politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Sunak still leads Starmer in “Best PM” polling but the gap is

Benpointer said:

Ave_it said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Philip seems to be in denial.

Telegraph says Johnson will be launching a campaign to get people into the office, one of the things will be saying it is easier to sack you if you WFH. This is a pathetic attempt at guilt tripping.

Let's just stop all benefits and sack spongers

How are you going to sack the unemployed 'spongers'?

Stop benefits and they go back to work. Simples, love

https://twitter.com/MeidasTouch/status/1299033148869599233?s=20

CorrectHorseBattery said:

MaxPB said:

Can someone explain the mechanism by which the state is going to get private companies to sack people who choose WFH? I'm not big on the idea of permanent remote working, but I don't see what power the government has to compel companies to sack those who choose it. This just seems like a completely stupid and unworkable policy idea.

I get that shops, bars and restaurants are struggling in city centres without passing trade from office workers, unfortunately there is a new reality coming for everyone in those sectors.

Surely sacking you for WFH is a lawsuit waiting to happen

Maybe, at least if you're contractually entitled to it. If not then I don't know. I just think it doesn't make sense, really the government shouldn't be talking up the idea of mass sackings at all. It feels counter productive.

I think what's happening is that the treasury is doing the same forecasting as the city and they have come to the same conclusion that the economy will only recover to about 96% of pre virus and anything from then onwards will need to be organic growth with new jobs created rather than old jobs being unmothballed. What the government should be doing is seeing what these industries need to make sense of the new reality, not try and force people to live by the old one under threat of job losses.

Benpointer said:

Sandpit said:

Benpointer said:

Sandpit said:

CarlottaVance said:

That'll work......

https://twitter.com/Ian_Fraser/status/1299089302127869963?s=20

Funny how, last time the SNP government raised marginal tax rates, tax take was less than expected....possibly because some higher rate tax payers moved....

Don't they read Arthur Laffer's books in Scottish economics courses?

Why would they bother?

He's a man with who invented a curve with no scales, and that no one has ever proved to be valid.

The Scots seem to have provided him with some good evidence this year.

George Osborne did in 2011 too, cutting the top tax rate from a totemic 52% to 47% massively increased the returns.

You got some evidence to support that assertion?

Income tax revenue as a proportion of GDP fell every year from 2011 to 2016.

Income tax revenue as a proportion of incomes, surely the important statistic, rose through the same period.

I'll refer you to that oracle of capitalism, the Guardian:

"In research underlining the dual nature of Britain’s income tax structure, the Institute for Fiscal Studies said above-inflation increases in the personal allowance to £12,500 a year meant 42% of adults paid no income tax.

"The thinktank said the top 1% of all adults accounted for well over a third of income tax, adding that the tax and benefit system was progressive.

"Meanwhile, the share of income tax paid by the top 1% of taxpayers – a smaller slice of the population because so many people pay no income tax – has risen from 24% of the total in 2007-08 on the eve of the financial crisis to 30% currently.
“Unlike the increases in previous decades, this has not been driven by a rising income share at the top,” the thinktank said in a briefing paper. “Rather, it reflects policy reforms: there have been income tax rises for high-income individuals (the additional rate of income tax above £150,000, the withdrawal of the personal allowance above £100,000, substantial cuts in income tax relief for pension contributions, and a net real reduction in the higher-rate threshold), even while increases in the personal allowance have reduced or eliminated income tax for those with lower incomes.”
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/nov/13/richest-britain-income-tax-revenues-institute-fiscal-studies

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/MeidasTouch/status/1299033148869599233?s=20

Good. But needs far more on Scranton. He needs the working class to switch and back him this time. He needs to reach out to those left behind small towns, because they have bought Trump's crap and they need a reason to dump him.

Philip_Thompson said:

MaxPB said:

Can someone explain the mechanism by which the state is going to get private companies to sack people who choose WFH? I'm not big on the idea of permanent remote working, but I don't see what power the government has to compel companies to sack those who choose it. This just seems like a completely stupid and unworkable policy idea.

I get that shops, bars and restaurants are struggling in city centres without passing trade from office workers, unfortunately there is a new reality coming for everyone in those sectors.

Even the Telegraph article isn't suggesting the state would do that.

The article is saying that they would warn people of the risks. If a business eg has 60 staff 30 working in the office and 30 working from home, then they decide they need to restructure and go down to 30, then will they keep the 30 who've been going in or the thirty working from home? Its a stupid hypothetical and none of the Governments damn business.

Going back to that YouGov survey earlier this evening...

If you think your core vote is older people, then agitating for a return to the office is a popular/populist thing to do. Not to the extent of making it happen (because you can't and overall it's stupid), but as a noisy agitation. It makes the retired majors who read the Telegraph (does anyone else read the Telegraph these days?) stroke their chins and say to themselves "sound chap, that Johnson".

It's headline chasing rather than doing good. In fact, breaking the tyranny of the London office would do more for levelling up the regions than anything the government plans, so it works against the stated Johnson-Cummings-Gove agenda. But does anyone expect anything better from this lot?

MaxPB said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

MaxPB said:

Can someone explain the mechanism by which the state is going to get private companies to sack people who choose WFH? I'm not big on the idea of permanent remote working, but I don't see what power the government has to compel companies to sack those who choose it. This just seems like a completely stupid and unworkable policy idea.

I get that shops, bars and restaurants are struggling in city centres without passing trade from office workers, unfortunately there is a new reality coming for everyone in those sectors.

Surely sacking you for WFH is a lawsuit waiting to happen

Maybe, at least if you're contractually entitled to it. If not then I don't know. I just think it doesn't make sense, really the government shouldn't be talking up the idea of mass sackings at all. It feels counter productive.

I think what's happening is that the treasury is doing the same forecasting as the city and they have come to the same conclusion that the economy will only recover to about 96% of pre virus and anything from then onwards will need to be organic growth with new jobs created rather than old jobs being unmothballed. What the government should be doing is seeing what these industries need to make sense of the new reality, not try and force people to live by the old one under threat of job losses.

As well as seeing what opportunities can be unleashed too.

This may well see the death of some old jobs - many of which were unskilled and unproductive and notoriously hard to fill supposedly so I'm not seeing the issue if they go - but we should be looking to the future at new opportunities it can create.

Could we finally be seeing productivity go up?

Philip_Thompson said:

Could we finally be seeing productivity go up?

Judging by the push to return to what we were all doing six months ago the answer is surely no.

MaxPB said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

MaxPB said:

Can someone explain the mechanism by which the state is going to get private companies to sack people who choose WFH? I'm not big on the idea of permanent remote working, but I don't see what power the government has to compel companies to sack those who choose it. This just seems like a completely stupid and unworkable policy idea.

I get that shops, bars and restaurants are struggling in city centres without passing trade from office workers, unfortunately there is a new reality coming for everyone in those sectors.

Surely sacking you for WFH is a lawsuit waiting to happen

Maybe, at least if you're contractually entitled to it. If not then I don't know. I just think it doesn't make sense, really the government shouldn't be talking up the idea of mass sackings at all. It feels counter productive.

I think what's happening is that the treasury is doing the same forecasting as the city and they have come to the same conclusion that the economy will only recover to about 96% of pre virus and anything from then onwards will need to be organic growth with new jobs created rather than old jobs being unmothballed. What the government should be doing is seeing what these industries need to make sense of the new reality, not try and force people to live by the old one under threat of job losses.

It's fairly clear that unemployment will rise sharply in the next few months. It's politically speaking just odd that the Government seems to be musing that the threat of mass sackings mightn't be a bad idea. People will associate the two.

glw said:

MaxPB said:

What the government should be doing is seeing what these industries need to make sense of the new reality, not try and force people to live by the old one under threat of job losses.

They should put on their thinking caps and ponder what new services may thrive when more people work from home, city and town centres are quieter but suburbs busier, less people commute and less of peoples lives are wasted commuting, and homes now have to serve as workplaces. Not "get on the train, to go to the office, so that Starbucks can keep going".

Yes, and work out what city centres are going look like with 25% less office workers even once things are back to normal. What does that mean for all of the services that are provisioned, rates, rents, employment and taxes generated. Do the 25% of people who won't come back to the office in any significant sense stop spending during the week? Do they spend more locally or do they splurge on the weekend either in the city centre or locally?

I don't know the answers, but the government doesn't even seem to be asking the questions.

I don't want other people heading back to their offices, the roads are busy enough as it is.

MarqueeMark said:

glw said:

MaxPB said:

What the government should be doing is seeing what these industries need to make sense of the new reality, not try and force people to live by the old one under threat of job losses.

They should put on their thinking caps and ponder what new services may thrive when more people work from home, city and town centres are quieter but suburbs busier, less people commute and less of peoples lives are wasted commuting, and homes now have to serve as workplaces. Not "get on the train, to go to the office, so that Starbucks can keep going".

Do you still build HS2?

Definitely not. It's £56bn pissed away. LHR3 is dead as well.

MarqueeMark said:

glw said:

MaxPB said:

What the government should be doing is seeing what these industries need to make sense of the new reality, not try and force people to live by the old one under threat of job losses.

They should put on their thinking caps and ponder what new services may thrive when more people work from home, city and town centres are quieter but suburbs busier, less people commute and less of peoples lives are wasted commuting, and homes now have to serve as workplaces. Not "get on the train, to go to the office, so that Starbucks can keep going".

Do you still build HS2?

Yes, it's much more about capacity and getting freight trains off fast passenger lines.

Ditto LHR Runway 3, there's no public money in that, we just need to make sure the planning and CPO process goes smoothly.

MarqueeMark said:

glw said:

MaxPB said:

What the government should be doing is seeing what these industries need to make sense of the new reality, not try and force people to live by the old one under threat of job losses.

They should put on their thinking caps and ponder what new services may thrive when more people work from home, city and town centres are quieter but suburbs busier, less people commute and less of peoples lives are wasted commuting, and homes now have to serve as workplaces. Not "get on the train, to go to the office, so that Starbucks can keep going".

Do you still build HS2?

Obsessed

What do you think about binning Crossrail given the delays and cost to finish it?

HS2 contracts have been awarded, its being built, it would cost more to abort now.

It will last hundreds of years, well after we're all vaccinated.

MaxPB said:

glw said:

MaxPB said:

What the government should be doing is seeing what these industries need to make sense of the new reality, not try and force people to live by the old one under threat of job losses.

They should put on their thinking caps and ponder what new services may thrive when more people work from home, city and town centres are quieter but suburbs busier, less people commute and less of peoples lives are wasted commuting, and homes now have to serve as workplaces. Not "get on the train, to go to the office, so that Starbucks can keep going".

Yes, and work out what city centres are going look like with 25% less office workers even once things are back to normal. What does that mean for all of the services that are provisioned, rates, rents, employment and taxes generated. Do the 25% of people who won't come back to the office in any significant sense stop spending during the week? Do they spend more locally or do they splurge on the weekend either in the city centre or locally?

I don't know the answers, but the government doesn't even seem to be asking the questions.

But who is there who can ask the right questions? You need a bright iconoclast near the top and an open listening culture at the very top.

Unfortunately, whilst we have an iconoclast at the top, he's so busy that nobody else's questions can be heard over the sound of breaking icons. Besides, a lot of his thinking seems to have calcified a while back, and he appears not to have noticed the opportunities presented by the new situation.

CorrectHorseBattery said:

FPT, you're most welcome for the bypass paywalls extension, I found it a year or so ago and I've used it since.

Before it existed, I was working on a similar extension but this did everything I needed. I think it's quite simple under the hood, does some cookie clearing here, some user agent switching there but it works on all manner of sites.

Anyway, glad I could help. I occasionally have uses

Do you know one that works for Android?

Ave_it said:

I have a dream...

To get as many 'off topics' as malcolmg...

If only you had his wit and charm.

dixiedean said:

Stark_Dawning said:

This stuff about menacing home workers with the possibility of the sack is just Dom kite flying. I suspect we'll hear no more of it after tonight. One of his poorer efforts.

Who gains from continuing to WFH? Employees and employers saving large sums of money.
Who loses out? City centre businesses and commercial property developers and landlords.
Who donates heavily to the Tory Party and have grown fantastically wealthy on the back of a one way bet for decades?
Why commercial property developers.
Then it begins to makes sense.

Who also loses out will be today's winners from WFH as companies realise that if the accounts department can work remotely from various homes scattered around the home counties, it can work remotely and cheaply from Bratislava.

And their clients as confidential documents are sent to landfill because every home office has a printer but few have shredders.

And their adult children about to graduate and discover their traineeships revolving from team to team, department to department, are not as successful remotely because they can't bond at lunch or the watercooler, or ask for advice in the corridor.

And taxpayers who have to pay more to subsidise half-empty railways, and increased numbers on benefits, and a reduced tax base.

I've been WFH for the last decade and won't deny its good points but recent converts need to look more closely.

Was in the Toon tonight. Miserable weather. Lashing with rain. Not an "eat out" night.
Was eerily quiet. More like midnight on a Sunday/Monday.
Almost no one over 30 out and about. Can see a lot of places not surviving the winter on those numbers.

https://twitter.com/Andrew_Adonis/status/1299078815973597184?s=20

Am attending a Zoom with Rishi Sunak and IDS in early September

ManchesterKurt said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

I'm obsessed with FTTH for all!

So why not bin Crossrail, use that money for broadband and invest in the north via HS2?

Crossrail already exists.

rcs1000 said:

ManchesterKurt said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

I'm obsessed with FTTH for all!

So why not bin Crossrail, use that money for broadband and invest in the north via HS2?

Crossrail already exists.

Got your ticket across zone 1?

Falwell got a $10.5m severance package ?
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/08/27/becki-falwell-affair-liberty-university-student-band-jerry-402559

Christian charity, I guess...

MaxPB said:

ManchesterKurt said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

I'm obsessed with FTTH for all!

So why not bin Crossrail, use that money for broadband and invest in the north via HS2?

Because crossrail is basically finished. Sadiq just seems to be completely screwing up the last bit of it. HS2 will draw money and investment away from the North and to London. Really what we need is to connect the Northern cities together properly, not to connect them to London. HS2 is a waste of £56bn for no economic gain. We don't have the money for it.

Clearly the northern politicians and businesses are wrong and you know what is best for the northern economy.

Love this SE based country where no one outside London could possibly know what is best for their local area.

Wasn't another £450m thrown at Crossrail recently to finish it off?

Why not bin it and spend that money in Leeds on a tram network to level up the UK?

Other than investing in the north simply cannot happen in the UK ?

Ave_it said:

ManchesterKurt said:

MaxPB said:

ManchesterKurt said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

I'm obsessed with FTTH for all!

So why not bin Crossrail, use that money for broadband and invest in the north via HS2?

Because crossrail is basically finished. Sadiq just seems to be completely screwing up the last bit of it. HS2 will draw money and investment away from the North and to London. Really what we need is to connect the Northern cities together properly, not to connect them to London. HS2 is a waste of £56bn for no economic gain. We don't have the money for it.

Clearly the northern politicians and businesses are wrong and you know what is best for the northern economy.

Love this SE based country where no one outside London could possibly know what is best for their local area.

London produces 90% of the wealth.

Gtr Manchester good for claiming on the benefits

Indeed

So throw unlimited money at London and complain if any northerner ever want any investment

ManchesterKurt said:

rcs1000 said:

ManchesterKurt said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

I'm obsessed with FTTH for all!

So why not bin Crossrail, use that money for broadband and invest in the north via HS2?

Crossrail already exists.

Got your ticket across zone 1?

Could sell you one, but not entirely sure it's safe yet. Still wanna buy one?

Sandpit said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

ttps://twitter.com/BarristerSecret/status/1299108590100373506

https://twitter.com/BarristerSecret/status/1299108643850391561

The average take-home pay of a criminal barrister is £27k - really? Or is it that per month rather than per year?

It'll be a median number, rather than a mean.

Legal aid pays you about £100 to do some cases. And that will involve travelling to meet your client, preparation, going to court, waiting while the case before you goes over, and then your case. That also has to cover all your expenses.

Criminal barristers are paid almost nothing by legal aid. But they do it in the hope that they will excel and end up with a lucrative private practice. In reality, most will drop out after a couple of years and go into civil or corporate work.

another_richard said:

Pulpstar said:

I don't want other people heading back to their offices, the roads are busy enough as it is.

The roads were great back in May.

This country would be a lot better with ten million fewer people.

Ten million fewer people would be paying back the national debt. There's a horrible spiral some parts of the get into, where falling population mean higher taxes for those that remain, which means even more people leave...

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Philip_Thompson said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

FPT, you're most welcome for the bypass paywalls extension, I found it a year or so ago and I've used it since.

Before it existed, I was working on a similar extension but this did everything I needed. I think it's quite simple under the hood, does some cookie clearing here, some user agent switching there but it works on all manner of sites.

Anyway, glad I could help. I occasionally have uses

Do you know one that works for Android?

Firefox for Android supports extensions doesn't it? Does this not work on there?

Good question. Downloaded Facebook, synced it to my account but it won't load this site for some reason. Hangs loading the comments on both vanilla and the main page.

ManchesterKurt said:

Wasn't another £450m thrown at Crossrail recently to finish it off?

Why not bin it and spend that money in Leeds on a tram network to level up the UK?

Other than investing in the north simply cannot happen in the UK ?

Because it's a bit stupid to spend billions on a project and then stop it just before it's about to be finished.

HYUFD said:

If we go to WTO terms Brexit and it turns out to be Boris' poll tax then Sunak would fancy himself as Major to Starmer's Kinnock and Boris' Thatcher but he would have to be able to get a softer Brexit passed his party and Leavers

If WTO Brexit does turn out like the poll tax then Conservative backbenchers, including many Leavers, will have no problem swallowing a softer compromise.

Again, a corollary of Cameron not forcing a commission to prescribe Brexit means that even the stalwarts of the ERG had no single, agreed outcome in mind, so a lot will be happy with whatever works and causes least pain.

And Nigel Farage has repeatedly flopped at Westminster elections, and it is not as if a revived Ukip can make vast gains at the European elections we no longer participate in, so Farage poses no risk to Rishi or indeed Boris.

HYUFD said:

If we go to WTO terms Brexit and it turns out to be Boris' poll tax then Sunak would fancy himself as Major to Starmer's Kinnock and Boris' Thatcher but he would have to be able to get a softer Brexit passed his party and Leavers

And that's Rishi's dilemma. To have clean enough hands to be convincing once the U turn has happened, but without incurring the wrath of those who remain loyal to Brexit. (Which might be where the Poll Tax analogy breaks down; by the end, that was almost totally friendless. Even if Brexit goes badly, quite a few will see that as a sign to go further along the freedom road.)

Can he do it? I don't know, but he might be the only one who has a chance.

DecrepiterJohnL said:

HYUFD said:

If we go to WTO terms Brexit and it turns out to be Boris' poll tax then Sunak would fancy himself as Major to Starmer's Kinnock and Boris' Thatcher but he would have to be able to get a softer Brexit passed his party and Leavers

If WTO Brexit does turn out like the poll tax then Conservative backbenchers, including many Leavers, will have no problem swallowing a softer compromise.

Again, a corollary of Cameron not forcing a commission to prescribe Brexit means that even the stalwarts of the ERG had no single, agreed outcome in mind, so a lot will be happy with whatever works and causes least pain.

And Nigel Farage has repeatedly flopped at Westminster elections, and it is not as if a revived Ukip can make vast gains at the European elections we no longer participate in, so Farage poses no risk to Rishi or indeed Boris.

That depends, Leavers might accept some regulatory alignment for a trade deal, they would not accept free movement and lack of control of fishing waters and if it meant the latter then some would go Brexit Party again

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/cllringall/status/1298904386278744066

Sounds like a dumb comparison to me given reasoning for the need for one vs the other.

HYUFD said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

HYUFD said:

If we go to WTO terms Brexit and it turns out to be Boris' poll tax then Sunak would fancy himself as Major to Starmer's Kinnock and Boris' Thatcher but he would have to be able to get a softer Brexit passed his party and Leavers

If WTO Brexit does turn out like the poll tax then Conservative backbenchers, including many Leavers, will have no problem swallowing a softer compromise.

Again, a corollary of Cameron not forcing a commission to prescribe Brexit means that even the stalwarts of the ERG had no single, agreed outcome in mind, so a lot will be happy with whatever works and causes least pain.

And Nigel Farage has repeatedly flopped at Westminster elections, and it is not as if a revived Ukip can make vast gains at the European elections we no longer participate in, so Farage poses no risk to Rishi or indeed Boris.

That depends, Leavers might accept some regulatory alignment for a trade deal, they would not accept free movement and lack of control of fishing waters and if it meant the latter then some would go Brexit Party again

The only prominent Leaver who gives a damn about fishing is Michael Gove. And the Brexit Party, even in its heyday, did nothing at Westminster. We have left the EU; that will be enough for most, and there is no consensus as to what should happen next.

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

Sandpit said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

ttps://twitter.com/BarristerSecret/status/1299108590100373506

https://twitter.com/BarristerSecret/status/1299108643850391561

The average take-home pay of a criminal barrister is £27k - really? Or is it that per month rather than per year?

It'll be a median number, rather than a mean.

Legal aid pays you about £100 to do some cases. And that will involve travelling to meet your client, preparation, going to court, waiting while the case before you goes over, and then your case. That also has to cover all your expenses.

Criminal barristers are paid almost nothing by legal aid. But they do it in the hope that they will excel and end up with a lucrative private practice. In reality, most will drop out after a couple of years and go into civil or corporate work.

I believe the average criminal barrister earns about £70,000 actually but after travel costs and chambers rent etc that goes down to about £40,000 in real terms.

£27,000 is the salary of those in practice in the early years and top criminal QCs earn several hundred thousand a year, even if that is not as much as the millions a year their QC counterparts at the commercial bar earn

I don't think we disagree at all. Top criminal barristers will easily make £300,000+, because they'll be charging their clients £1,500/hour.

I think your £40,000 is probably the mean income, but I wouldn't be surprised in the least to find that £27,000 is the median - simply there are a lot of people at the bottom of the pile doing shoplifting in Uxbridge Magostrates Court on legal aid, and not a lot of people in the Old Bailey earning the big bucks.

That being said... I think you are right that it's misleading to use the median number rather than the mean.

DecrepiterJohnL said:

HYUFD said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

HYUFD said:

If we go to WTO terms Brexit and it turns out to be Boris' poll tax then Sunak would fancy himself as Major to Starmer's Kinnock and Boris' Thatcher but he would have to be able to get a softer Brexit passed his party and Leavers

If WTO Brexit does turn out like the poll tax then Conservative backbenchers, including many Leavers, will have no problem swallowing a softer compromise.

Again, a corollary of Cameron not forcing a commission to prescribe Brexit means that even the stalwarts of the ERG had no single, agreed outcome in mind, so a lot will be happy with whatever works and causes least pain.

And Nigel Farage has repeatedly flopped at Westminster elections, and it is not as if a revived Ukip can make vast gains at the European elections we no longer participate in, so Farage poses no risk to Rishi or indeed Boris.

That depends, Leavers might accept some regulatory alignment for a trade deal, they would not accept free movement and lack of control of fishing waters and if it meant the latter then some would go Brexit Party again

The only prominent Leaver who gives a damn about fishing is Michael Gove. And the Brexit Party, even in its heyday, did nothing at Westminster. We have left the EU; that will be enough for most, and there is no consensus as to what should happen next.

Lots of voters in lots of marginal Tory seats with fishing ports from Moray to Grimsby to Hastings to St Ives certainly do give a damn about fishing.

Most of the Red Wall also gives a damn about free movement, leave both exactly the same as when we were in the EU and the Tories can kiss those seats and their majority goodbye, voters there will go Labour, LD and Brexit Party in enough numbers for the Tories to lose

rcs1000 said:

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

Sandpit said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

ttps://twitter.com/BarristerSecret/status/1299108590100373506

https://twitter.com/BarristerSecret/status/1299108643850391561

The average take-home pay of a criminal barrister is £27k - really? Or is it that per month rather than per year?

It'll be a median number, rather than a mean.

Legal aid pays you about £100 to do some cases. And that will involve travelling to meet your client, preparation, going to court, waiting while the case before you goes over, and then your case. That also has to cover all your expenses.

Criminal barristers are paid almost nothing by legal aid. But they do it in the hope that they will excel and end up with a lucrative private practice. In reality, most will drop out after a couple of years and go into civil or corporate work.

I believe the average criminal barrister earns about £70,000 actually but after travel costs and chambers rent etc that goes down to about £40,000 in real terms.

£27,000 is the salary of those in practice in the early years and top criminal QCs earn several hundred thousand a year, even if that is not as much as the millions a year their QC counterparts at the commercial bar earn

I don't think we disagree at all. Top criminal barristers will easily make £300,000+, because they'll be charging their clients £1,500/hour.

I think your £40,000 is probably the mean income, but I wouldn't be surprised in the least to find that £27,000 is the median - simply there are a lot of people at the bottom of the pile doing shoplifting in Uxbridge Magostrates Court on legal aid, and not a lot of people in the Old Bailey earning the big bucks.

That being said... I think you are right that it's misleading to use the median number rather than the mean.

If it is not a normal distribution, and from what you say, it is not, then either measure is potentially misleading but here the median is probably better. It is a bit like asking what is the average income of footballers: there is such a gap between the premiership and the part-time leagues that the question becomes meaningless.

ManchesterKurt said:

Andy_JS said:

ManchesterKurt said:

Wasn't another £450m thrown at Crossrail recently to finish it off?

Why not bin it and spend that money in Leeds on a tram network to level up the UK?

Other than investing in the north simply cannot happen in the UK ?

Because it's a bit stupid to spend billions on a project and then stop it just before it's about to be finished.

Agreed

So no sensible person would ever suggesting binning HS2 after the billions have been spent on it?

less than 10% of total cost and if wfh takes off you will have ample capacity on current lines where as our internet infrastructure is in a parlous state

DecrepiterJohnL said:

HYUFD said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

HYUFD said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

HYUFD said:

If we go to WTO terms Brexit and it turns out to be Boris' poll tax then Sunak would fancy himself as Major to Starmer's Kinnock and Boris' Thatcher but he would have to be able to get a softer Brexit passed his party and Leavers

If WTO Brexit does turn out like the poll tax then Conservative backbenchers, including many Leavers, will have no problem swallowing a softer compromise.

Again, a corollary of Cameron not forcing a commission to prescribe Brexit means that even the stalwarts of the ERG had no single, agreed outcome in mind, so a lot will be happy with whatever works and causes least pain.

And Nigel Farage has repeatedly flopped at Westminster elections, and it is not as if a revived Ukip can make vast gains at the European elections we no longer participate in, so Farage poses no risk to Rishi or indeed Boris.

That depends, Leavers might accept some regulatory alignment for a trade deal, they would not accept free movement and lack of control of fishing waters and if it meant the latter then some would go Brexit Party again

The only prominent Leaver who gives a damn about fishing is Michael Gove. And the Brexit Party, even in its heyday, did nothing at Westminster. We have left the EU; that will be enough for most, and there is no consensus as to what should happen next.

Lots of voters in lots of marginal Tory seats with fishing ports from Moray to Grimsby to Hastings to St Ives certainly do give a damn about fishing.

Most of the Red Wall also gives a damn about free movement, leave both exactly the same as when we were in the EU and the Tories can kiss those seats and their majority goodbye, voters there will go Labour, LD and Brexit Party in enough numbers for the Tories to lose

So don't call it free movement. No-one knows what it means and immigration will continue anyway. Just find a new name, like Michael Heseltine coined the council tax.

ETA as an aside, is the EU even asking for free movement?

Immigration will not continue the same as before as there will be a points system to replace free movement. Though yes we can get a FTA without free movement but not EEA.

HYUFD said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

FOM fudge seems the most unlikely thing that any Tory would capitulate on. I think fishing and state aid will be capitulated

State aid maybe, fishing not, too many Tory MPs now represent fishing ports

The thing is, even if we get complete control of our fishing waters, I don't see how it works for British fishermen. Ultimately, our cost of operations is higher than other peoples' because ours ships are smaller (which is why British fishermen sold their quotas to Spaniards).

Following the discussion in the previous thread re: where is the north, I did a bit of doodling.

If you divide the UK into thirds based on constituency populations and boundaries, and OS grid north, this is what you get. It seems Hendon is in the Midlands.

Strangley enough, the line delineating the "North" is where a lot of people put it. Sheffield is North, but only just. Same for Liverpool.

Shading is based on population density. Each primary colour has roughly the same population total.

rcs1000 said:

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

Sandpit said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

ttps://twitter.com/BarristerSecret/status/1299108590100373506

https://twitter.com/BarristerSecret/status/1299108643850391561

The average take-home pay of a criminal barrister is £27k - really? Or is it that per month rather than per year?

It'll be a median number, rather than a mean.

Legal aid pays you about £100 to do some cases. And that will involve travelling to meet your client, preparation, going to court, waiting while the case before you goes over, and then your case. That also has to cover all your expenses.

Criminal barristers are paid almost nothing by legal aid. But they do it in the hope that they will excel and end up with a lucrative private practice. In reality, most will drop out after a couple of years and go into civil or corporate work.

I believe the average criminal barrister earns about £70,000 actually but after travel costs and chambers rent etc that goes down to about £40,000 in real terms.

£27,000 is the salary of those in practice in the early years and top criminal QCs earn several hundred thousand a year, even if that is not as much as the millions a year their QC counterparts at the commercial bar earn

I don't think we disagree at all. Top criminal barristers will easily make £300,000+, because they'll be charging their clients £1,500/hour.

I think your £40,000 is probably the mean income, but I wouldn't be surprised in the least to find that £27,000 is the median - simply there are a lot of people at the bottom of the pile doing shoplifting in Uxbridge Magostrates Court on legal aid, and not a lot of people in the Old Bailey earning the big bucks.

That being said... I think you are right that it's misleading to use the median number rather than the mean.

Median makes more sense if there are a small number of people earning huge amounts, surely?

Bear in mind that it's "take home pay" the Secret Barrister is referring to. So, 27k becomes 35k before tax. Now, would they be deducting pension payments to get that take home figure? That might move £27k take home, to nearer £40k gross.