling him out. I am particularly disappointed with the Conservatives, they seem to look upon this outrageous clown as a friend and ally on the basis of my enemy's enemy is my friend.
I am no friend of Reform, but it is delusional to think they intend under any circumstances to stop the NHS being universal and free at the point of delivery.
Reform, now that they have a chance of being elected, have shifted to the social democrat centre + mostly closed borders + nationalism. No-one has any chance at all of being elected without retaining the post WWII social democratic deal. Everyone tinkers with it; no-one has yet thought of an electable way of shifting it.
You say this weekly, it doesn’t make it any more true. Reform model themselves on MAGA. MAGA also depend on the votes of poorer people on Govt-funded healthcare, but they’ve still slashed that healthcare. Reform will too.
Farage cannot govern by executive order, he would need parliament to vote to get rid of the NHS.
Given the rabble of malcontents 300 Reform MPs would be I cannot see that happening.
The bigger threat to the NHS would be a financial crisis and crashed economy.
How big an NHS will the IMF let us run?
You keep suggesting we are going to be cap in hand to the IMF but wasn't that supposed to happen in the first 6 months of a Labour government?
Perhaps a small punt on whether the UK has to seek help from the IMF before the next GE? £100 to a charity of the winner's choice?
60-62 Spread price on age of posters talking about UK needing to go IMF.
I'm bucking that trend then at 65.
Tbf, most posters under 60 won't remember the IMF loan in 1976.
Indeed, I was born in 1975. The irony of the UK IMF pogramme is that the UK didn't actually need it. It was based on economic data that were subsequently revised higher. The utility of the IMF of course is that it allows the government to do stuff that it knows to be necessary but doesn't want to take the blame for - those meanies from Washington made me do it! It provides market participants with some guarantee that things won't blow up and so allows the government to borrow more cheaply. There is too much stigma attached to IMF programmes IMHO.
I've often wondered why the Unions went so completely over the top, in the Winter of 1978/9. Things were gradually improving, in the economy and Northern Ireland, from the start of 1976. 1975 was world communism's high water mark, and it was downhill from there. Labour might well have achieved re-election, without the self-defeating behaviour of trade union leaders.
It's a good point. I think the answer is hubris. They'd done for "In Place of Strife", they'd done for Ted Heath, and now they were doing for a Labour PM who was not toeing their line. They were the masters now.
Unfortunately I think UK insurance companies have more in common with those in the USA than with those in Europe. An insurance-based system does seem to work in Europe and my perception is that it's because the companies aren't out to screw the customer for every last penny.
I was being mischievous. I very much doubt the average Reform voters has any clue that their healthcare could cost them £420 a month.
This guy is getting away with blue murder and very few are calling him out. I am particularly disappointed with the Conservatives, they seem to look upon this outrageous clown as a friend and ally on the basis of my enemy's enemy is my friend.
I am no friend of Reform, but it is delusional to think they intend under any circumstances to stop the NHS being universal and free at the point of delivery.
Reform, now that they have a chance of being elected, have shifted to the social democrat centre + mostly closed borders + nationalism. No-one has any chance at all of being elected without retaining the post WWII social democratic deal. Everyone tinkers with it; no-one has yet thought of an electable way of shifting it.
You say this weekly, it doesn’t make it any more true. Reform model themselves on MAGA. MAGA also depend on the votes of poorer people on Govt-funded healthcare, but they’ve still slashed that healthcare. Reform will too.
Farage cannot govern by executive order, he would need parliament to vote to get rid of the NHS.
Given the rabble of malcontents 300 Reform MPs would be I cannot see that happening.
The bigger threat to the NHS would be a financial crisis and crashed economy.
How big an NHS will the IMF let us run?
You keep suggesting we are going to be cap in hand to the IMF but wasn't that supposed to happen in the first 6 months of a Labour government?
Perhaps a small punt on whether the UK has to seek help from the IMF before the next GE? £100 to a charity of the winner's choice?
60-62 Spread price on age of posters talking about UK needing to go IMF.
I'm bucking that trend then at 65.
Tbf, most posters under 60 won't remember the IMF loan in 1976.
I do. But then I do get reminded about it on here several times per day.
I'm wondering whether it was really that much of a disaster anyway. Embarrassing maybe, but I can't remember it making much difference to our daily lives.
The abiding memory of the 70s for me was the Three-Day Week and associated rolling power cuts. All caused by that crap governance under the Labour government led by... oh... Edward Heath.
My memories of the Seventies are pretty good ones. My father was doing very well financially, and we had some wonderful holidays in Spain, Switzerland, Devon, Ireland, Brittany.
My first political memory, as it were, was the Queen's Silver Jubilee. We were in Kingsbridge, in South Devon, when suddenly, swarms of police descended on us, and the local traffic warden appeared, wearing white gloves. And, then, suddenly, was a motorcade, bearing the Queen and Prince Philip.
My memory of that is a school trip to see the Queen.... It was absolutely tipping it down, her motorcade drove straight past hundreds of kids waving plastic flags then we went back inside soaking wet to eat our packed lunch, mystery meat paste from memory. My low opinion of them hasn't changed much since then.
Unfortunately I think UK insurance companies have more in common with those in the USA than with those in Europe. An insurance-based system does seem to work in Europe and my perception is that it's because the companies aren't out to screw the customer for every last penny.
I was being mischievous. I very much doubt the average Reform voters has any clue that their healthcare could cost them £420 a month.
This guy is getting away with blue murder and very few are calling him out. I am particularly disappointed with the Conservatives, they seem to look upon this outrageous clown as a friend and ally on the basis of my enemy's enemy is my friend.
How much do you think the NHS costs the average Reform voter at the moment? And is that good value for money?
We spend a very similar percentage of GDP as European peers such as Germany and France.
But the median age in those countries is higher than the UK. And health outcomes can be debated, but we're certainly not an obvious leader of the pack.
I think both sides could do with accepting that the NHS isn't as amazing or awful as some imagine.
The US system, by contrast, is objectively awful. Extremely high cost and worse outcomes at an aggregate level.
I imagine there's lots we could learn from where some European nations deliver better value for money than us.
A friend is something of a polyglot. She gets annoyed with people online who are always looking for One Simple Trick to learn a language quickly. There's no such thing, she says. You just have to put the work in.
I feel the same about healthcare policy. People want One Simple Trick to deliver better healthcare at less cost. It doesn't exist. Yes, there are plenty of small things you can do. The healthcare policy research literature is full of international comparisons and proposals, and the NHS is constantly looking at these, piloting schemes and making changes. But switching to, say, the German healthcare system isn't going to spectacularly change the underlying challenges: healthcare costs money and the population is ageing. The research suggests that, more or less, the different delivery systems across Europe don't make that much difference, but the amount you spend does.
That's part of it. But cast an eye over Taiwan; they seem to be significantly more effective in delivering healthcare.
Define "significantly".
There is no One Simple Trick.
Like everyone else, they have a healthcare system, rather than "one simple trick". They just seem to run it rather well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Taiwan According to the Numbeo Health Care Index in 2025, Taiwan has the best healthcare system in the world, scoring 86.5 out of 100, a slight increase from 86 the previous year. This marked the seventh consecutive year that Taiwan has ranked first in the Numbeo Health Care Index.. The 2024 edition of the CEOWORLD Magazine Health Care Index also ranked Taiwan first among 110 countries surveyed, with a score of 78.72 out of 100.
Their system isn't without its own problems, of course, but it's well worth looking at for how they brought in healthcare reform, and why it worked.
In all the gloom of today here is a romantic story from history. At the siege of Badajoz in the Peninsula War two Spanish sisters came to a party of British soldiers for help. The younger sister called Juana Maria de Los Dolores de Leon was 14. Immediately Captain Harry Smith dashed forward and took her by the hand. A few days later they were married with Wellington himself giving her away. Many years later Smith was a Baronet and Governor of Cape Colony. He had a town named after him - Harrismith. They also named one after his wife - Ladysmith, scene of another siege.
Marrying 14 year olds is considered somewhat more problematic these days...
At the time, the age of consent appears to have been 12 in both England and Spain
In all the gloom of today here is a romantic story from history. At the siege of Badajoz in the Peninsula War two Spanish sisters came to a party of British soldiers for help. The younger sister called Juana Maria de Los Dolores de Leon was 14. Immediately Captain Harry Smith dashed forward and took her by the hand. A few days later they were married with Wellington himself giving her away. Many years later Smith was a Baronet and Governor of Cape Colony. He had a town named after him - Harrismith. They also named one after his wife - Ladysmith, scene of another siege.
Marrying 14 year olds is considered somewhat more problematic these days...
Unfortunately I think UK insurance companies have more in common with those in the USA than with those in Europe. An insurance-based system does seem to work in Europe and my perception is that it's because the companies aren't out to screw the customer for every last penny.
I was being mischievous. I very much doubt the average Reform voters has any clue that their healthcare could cost them £420 a month.
This guy is getting away with blue murder and very few are calling him out. I am particularly disappointed with the Conservatives, they seem to look upon this outrageous clown as a friend and ally on the basis of my enemy's enemy is my friend.
How much do you think the NHS costs the average Reform voter at the moment? And is that good value for money?
We spend a very similar percentage of GDP as European peers such as Germany and France.
But the median age in those countries is higher than the UK. And health outcomes can be debated, but we're certainly not an obvious leader of the pack.
I think both sides could do with accepting that the NHS isn't as amazing or awful as some imagine.
The US system, by contrast, is objectively awful. Extremely high cost and worse outcomes at an aggregate level.
I imagine there's lots we could learn from where some European nations deliver better value for money than us.
A friend is something of a polyglot. She gets annoyed with people online who are always looking for One Simple Trick to learn a language quickly. There's no such thing, she says. You just have to put the work in.
I feel the same about healthcare policy. People want One Simple Trick to deliver better healthcare at less cost. It doesn't exist. Yes, there are plenty of small things you can do. The healthcare policy research literature is full of international comparisons and proposals, and the NHS is constantly looking at these, piloting schemes and making changes. But switching to, say, the German healthcare system isn't going to spectacularly change the underlying challenges: healthcare costs money and the population is ageing. The research suggests that, more or less, the different delivery systems across Europe don't make that much difference, but the amount you spend does.
That's part of it. But cast an eye over Taiwan; they seem to be significantly more effective in delivering healthcare.
Israel has competing NHS-alikes which might be a more palatable model for both sides of politics. Well, except for the whole Israel thing.
Taiwan competes/collaborates at the hospital level. They appear to share and adopt best practice far more effectively than do we.
Unfortunately I think UK insurance companies have more in common with those in the USA than with those in Europe. An insurance-based system does seem to work in Europe and my perception is that it's because the companies aren't out to screw the customer for every last penny.
I was being mischievous. I very much doubt the average Reform voters has any clue that their healthcare could cost them £420 a month.
This guy is getting away with blue murder and very few are calling him out. I am particularly disappointed with the Conservatives, they seem to look upon this outrageous clown as a friend and ally on the basis of my enemy's enemy is my friend.
I am no friend of Reform, but it is delusional to think they intend under any circumstances to stop the NHS being universal and free at the point of delivery.
Reform, now that they have a chance of being elected, have shifted to the social democrat centre + mostly closed borders + nationalism. No-one has any chance at all of being elected without retaining the post WWII social democratic deal. Everyone tinkers with it; no-one has yet thought of an electable way of shifting it.
You say this weekly, it doesn’t make it any more true. Reform model themselves on MAGA. MAGA also depend on the votes of poorer people on Govt-funded healthcare, but they’ve still slashed that healthcare. Reform will too.
Farage cannot govern by executive order, he would need parliament to vote to get rid of the NHS.
Given the rabble of malcontents 300 Reform MPs would be I cannot see that happening.
The bigger threat to the NHS would be a financial crisis and crashed economy.
How big an NHS will the IMF let us run?
You keep suggesting we are going to be cap in hand to the IMF but wasn't that supposed to happen in the first 6 months of a Labour government?
Perhaps a small punt on whether the UK has to seek help from the IMF before the next GE? £100 to a charity of the winner's choice?
60-62 Spread price on age of posters talking about UK needing to go IMF.
I'm bucking that trend then at 65.
Tbf, most posters under 60 won't remember the IMF loan in 1976.
I do. But then I do get reminded about it on here several times per day.
I'm wondering whether it was really that much of a disaster anyway. Embarrassing maybe, but I can't remember it making much difference to our daily lives.
The abiding memory of the 70s for me was the Three-Day Week and associated rolling power cuts. All caused by that crap governance under the Labour government led by... oh... Edward Heath.
My memories of the Seventies are pretty good ones. My father was doing very well financially, and we had some wonderful holidays in Spain, Switzerland, Devon, Ireland, Brittany.
My first political memory, as it were, was the Queen's Silver Jubilee. We were in Kingsbridge, in South Devon, when suddenly, swarms of police descended on us, and the local traffic warden appeared, wearing white gloves. And, then, suddenly, was a motorcade, bearing the Queen and Prince Philip.
My memory of that is a school trip to see the Queen.... It was absolutely tipping it down, her motorcade drove straight past hundreds of kids waving plastic flags then we went back inside soaking wet to eat our packed lunch, mystery meat paste from memory. My low opinion of them hasn't changed much since then.
I saw HRH at her Silver Jubilee visit to Derby.
But I shall now think of you as a "Pussy Car, Pussy Cat".
Unfortunately I think UK insurance companies have more in common with those in the USA than with those in Europe. An insurance-based system does seem to work in Europe and my perception is that it's because the companies aren't out to screw the customer for every last penny.
I was being mischievous. I very much doubt the average Reform voters has any clue that their healthcare could cost them £420 a month.
This guy is getting away with blue murder and very few are calling him out. I am particularly disappointed with the Conservatives, they seem to look upon this outrageous clown as a friend and ally on the basis of my enemy's enemy is my friend.
I am no friend of Reform, but it is delusional to think they intend under any circumstances to stop the NHS being universal and free at the point of delivery.
Reform, now that they have a chance of being elected, have shifted to the social democrat centre + mostly closed borders + nationalism. No-one has any chance at all of being elected without retaining the post WWII social democratic deal. Everyone tinkers with it; no-one has yet thought of an electable way of shifting it.
You say this weekly, it doesn’t make it any more true. Reform model themselves on MAGA. MAGA also depend on the votes of poorer people on Govt-funded healthcare, but they’ve still slashed that healthcare. Reform will too.
Farage cannot govern by executive order, he would need parliament to vote to get rid of the NHS.
Given the rabble of malcontents 300 Reform MPs would be I cannot see that happening.
The bigger threat to the NHS would be a financial crisis and crashed economy.
How big an NHS will the IMF let us run?
You keep suggesting we are going to be cap in hand to the IMF but wasn't that supposed to happen in the first 6 months of a Labour government?
Perhaps a small punt on whether the UK has to seek help from the IMF before the next GE? £100 to a charity of the winner's choice?
60-62 Spread price on age of posters talking about UK needing to go IMF.
I'm bucking that trend then at 65.
Tbf, most posters under 60 won't remember the IMF loan in 1976.
I do. But then I do get reminded about it on here several times per day.
I'm wondering whether it was really that much of a disaster anyway. Embarrassing maybe, but I can't remember it making much difference to our daily lives.
The abiding memory of the 70s for me was the Three-Day Week and associated rolling power cuts. All caused by that crap governance under the Labour government led by... oh... Edward Heath.
My memories of the Seventies are pretty good ones. My father was doing very well financially, and we had some wonderful holidays in Spain, Switzerland, Devon, Ireland, Brittany.
My first political memory, as it were, was the Queen's Silver Jubilee. We were in Kingsbridge, in South Devon, when suddenly, swarms of police descended on us, and the local traffic warden appeared, wearing white gloves. And, then, suddenly, was a motorcade, bearing the Queen and Prince Philip.
My memory of that is a school trip to see the Queen.... It was absolutely tipping it down, her motorcade drove straight past hundreds of kids waving plastic flags then we went back inside soaking wet to eat our packed lunch, mystery meat paste from memory. My low opinion of them hasn't changed much since then.
And the Headmaster who was a closet Republican got several hundred new converts that day...
Unfortunately I think UK insurance companies have more in common with those in the USA than with those in Europe. An insurance-based system does seem to work in Europe and my perception is that it's because the companies aren't out to screw the customer for every last penny.
I was being mischievous. I very much doubt the average Reform voters has any clue that their healthcare could cost them £420 a month.
This guy is getting away with blue murder and very few are calling him out. I am particularly disappointed with the Conservatives, they seem to look upon this outrageous clown as a friend and ally on the basis of my enemy's enemy is my friend.
I am no friend of Reform, but it is delusional to think they intend under any circumstances to stop the NHS being universal and free at the point of delivery.
Reform, now that they have a chance of being elected, have shifted to the social democrat centre + mostly closed borders + nationalism. No-one has any chance at all of being elected without retaining the post WWII social democratic deal. Everyone tinkers with it; no-one has yet thought of an electable way of shifting it.
You say this weekly, it doesn’t make it any more true. Reform model themselves on MAGA. MAGA also depend on the votes of poorer people on Govt-funded healthcare, but they’ve still slashed that healthcare. Reform will too.
Farage cannot govern by executive order, he would need parliament to vote to get rid of the NHS.
Given the rabble of malcontents 300 Reform MPs would be I cannot see that happening.
The bigger threat to the NHS would be a financial crisis and crashed economy.
How big an NHS will the IMF let us run?
You keep suggesting we are going to be cap in hand to the IMF but wasn't that supposed to happen in the first 6 months of a Labour government?
Perhaps a small punt on whether the UK has to seek help from the IMF before the next GE? £100 to a charity of the winner's choice?
60-62 Spread price on age of posters talking about UK needing to go IMF.
I'm bucking that trend then at 65.
Tbf, most posters under 60 won't remember the IMF loan in 1976.
I do. But then I do get reminded about it on here several times per day.
I'm wondering whether it was really that much of a disaster anyway. Embarrassing maybe, but I can't remember it making much difference to our daily lives.
The abiding memory of the 70s for me was the Three-Day Week and associated rolling power cuts. All caused by that crap governance under the Labour government led by... oh... Edward Heath.
My memories of the Seventies are pretty good ones. My father was doing very well financially, and we had some wonderful holidays in Spain, Switzerland, Devon, Ireland, Brittany.
My first political memory, as it were, was the Queen's Silver Jubilee. We were in Kingsbridge, in South Devon, when suddenly, swarms of police descended on us, and the local traffic warden appeared, wearing white gloves. And, then, suddenly, was a motorcade, bearing the Queen and Prince Philip.
My memory of that is a school trip to see the Queen.... It was absolutely tipping it down, her motorcade drove straight past hundreds of kids waving plastic flags then we went back inside soaking wet to eat our packed lunch, mystery meat paste from memory. My low opinion of them hasn't changed much since then.
My memories of the seventies..... Hmmmm. My children were doing reasonably well at school; eldest son got the apprenticeship he wanted at the end of the decade, daughter met the man..... well, a youth then ...... she went on to marry and younger son failed the 11+...... only two boys per primary school 'allowed' to pass to the neighbouring authority's two Grammar Schools, and on the day of the exam he had a cold! I didn't mind too much but it rankled with him for years! Early in the decade the firm I was with was doing quite well, but later I managed to make a few bad decisions which cost us dear.
Unfortunately I think UK insurance companies have more in common with those in the USA than with those in Europe. An insurance-based system does seem to work in Europe and my perception is that it's because the companies aren't out to screw the customer for every last penny.
I was being mischievous. I very much doubt the average Reform voters has any clue that their healthcare could cost them £420 a month.
This guy is getting away with blue murder and very few are calling him out. I am particularly disappointed with the Conservatives, they seem to look upon this outrageous clown as a friend and ally on the basis of my enemy's enemy is my friend.
How much do you think the NHS costs the average Reform voter at the moment? And is that good value for money?
We spend a very similar percentage of GDP as European peers such as Germany and France.
But the median age in those countries is higher than the UK. And health outcomes can be debated, but we're certainly not an obvious leader of the pack.
I think both sides could do with accepting that the NHS isn't as amazing or awful as some imagine.
The US system, by contrast, is objectively awful. Extremely high cost and worse outcomes at an aggregate level.
I imagine there's lots we could learn from where some European nations deliver better value for money than us.
A friend is something of a polyglot. She gets annoyed with people online who are always looking for One Simple Trick to learn a language quickly. There's no such thing, she says. You just have to put the work in.
I feel the same about healthcare policy. People want One Simple Trick to deliver better healthcare at less cost. It doesn't exist. Yes, there are plenty of small things you can do. The healthcare policy research literature is full of international comparisons and proposals, and the NHS is constantly looking at these, piloting schemes and making changes. But switching to, say, the German healthcare system isn't going to spectacularly change the underlying challenges: healthcare costs money and the population is ageing. The research suggests that, more or less, the different delivery systems across Europe don't make that much difference, but the amount you spend does.
That's part of it. But cast an eye over Taiwan; they seem to be significantly more effective in delivering healthcare.
Define "significantly".
There is no One Simple Trick.
Like everyone else, they have a healthcare system, rather than "one simple trick". They just seem to run it rather well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Taiwan According to the Numbeo Health Care Index in 2025, Taiwan has the best healthcare system in the world, scoring 86.5 out of 100, a slight increase from 86 the previous year. This marked the seventh consecutive year that Taiwan has ranked first in the Numbeo Health Care Index.. The 2024 edition of the CEOWORLD Magazine Health Care Index also ranked Taiwan first among 110 countries surveyed, with a score of 78.72 out of 100.
Their system isn't without its own problems, of course, but it's well worth looking at for how they brought in healthcare reform, and why it worked.
I’m all for looking at other countries’ healthcare systems, which is what academics, think tanks and government employees do all the time.
Taiwan has a good healthcare system, but one that faces similar problems to our. Here’s Hsu & Lin (2024) in The Lancet:
“However, this remarkable example of universal health care is plagued by several issues that are worsening daily, including budgetary issues, a hostile work environment, and a low retention rate of doctors and nurses. Multiple reasons have resulted in the Taiwanese health-care system being on the brink of a crisis.”
Comments
1. This is the Russians trying to influence US politics by signing up international trolls
2. This is MAGA apparatchiks signing up international trolls
It’s not impossible some of it is the latter. Whether that’s better or worse for US democracy I don’t know.
Has anyone run the rule over “British” edgelord accounts?
3. People from poorer parts of the world trying to make money out of X payouts or directly out of US MAGAs via other means.
(IIRC back in 2016 some of the biggest MAGA accounts were revealed to be Greek in origin.)
The “active measures” they employed were dialectical. Ideologically agnostic. They wanted to exploit existing fractures. Not create new ones.
There’s no reason to believe this strategy is any different now.
Earlier this year, the Prime Minister appointed me to lead a Taskforce to set out a path to getting affordable, fast nuclear power Britain.
Our final report today sets out 47 recommendations, among them:
- Creating a one-stop shop for nuclear approvals, to end the regulatory merry-go-round that delays projects at the moment.
- Simplifying environmental rules to avoid extreme outcomes like Hinkley Point C spending £700m on systems to protect one salmon every ten years, while enhancing nuclear's impact on nature.
- Limiting the ability of spurious legal challenges to delay nuclear projects, which adds huge cost and delay throughout the supply chain.
- Approving fleets of reactors, so that Britain’s nuclear industry can benefit from certainty and economies of scale.
- Directing regulators to factor in cost to their behaviour, and changing their culture to allow building cheaply, quickly and safely.
- Changing the culture of the nuclear industry to end gold-plating and focus on efficient, safe delivery.
If the government adopts our report in full, it will send a signal to investors that it is serious about pro-growth reform and taking on vested interests for the public good.
A thriving British nuclear industry producing abundant, affordable energy would be good for jobs, good for manufacturing, good for the climate, and good for the cost of living. And it could enable Britain to become an AI and technology superpower.
Britain can be a world leader in this new Industrial Revolution, but only if it has the energy to power it.
Our report is bold, but balanced. Our recommendations, taken together and properly implemented, will forge a clear path for stronger economic growth through improved productivity and innovation. This is a prize worth fighting for.
https://gov.uk/government/publications/nuclear-regulatory-taskforce
A shame they didn't do this a year ago, but it should indeed be adopted in full.
I wonder how many years in government it will take for its inherent contradictions to blow it up ?
Of course the most ‘engaging’ content tends to be at either extreme of the horse shoe of the policial opinion spectrum.
Macedonian teenagers in 2016 found that Trump supporters were the most gullible audience.
"The American right, especially the emerging MAGA ecosystem, was simply a dream customer: highly engaged, highly inflamed, and extremely willing to click through to garbage sites that paid out ad revenue...It’s a niche where people are willing to follow a random, anonymous account and treat it as a trusted voice on everything from elections to vaccines to border security – boosting its content to their friends as well."
https://x.com/RichardHanania/status/1992778917976101346
Full piece here:
https://agentsofinfluence.substack.com/p/on-the-internet-no-one-knows-youre
Perhaps a small punt on whether the UK has to seek help from the IMF before the next GE? £100 to a charity of the winner's choice?
All it has achieved is showing the world where my VPN is set to.
It’s up there with some other favourites:
- Brits / Britons deployed in specific contexts (Brits when the active subject, Britons when victims of a disaster or stuck abroad)
- “Fury as…”
- Romp
- Boffins
- Bosses (rail bosses, bank bosses, union bosses etc)
- Sources close to
- Police quiz [suspect]
And so on.
He won't resign. He thinks he is too important in managing Trump and protecting Ukraine.
Although there may be 80+ Labour MPs willing to force a vote against him, there won't be 205+ Labour MPs prepared to actually vote against him. And his cabinet is not going to resign!
Why is he so unpopular? I think it is massive disappointment by supporters in his lack of courage and clarity.
It needs a fresh start. So I suspect McSweeney is for the chop after May, followed by a major reset of advisors and Cabinet. There is more upside than downside for Labour in the polls.
I would lay 2026 as exit year for Starmer.
Going cap in hand to the IMF under the Tories - 0
Going cap in hand to the IMF under Laour - 1
They do shorter hours and take longer lunch breaks (ie they actually take lunch breaks). But when they’re working they’re working. Heads down, silence, churning it out. We work longer with no lunch breaks but spend half the day faffing and the other half gossiping.
One reason (not the only one, it’s also structural) why French productivity per hour of labour is so much higher than ours or indeed most developed countries.
Plastic TreesNewshttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6yVMVf2dZWA
Steve Rosenberg's review of the Russian press (under 4 minutes).
Indeed by 2050 it might be Brits seeking free movement to Poland that gets us back into the EEA!
I also seem to recall that the rules for getting to election after a nomination hits 20% are a bit messy and lacking, no particular set timetable, no particular rules on opening nominations to others for a period of time, and all to be decided by a Starmerite NEC.
The most we have is the precedent of the Owen Smith challenge, and I think the only thing that might have changed since then is some of the link to conference season has been broken (though DYOR, if any such residual link remains then Q4 becomes a more attractive bet).
It is possible UK will get game changing productivity in 2030s thanks to AI (which we wont be blocking with regulation like EU).
Then again, we may just f*ck up as per normal.
Tbf, most posters under 60 won't remember the IMF loan in 1976.
I feel the same about healthcare policy. People want One Simple Trick to deliver better healthcare at less cost. It doesn't exist. Yes, there are plenty of small things you can do. The healthcare policy research literature is full of international comparisons and proposals, and the NHS is constantly looking at these, piloting schemes and making changes. But switching to, say, the German healthcare system isn't going to spectacularly change the underlying challenges: healthcare costs money and the population is ageing. The research suggests that, more or less, the different delivery systems across Europe don't make that much difference, but the amount you spend does.
If it were all about working heads down for long hours many poor countries would very much richer.
But then I do get reminded about it on here several times per day.
Most poorer countries use labour as a substitute for technology, which is terrible for productivity. Ten men spending all day digging a hole with shovels, that could be done by one man in one hour using a machine, is probably the most obvious example.
But cast an eye over Taiwan; they seem to be significantly more effective in delivering healthcare.
The abiding memory of the 70s for me was the Three-Day Week and associated rolling power cuts. All caused by that crap governance under the Labour government led by... oh... Edward Heath.
My first political memory, as it were, was the Queen's Silver Jubilee. We were in Kingsbridge, in South Devon, when suddenly, swarms of police descended on us, and the local traffic warden appeared, wearing white gloves. And, then, suddenly, was a motorcade, bearing the Queen and Prince Philip.
I doubt it is much to do with Polanski or his radicalism as I don't really think that has percolated out to the voters yet.
There is no One Simple Trick.
But a sparky on universal credit is doing that for reasons - all the ones I know are beyond busy
There must be some sort of rationale behind this comment.
Kevin Hollinrake posted a picture of Adolf Hitler's Golden Party Badge in response to a tweet by Nigel Farage that included a golden Reform UK logo - sparking a furious backlash
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/vicious-row-tory-chairman-compares-36295048
And then along came Mrs T.
It was absolutely tipping it down, her motorcade drove straight past hundreds of kids waving plastic flags then we went back inside soaking wet to eat our packed lunch, mystery meat paste from memory. My low opinion of them hasn't changed much since then.
They just seem to run it rather well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Taiwan
According to the Numbeo Health Care Index in 2025, Taiwan has the best healthcare system in the world, scoring 86.5 out of 100, a slight increase from 86 the previous year. This marked the seventh consecutive year that Taiwan has ranked first in the Numbeo Health Care Index.. The 2024 edition of the CEOWORLD Magazine Health Care Index also ranked Taiwan first among 110 countries surveyed, with a score of 78.72 out of 100.
Their system isn't without its own problems, of course, but it's well worth looking at for how they brought in healthcare reform, and why it worked.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Badajoz_(1812)#Rampage
They appear to share and adopt best practice far more effectively than do we.
But I shall now think of you as a "Pussy Car, Pussy Cat".
Early in the decade the firm I was with was doing quite well, but later I managed to make a few bad decisions which cost us dear.
Taiwan has a good healthcare system, but one that faces similar problems to our. Here’s Hsu & Lin (2024) in The Lancet:
“However, this remarkable example of universal health care is plagued by several issues that are worsening daily, including budgetary issues, a hostile work environment, and a low retention rate of doctors and nurses. Multiple reasons have resulted in the Taiwanese health-care system being on the brink of a crisis.”
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(24)01502-2/fulltext