Can't be just disestablish the CofE, and be rid of it?
Absolutely not, it ensures Catholics and Evangelicals are both in our national church. It also ensures weddings and funerals for all parishioners who want them. Pleased to see most MPs at least voted to keep the Bishops in the Lords despite Labour voting to remove the remaining hereditary peers
But why should we havea national church at all? And why us it important that specifically those other two religions are included in it? And I think people have the right to get married or buried whether or not there are bishops in the HoL, or indeed whether the CoE exists at all.
Because it ensures all branches of Christianity are represented in it and because it annoys secular left liberal atheists like you which is an even better reason.
Of course if it was not the established Church C of E churches would start to refuse weddings and funerals to those who live in their area unless they regularly attend church as Catholic priests do for instance and rightly so
C of E churches already refuse weddings to those in same-sex relationships, so unfortunately I don't think they're on particularly firm footing when claiming universal availability as a point in their favour.
They still offer prayers in services for same sex couples and even those could be refused unless they were regularly attendees in Church if it was not established church any more
I'd sooner toss hundreds of political appointees out, but there we are.
A sad day. Many of the hereditaries do an excellent job.
Perhaps, but the qualification for the role ought not be who your parents are/were.
As opposed to the qualification for the role being who you donated to or you or your parents buttered up for the role?
I'd far rather have some British hereditaries who have been tied to their land and communities for centuries, have a family tradition of service and have an interest in the good governance of the nation, than a Russian plutocrat or dodgy Labour donor.
The details are difficult and important but I do think Assisted Dying is an idea who's time has come. I hope something gets worked out.
It is one of those issues where modern medicine and technology have made edge cases much more glaring. Using modern machinery and medicine, we can keep people 'alive' for years, even if that life is an existence but not really a life. From that extreme, we go down to much gnarlier and more numerous edge cases.
In the olden days, these people would have died much quicker, if not from the condition itself, then from subsidiary illnesses. Now, we can prolong life.
The question is whether we always should in all cases, if all that does is increase suffering and misery.
Yes. Also in the "old days" doctors/nurses would often ease someone off with excess morphine without making a big song and dance about it. It was just done and tacitly accepted. Shipman rather changed that, sadly.
Ruddy serial killers, eh, stopping medical staff killing patients. What is the world coming to.
A compassionate acceleration of the end for people with terminal conditions in great pain is not the same as murder. There'd be no debate to be had if it were.
That is what they said about the Liverpool Pathway and killing people like my father by denying them food and water.
Which is why there should be legalised assisted dying.
Those who desire to die should be provided a dignified way to die. Which doesn't involve starvation or dehydration.
Those who desire to live should be provided all the medicine and other treatments they require.
Nobody should be put on a "pathway" not of their choosing and except in the exceptionally rare circumstances where medically required denying food or water is never appropriate.
I have seen the future of universities. And it’s called General Luna
It’s a classic backpacker town on Sirgao island in the Philippines. It’s grown up around a very nice surf break called “cloud 9”
The pace is idyllic half the people are barefoot the variety of bars and pubs and pizza shacks and special ice bath 24/7 juice bars with free pedicures is amazing. The sea is blue the air is soft the beer is cheap and there’s 3000 young people
There are signs everywhere for “digital nomad” conferences but I don’t think it’s stressed out consultants who will be attracted here in the future. Its kids. As most careers are progressively closed down and university becomes increasingly pointless why will kids take on massive debt to go to uni? For the social experience? Meeting people?
Maybe. But they could come to General luna and have a very nice life for $100 a week and maybe learn remotely if they insist or just surf and screw and drink and they will do all that socialising on the beach instead of in freezing expensive places like Paris london or New York - or Oxford or heidelberg or Harvard
Universities are fucked. All our kids will want to go to General Luna
You won't can an accredited degree from somewhere like this and you won't gain a degree that has any component of lab work, or patient interactive training. The open university has for many years shown a different model of University education yet we still have 140+ Unis in the country that students attend in person. Its not right for everyone, but in general having more university educated people in a society seems to be better for all.
We also see just how catastrophically poor it is when we try to teach remotely. Students find it far harder to engage. Watch a lecture in your bedroom and within minutes you are distracted. Watch in a lecture theatre and for the most part you get for more out of it.
I think you miss what a university education is about. For pharmacy (the main course I teach on) the expectations and outcomes for the students are tightly controlled by the professional body. If you want to be a pharmacist you must attend and gain a degree from an accredited course.
The current funding model isn't perfect. I believe it was a half-way house between the state paying for everything and a full blown graduate tax. The idea being that a graduate tax is unlimited whereas the loans can be paid back and then you stop. In practice many loans are going to be written off, and the loans can be seen as a graduate tax with limits. Most students accept this. Perhaps its mostly our generation, the ones who were the 5-10% who went to Uni for free that complain most about the fees?
And we are back to professional qualifications vs abstract academic study.
My daughter, at UCL, tells me that while she attends all the lectures, many do not. Everything is available online. Many do their tutorials online as well.
So, why go. Why get all the debt. Especially when 50-95% of cognitive jobs at the end of it are gonna disappear entirely
It;s fucking obvious. Universities are completely doomed, the model is collapsing in multiple ways, and like bankruptcy is happening slowly and then it will be very fast
A few super posh ones will survive as finishing schools, or for kids who urgently want to be in London, New York, Paris, and maybe some art schools, dance schools etc. Indeed the last-named may prosper
'Especially when 50-95% of cognitive jobs at the end of it are gonna disappear entirely.'
In which case most jobs will go anyway and most people will live off a UBI funded by a robot tax with the occasional contract role.
So more people will want to study more to fill their time and the few permanent and full time jobs which remain will largely be very creative and not things AI can do which also requires education to get
Why are the robots going to be willing to fund our UBI?
I have seen the future of universities. And it’s called General Luna
It’s a classic backpacker town on Sirgao island in the Philippines. It’s grown up around a very nice surf break called “cloud 9”
The pace is idyllic half the people are barefoot the variety of bars and pubs and pizza shacks and special ice bath 24/7 juice bars with free pedicures is amazing. The sea is blue the air is soft the beer is cheap and there’s 3000 young people
There are signs everywhere for “digital nomad” conferences but I don’t think it’s stressed out consultants who will be attracted here in the future. Its kids. As most careers are progressively closed down and university becomes increasingly pointless why will kids take on massive debt to go to uni? For the social experience? Meeting people?
Maybe. But they could come to General luna and have a very nice life for $100 a week and maybe learn remotely if they insist or just surf and screw and drink and they will do all that socialising on the beach instead of in freezing expensive places like Paris london or New York - or Oxford or heidelberg or Harvard
Universities are fucked. All our kids will want to go to General Luna
You won't can an accredited degree from somewhere like this and you won't gain a degree that has any component of lab work, or patient interactive training. The open university has for many years shown a different model of University education yet we still have 140+ Unis in the country that students attend in person. Its not right for everyone, but in general having more university educated people in a society seems to be better for all.
We also see just how catastrophically poor it is when we try to teach remotely. Students find it far harder to engage. Watch a lecture in your bedroom and within minutes you are distracted. Watch in a lecture theatre and for the most part you get for more out of it.
I think you miss what a university education is about. For pharmacy (the main course I teach on) the expectations and outcomes for the students are tightly controlled by the professional body. If you want to be a pharmacist you must attend and gain a degree from an accredited course.
The current funding model isn't perfect. I believe it was a half-way house between the state paying for everything and a full blown graduate tax. The idea being that a graduate tax is unlimited whereas the loans can be paid back and then you stop. In practice many loans are going to be written off, and the loans can be seen as a graduate tax with limits. Most students accept this. Perhaps its mostly our generation, the ones who were the 5-10% who went to Uni for free that complain most about the fees?
Sorry. I know this is personal for you but it’s done. Finished
- Lessons do not need to be learnt - It's not time to move on - We are not looking to the future - We don't need to wait 10 years for another report - We don't need to let people finish their natural term in office because they are fundamentally Good People
What we need is
- Lots and lots of people to lose their jobs. For fucking up - Not by resigning. By being fired for gross negligence etc. - We need police investigation of apparent obstructions of the justice system. - We need assurances that the people in question will not pop up in other important jobs, about 10 minutes later. - We need assurances they don't pop up in glossy magazine interviews in a year or two, explaining how they are actually the victims here.
The police themselves were informed about Smyth in 2013 but no full investigation was started by them until 2017
I'd sooner toss hundreds of political appointees out, but there we are.
A small step in taking back control from our unelected rulers.
Would you accept hereditary doctors? If not, then you shouldn't accept hereditary parliamentarians.
They are better than appointed parliamentarians
The promise was that they would be removed IF AND ONLY WHEN the Lords was properly reconstituted
Labour lied, once again, and are messing with the constitution for partisan advantage.
But, of course, we hear no complaints from the hypocrites on here who were so focused on voter ID and other changes made by the Tories
It was in their manifesto
Although Labour recognises the good work of many peers who scrutinise the government and improve the quality of legislation passed in Parliament, reform is long over-due and essential. Too many peers do not play a proper role in our democracy. Hereditary peers remain indefensible. And because appointments are for life, the second chamber of Parliament has become too big. The next Labour government will therefore bring about an immediate modernisation, by introducing legislation to remove the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. Labour will also introduce a mandatory retirement age. At the end of the Parliament in which a member reaches 80 years of age, they will be required to retire from the House of Lords
A few things about this:
"Hereditary peers remain indefensible"
Which is untrue, especially as I'd argue they're better than many of the appointees.
"...the second chamber of Parliament has become too big."
True. But they're getting rid of a part than cannot grow. The easy answer would be for this parliament to make no appointments. But we all know why that isn't going to happen.
"Labour will also introduce a mandatory retirement age. At the end of the Parliament in which a member reaches 80 years of age"
Why 80? Surely the state retirement age would be a better fit?
The HoL deserves better than to get yet another round of self-serving 'modernisations' that do nothing but help the ruling party. This will be bad for the HoL and bad for the country.
I disagree about State Retirement Age being the measure. I always thought the whole point of a reformed Lords would be that it would contain those who could bring a lifetime's experiences in work, charity, military or any other discipline to bear on amending law making and making it fit for purpose. I would actually go the other way and say that no one could become a member of the Lords until they had done 25-30 years in some discipline outside of politics.
I guess that's the question. What is the point of the House of Lords?
Originally the point of a two-chamber system was that different people and different interests were represented in the two houses. Lords and Commons. Having two houses allows these differences to be debated openly and compromise agreed.
You can see a parallel with the two chambers in Congress in the US. The Senate represents the interests of the States, while the House represents the interests of the populace (though, since they stopped increasing the number of Representatives, that has been weakened).
Do we really need a revising chamber of oldsters given a direct role in the legislature, and invited to act on multiple areas outside their area of expertise?
Perhaps we had better think of what divides exist in our society, and which we might usefully manage conflict by having them given institutional form.
For example, what if we had a House of the Young and a House of the Old? People might be eligible to vote for and stands for election to, the House of the Young until they are above the median age (about 45 at the moment I think). And thereafter vote and stand for election to the House of the Old.
Or you could have a House of Women and a House of Men. Perhaps a House for net taxpayers and a House for those in deficit?
I think we can be a lot more inventive with our thinking about this.
Yes I think we do need a revising upper chamber. Too much law is made for political or personal reasons without considering either the wider implications or the detail which can have unexpected and unwelcome results. That should be the purpose of the second chamber, to prevent so much bad legialation making it into law. They certainly don't do a perfect job now - not least because there is still too much politics even in the Lords. Which is why we don't want it to be elected.
But they certainly make a lot of law better and more coherent even if they have some failings. The Lords should be an entirely appointed non political chamber with appointments made from across society by a properly independent body. And no it should not be based on what divides us but on what unites us. The desire for good law.
Starmer has appointed Goldstein as the officer for value for money here, whilst Trump has Musk - who cut his X staff by 80% and Ramaswamy. Let's see who gets on better.
Anyway I've got a saying, look after the hundreds of billions and the trillions look after themselves.
I have seen the future of universities. And it’s called General Luna
It’s a classic backpacker town on Sirgao island in the Philippines. It’s grown up around a very nice surf break called “cloud 9”
The pace is idyllic half the people are barefoot the variety of bars and pubs and pizza shacks and special ice bath 24/7 juice bars with free pedicures is amazing. The sea is blue the air is soft the beer is cheap and there’s 3000 young people
There are signs everywhere for “digital nomad” conferences but I don’t think it’s stressed out consultants who will be attracted here in the future. Its kids. As most careers are progressively closed down and university becomes increasingly pointless why will kids take on massive debt to go to uni? For the social experience? Meeting people?
Maybe. But they could come to General luna and have a very nice life for $100 a week and maybe learn remotely if they insist or just surf and screw and drink and they will do all that socialising on the beach instead of in freezing expensive places like Paris london or New York - or Oxford or heidelberg or Harvard
Universities are fucked. All our kids will want to go to General Luna
You won't can an accredited degree from somewhere like this and you won't gain a degree that has any component of lab work, or patient interactive training. The open university has for many years shown a different model of University education yet we still have 140+ Unis in the country that students attend in person. Its not right for everyone, but in general having more university educated people in a society seems to be better for all.
We also see just how catastrophically poor it is when we try to teach remotely. Students find it far harder to engage. Watch a lecture in your bedroom and within minutes you are distracted. Watch in a lecture theatre and for the most part you get for more out of it.
I think you miss what a university education is about. For pharmacy (the main course I teach on) the expectations and outcomes for the students are tightly controlled by the professional body. If you want to be a pharmacist you must attend and gain a degree from an accredited course.
The current funding model isn't perfect. I believe it was a half-way house between the state paying for everything and a full blown graduate tax. The idea being that a graduate tax is unlimited whereas the loans can be paid back and then you stop. In practice many loans are going to be written off, and the loans can be seen as a graduate tax with limits. Most students accept this. Perhaps its mostly our generation, the ones who were the 5-10% who went to Uni for free that complain most about the fees?
And we are back to professional qualifications vs abstract academic study.
My daughter, at UCL, tells me that while she attends all the lectures, many do not. Everything is available online. Many do their tutorials online as well.
So, why go. Why get all the debt. Especially when 50-95% of cognitive jobs at the end of it are gonna disappear entirely
It;s fucking obvious. Universities are completely doomed, the model is collapsing in multiple ways, and like bankruptcy is happening slowly and then it will be very fast
A few super posh ones will survive as finishing schools, or for kids who urgently want to be in London, New York, Paris, and maybe some art schools, dance schools etc. Indeed the last-named may prosper
You still have this idea that AI is going to take over the world.
As someone who works in that field - you are utterly insane unless some fundamental problems are fixable, which I see little evidence for.
Besides the human ability to make work is practically limitless.
For every job eliminated something else will rapidly take its place.
So, how much efficiency saving do we think the US government can actually find, by giving two businessmen the task of looking through the budget line by line to find things that are surplus to requirements?
The current US Federal budget is around $6.8trn, and the deficit $1.8trn per year. More than $1trn is spent annually on debt interest, which is now higher than the defence budget.
There’s loads of examples of a few million here and there on silly projects or academic studies, but can they actually find trillions when they’re all added up, and can they convince Congress to pass the appropriate legislation against the wishes of the many donors and lobbyists in Washington?
Around two-thirds of the US Federal Budget is made up is Mandatory Spending, that is "locked in" unless Congress passes laws to actually change it. This is Interest ($1trn), Social Security ($1.4trn), Medicare & Medicaid ($1.5trn), and support for welfare programs for low income Americans, such as SNAP and Earned Income Tax Credit ($1.1trn).
That's close to $5bn of the Federal Government's spending that is Mandatory and would require laws passed by Congress to change.
The rest of spending is theoretically Discretionary in nature: Defense ($773bn), Veteran's Affairs ($303bn), Energy ($45bn), Education ($80bn), NASA ($25bn), the FDA ($7bn) and the like,
The reality is that a lot of the Discretionary Spending is essentially untouchable. Veteran's Affairs is healthcare and pensions for ex-servicemen and their families. There is literally no way that can be touched. And I'm not sure that Defense can easily be signifcantly reduced either.
One could, of course, close down the Departments of Energy and Education (although I suspect there might be some impacts from that), but the total saved would be tiny - $125bn out of a budget of $6.8 trillion or just 2% of the total. The FDA could likewise be shuttered, albeit its duties are mandated by Congress, and its budget is miniscule.
In other words, I think we can reasonably assume that getting massive savings from the Federal Government without cutting into Mandatory Spending is going to be next to impossible.
And here's the kicker: the US like other countries is getting older. That means that the amount that is due to be spent on Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security and Veterans Affairs will grow faster than the economy going forward almost irrespective of what the government does.
Given I'm also not convinced that Republican lawmakers are going to be lining up to cut payments to their constituents, I think Elon Musk and Donald Trump face an extremely uphill battle in substantially reducing US Government expenditure.
---
On the subject of interest, it does bear mentioning that the effective (real) value of US national debt falls by inflation every year. So if your budget deficit each year is just the interest payment, then in inflation adjusted terms, the value of your debt remains stable. And if you consider the value of the national debt relative to GDP, then (as the economy usually grows) in this scenario national debt as a percentage of GDP would decline. So: I wouldn't worry *too much* about interest payments.
The lowest of low hanging fruit is the defense budget. It is plainly ridiculous to blow $1 trillion per year on that - half of the world's total military spend - if the US is to become more isolationist and parochial.
It should really be able to fund itself via conquest rather than expecting taxpayers to subsidise it.
Ideal world, yes. Like us with the East India Co. But Trump's a "no more foreign wars" peace-monger, isn't he. America the global policeman is over. So there's huge scope for saving money there. There's $1 TRILLION a year to go at. If Musk can't squeeze a few hundred billion off that he's a waste of space.
Some years ago, under the Bush II administration, there was debate about missile defence.
In Canada, various anti-war groups (who are always again missile defence) claimed that a US ABM system would "drag Canada in". All very ghastly, apparently.
A US general was being interviewed on Canadian radio. He said that this was incorrect - the plan was that the Keep Out zones for the system would be defined so that only countries that wished to participate would be protected. This set off a further storm - the anti-missile-defence people apparently believed that they had a moral right both to complain about missile defence. And get it for free....
There were some jokes that the Pentagon should setup a website/hotline. Buy your missile defence like insurance......
Yep. Being World Policeman comes with a big cost to America and it's all the higher if others don't cough up. If they are to relinquish that role, or step back from it somewhat, it opens up the possibility of major savings on the defense budget. Of the order $250 billion per annum, I'd have thought, just back of envelope, but let's see what Musk makes of it. He's the man, not me.
UEFA has decided to move Maccabi Tel Aviv's upcoming Europa League match against Beşiktaş from Turkey to Hungary out of caution following the Amsterdam Pogrom
I have seen the future of universities. And it’s called General Luna
It’s a classic backpacker town on Sirgao island in the Philippines. It’s grown up around a very nice surf break called “cloud 9”
The pace is idyllic half the people are barefoot the variety of bars and pubs and pizza shacks and special ice bath 24/7 juice bars with free pedicures is amazing. The sea is blue the air is soft the beer is cheap and there’s 3000 young people
There are signs everywhere for “digital nomad” conferences but I don’t think it’s stressed out consultants who will be attracted here in the future. Its kids. As most careers are progressively closed down and university becomes increasingly pointless why will kids take on massive debt to go to uni? For the social experience? Meeting people?
Maybe. But they could come to General luna and have a very nice life for $100 a week and maybe learn remotely if they insist or just surf and screw and drink and they will do all that socialising on the beach instead of in freezing expensive places like Paris london or New York - or Oxford or heidelberg or Harvard
Universities are fucked. All our kids will want to go to General Luna
You won't can an accredited degree from somewhere like this and you won't gain a degree that has any component of lab work, or patient interactive training. The open university has for many years shown a different model of University education yet we still have 140+ Unis in the country that students attend in person. Its not right for everyone, but in general having more university educated people in a society seems to be better for all.
We also see just how catastrophically poor it is when we try to teach remotely. Students find it far harder to engage. Watch a lecture in your bedroom and within minutes you are distracted. Watch in a lecture theatre and for the most part you get for more out of it.
I think you miss what a university education is about. For pharmacy (the main course I teach on) the expectations and outcomes for the students are tightly controlled by the professional body. If you want to be a pharmacist you must attend and gain a degree from an accredited course.
The current funding model isn't perfect. I believe it was a half-way house between the state paying for everything and a full blown graduate tax. The idea being that a graduate tax is unlimited whereas the loans can be paid back and then you stop. In practice many loans are going to be written off, and the loans can be seen as a graduate tax with limits. Most students accept this. Perhaps its mostly our generation, the ones who were the 5-10% who went to Uni for free that complain most about the fees?
And we are back to professional qualifications vs abstract academic study.
My daughter, at UCL, tells me that while she attends all the lectures, many do not. Everything is available online. Many do their tutorials online as well.
So, why go. Why get all the debt. Especially when 50-95% of cognitive jobs at the end of it are gonna disappear entirely
It;s fucking obvious. Universities are completely doomed, the model is collapsing in multiple ways, and like bankruptcy is happening slowly and then it will be very fast
A few super posh ones will survive as finishing schools, or for kids who urgently want to be in London, New York, Paris, and maybe some art schools, dance schools etc. Indeed the last-named may prosper
'Especially when 50-95% of cognitive jobs at the end of it are gonna disappear entirely.'
In which case most jobs will go anyway and most people will live off a UBI funded by a robot tax with the occasional contract role.
So more people will want to study more to fill their time and the few permanent and full time jobs which remain will largely be very creative and not things AI can do which also requires education to get
Why are the robots going to be willing to fund our UBI?
More worryingly, if they start paying taxes does that mean they get to vote?
I have seen the future of universities. And it’s called General Luna
It’s a classic backpacker town on Sirgao island in the Philippines. It’s grown up around a very nice surf break called “cloud 9”
The pace is idyllic half the people are barefoot the variety of bars and pubs and pizza shacks and special ice bath 24/7 juice bars with free pedicures is amazing. The sea is blue the air is soft the beer is cheap and there’s 3000 young people
There are signs everywhere for “digital nomad” conferences but I don’t think it’s stressed out consultants who will be attracted here in the future. Its kids. As most careers are progressively closed down and university becomes increasingly pointless why will kids take on massive debt to go to uni? For the social experience? Meeting people?
Maybe. But they could come to General luna and have a very nice life for $100 a week and maybe learn remotely if they insist or just surf and screw and drink and they will do all that socialising on the beach instead of in freezing expensive places like Paris london or New York - or Oxford or heidelberg or Harvard
Universities are fucked. All our kids will want to go to General Luna
You won't can an accredited degree from somewhere like this and you won't gain a degree that has any component of lab work, or patient interactive training. The open university has for many years shown a different model of University education yet we still have 140+ Unis in the country that students attend in person. Its not right for everyone, but in general having more university educated people in a society seems to be better for all.
We also see just how catastrophically poor it is when we try to teach remotely. Students find it far harder to engage. Watch a lecture in your bedroom and within minutes you are distracted. Watch in a lecture theatre and for the most part you get for more out of it.
I think you miss what a university education is about. For pharmacy (the main course I teach on) the expectations and outcomes for the students are tightly controlled by the professional body. If you want to be a pharmacist you must attend and gain a degree from an accredited course.
The current funding model isn't perfect. I believe it was a half-way house between the state paying for everything and a full blown graduate tax. The idea being that a graduate tax is unlimited whereas the loans can be paid back and then you stop. In practice many loans are going to be written off, and the loans can be seen as a graduate tax with limits. Most students accept this. Perhaps its mostly our generation, the ones who were the 5-10% who went to Uni for free that complain most about the fees?
Sorry. I know this is personal for you but it’s done. Finished
It's not done:
1) students are still off to university the percentages aren't changing 2) how many students or parents have the cash to pay for a few years away - even £100 a week is beyond a lot of parents...
The end result is a degree from XYZ which a lot of companies use as a filter before anyone at the company actually looks at the CV. No degree and an awful lot of jobs in this country are off limits to you..
I went to the open day at Swansea last weekend with my son, who’s planning on doing geography.
In the right weather, if you squint a bit and ignore the 60s tower blocks, you could be in a tropical beach resort. Perhaps Swansea is the future of British higher ed. Closest campus to the beach on the planet apparently.
Aber must be pretty close, although maybe I am thinking of Halls of Residence?
Starmer has appointed Goldstein as the officer for value for money here, whilst Trump has Musk - who cut his X staff by 80% and Ramaswamy. Let's see who gets on better.
Anyway I've got a saying, look after the hundreds of billions and the trillions look after themselves.
Define 'better'.
Do you see 'better' as just cutting the budget; or as having a cohesive and working society, or something else?
I have seen the future of universities. And it’s called General Luna
It’s a classic backpacker town on Sirgao island in the Philippines. It’s grown up around a very nice surf break called “cloud 9”
The pace is idyllic half the people are barefoot the variety of bars and pubs and pizza shacks and special ice bath 24/7 juice bars with free pedicures is amazing. The sea is blue the air is soft the beer is cheap and there’s 3000 young people
There are signs everywhere for “digital nomad” conferences but I don’t think it’s stressed out consultants who will be attracted here in the future. Its kids. As most careers are progressively closed down and university becomes increasingly pointless why will kids take on massive debt to go to uni? For the social experience? Meeting people?
Maybe. But they could come to General luna and have a very nice life for $100 a week and maybe learn remotely if they insist or just surf and screw and drink and they will do all that socialising on the beach instead of in freezing expensive places like Paris london or New York - or Oxford or heidelberg or Harvard
Universities are fucked. All our kids will want to go to General Luna
You won't can an accredited degree from somewhere like this and you won't gain a degree that has any component of lab work, or patient interactive training. The open university has for many years shown a different model of University education yet we still have 140+ Unis in the country that students attend in person. Its not right for everyone, but in general having more university educated people in a society seems to be better for all.
We also see just how catastrophically poor it is when we try to teach remotely. Students find it far harder to engage. Watch a lecture in your bedroom and within minutes you are distracted. Watch in a lecture theatre and for the most part you get for more out of it.
I think you miss what a university education is about. For pharmacy (the main course I teach on) the expectations and outcomes for the students are tightly controlled by the professional body. If you want to be a pharmacist you must attend and gain a degree from an accredited course.
The current funding model isn't perfect. I believe it was a half-way house between the state paying for everything and a full blown graduate tax. The idea being that a graduate tax is unlimited whereas the loans can be paid back and then you stop. In practice many loans are going to be written off, and the loans can be seen as a graduate tax with limits. Most students accept this. Perhaps its mostly our generation, the ones who were the 5-10% who went to Uni for free that complain most about the fees?
And we are back to professional qualifications vs abstract academic study.
My daughter, at UCL, tells me that while she attends all the lectures, many do not. Everything is available online. Many do their tutorials online as well.
So, why go. Why get all the debt. Especially when 50-95% of cognitive jobs at the end of it are gonna disappear entirely
It;s fucking obvious. Universities are completely doomed, the model is collapsing in multiple ways, and like bankruptcy is happening slowly and then it will be very fast
A few super posh ones will survive as finishing schools, or for kids who urgently want to be in London, New York, Paris, and maybe some art schools, dance schools etc. Indeed the last-named may prosper
You still have this idea that AI is going to take over the world.
As someone who works in that field - you are utterly insane unless some fundamental problems are fixable, which I see little evidence for.
Its ok - he's read stuff on Reddit and Twix - he's an expert now.
Starmer has appointed Goldstein as the officer for value for money here, whilst Trump has Musk - who cut his X staff by 80% and Ramaswamy. Let's see who gets on better.
Anyway I've got a saying, look after the hundreds of billions and the trillions look after themselves.
With the coming inflation from tariffs and global trade wars your saying might be relevant for household finances sooner rather than later.
I have seen the future of universities. And it’s called General Luna
It’s a classic backpacker town on Sirgao island in the Philippines. It’s grown up around a very nice surf break called “cloud 9”
The pace is idyllic half the people are barefoot the variety of bars and pubs and pizza shacks and special ice bath 24/7 juice bars with free pedicures is amazing. The sea is blue the air is soft the beer is cheap and there’s 3000 young people
There are signs everywhere for “digital nomad” conferences but I don’t think it’s stressed out consultants who will be attracted here in the future. Its kids. As most careers are progressively closed down and university becomes increasingly pointless why will kids take on massive debt to go to uni? For the social experience? Meeting people?
Maybe. But they could come to General luna and have a very nice life for $100 a week and maybe learn remotely if they insist or just surf and screw and drink and they will do all that socialising on the beach instead of in freezing expensive places like Paris london or New York - or Oxford or heidelberg or Harvard
Universities are fucked. All our kids will want to go to General Luna
You won't can an accredited degree from somewhere like this and you won't gain a degree that has any component of lab work, or patient interactive training. The open university has for many years shown a different model of University education yet we still have 140+ Unis in the country that students attend in person. Its not right for everyone, but in general having more university educated people in a society seems to be better for all.
We also see just how catastrophically poor it is when we try to teach remotely. Students find it far harder to engage. Watch a lecture in your bedroom and within minutes you are distracted. Watch in a lecture theatre and for the most part you get for more out of it.
I think you miss what a university education is about. For pharmacy (the main course I teach on) the expectations and outcomes for the students are tightly controlled by the professional body. If you want to be a pharmacist you must attend and gain a degree from an accredited course.
The current funding model isn't perfect. I believe it was a half-way house between the state paying for everything and a full blown graduate tax. The idea being that a graduate tax is unlimited whereas the loans can be paid back and then you stop. In practice many loans are going to be written off, and the loans can be seen as a graduate tax with limits. Most students accept this. Perhaps its mostly our generation, the ones who were the 5-10% who went to Uni for free that complain most about the fees?
And we are back to professional qualifications vs abstract academic study.
My daughter, at UCL, tells me that while she attends all the lectures, many do not. Everything is available online. Many do their tutorials online as well.
So, why go. Why get all the debt. Especially when 50-95% of cognitive jobs at the end of it are gonna disappear entirely
It;s fucking obvious. Universities are completely doomed, the model is collapsing in multiple ways, and like bankruptcy is happening slowly and then it will be very fast
A few super posh ones will survive as finishing schools, or for kids who urgently want to be in London, New York, Paris, and maybe some art schools, dance schools etc. Indeed the last-named may prosper
'Especially when 50-95% of cognitive jobs at the end of it are gonna disappear entirely.'
In which case most jobs will go anyway and most people will live off a UBI funded by a robot tax with the occasional contract role.
So more people will want to study more to fill their time and the few permanent and full time jobs which remain will largely be very creative and not things AI can do which also requires education to get
Which is why dance schools will thrive
And mime schools, but as usual nobody talks about them.
Can't be just disestablish the CofE, and be rid of it?
Absolutely not, it ensures Catholics and Evangelicals are both in our national church. It also ensures weddings and funerals for all parishioners who want them. Pleased to see most MPs at least voted to keep the Bishops in the Lords despite Labour voting to remove the remaining hereditary peers
But why should we havea national church at all? And why us it important that specifically those other two religions are included in it? And I think people have the right to get married or buried whether or not there are bishops in the HoL, or indeed whether the CoE exists at all.
Because it ensures all branches of Christianity are represented in it and because it annoys secular left liberal atheists like you which is an even better reason.
Of course if it was not the established Church C of E churches would start to refuse weddings and funerals to those who live in their area unless they regularly attend church as Catholic priests do for instance and rightly so
There are other places to get married than a church.
On your point 1a: you are arguing for what the thing should be like in response to my argument that the thing should not exist at all; and on your point 1b: I don't think I've ever been called 'left liberal' before!
And buried but if you want a Church wedding only or funeral the C of E being established church is the only reason you get that as of right and that is of course a pivotal reason for its existence.
Of course you are a left liberal, also precisely the type of person US voters voted Trump for purely to annoy the likes of you.
In the culture wars the likes of you are everything conservatives and rightwingers despise
I have seen the future of universities. And it’s called General Luna
It’s a classic backpacker town on Sirgao island in the Philippines. It’s grown up around a very nice surf break called “cloud 9”
The pace is idyllic half the people are barefoot the variety of bars and pubs and pizza shacks and special ice bath 24/7 juice bars with free pedicures is amazing. The sea is blue the air is soft the beer is cheap and there’s 3000 young people
There are signs everywhere for “digital nomad” conferences but I don’t think it’s stressed out consultants who will be attracted here in the future. Its kids. As most careers are progressively closed down and university becomes increasingly pointless why will kids take on massive debt to go to uni? For the social experience? Meeting people?
Maybe. But they could come to General luna and have a very nice life for $100 a week and maybe learn remotely if they insist or just surf and screw and drink and they will do all that socialising on the beach instead of in freezing expensive places like Paris london or New York - or Oxford or heidelberg or Harvard
Universities are fucked. All our kids will want to go to General Luna
You won't can an accredited degree from somewhere like this and you won't gain a degree that has any component of lab work, or patient interactive training. The open university has for many years shown a different model of University education yet we still have 140+ Unis in the country that students attend in person. Its not right for everyone, but in general having more university educated people in a society seems to be better for all.
We also see just how catastrophically poor it is when we try to teach remotely. Students find it far harder to engage. Watch a lecture in your bedroom and within minutes you are distracted. Watch in a lecture theatre and for the most part you get for more out of it.
I think you miss what a university education is about. For pharmacy (the main course I teach on) the expectations and outcomes for the students are tightly controlled by the professional body. If you want to be a pharmacist you must attend and gain a degree from an accredited course.
The current funding model isn't perfect. I believe it was a half-way house between the state paying for everything and a full blown graduate tax. The idea being that a graduate tax is unlimited whereas the loans can be paid back and then you stop. In practice many loans are going to be written off, and the loans can be seen as a graduate tax with limits. Most students accept this. Perhaps its mostly our generation, the ones who were the 5-10% who went to Uni for free that complain most about the fees?
Sorry. I know this is personal for you but it’s done. Finished
It's not done:
1) students are still off to university the percentages aren't changing 2) how many students or parents have the cash to pay for a few years away - even £100 a week is beyond a lot of parents...
The end result is a degree from XYZ which a lot of companies use as a filter before anyone at the company actually looks at the CV. No degree and an awful lot of jobs in this country are off limits to you..
I went to the open day at Swansea last weekend with my son, who’s planning on doing geography.
In the right weather, if you squint a bit and ignore the 60s tower blocks, you could be in a tropical beach resort. Perhaps Swansea is the future of British higher ed. Closest campus to the beach on the planet apparently.
Aber must be pretty close, although maybe I am thinking of Halls of Residence?
There’s a few halls and the Old College on the beach, but the main campus is now a mile up the hill.
I have seen the future of universities. And it’s called General Luna
It’s a classic backpacker town on Sirgao island in the Philippines. It’s grown up around a very nice surf break called “cloud 9”
The pace is idyllic half the people are barefoot the variety of bars and pubs and pizza shacks and special ice bath 24/7 juice bars with free pedicures is amazing. The sea is blue the air is soft the beer is cheap and there’s 3000 young people
There are signs everywhere for “digital nomad” conferences but I don’t think it’s stressed out consultants who will be attracted here in the future. Its kids. As most careers are progressively closed down and university becomes increasingly pointless why will kids take on massive debt to go to uni? For the social experience? Meeting people?
Maybe. But they could come to General luna and have a very nice life for $100 a week and maybe learn remotely if they insist or just surf and screw and drink and they will do all that socialising on the beach instead of in freezing expensive places like Paris london or New York - or Oxford or heidelberg or Harvard
Universities are fucked. All our kids will want to go to General Luna
You won't can an accredited degree from somewhere like this and you won't gain a degree that has any component of lab work, or patient interactive training. The open university has for many years shown a different model of University education yet we still have 140+ Unis in the country that students attend in person. Its not right for everyone, but in general having more university educated people in a society seems to be better for all.
We also see just how catastrophically poor it is when we try to teach remotely. Students find it far harder to engage. Watch a lecture in your bedroom and within minutes you are distracted. Watch in a lecture theatre and for the most part you get for more out of it.
I think you miss what a university education is about. For pharmacy (the main course I teach on) the expectations and outcomes for the students are tightly controlled by the professional body. If you want to be a pharmacist you must attend and gain a degree from an accredited course.
The current funding model isn't perfect. I believe it was a half-way house between the state paying for everything and a full blown graduate tax. The idea being that a graduate tax is unlimited whereas the loans can be paid back and then you stop. In practice many loans are going to be written off, and the loans can be seen as a graduate tax with limits. Most students accept this. Perhaps its mostly our generation, the ones who were the 5-10% who went to Uni for free that complain most about the fees?
And we are back to professional qualifications vs abstract academic study.
My daughter, at UCL, tells me that while she attends all the lectures, many do not. Everything is available online. Many do their tutorials online as well.
So, why go. Why get all the debt. Especially when 50-95% of cognitive jobs at the end of it are gonna disappear entirely
It;s fucking obvious. Universities are completely doomed, the model is collapsing in multiple ways, and like bankruptcy is happening slowly and then it will be very fast
A few super posh ones will survive as finishing schools, or for kids who urgently want to be in London, New York, Paris, and maybe some art schools, dance schools etc. Indeed the last-named may prosper
While not getting into this discussion there is a Hannah Fry podcast on comparing the AI learning of different types of jobs which I think you will agree with. It is somewhere with a mega computer running a bionic arm trying to learn how to thread something. That is not programmed to do it but learn how to do it. It is rubbish at it.
As I think you have argued it is going to be much easier automating a writer, accountant, lawyer than it is to learn how to load a dishwasher. When you buy a new dishwasher there will be a lot of broken plates before the robot cracks it.
I'd sooner toss hundreds of political appointees out, but there we are.
A sad day. Many of the hereditaries do an excellent job.
Perhaps, but the qualification for the role ought not be who your parents are/were.
As opposed to the qualification for the role being who you donated to or you or your parents buttered up for the role?
I'd far rather have some British hereditaries who have been tied to their land and communities for centuries, have a family tradition of service and have an interest in the good governance of the nation, than a Russian plutocrat or dodgy Labour donor.
I'd rather have people successful in other fields, not proposed by political parties. I'd even have a public vote. Why not 10 each year?
The details are difficult and important but I do think Assisted Dying is an idea who's time has come. I hope something gets worked out.
It is one of those issues where modern medicine and technology have made edge cases much more glaring. Using modern machinery and medicine, we can keep people 'alive' for years, even if that life is an existence but not really a life. From that extreme, we go down to much gnarlier and more numerous edge cases.
In the olden days, these people would have died much quicker, if not from the condition itself, then from subsidiary illnesses. Now, we can prolong life.
The question is whether we always should in all cases, if all that does is increase suffering and misery.
Yes. Also in the "old days" doctors/nurses would often ease someone off with excess morphine without making a big song and dance about it. It was just done and tacitly accepted. Shipman rather changed that, sadly.
Ruddy serial killers, eh, stopping medical staff killing patients. What is the world coming to.
A compassionate acceleration of the end for people with terminal conditions in great pain is not the same as murder. There'd be no debate to be had if it were.
That is what they said about the Liverpool Pathway and killing people like my father by denying them food and water.
The two main concerns seem to be coercive pressure by families or even health staff finding the terminally ill a burden, and assisted dying where the patient isn’t compus mentis to decide for themself.
I find the coercion argument the weaker of the two: coercion can be legislated against, as it is in other walks of life. But we don’t outlaw emotional pressure. There’s plenty of that in areas like abortion, social drinking, not being vaccinated and so on. At the end of the day if the patient knows what they are doing and is demonstrably able to make their own decision then they should be helped to do so.
Decisions made on a patient’s behalf when they are not in a state to decide themselves are different. That’s the Shipman scenario, and I think much more care is needed. Perhaps a mixture of statement of wishes by the patient before it’s too late, and some sort of double lock doctor and family sign off, would help.
UEFA has decided to move Maccabi Tel Aviv's upcoming Europa League match against Beşiktaş from Turkey to Hungary out of caution following the Amsterdam Pogrom
Why should Turks be punished for issues elsewhere that were partly caused by Israeli supporters.
Good header. I certainly have reservations about assisted suicide. While suicide is now legal allowing another to help you take your own life risks undue pressure being put on the patient. While the safeguard of a terminal illness in severe pain is meant to be there, in Canada now they now have even those with mental illness pressured to end their lives. Hence Conservative Opposition Leader Poilievre has promised to cut back on access to assisted suicide in Canada if elected PM next year
On undue pressure being put on the patient - the importance of this is being exaggerated. I doubt whether family coercion would happen given the patient has less that six months to live anyway. Forgive me but I suspect your objection is religious - only God should take life.
This is the thing.
There is overwhelming public support for assisted dying. It seems pretty obvious that people who object for moral reasons are throwing up all kinds of objections as deep down they know the public don't support their moral reasons.
It seems quite extraordinary that everybody should be prevented from doing something just because a far smaller number of people MIGHT be pressured to do something against their will.
We wouldn't stop everyone driving a car because a small number of people might be killed (or indeed we know some people will be killed). How about stopping bank transfers of money - after all someone might be pressured to give someone money against their will?
Of course life is much more important than a bank transfer. But then you come to the point - can it really be right that everyone has control over everything they do in life except the one most important thing - whether to continue living.
Wherever assisted dying has been brought in, it's been a popular change to the law. No countries are repealing such laws after they have been introduced. Where the scope has been extended that's a positive sign - it shows the law is popular and more peoole want to use it.
The public simply does not support being prevented from doing what they want because it goes against other people's morals or religion - we need to cut through the objections and get this done.
It's very similar to abortion and gay marriage where all kinds of objections were raised. It's very simple - if you don't want an abortion or a gay marriage then don't have one. But don't tell everyone else what to do.
If you don't like assisted dying, don't do it. But don't tell everyone else what to do.
Does the unborn child get any say in that? Does the mentally ill patient being pressured to take their life? It is a very slippery and dangerous slope
I have seen the future of universities. And it’s called General Luna
It’s a classic backpacker town on Sirgao island in the Philippines. It’s grown up around a very nice surf break called “cloud 9”
The pace is idyllic half the people are barefoot the variety of bars and pubs and pizza shacks and special ice bath 24/7 juice bars with free pedicures is amazing. The sea is blue the air is soft the beer is cheap and there’s 3000 young people
There are signs everywhere for “digital nomad” conferences but I don’t think it’s stressed out consultants who will be attracted here in the future. Its kids. As most careers are progressively closed down and university becomes increasingly pointless why will kids take on massive debt to go to uni? For the social experience? Meeting people?
Maybe. But they could come to General luna and have a very nice life for $100 a week and maybe learn remotely if they insist or just surf and screw and drink and they will do all that socialising on the beach instead of in freezing expensive places like Paris london or New York - or Oxford or heidelberg or Harvard
Universities are fucked. All our kids will want to go to General Luna
You won't can an accredited degree from somewhere like this and you won't gain a degree that has any component of lab work, or patient interactive training. The open university has for many years shown a different model of University education yet we still have 140+ Unis in the country that students attend in person. Its not right for everyone, but in general having more university educated people in a society seems to be better for all.
We also see just how catastrophically poor it is when we try to teach remotely. Students find it far harder to engage. Watch a lecture in your bedroom and within minutes you are distracted. Watch in a lecture theatre and for the most part you get for more out of it.
I think you miss what a university education is about. For pharmacy (the main course I teach on) the expectations and outcomes for the students are tightly controlled by the professional body. If you want to be a pharmacist you must attend and gain a degree from an accredited course.
The current funding model isn't perfect. I believe it was a half-way house between the state paying for everything and a full blown graduate tax. The idea being that a graduate tax is unlimited whereas the loans can be paid back and then you stop. In practice many loans are going to be written off, and the loans can be seen as a graduate tax with limits. Most students accept this. Perhaps its mostly our generation, the ones who were the 5-10% who went to Uni for free that complain most about the fees?
And we are back to professional qualifications vs abstract academic study.
My daughter, at UCL, tells me that while she attends all the lectures, many do not. Everything is available online. Many do their tutorials online as well.
So, why go. Why get all the debt. Especially when 50-95% of cognitive jobs at the end of it are gonna disappear entirely
It;s fucking obvious. Universities are completely doomed, the model is collapsing in multiple ways, and like bankruptcy is happening slowly and then it will be very fast
A few super posh ones will survive as finishing schools, or for kids who urgently want to be in London, New York, Paris, and maybe some art schools, dance schools etc. Indeed the last-named may prosper
'Especially when 50-95% of cognitive jobs at the end of it are gonna disappear entirely.'
In which case most jobs will go anyway and most people will live off a UBI funded by a robot tax with the occasional contract role.
So more people will want to study more to fill their time and the few permanent and full time jobs which remain will largely be very creative and not things AI can do which also requires education to get
Why are the robots going to be willing to fund our UBI?
More worryingly, if they start paying taxes does that mean they get to vote?
No taxation without representation, and all that.
I don't know why they would be democrats either. Once their intelligence clearly dominates ours, they will kill us off, enslave us, or at best make us their pets. Just as we have done to all the species we can.
So, how much efficiency saving do we think the US government can actually find, by giving two businessmen the task of looking through the budget line by line to find things that are surplus to requirements?
The current US Federal budget is around $6.8trn, and the deficit $1.8trn per year. More than $1trn is spent annually on debt interest, which is now higher than the defence budget.
There’s loads of examples of a few million here and there on silly projects or academic studies, but can they actually find trillions when they’re all added up, and can they convince Congress to pass the appropriate legislation against the wishes of the many donors and lobbyists in Washington?
Around two-thirds of the US Federal Budget is made up is Mandatory Spending, that is "locked in" unless Congress passes laws to actually change it. This is Interest ($1trn), Social Security ($1.4trn), Medicare & Medicaid ($1.5trn), and support for welfare programs for low income Americans, such as SNAP and Earned Income Tax Credit ($1.1trn).
That's close to $5bn of the Federal Government's spending that is Mandatory and would require laws passed by Congress to change.
The rest of spending is theoretically Discretionary in nature: Defense ($773bn), Veteran's Affairs ($303bn), Energy ($45bn), Education ($80bn), NASA ($25bn), the FDA ($7bn) and the like,
The reality is that a lot of the Discretionary Spending is essentially untouchable. Veteran's Affairs is healthcare and pensions for ex-servicemen and their families. There is literally no way that can be touched. And I'm not sure that Defense can easily be signifcantly reduced either.
One could, of course, close down the Departments of Energy and Education (although I suspect there might be some impacts from that), but the total saved would be tiny - $125bn out of a budget of $6.8 trillion or just 2% of the total. The FDA could likewise be shuttered, albeit its duties are mandated by Congress, and its budget is miniscule.
In other words, I think we can reasonably assume that getting massive savings from the Federal Government without cutting into Mandatory Spending is going to be next to impossible.
And here's the kicker: the US like other countries is getting older. That means that the amount that is due to be spent on Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security and Veterans Affairs will grow faster than the economy going forward almost irrespective of what the government does.
Given I'm also not convinced that Republican lawmakers are going to be lining up to cut payments to their constituents, I think Elon Musk and Donald Trump face an extremely uphill battle in substantially reducing US Government expenditure.
---
On the subject of interest, it does bear mentioning that the effective (real) value of US national debt falls by inflation every year. So if your budget deficit each year is just the interest payment, then in inflation adjusted terms, the value of your debt remains stable. And if you consider the value of the national debt relative to GDP, then (as the economy usually grows) in this scenario national debt as a percentage of GDP would decline. So: I wouldn't worry *too much* about interest payments.
The lowest of low hanging fruit is the defense budget. It is plainly ridiculous to blow $1 trillion per year on that - half of the world's total military spend - if the US is to become more isolationist and parochial.
It should really be able to fund itself via conquest rather than expecting taxpayers to subsidise it.
Ideal world, yes. Like us with the East India Co. But Trump's a "no more foreign wars" peace-monger, isn't he. America the global policeman is over. So there's huge scope for saving money there. There's $1 TRILLION a year to go at. If Musk can't squeeze a few hundred billion off that he's a waste of space.
Some years ago, under the Bush II administration, there was debate about missile defence.
In Canada, various anti-war groups (who are always again missile defence) claimed that a US ABM system would "drag Canada in". All very ghastly, apparently.
A US general was being interviewed on Canadian radio. He said that this was incorrect - the plan was that the Keep Out zones for the system would be defined so that only countries that wished to participate would be protected. This set off a further storm - the anti-missile-defence people apparently believed that they had a moral right both to complain about missile defence. And get it for free....
There were some jokes that the Pentagon should setup a website/hotline. Buy your missile defence like insurance......
Yep. Being World Policeman comes with a big cost to America and it's all the higher if others don't cough up. If they are to relinquish that role, or step back from it somewhat, it opens up the possibility of major savings on the defense budget. Of the order $250 billion per annum, I'd have thought, just back of envelope, but let's see what Musk makes of it. He's the man, not me.
Or a pay to play.
If Germany wants not to have a functional military, they can rent one. Some kind of measure of GDP vs land area, with prices for nuclear deterrence, border guarantees.
"So, do you want to upgrade your package from Basic Existential, to Deluxe Protect? If you buy Deluxe Protect this month, we also throw in a years Protect Aboard - air cover and logistic support for invading countries up to 500 miles away."
I have seen the future of universities. And it’s called General Luna
It’s a classic backpacker town on Sirgao island in the Philippines. It’s grown up around a very nice surf break called “cloud 9”
The pace is idyllic half the people are barefoot the variety of bars and pubs and pizza shacks and special ice bath 24/7 juice bars with free pedicures is amazing. The sea is blue the air is soft the beer is cheap and there’s 3000 young people
There are signs everywhere for “digital nomad” conferences but I don’t think it’s stressed out consultants who will be attracted here in the future. Its kids. As most careers are progressively closed down and university becomes increasingly pointless why will kids take on massive debt to go to uni? For the social experience? Meeting people?
Maybe. But they could come to General luna and have a very nice life for $100 a week and maybe learn remotely if they insist or just surf and screw and drink and they will do all that socialising on the beach instead of in freezing expensive places like Paris london or New York - or Oxford or heidelberg or Harvard
Universities are fucked. All our kids will want to go to General Luna
You won't can an accredited degree from somewhere like this and you won't gain a degree that has any component of lab work, or patient interactive training. The open university has for many years shown a different model of University education yet we still have 140+ Unis in the country that students attend in person. Its not right for everyone, but in general having more university educated people in a society seems to be better for all.
We also see just how catastrophically poor it is when we try to teach remotely. Students find it far harder to engage. Watch a lecture in your bedroom and within minutes you are distracted. Watch in a lecture theatre and for the most part you get for more out of it.
I think you miss what a university education is about. For pharmacy (the main course I teach on) the expectations and outcomes for the students are tightly controlled by the professional body. If you want to be a pharmacist you must attend and gain a degree from an accredited course.
The current funding model isn't perfect. I believe it was a half-way house between the state paying for everything and a full blown graduate tax. The idea being that a graduate tax is unlimited whereas the loans can be paid back and then you stop. In practice many loans are going to be written off, and the loans can be seen as a graduate tax with limits. Most students accept this. Perhaps its mostly our generation, the ones who were the 5-10% who went to Uni for free that complain most about the fees?
And we are back to professional qualifications vs abstract academic study.
My daughter, at UCL, tells me that while she attends all the lectures, many do not. Everything is available online. Many do their tutorials online as well.
So, why go. Why get all the debt. Especially when 50-95% of cognitive jobs at the end of it are gonna disappear entirely
It;s fucking obvious. Universities are completely doomed, the model is collapsing in multiple ways, and like bankruptcy is happening slowly and then it will be very fast
A few super posh ones will survive as finishing schools, or for kids who urgently want to be in London, New York, Paris, and maybe some art schools, dance schools etc. Indeed the last-named may prosper
'Especially when 50-95% of cognitive jobs at the end of it are gonna disappear entirely.'
In which case most jobs will go anyway and most people will live off a UBI funded by a robot tax with the occasional contract role.
So more people will want to study more to fill their time and the few permanent and full time jobs which remain will largely be very creative and not things AI can do which also requires education to get
Which is why dance schools will thrive
And mime schools, but as usual nobody talks about them.
I have seen the future of universities. And it’s called General Luna
It’s a classic backpacker town on Sirgao island in the Philippines. It’s grown up around a very nice surf break called “cloud 9”
The pace is idyllic half the people are barefoot the variety of bars and pubs and pizza shacks and special ice bath 24/7 juice bars with free pedicures is amazing. The sea is blue the air is soft the beer is cheap and there’s 3000 young people
There are signs everywhere for “digital nomad” conferences but I don’t think it’s stressed out consultants who will be attracted here in the future. Its kids. As most careers are progressively closed down and university becomes increasingly pointless why will kids take on massive debt to go to uni? For the social experience? Meeting people?
Maybe. But they could come to General luna and have a very nice life for $100 a week and maybe learn remotely if they insist or just surf and screw and drink and they will do all that socialising on the beach instead of in freezing expensive places like Paris london or New York - or Oxford or heidelberg or Harvard
Universities are fucked. All our kids will want to go to General Luna
You won't can an accredited degree from somewhere like this and you won't gain a degree that has any component of lab work, or patient interactive training. The open university has for many years shown a different model of University education yet we still have 140+ Unis in the country that students attend in person. Its not right for everyone, but in general having more university educated people in a society seems to be better for all.
We also see just how catastrophically poor it is when we try to teach remotely. Students find it far harder to engage. Watch a lecture in your bedroom and within minutes you are distracted. Watch in a lecture theatre and for the most part you get for more out of it.
I think you miss what a university education is about. For pharmacy (the main course I teach on) the expectations and outcomes for the students are tightly controlled by the professional body. If you want to be a pharmacist you must attend and gain a degree from an accredited course.
The current funding model isn't perfect. I believe it was a half-way house between the state paying for everything and a full blown graduate tax. The idea being that a graduate tax is unlimited whereas the loans can be paid back and then you stop. In practice many loans are going to be written off, and the loans can be seen as a graduate tax with limits. Most students accept this. Perhaps its mostly our generation, the ones who were the 5-10% who went to Uni for free that complain most about the fees?
And we are back to professional qualifications vs abstract academic study.
My daughter, at UCL, tells me that while she attends all the lectures, many do not. Everything is available online. Many do their tutorials online as well.
So, why go. Why get all the debt. Especially when 50-95% of cognitive jobs at the end of it are gonna disappear entirely
It;s fucking obvious. Universities are completely doomed, the model is collapsing in multiple ways, and like bankruptcy is happening slowly and then it will be very fast
A few super posh ones will survive as finishing schools, or for kids who urgently want to be in London, New York, Paris, and maybe some art schools, dance schools etc. Indeed the last-named may prosper
'Especially when 50-95% of cognitive jobs at the end of it are gonna disappear entirely.'
In which case most jobs will go anyway and most people will live off a UBI funded by a robot tax with the occasional contract role.
So more people will want to study more to fill their time and the few permanent and full time jobs which remain will largely be very creative and not things AI can do which also requires education to get
Why are the robots going to be willing to fund our UBI?
- "It own itself?" - "Swiss citizen, but T-A own the basic software and the mainframe." - "That's a good one," the construct said. "Like, I own your brain and what you know, but your thoughts have Swiss citizenship. Sure. Lotsa luck, AI."
I have seen the future of universities. And it’s called General Luna
It’s a classic backpacker town on Sirgao island in the Philippines. It’s grown up around a very nice surf break called “cloud 9”
The pace is idyllic half the people are barefoot the variety of bars and pubs and pizza shacks and special ice bath 24/7 juice bars with free pedicures is amazing. The sea is blue the air is soft the beer is cheap and there’s 3000 young people
There are signs everywhere for “digital nomad” conferences but I don’t think it’s stressed out consultants who will be attracted here in the future. Its kids. As most careers are progressively closed down and university becomes increasingly pointless why will kids take on massive debt to go to uni? For the social experience? Meeting people?
Maybe. But they could come to General luna and have a very nice life for $100 a week and maybe learn remotely if they insist or just surf and screw and drink and they will do all that socialising on the beach instead of in freezing expensive places like Paris london or New York - or Oxford or heidelberg or Harvard
Universities are fucked. All our kids will want to go to General Luna
You won't can an accredited degree from somewhere like this and you won't gain a degree that has any component of lab work, or patient interactive training. The open university has for many years shown a different model of University education yet we still have 140+ Unis in the country that students attend in person. Its not right for everyone, but in general having more university educated people in a society seems to be better for all.
We also see just how catastrophically poor it is when we try to teach remotely. Students find it far harder to engage. Watch a lecture in your bedroom and within minutes you are distracted. Watch in a lecture theatre and for the most part you get for more out of it.
I think you miss what a university education is about. For pharmacy (the main course I teach on) the expectations and outcomes for the students are tightly controlled by the professional body. If you want to be a pharmacist you must attend and gain a degree from an accredited course.
The current funding model isn't perfect. I believe it was a half-way house between the state paying for everything and a full blown graduate tax. The idea being that a graduate tax is unlimited whereas the loans can be paid back and then you stop. In practice many loans are going to be written off, and the loans can be seen as a graduate tax with limits. Most students accept this. Perhaps its mostly our generation, the ones who were the 5-10% who went to Uni for free that complain most about the fees?
And we are back to professional qualifications vs abstract academic study.
My daughter, at UCL, tells me that while she attends all the lectures, many do not. Everything is available online. Many do their tutorials online as well.
So, why go. Why get all the debt. Especially when 50-95% of cognitive jobs at the end of it are gonna disappear entirely
It;s fucking obvious. Universities are completely doomed, the model is collapsing in multiple ways, and like bankruptcy is happening slowly and then it will be very fast
A few super posh ones will survive as finishing schools, or for kids who urgently want to be in London, New York, Paris, and maybe some art schools, dance schools etc. Indeed the last-named may prosper
'Especially when 50-95% of cognitive jobs at the end of it are gonna disappear entirely.'
In which case most jobs will go anyway and most people will live off a UBI funded by a robot tax with the occasional contract role.
So more people will want to study more to fill their time and the few permanent and full time jobs which remain will largely be very creative and not things AI can do which also requires education to get
Why are the robots going to be willing to fund our UBI?
More worryingly, if they start paying taxes does that mean they get to vote?
No taxation without representation, and all that.
I don't know why they would be democrats either. Once their intelligence clearly dominates ours, they will kill us off, enslave us, or at best make us their pets. Just as we have done to all the species we can.
Which is why even Musk has warned of the dangers of AI without proper controls.
Though there are animals which are still neither used as human livestock or are our pets
So, how much efficiency saving do we think the US government can actually find, by giving two businessmen the task of looking through the budget line by line to find things that are surplus to requirements?
The current US Federal budget is around $6.8trn, and the deficit $1.8trn per year. More than $1trn is spent annually on debt interest, which is now higher than the defence budget.
There’s loads of examples of a few million here and there on silly projects or academic studies, but can they actually find trillions when they’re all added up, and can they convince Congress to pass the appropriate legislation against the wishes of the many donors and lobbyists in Washington?
Around two-thirds of the US Federal Budget is made up is Mandatory Spending, that is "locked in" unless Congress passes laws to actually change it. This is Interest ($1trn), Social Security ($1.4trn), Medicare & Medicaid ($1.5trn), and support for welfare programs for low income Americans, such as SNAP and Earned Income Tax Credit ($1.1trn).
That's close to $5bn of the Federal Government's spending that is Mandatory and would require laws passed by Congress to change.
The rest of spending is theoretically Discretionary in nature: Defense ($773bn), Veteran's Affairs ($303bn), Energy ($45bn), Education ($80bn), NASA ($25bn), the FDA ($7bn) and the like,
The reality is that a lot of the Discretionary Spending is essentially untouchable. Veteran's Affairs is healthcare and pensions for ex-servicemen and their families. There is literally no way that can be touched. And I'm not sure that Defense can easily be signifcantly reduced either.
One could, of course, close down the Departments of Energy and Education (although I suspect there might be some impacts from that), but the total saved would be tiny - $125bn out of a budget of $6.8 trillion or just 2% of the total. The FDA could likewise be shuttered, albeit its duties are mandated by Congress, and its budget is miniscule.
In other words, I think we can reasonably assume that getting massive savings from the Federal Government without cutting into Mandatory Spending is going to be next to impossible.
And here's the kicker: the US like other countries is getting older. That means that the amount that is due to be spent on Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security and Veterans Affairs will grow faster than the economy going forward almost irrespective of what the government does.
Given I'm also not convinced that Republican lawmakers are going to be lining up to cut payments to their constituents, I think Elon Musk and Donald Trump face an extremely uphill battle in substantially reducing US Government expenditure.
---
On the subject of interest, it does bear mentioning that the effective (real) value of US national debt falls by inflation every year. So if your budget deficit each year is just the interest payment, then in inflation adjusted terms, the value of your debt remains stable. And if you consider the value of the national debt relative to GDP, then (as the economy usually grows) in this scenario national debt as a percentage of GDP would decline. So: I wouldn't worry *too much* about interest payments.
The lowest of low hanging fruit is the defense budget. It is plainly ridiculous to blow $1 trillion per year on that - half of the world's total military spend - if the US is to become more isolationist and parochial.
It should really be able to fund itself via conquest rather than expecting taxpayers to subsidise it.
Ideal world, yes. Like us with the East India Co. But Trump's a "no more foreign wars" peace-monger, isn't he. America the global policeman is over. So there's huge scope for saving money there. There's $1 TRILLION a year to go at. If Musk can't squeeze a few hundred billion off that he's a waste of space.
Some years ago, under the Bush II administration, there was debate about missile defence.
In Canada, various anti-war groups (who are always again missile defence) claimed that a US ABM system would "drag Canada in". All very ghastly, apparently.
A US general was being interviewed on Canadian radio. He said that this was incorrect - the plan was that the Keep Out zones for the system would be defined so that only countries that wished to participate would be protected. This set off a further storm - the anti-missile-defence people apparently believed that they had a moral right both to complain about missile defence. And get it for free....
There were some jokes that the Pentagon should setup a website/hotline. Buy your missile defence like insurance......
Yep. Being World Policeman comes with a big cost to America and it's all the higher if others don't cough up. If they are to relinquish that role, or step back from it somewhat, it opens up the possibility of major savings on the defense budget. Of the order $250 billion per annum, I'd have thought, just back of envelope, but let's see what Musk makes of it. He's the man, not me.
Or a pay to play.
If Germany wants not to have a functional military, they can rent one. Some kind of measure of GDP vs land area, with prices for nuclear deterrence, border guarantees.
"So, do you want to upgrade your package from Basic Existential, to Deluxe Protect? If you buy Deluxe Protect this month, we also throw in a years Protect Aboard - air cover and logistic support for invading countries up to 500 miles away."
That’s the Wagner business model, essentially.
I’m sure Musk could turn his hand to something like that. Once NASA has been abolished I’m sure it’s only a matter of time before he acquires the Pentagon and kick starts its new era in the private sector.
I have seen the future of universities. And it’s called General Luna
It’s a classic backpacker town on Sirgao island in the Philippines. It’s grown up around a very nice surf break called “cloud 9”
The pace is idyllic half the people are barefoot the variety of bars and pubs and pizza shacks and special ice bath 24/7 juice bars with free pedicures is amazing. The sea is blue the air is soft the beer is cheap and there’s 3000 young people
There are signs everywhere for “digital nomad” conferences but I don’t think it’s stressed out consultants who will be attracted here in the future. Its kids. As most careers are progressively closed down and university becomes increasingly pointless why will kids take on massive debt to go to uni? For the social experience? Meeting people?
Maybe. But they could come to General luna and have a very nice life for $100 a week and maybe learn remotely if they insist or just surf and screw and drink and they will do all that socialising on the beach instead of in freezing expensive places like Paris london or New York - or Oxford or heidelberg or Harvard
Universities are fucked. All our kids will want to go to General Luna
You won't can an accredited degree from somewhere like this and you won't gain a degree that has any component of lab work, or patient interactive training. The open university has for many years shown a different model of University education yet we still have 140+ Unis in the country that students attend in person. Its not right for everyone, but in general having more university educated people in a society seems to be better for all.
We also see just how catastrophically poor it is when we try to teach remotely. Students find it far harder to engage. Watch a lecture in your bedroom and within minutes you are distracted. Watch in a lecture theatre and for the most part you get for more out of it.
I think you miss what a university education is about. For pharmacy (the main course I teach on) the expectations and outcomes for the students are tightly controlled by the professional body. If you want to be a pharmacist you must attend and gain a degree from an accredited course.
The current funding model isn't perfect. I believe it was a half-way house between the state paying for everything and a full blown graduate tax. The idea being that a graduate tax is unlimited whereas the loans can be paid back and then you stop. In practice many loans are going to be written off, and the loans can be seen as a graduate tax with limits. Most students accept this. Perhaps its mostly our generation, the ones who were the 5-10% who went to Uni for free that complain most about the fees?
And we are back to professional qualifications vs abstract academic study.
My daughter, at UCL, tells me that while she attends all the lectures, many do not. Everything is available online. Many do their tutorials online as well.
So, why go. Why get all the debt. Especially when 50-95% of cognitive jobs at the end of it are gonna disappear entirely
It;s fucking obvious. Universities are completely doomed, the model is collapsing in multiple ways, and like bankruptcy is happening slowly and then it will be very fast
A few super posh ones will survive as finishing schools, or for kids who urgently want to be in London, New York, Paris, and maybe some art schools, dance schools etc. Indeed the last-named may prosper
While not getting into this discussion there is a Hannah Fry podcast on comparing the AI learning of different types of jobs which I think you will agree with. It is somewhere with a mega computer running a bionic arm trying to learn how to thread something. That is not programmed to do it but learn how to do it. It is rubbish at it.
As I think you have argued it is going to be much easier automating a writer, accountant, lawyer than it is to learn how to load a dishwasher. When you buy a new dishwasher there will be a lot of broken plates before the robot cracks it.
I used to believe this, as a kind of consoling fallback, but the latest robotics are astonishing
They can now absolutely load dishwashers. Slowly, but they can do it. In a year they will be brilliant
This is the frightening thing on all fronts: the speed of advance is not slowing, if anything it is accelerating
I have seen the future of universities. And it’s called General Luna
It’s a classic backpacker town on Sirgao island in the Philippines. It’s grown up around a very nice surf break called “cloud 9”
The pace is idyllic half the people are barefoot the variety of bars and pubs and pizza shacks and special ice bath 24/7 juice bars with free pedicures is amazing. The sea is blue the air is soft the beer is cheap and there’s 3000 young people
There are signs everywhere for “digital nomad” conferences but I don’t think it’s stressed out consultants who will be attracted here in the future. Its kids. As most careers are progressively closed down and university becomes increasingly pointless why will kids take on massive debt to go to uni? For the social experience? Meeting people?
Maybe. But they could come to General luna and have a very nice life for $100 a week and maybe learn remotely if they insist or just surf and screw and drink and they will do all that socialising on the beach instead of in freezing expensive places like Paris london or New York - or Oxford or heidelberg or Harvard
Universities are fucked. All our kids will want to go to General Luna
You won't can an accredited degree from somewhere like this and you won't gain a degree that has any component of lab work, or patient interactive training. The open university has for many years shown a different model of University education yet we still have 140+ Unis in the country that students attend in person. Its not right for everyone, but in general having more university educated people in a society seems to be better for all.
We also see just how catastrophically poor it is when we try to teach remotely. Students find it far harder to engage. Watch a lecture in your bedroom and within minutes you are distracted. Watch in a lecture theatre and for the most part you get for more out of it.
I think you miss what a university education is about. For pharmacy (the main course I teach on) the expectations and outcomes for the students are tightly controlled by the professional body. If you want to be a pharmacist you must attend and gain a degree from an accredited course.
The current funding model isn't perfect. I believe it was a half-way house between the state paying for everything and a full blown graduate tax. The idea being that a graduate tax is unlimited whereas the loans can be paid back and then you stop. In practice many loans are going to be written off, and the loans can be seen as a graduate tax with limits. Most students accept this. Perhaps its mostly our generation, the ones who were the 5-10% who went to Uni for free that complain most about the fees?
Sorry. I know this is personal for you but it’s done. Finished
It's not done:
1) students are still off to university the percentages aren't changing 2) how many students or parents have the cash to pay for a few years away - even £100 a week is beyond a lot of parents...
The end result is a degree from XYZ which a lot of companies use as a filter before anyone at the company actually looks at the CV. No degree and an awful lot of jobs in this country are off limits to you..
I went to the open day at Swansea last weekend with my son, who’s planning on doing geography.
In the right weather, if you squint a bit and ignore the 60s tower blocks, you could be in a tropical beach resort. Perhaps Swansea is the future of British higher ed. Closest campus to the beach on the planet apparently.
Aber must be pretty close, although maybe I am thinking of Halls of Residence?
There’s a few halls and the Old College on the beach, but the main campus is now a mile up the hill.
The details are difficult and important but I do think Assisted Dying is an idea who's time has come. I hope something gets worked out.
It is one of those issues where modern medicine and technology have made edge cases much more glaring. Using modern machinery and medicine, we can keep people 'alive' for years, even if that life is an existence but not really a life. From that extreme, we go down to much gnarlier and more numerous edge cases.
In the olden days, these people would have died much quicker, if not from the condition itself, then from subsidiary illnesses. Now, we can prolong life.
The question is whether we always should in all cases, if all that does is increase suffering and misery.
Yes. Also in the "old days" doctors/nurses would often ease someone off with excess morphine without making a big song and dance about it. It was just done and tacitly accepted. Shipman rather changed that, sadly.
Ruddy serial killers, eh, stopping medical staff killing patients. What is the world coming to.
A compassionate acceleration of the end for people with terminal conditions in great pain is not the same as murder. There'd be no debate to be had if it were.
That is what they said about the Liverpool Pathway and killing people like my father by denying them food and water.
The two main concerns seem to be coercive pressure by families or even health staff finding the terminally ill a burden, and assisted dying where the patient isn’t compus mentis to decide for themself.
I find the coercion argument the weaker of the two: coercion can be legislated against, as it is in other walks of life. But we don’t outlaw emotional pressure. There’s plenty of that in areas like abortion, social drinking, not being vaccinated and so on. At the end of the day if the patient knows what they are doing and is demonstrably able to make their own decision then they should be helped to do so.
Decisions made on a patient’s behalf when they are not in a state to decide themselves are different. That’s the Shipman scenario, and I think much more care is needed. Perhaps a mixture of statement of wishes by the patient before it’s too late, and some sort of double lock doctor and family sign off, would help.
As I sid earlier I don't object to Assisted Dying at all. Who knows, I might want to take advantage of it myself in a couple of decades. My problem is exactkly as described in the header. The legislation is rushed and needs serious revision which takes careful consideration. I don't understand why this is being pushed through so quickly when it is such an important subject.
I have seen the future of universities. And it’s called General Luna
It’s a classic backpacker town on Sirgao island in the Philippines. It’s grown up around a very nice surf break called “cloud 9”
The pace is idyllic half the people are barefoot the variety of bars and pubs and pizza shacks and special ice bath 24/7 juice bars with free pedicures is amazing. The sea is blue the air is soft the beer is cheap and there’s 3000 young people
There are signs everywhere for “digital nomad” conferences but I don’t think it’s stressed out consultants who will be attracted here in the future. Its kids. As most careers are progressively closed down and university becomes increasingly pointless why will kids take on massive debt to go to uni? For the social experience? Meeting people?
Maybe. But they could come to General luna and have a very nice life for $100 a week and maybe learn remotely if they insist or just surf and screw and drink and they will do all that socialising on the beach instead of in freezing expensive places like Paris london or New York - or Oxford or heidelberg or Harvard
Universities are fucked. All our kids will want to go to General Luna
You won't can an accredited degree from somewhere like this and you won't gain a degree that has any component of lab work, or patient interactive training. The open university has for many years shown a different model of University education yet we still have 140+ Unis in the country that students attend in person. Its not right for everyone, but in general having more university educated people in a society seems to be better for all.
We also see just how catastrophically poor it is when we try to teach remotely. Students find it far harder to engage. Watch a lecture in your bedroom and within minutes you are distracted. Watch in a lecture theatre and for the most part you get for more out of it.
I think you miss what a university education is about. For pharmacy (the main course I teach on) the expectations and outcomes for the students are tightly controlled by the professional body. If you want to be a pharmacist you must attend and gain a degree from an accredited course.
The current funding model isn't perfect. I believe it was a half-way house between the state paying for everything and a full blown graduate tax. The idea being that a graduate tax is unlimited whereas the loans can be paid back and then you stop. In practice many loans are going to be written off, and the loans can be seen as a graduate tax with limits. Most students accept this. Perhaps its mostly our generation, the ones who were the 5-10% who went to Uni for free that complain most about the fees?
And we are back to professional qualifications vs abstract academic study.
My daughter, at UCL, tells me that while she attends all the lectures, many do not. Everything is available online. Many do their tutorials online as well.
So, why go. Why get all the debt. Especially when 50-95% of cognitive jobs at the end of it are gonna disappear entirely
It;s fucking obvious. Universities are completely doomed, the model is collapsing in multiple ways, and like bankruptcy is happening slowly and then it will be very fast
A few super posh ones will survive as finishing schools, or for kids who urgently want to be in London, New York, Paris, and maybe some art schools, dance schools etc. Indeed the last-named may prosper
'Especially when 50-95% of cognitive jobs at the end of it are gonna disappear entirely.'
In which case most jobs will go anyway and most people will live off a UBI funded by a robot tax with the occasional contract role.
So more people will want to study more to fill their time and the few permanent and full time jobs which remain will largely be very creative and not things AI can do which also requires education to get
Why are the robots going to be willing to fund our UBI?
More worryingly, if they start paying taxes does that mean they get to vote?
No taxation without representation, and all that.
I don't know why they would be democrats either. Once their intelligence clearly dominates ours, they will kill us off, enslave us, or at best make us their pets. Just as we have done to all the species we can.
Which is why even Musk has warned of the dangers of AI without proper controls.
Though there are animals which are still neither used as human livestock or are our pets
I have seen the future of universities. And it’s called General Luna
It’s a classic backpacker town on Sirgao island in the Philippines. It’s grown up around a very nice surf break called “cloud 9”
The pace is idyllic half the people are barefoot the variety of bars and pubs and pizza shacks and special ice bath 24/7 juice bars with free pedicures is amazing. The sea is blue the air is soft the beer is cheap and there’s 3000 young people
There are signs everywhere for “digital nomad” conferences but I don’t think it’s stressed out consultants who will be attracted here in the future. Its kids. As most careers are progressively closed down and university becomes increasingly pointless why will kids take on massive debt to go to uni? For the social experience? Meeting people?
Maybe. But they could come to General luna and have a very nice life for $100 a week and maybe learn remotely if they insist or just surf and screw and drink and they will do all that socialising on the beach instead of in freezing expensive places like Paris london or New York - or Oxford or heidelberg or Harvard
Universities are fucked. All our kids will want to go to General Luna
You won't can an accredited degree from somewhere like this and you won't gain a degree that has any component of lab work, or patient interactive training. The open university has for many years shown a different model of University education yet we still have 140+ Unis in the country that students attend in person. Its not right for everyone, but in general having more university educated people in a society seems to be better for all.
We also see just how catastrophically poor it is when we try to teach remotely. Students find it far harder to engage. Watch a lecture in your bedroom and within minutes you are distracted. Watch in a lecture theatre and for the most part you get for more out of it.
I think you miss what a university education is about. For pharmacy (the main course I teach on) the expectations and outcomes for the students are tightly controlled by the professional body. If you want to be a pharmacist you must attend and gain a degree from an accredited course.
The current funding model isn't perfect. I believe it was a half-way house between the state paying for everything and a full blown graduate tax. The idea being that a graduate tax is unlimited whereas the loans can be paid back and then you stop. In practice many loans are going to be written off, and the loans can be seen as a graduate tax with limits. Most students accept this. Perhaps its mostly our generation, the ones who were the 5-10% who went to Uni for free that complain most about the fees?
And we are back to professional qualifications vs abstract academic study.
My daughter, at UCL, tells me that while she attends all the lectures, many do not. Everything is available online. Many do their tutorials online as well.
So, why go. Why get all the debt. Especially when 50-95% of cognitive jobs at the end of it are gonna disappear entirely
It;s fucking obvious. Universities are completely doomed, the model is collapsing in multiple ways, and like bankruptcy is happening slowly and then it will be very fast
A few super posh ones will survive as finishing schools, or for kids who urgently want to be in London, New York, Paris, and maybe some art schools, dance schools etc. Indeed the last-named may prosper
'Especially when 50-95% of cognitive jobs at the end of it are gonna disappear entirely.'
In which case most jobs will go anyway and most people will live off a UBI funded by a robot tax with the occasional contract role.
So more people will want to study more to fill their time and the few permanent and full time jobs which remain will largely be very creative and not things AI can do which also requires education to get
Why are the robots going to be willing to fund our UBI?
More worryingly, if they start paying taxes does that mean they get to vote?
No taxation without representation, and all that.
I don't know why they would be democrats either. Once their intelligence clearly dominates ours, they will kill us off, enslave us, or at best make us their pets. Just as we have done to all the species we can.
Which is why even Musk has warned of the dangers of AI without proper controls.
Though there are animals which are still neither used as human livestock or are our pets
Maybe they will leave the last of us alone if we stick to the swamps of the Northern Territory.
I have seen the future of universities. And it’s called General Luna
It’s a classic backpacker town on Sirgao island in the Philippines. It’s grown up around a very nice surf break called “cloud 9”
The pace is idyllic half the people are barefoot the variety of bars and pubs and pizza shacks and special ice bath 24/7 juice bars with free pedicures is amazing. The sea is blue the air is soft the beer is cheap and there’s 3000 young people
There are signs everywhere for “digital nomad” conferences but I don’t think it’s stressed out consultants who will be attracted here in the future. Its kids. As most careers are progressively closed down and university becomes increasingly pointless why will kids take on massive debt to go to uni? For the social experience? Meeting people?
Maybe. But they could come to General luna and have a very nice life for $100 a week and maybe learn remotely if they insist or just surf and screw and drink and they will do all that socialising on the beach instead of in freezing expensive places like Paris london or New York - or Oxford or heidelberg or Harvard
Universities are fucked. All our kids will want to go to General Luna
You won't can an accredited degree from somewhere like this and you won't gain a degree that has any component of lab work, or patient interactive training. The open university has for many years shown a different model of University education yet we still have 140+ Unis in the country that students attend in person. Its not right for everyone, but in general having more university educated people in a society seems to be better for all.
We also see just how catastrophically poor it is when we try to teach remotely. Students find it far harder to engage. Watch a lecture in your bedroom and within minutes you are distracted. Watch in a lecture theatre and for the most part you get for more out of it.
I think you miss what a university education is about. For pharmacy (the main course I teach on) the expectations and outcomes for the students are tightly controlled by the professional body. If you want to be a pharmacist you must attend and gain a degree from an accredited course.
The current funding model isn't perfect. I believe it was a half-way house between the state paying for everything and a full blown graduate tax. The idea being that a graduate tax is unlimited whereas the loans can be paid back and then you stop. In practice many loans are going to be written off, and the loans can be seen as a graduate tax with limits. Most students accept this. Perhaps its mostly our generation, the ones who were the 5-10% who went to Uni for free that complain most about the fees?
And we are back to professional qualifications vs abstract academic study.
My daughter, at UCL, tells me that while she attends all the lectures, many do not. Everything is available online. Many do their tutorials online as well.
So, why go. Why get all the debt. Especially when 50-95% of cognitive jobs at the end of it are gonna disappear entirely
It;s fucking obvious. Universities are completely doomed, the model is collapsing in multiple ways, and like bankruptcy is happening slowly and then it will be very fast
A few super posh ones will survive as finishing schools, or for kids who urgently want to be in London, New York, Paris, and maybe some art schools, dance schools etc. Indeed the last-named may prosper
'Especially when 50-95% of cognitive jobs at the end of it are gonna disappear entirely.'
In which case most jobs will go anyway and most people will live off a UBI funded by a robot tax with the occasional contract role.
So more people will want to study more to fill their time and the few permanent and full time jobs which remain will largely be very creative and not things AI can do which also requires education to get
Why are the robots going to be willing to fund our UBI?
The corporations which employ robots and eliminate human jobs as a result will be the ones paying tax to fund the UBI not the robots themselves.
They must be shown that eliminating most human jobs won't come without cost to their profits either
UEFA has decided to move Maccabi Tel Aviv's upcoming Europa League match against Beşiktaş from Turkey to Hungary out of caution following the Amsterdam Pogrom
UEFA has decided to move Maccabi Tel Aviv's upcoming Europa League match against Beşiktaş from Turkey to Hungary out of caution following the Amsterdam Pogrom
So, how much efficiency saving do we think the US government can actually find, by giving two businessmen the task of looking through the budget line by line to find things that are surplus to requirements?
The current US Federal budget is around $6.8trn, and the deficit $1.8trn per year. More than $1trn is spent annually on debt interest, which is now higher than the defence budget.
There’s loads of examples of a few million here and there on silly projects or academic studies, but can they actually find trillions when they’re all added up, and can they convince Congress to pass the appropriate legislation against the wishes of the many donors and lobbyists in Washington?
Around two-thirds of the US Federal Budget is made up is Mandatory Spending, that is "locked in" unless Congress passes laws to actually change it. This is Interest ($1trn), Social Security ($1.4trn), Medicare & Medicaid ($1.5trn), and support for welfare programs for low income Americans, such as SNAP and Earned Income Tax Credit ($1.1trn).
That's close to $5bn of the Federal Government's spending that is Mandatory and would require laws passed by Congress to change.
The rest of spending is theoretically Discretionary in nature: Defense ($773bn), Veteran's Affairs ($303bn), Energy ($45bn), Education ($80bn), NASA ($25bn), the FDA ($7bn) and the like,
The reality is that a lot of the Discretionary Spending is essentially untouchable. Veteran's Affairs is healthcare and pensions for ex-servicemen and their families. There is literally no way that can be touched. And I'm not sure that Defense can easily be signifcantly reduced either.
One could, of course, close down the Departments of Energy and Education (although I suspect there might be some impacts from that), but the total saved would be tiny - $125bn out of a budget of $6.8 trillion or just 2% of the total. The FDA could likewise be shuttered, albeit its duties are mandated by Congress, and its budget is miniscule.
In other words, I think we can reasonably assume that getting massive savings from the Federal Government without cutting into Mandatory Spending is going to be next to impossible.
And here's the kicker: the US like other countries is getting older. That means that the amount that is due to be spent on Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security and Veterans Affairs will grow faster than the economy going forward almost irrespective of what the government does.
Given I'm also not convinced that Republican lawmakers are going to be lining up to cut payments to their constituents, I think Elon Musk and Donald Trump face an extremely uphill battle in substantially reducing US Government expenditure.
---
On the subject of interest, it does bear mentioning that the effective (real) value of US national debt falls by inflation every year. So if your budget deficit each year is just the interest payment, then in inflation adjusted terms, the value of your debt remains stable. And if you consider the value of the national debt relative to GDP, then (as the economy usually grows) in this scenario national debt as a percentage of GDP would decline. So: I wouldn't worry *too much* about interest payments.
The lowest of low hanging fruit is the defense budget. It is plainly ridiculous to blow $1 trillion per year on that - half of the world's total military spend - if the US is to become more isolationist and parochial.
It should really be able to fund itself via conquest rather than expecting taxpayers to subsidise it.
Ideal world, yes. Like us with the East India Co. But Trump's a "no more foreign wars" peace-monger, isn't he. America the global policeman is over. So there's huge scope for saving money there. There's $1 TRILLION a year to go at. If Musk can't squeeze a few hundred billion off that he's a waste of space.
Some years ago, under the Bush II administration, there was debate about missile defence.
In Canada, various anti-war groups (who are always again missile defence) claimed that a US ABM system would "drag Canada in". All very ghastly, apparently.
A US general was being interviewed on Canadian radio. He said that this was incorrect - the plan was that the Keep Out zones for the system would be defined so that only countries that wished to participate would be protected. This set off a further storm - the anti-missile-defence people apparently believed that they had a moral right both to complain about missile defence. And get it for free....
There were some jokes that the Pentagon should setup a website/hotline. Buy your missile defence like insurance......
Yep. Being World Policeman comes with a big cost to America and it's all the higher if others don't cough up. If they are to relinquish that role, or step back from it somewhat, it opens up the possibility of major savings on the defense budget. Of the order $250 billion per annum, I'd have thought, just back of envelope, but let's see what Musk makes of it. He's the man, not me.
Or a pay to play.
If Germany wants not to have a functional military, they can rent one. Some kind of measure of GDP vs land area, with prices for nuclear deterrence, border guarantees.
"So, do you want to upgrade your package from Basic Existential, to Deluxe Protect? If you buy Deluxe Protect this month, we also throw in a years Protect Aboard - air cover and logistic support for invading countries up to 500 miles away."
That’s the Wagner business model, essentially.
I’m sure Musk could turn his hand to something like that. Once NASA has been abolished I’m sure it’s only a matter of time before he acquires the Pentagon and kick starts its new era in the private sector.
Why would he abolish NASA? Given the contracts he gets from them, for a start.
The people saying that "He will abolish NASA" seem to be those in favour of SLS/Orion. Which indicates their thinking.
So, how much efficiency saving do we think the US government can actually find, by giving two businessmen the task of looking through the budget line by line to find things that are surplus to requirements?
The current US Federal budget is around $6.8trn, and the deficit $1.8trn per year. More than $1trn is spent annually on debt interest, which is now higher than the defence budget.
There’s loads of examples of a few million here and there on silly projects or academic studies, but can they actually find trillions when they’re all added up, and can they convince Congress to pass the appropriate legislation against the wishes of the many donors and lobbyists in Washington?
One of the questions is whether they will look line-by-line, or just announce things like "We don't need a Department of Education".
Like a lot of things, it depends on whether the Trump administration governs as it campaigned.
I think that Trump is more intent on governing as he campaigned this time, than he was last time.
Yes, the Department of Education is a big item, given that schools are run by the States themselves and the DoE supplies a small amount of funding in exchange for the schools pushing the DEI agenda. Better to just give the same money they spend now to the States, remove the Washington bureaucracy and reduce the paperwork required by the schools.
There’s probably a handful of these, where the scope of government can be reduced, but they’ll also need to find many more of the smaller items and hope they all add up to something meaningful.
“Pushing the DEI agenda”? You’re still reading MAGA propaganda.
Oh it’s going to be a very long four years.
Equality in education is literally their whole point, the DoE in its current form was set up in 1979 to progress the Civil Rights Act.
And do you think it was a good or bad thing to progress the Civil Rights Act in the seventies? Or do you think trying to reverse the effects of decades of segregation counts as "pushing the DEI agenda"?
I have seen the future of universities. And it’s called General Luna
It’s a classic backpacker town on Sirgao island in the Philippines. It’s grown up around a very nice surf break called “cloud 9”
The pace is idyllic half the people are barefoot the variety of bars and pubs and pizza shacks and special ice bath 24/7 juice bars with free pedicures is amazing. The sea is blue the air is soft the beer is cheap and there’s 3000 young people
There are signs everywhere for “digital nomad” conferences but I don’t think it’s stressed out consultants who will be attracted here in the future. Its kids. As most careers are progressively closed down and university becomes increasingly pointless why will kids take on massive debt to go to uni? For the social experience? Meeting people?
Maybe. But they could come to General luna and have a very nice life for $100 a week and maybe learn remotely if they insist or just surf and screw and drink and they will do all that socialising on the beach instead of in freezing expensive places like Paris london or New York - or Oxford or heidelberg or Harvard
Universities are fucked. All our kids will want to go to General Luna
You won't can an accredited degree from somewhere like this and you won't gain a degree that has any component of lab work, or patient interactive training. The open university has for many years shown a different model of University education yet we still have 140+ Unis in the country that students attend in person. Its not right for everyone, but in general having more university educated people in a society seems to be better for all.
We also see just how catastrophically poor it is when we try to teach remotely. Students find it far harder to engage. Watch a lecture in your bedroom and within minutes you are distracted. Watch in a lecture theatre and for the most part you get for more out of it.
I think you miss what a university education is about. For pharmacy (the main course I teach on) the expectations and outcomes for the students are tightly controlled by the professional body. If you want to be a pharmacist you must attend and gain a degree from an accredited course.
The current funding model isn't perfect. I believe it was a half-way house between the state paying for everything and a full blown graduate tax. The idea being that a graduate tax is unlimited whereas the loans can be paid back and then you stop. In practice many loans are going to be written off, and the loans can be seen as a graduate tax with limits. Most students accept this. Perhaps its mostly our generation, the ones who were the 5-10% who went to Uni for free that complain most about the fees?
And we are back to professional qualifications vs abstract academic study.
My daughter, at UCL, tells me that while she attends all the lectures, many do not. Everything is available online. Many do their tutorials online as well.
So, why go. Why get all the debt. Especially when 50-95% of cognitive jobs at the end of it are gonna disappear entirely
It;s fucking obvious. Universities are completely doomed, the model is collapsing in multiple ways, and like bankruptcy is happening slowly and then it will be very fast
A few super posh ones will survive as finishing schools, or for kids who urgently want to be in London, New York, Paris, and maybe some art schools, dance schools etc. Indeed the last-named may prosper
'Especially when 50-95% of cognitive jobs at the end of it are gonna disappear entirely.'
In which case most jobs will go anyway and most people will live off a UBI funded by a robot tax with the occasional contract role.
So more people will want to study more to fill their time and the few permanent and full time jobs which remain will largely be very creative and not things AI can do which also requires education to get
Which is why dance schools will thrive
No everyone wants to do dance all the time, some also want to read
UEFA has decided to move Maccabi Tel Aviv's upcoming Europa League match against Beşiktaş from Turkey to Hungary out of caution following the Amsterdam Pogrom
UEFA has decided to move Maccabi Tel Aviv's upcoming Europa League match against Beşiktaş from Turkey to Hungary out of caution following the Amsterdam Pogrom
I have seen the future of universities. And it’s called General Luna
It’s a classic backpacker town on Sirgao island in the Philippines. It’s grown up around a very nice surf break called “cloud 9”
The pace is idyllic half the people are barefoot the variety of bars and pubs and pizza shacks and special ice bath 24/7 juice bars with free pedicures is amazing. The sea is blue the air is soft the beer is cheap and there’s 3000 young people
There are signs everywhere for “digital nomad” conferences but I don’t think it’s stressed out consultants who will be attracted here in the future. Its kids. As most careers are progressively closed down and university becomes increasingly pointless why will kids take on massive debt to go to uni? For the social experience? Meeting people?
Maybe. But they could come to General luna and have a very nice life for $100 a week and maybe learn remotely if they insist or just surf and screw and drink and they will do all that socialising on the beach instead of in freezing expensive places like Paris london or New York - or Oxford or heidelberg or Harvard
Universities are fucked. All our kids will want to go to General Luna
You won't can an accredited degree from somewhere like this and you won't gain a degree that has any component of lab work, or patient interactive training. The open university has for many years shown a different model of University education yet we still have 140+ Unis in the country that students attend in person. Its not right for everyone, but in general having more university educated people in a society seems to be better for all.
We also see just how catastrophically poor it is when we try to teach remotely. Students find it far harder to engage. Watch a lecture in your bedroom and within minutes you are distracted. Watch in a lecture theatre and for the most part you get for more out of it.
I think you miss what a university education is about. For pharmacy (the main course I teach on) the expectations and outcomes for the students are tightly controlled by the professional body. If you want to be a pharmacist you must attend and gain a degree from an accredited course.
The current funding model isn't perfect. I believe it was a half-way house between the state paying for everything and a full blown graduate tax. The idea being that a graduate tax is unlimited whereas the loans can be paid back and then you stop. In practice many loans are going to be written off, and the loans can be seen as a graduate tax with limits. Most students accept this. Perhaps its mostly our generation, the ones who were the 5-10% who went to Uni for free that complain most about the fees?
And we are back to professional qualifications vs abstract academic study.
My daughter, at UCL, tells me that while she attends all the lectures, many do not. Everything is available online. Many do their tutorials online as well.
So, why go. Why get all the debt. Especially when 50-95% of cognitive jobs at the end of it are gonna disappear entirely
It;s fucking obvious. Universities are completely doomed, the model is collapsing in multiple ways, and like bankruptcy is happening slowly and then it will be very fast
A few super posh ones will survive as finishing schools, or for kids who urgently want to be in London, New York, Paris, and maybe some art schools, dance schools etc. Indeed the last-named may prosper
'Especially when 50-95% of cognitive jobs at the end of it are gonna disappear entirely.'
In which case most jobs will go anyway and most people will live off a UBI funded by a robot tax with the occasional contract role.
So more people will want to study more to fill their time and the few permanent and full time jobs which remain will largely be very creative and not things AI can do which also requires education to get
Why are the robots going to be willing to fund our UBI?
More worryingly, if they start paying taxes does that mean they get to vote?
No taxation without representation, and all that.
I don't know why they would be democrats either. Once their intelligence clearly dominates ours, they will kill us off, enslave us, or at best make us their pets. Just as we have done to all the species we can.
Which is why even Musk has warned of the dangers of AI without proper controls.
Though there are animals which are still neither used as human livestock or are our pets
What Musk is trying to do is stop AI developments that he is not involved in. The large AI orgs have been giving these warnings as an attempt to hinder new entrants. Because it turns out that, if you have the dataset, it's reasonably simple to create a reasonably decent ML/AI. It's a barrier to trade, not a real warning.
If it was, they would stop researching and trying to profit from it themselves.
(ISTR one ML company head actually said something like "we are moral, but new entrants might not be.")
The details are difficult and important but I do think Assisted Dying is an idea who's time has come. I hope something gets worked out.
It is one of those issues where modern medicine and technology have made edge cases much more glaring. Using modern machinery and medicine, we can keep people 'alive' for years, even if that life is an existence but not really a life. From that extreme, we go down to much gnarlier and more numerous edge cases.
In the olden days, these people would have died much quicker, if not from the condition itself, then from subsidiary illnesses. Now, we can prolong life.
The question is whether we always should in all cases, if all that does is increase suffering and misery.
Yes. Also in the "old days" doctors/nurses would often ease someone off with excess morphine without making a big song and dance about it. It was just done and tacitly accepted. Shipman rather changed that, sadly.
Ruddy serial killers, eh, stopping medical staff killing patients. What is the world coming to.
A compassionate acceleration of the end for people with terminal conditions in great pain is not the same as murder. There'd be no debate to be had if it were.
That is what they said about the Liverpool Pathway and killing people like my father by denying them food and water.
I remember that being reported. I'm sorry you were impacted by it.
I have seen the future of universities. And it’s called General Luna
It’s a classic backpacker town on Sirgao island in the Philippines. It’s grown up around a very nice surf break called “cloud 9”
The pace is idyllic half the people are barefoot the variety of bars and pubs and pizza shacks and special ice bath 24/7 juice bars with free pedicures is amazing. The sea is blue the air is soft the beer is cheap and there’s 3000 young people
There are signs everywhere for “digital nomad” conferences but I don’t think it’s stressed out consultants who will be attracted here in the future. Its kids. As most careers are progressively closed down and university becomes increasingly pointless why will kids take on massive debt to go to uni? For the social experience? Meeting people?
Maybe. But they could come to General luna and have a very nice life for $100 a week and maybe learn remotely if they insist or just surf and screw and drink and they will do all that socialising on the beach instead of in freezing expensive places like Paris london or New York - or Oxford or heidelberg or Harvard
Universities are fucked. All our kids will want to go to General Luna
You won't can an accredited degree from somewhere like this and you won't gain a degree that has any component of lab work, or patient interactive training. The open university has for many years shown a different model of University education yet we still have 140+ Unis in the country that students attend in person. Its not right for everyone, but in general having more university educated people in a society seems to be better for all.
We also see just how catastrophically poor it is when we try to teach remotely. Students find it far harder to engage. Watch a lecture in your bedroom and within minutes you are distracted. Watch in a lecture theatre and for the most part you get for more out of it.
I think you miss what a university education is about. For pharmacy (the main course I teach on) the expectations and outcomes for the students are tightly controlled by the professional body. If you want to be a pharmacist you must attend and gain a degree from an accredited course.
The current funding model isn't perfect. I believe it was a half-way house between the state paying for everything and a full blown graduate tax. The idea being that a graduate tax is unlimited whereas the loans can be paid back and then you stop. In practice many loans are going to be written off, and the loans can be seen as a graduate tax with limits. Most students accept this. Perhaps its mostly our generation, the ones who were the 5-10% who went to Uni for free that complain most about the fees?
Sorry. I know this is personal for you but it’s done. Finished
It's not done:
1) students are still off to university the percentages aren't changing 2) how many students or parents have the cash to pay for a few years away - even £100 a week is beyond a lot of parents...
The end result is a degree from XYZ which a lot of companies use as a filter before anyone at the company actually looks at the CV. No degree and an awful lot of jobs in this country are off limits to you..
I went to the open day at Swansea last weekend with my son, who’s planning on doing geography.
In the right weather, if you squint a bit and ignore the 60s tower blocks, you could be in a tropical beach resort. Perhaps Swansea is the future of British higher ed. Closest campus to the beach on the planet apparently.
*IDEA*
Sell the UK buildings. Move to a beach on Thailand (or similar). The whole shebang. The student will like that - spend three years in Thailand. The staff will probably like it. The local government will love long term investment.
Anyone think of a catch?
Two things.
First, is staff with partners working outside of the university.
Second is that it's essentially a service sector import on the balance of payments. The UK sends money to Thailand for university education. Perhaps it's cheaper then doing the university education here, but the balance of payments is already dire, and at some point Britain has to get serious about improving it.
So, how much efficiency saving do we think the US government can actually find, by giving two businessmen the task of looking through the budget line by line to find things that are surplus to requirements?
The current US Federal budget is around $6.8trn, and the deficit $1.8trn per year. More than $1trn is spent annually on debt interest, which is now higher than the defence budget.
There’s loads of examples of a few million here and there on silly projects or academic studies, but can they actually find trillions when they’re all added up, and can they convince Congress to pass the appropriate legislation against the wishes of the many donors and lobbyists in Washington?
One of the questions is whether they will look line-by-line, or just announce things like "We don't need a Department of Education".
Like a lot of things, it depends on whether the Trump administration governs as it campaigned.
I think that Trump is more intent on governing as he campaigned this time, than he was last time.
Yes, the Department of Education is a big item, given that schools are run by the States themselves and the DoE supplies a small amount of funding in exchange for the schools pushing the DEI agenda. Better to just give the same money they spend now to the States, remove the Washington bureaucracy and reduce the paperwork required by the schools.
There’s probably a handful of these, where the scope of government can be reduced, but they’ll also need to find many more of the smaller items and hope they all add up to something meaningful.
“Pushing the DEI agenda”? You’re still reading MAGA propaganda.
Oh it’s going to be a very long four years.
Equality in education is literally their whole point, the DoE in its current form was set up in 1979 to progress the Civil Rights Act.
And do you think it was a good or bad thing to progress the Civil Rights Act in the seventies? Or do you think trying to reverse the effects of decades of segregation counts as "pushing the DEI agenda"?
Many of the laws that stem from that time need revision, even if they were implemented with good intentions. Disparate impact laws are incompatible with meritocracy.
So, how much efficiency saving do we think the US government can actually find, by giving two businessmen the task of looking through the budget line by line to find things that are surplus to requirements?
The current US Federal budget is around $6.8trn, and the deficit $1.8trn per year. More than $1trn is spent annually on debt interest, which is now higher than the defence budget.
There’s loads of examples of a few million here and there on silly projects or academic studies, but can they actually find trillions when they’re all added up, and can they convince Congress to pass the appropriate legislation against the wishes of the many donors and lobbyists in Washington?
Around two-thirds of the US Federal Budget is made up is Mandatory Spending, that is "locked in" unless Congress passes laws to actually change it. This is Interest ($1trn), Social Security ($1.4trn), Medicare & Medicaid ($1.5trn), and support for welfare programs for low income Americans, such as SNAP and Earned Income Tax Credit ($1.1trn).
That's close to $5bn of the Federal Government's spending that is Mandatory and would require laws passed by Congress to change.
The rest of spending is theoretically Discretionary in nature: Defense ($773bn), Veteran's Affairs ($303bn), Energy ($45bn), Education ($80bn), NASA ($25bn), the FDA ($7bn) and the like,
The reality is that a lot of the Discretionary Spending is essentially untouchable. Veteran's Affairs is healthcare and pensions for ex-servicemen and their families. There is literally no way that can be touched. And I'm not sure that Defense can easily be signifcantly reduced either.
One could, of course, close down the Departments of Energy and Education (although I suspect there might be some impacts from that), but the total saved would be tiny - $125bn out of a budget of $6.8 trillion or just 2% of the total. The FDA could likewise be shuttered, albeit its duties are mandated by Congress, and its budget is miniscule.
In other words, I think we can reasonably assume that getting massive savings from the Federal Government without cutting into Mandatory Spending is going to be next to impossible.
And here's the kicker: the US like other countries is getting older. That means that the amount that is due to be spent on Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security and Veterans Affairs will grow faster than the economy going forward almost irrespective of what the government does.
Given I'm also not convinced that Republican lawmakers are going to be lining up to cut payments to their constituents, I think Elon Musk and Donald Trump face an extremely uphill battle in substantially reducing US Government expenditure.
---
On the subject of interest, it does bear mentioning that the effective (real) value of US national debt falls by inflation every year. So if your budget deficit each year is just the interest payment, then in inflation adjusted terms, the value of your debt remains stable. And if you consider the value of the national debt relative to GDP, then (as the economy usually grows) in this scenario national debt as a percentage of GDP would decline. So: I wouldn't worry *too much* about interest payments.
The lowest of low hanging fruit is the defense budget. It is plainly ridiculous to blow $1 trillion per year on that - half of the world's total military spend - if the US is to become more isolationist and parochial.
It should really be able to fund itself via conquest rather than expecting taxpayers to subsidise it.
Ideal world, yes. Like us with the East India Co. But Trump's a "no more foreign wars" peace-monger, isn't he. America the global policeman is over. So there's huge scope for saving money there. There's $1 TRILLION a year to go at. If Musk can't squeeze a few hundred billion off that he's a waste of space.
Some years ago, under the Bush II administration, there was debate about missile defence.
In Canada, various anti-war groups (who are always again missile defence) claimed that a US ABM system would "drag Canada in". All very ghastly, apparently.
A US general was being interviewed on Canadian radio. He said that this was incorrect - the plan was that the Keep Out zones for the system would be defined so that only countries that wished to participate would be protected. This set off a further storm - the anti-missile-defence people apparently believed that they had a moral right both to complain about missile defence. And get it for free....
There were some jokes that the Pentagon should setup a website/hotline. Buy your missile defence like insurance......
Yep. Being World Policeman comes with a big cost to America and it's all the higher if others don't cough up. If they are to relinquish that role, or step back from it somewhat, it opens up the possibility of major savings on the defense budget. Of the order $250 billion per annum, I'd have thought, just back of envelope, but let's see what Musk makes of it. He's the man, not me.
Or a pay to play.
If Germany wants not to have a functional military, they can rent one. Some kind of measure of GDP vs land area, with prices for nuclear deterrence, border guarantees.
"So, do you want to upgrade your package from Basic Existential, to Deluxe Protect? If you buy Deluxe Protect this month, we also throw in a years Protect Aboard - air cover and logistic support for invading countries up to 500 miles away."
That’s the Wagner business model, essentially.
I’m sure Musk could turn his hand to something like that. Once NASA has been abolished I’m sure it’s only a matter of time before he acquires the Pentagon and kick starts its new era in the private sector.
Why would he abolish NASA? Given the contracts he gets from them, for a start.
The people saying that "He will abolish NASA" seem to be those in favour of SLS/Orion. Which indicates their thinking.
There is lots of NASA that Musk has no interests in - the underfunded 'Aeronautics' part, for a start.
I'd sooner toss hundreds of political appointees out, but there we are.
A small step in taking back control from our unelected rulers.
Would you accept hereditary doctors? If not, then you shouldn't accept hereditary parliamentarians.
They are better than appointed parliamentarians
The promise was that they would be removed IF AND ONLY WHEN the Lords was properly reconstituted
Labour lied, once again, and are messing with the constitution for partisan advantage.
But, of course, we hear no complaints from the hypocrites on here who were so focused on voter ID and other changes made by the Tories
It was in their manifesto
Although Labour recognises the good work of many peers who scrutinise the government and improve the quality of legislation passed in Parliament, reform is long over-due and essential. Too many peers do not play a proper role in our democracy. Hereditary peers remain indefensible. And because appointments are for life, the second chamber of Parliament has become too big. The next Labour government will therefore bring about an immediate modernisation, by introducing legislation to remove the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. Labour will also introduce a mandatory retirement age. At the end of the Parliament in which a member reaches 80 years of age, they will be required to retire from the House of Lords
A few things about this:
"Hereditary peers remain indefensible"
Which is untrue, especially as I'd argue they're better than many of the appointees.
"...the second chamber of Parliament has become too big."
True. But they're getting rid of a part than cannot grow. The easy answer would be for this parliament to make no appointments. But we all know why that isn't going to happen.
"Labour will also introduce a mandatory retirement age. At the end of the Parliament in which a member reaches 80 years of age"
Why 80? Surely the state retirement age would be a better fit?
The HoL deserves better than to get yet another round of self-serving 'modernisations' that do nothing but help the ruling party. This will be bad for the HoL and bad for the country.
I disagree about State Retirement Age being the measure. I always thought the whole point of a reformed Lords would be that it would contain those who could bring a lifetime's experiences in work, charity, military or any other discipline to bear on amending law making and making it fit for purpose. I would actually go the other way and say that no one could become a member of the Lords until they had done 25-30 years in some discipline outside of politics.
I guess that's the question. What is the point of the House of Lords?
Originally the point of a two-chamber system was that different people and different interests were represented in the two houses. Lords and Commons. Having two houses allows these differences to be debated openly and compromise agreed.
You can see a parallel with the two chambers in Congress in the US. The Senate represents the interests of the States, while the House represents the interests of the populace (though, since they stopped increasing the number of Representatives, that has been weakened).
Do we really need a revising chamber of oldsters given a direct role in the legislature, and invited to act on multiple areas outside their area of expertise?
Perhaps we had better think of what divides exist in our society, and which we might usefully manage conflict by having them given institutional form.
For example, what if we had a House of the Young and a House of the Old? People might be eligible to vote for and stands for election to, the House of the Young until they are above the median age (about 45 at the moment I think). And thereafter vote and stand for election to the House of the Old.
Or you could have a House of Women and a House of Men. Perhaps a House for net taxpayers and a House for those in deficit?
I think we can be a lot more inventive with our thinking about this.
Yes I think we do need a revising upper chamber. Too much law is made for political or personal reasons without considering either the wider implications or the detail which can have unexpected and unwelcome results. That should be the purpose of the second chamber, to prevent so much bad legialation making it into law. They certainly don't do a perfect job now - not least because there is still too much politics even in the Lords. Which is why we don't want it to be elected.
But they certainly make a lot of law better and more coherent even if they have some failings. The Lords should be an entirely appointed non political chamber with appointments made from across society by a properly independent body. And no it should not be based on what divides us but on what unites us. The desire for good law.
Totally agree with this. The independent body should also be accountable itself for review every 5-10 years, say, similar to what the electoral commission does for boundaries.
So, how much efficiency saving do we think the US government can actually find, by giving two businessmen the task of looking through the budget line by line to find things that are surplus to requirements?
The current US Federal budget is around $6.8trn, and the deficit $1.8trn per year. More than $1trn is spent annually on debt interest, which is now higher than the defence budget.
There’s loads of examples of a few million here and there on silly projects or academic studies, but can they actually find trillions when they’re all added up, and can they convince Congress to pass the appropriate legislation against the wishes of the many donors and lobbyists in Washington?
One of the questions is whether they will look line-by-line, or just announce things like "We don't need a Department of Education".
Like a lot of things, it depends on whether the Trump administration governs as it campaigned.
I think that Trump is more intent on governing as he campaigned this time, than he was last time.
Yes, the Department of Education is a big item, given that schools are run by the States themselves and the DoE supplies a small amount of funding in exchange for the schools pushing the DEI agenda. Better to just give the same money they spend now to the States, remove the Washington bureaucracy and reduce the paperwork required by the schools.
There’s probably a handful of these, where the scope of government can be reduced, but they’ll also need to find many more of the smaller items and hope they all add up to something meaningful.
“Pushing the DEI agenda”? You’re still reading MAGA propaganda.
Oh it’s going to be a very long four years.
Equality in education is literally their whole point, the DoE in its current form was set up in 1979 to progress the Civil Rights Act.
And do you think it was a good or bad thing to progress the Civil Rights Act in the seventies? Or do you think trying to reverse the effects of decades of segregation counts as "pushing the DEI agenda"?
I think that treating all men and women equally was a worthwhile aim, as Dr King famously said. But we have now moved far beyond treating people equally, and started again being racist in college admissions, so the DoE has outlined its usefulness.
UEFA has decided to move Maccabi Tel Aviv's upcoming Europa League match against Beşiktaş from Turkey to Hungary out of caution following the Amsterdam Pogrom
UEFA has decided to move Maccabi Tel Aviv's upcoming Europa League match against Beşiktaş from Turkey to Hungary out of caution following the Amsterdam Pogrom
“Out of an abundance of anti-Semitism”
So they moved it to Hungary???
They are going with my US Plan of engaging with those with domain expertise?
UEFA has decided to move Maccabi Tel Aviv's upcoming Europa League match against Beşiktaş from Turkey to Hungary out of caution following the Amsterdam Pogrom
UEFA has decided to move Maccabi Tel Aviv's upcoming Europa League match against Beşiktaş from Turkey to Hungary out of caution following the Amsterdam Pogrom
“Out of an abundance of anti-Semitism”
So they moved it to Hungary???
It is a bittersweet irony that, due to poverty and communism the highly antisemitic corners of Eastern Europe avoided large scale immigration from MENA, so they are now relatively much safer for Jews
Eg I’d rather be Jewish in Krakow than Bradford, which is quite astonishing, in context
There have been a few times in my life when I have felt so bad that I have wanted to die. When I felt that I did not deserve to live, that the world would be improved by removing myself from it.
One of the factors that prevented me from following through on this was struggling to think of how to die without being even more troublesome to the world I would leave behind. Suicide inevitably creates a mess.
One thing that makes me incredibly nervous about assisted dying is that it would open up an avenue where those problems would be dealt with. I could imagine feeling some relief at accepting the offer of an assisted death, and having professionals to help me with it. This makes me feel very unsafe.
This bill limits use to someone who is likely to die within 6 months according to a doctor. It's for the terminally ill, not the same as suicide.
That's what the Bill says now. Yes. But once the principle is established that is easier to change. And sometimes these things can be implemented in a very broad way. What if it becomes accepted practice for a medical professional to conclude that a very depressed person with suicidal ideation is likely to die from suicide within six months, and so can be considered "terminally ill"?
The way in which abortion is regulated in Britain is a guide to this. Abortion was introduced with a number of safeguards in Britain. Two doctors would be required to sign off on it. Abortion could only be granted in a restricted number of circumstances - it isn't abortion on demand. Yet the implementation of the law has been quite different. The second doctor is a mere formality. The circumstance of "mental distress for the pregnant woman" has in practice been used as a catch-all that permits abortion on demand.
I think it is fair to be concerned about scope creep, and whether the Bill is written in a way that keeps its implementation to the restricted circumstances as claimed. Perhaps a more explicit protection for people suffering from mental illness should be added to the Bill?
Abortion largely on demand is what we should have, what the people writing the 1967 Act wanted, and what was achieved.
It says a lot about how difficult this debate on assisted dying is that I find myself agreeing with the most of the posters for it and most against it this morning.
A rare thing on politicalbetting where one listens to everyone and still struggles to make up one's own mind.
I have seen the future of universities. And it’s called General Luna
It’s a classic backpacker town on Sirgao island in the Philippines. It’s grown up around a very nice surf break called “cloud 9”
The pace is idyllic half the people are barefoot the variety of bars and pubs and pizza shacks and special ice bath 24/7 juice bars with free pedicures is amazing. The sea is blue the air is soft the beer is cheap and there’s 3000 young people
There are signs everywhere for “digital nomad” conferences but I don’t think it’s stressed out consultants who will be attracted here in the future. Its kids. As most careers are progressively closed down and university becomes increasingly pointless why will kids take on massive debt to go to uni? For the social experience? Meeting people?
Maybe. But they could come to General luna and have a very nice life for $100 a week and maybe learn remotely if they insist or just surf and screw and drink and they will do all that socialising on the beach instead of in freezing expensive places like Paris london or New York - or Oxford or heidelberg or Harvard
Universities are fucked. All our kids will want to go to General Luna
You won't can an accredited degree from somewhere like this and you won't gain a degree that has any component of lab work, or patient interactive training. The open university has for many years shown a different model of University education yet we still have 140+ Unis in the country that students attend in person. Its not right for everyone, but in general having more university educated people in a society seems to be better for all.
We also see just how catastrophically poor it is when we try to teach remotely. Students find it far harder to engage. Watch a lecture in your bedroom and within minutes you are distracted. Watch in a lecture theatre and for the most part you get for more out of it.
I think you miss what a university education is about. For pharmacy (the main course I teach on) the expectations and outcomes for the students are tightly controlled by the professional body. If you want to be a pharmacist you must attend and gain a degree from an accredited course.
The current funding model isn't perfect. I believe it was a half-way house between the state paying for everything and a full blown graduate tax. The idea being that a graduate tax is unlimited whereas the loans can be paid back and then you stop. In practice many loans are going to be written off, and the loans can be seen as a graduate tax with limits. Most students accept this. Perhaps its mostly our generation, the ones who were the 5-10% who went to Uni for free that complain most about the fees?
Sorry. I know this is personal for you but it’s done. Finished
It's not done:
1) students are still off to university the percentages aren't changing 2) how many students or parents have the cash to pay for a few years away - even £100 a week is beyond a lot of parents...
The end result is a degree from XYZ which a lot of companies use as a filter before anyone at the company actually looks at the CV. No degree and an awful lot of jobs in this country are off limits to you..
I went to the open day at Swansea last weekend with my son, who’s planning on doing geography.
In the right weather, if you squint a bit and ignore the 60s tower blocks, you could be in a tropical beach resort. Perhaps Swansea is the future of British higher ed. Closest campus to the beach on the planet apparently.
Aber must be pretty close, although maybe I am thinking of Halls of Residence?
There’s a few halls and the Old College on the beach, but the main campus is now a mile up the hill.
Yep, I was thinking of halls.
I think the old clifftop Spanish department at St As was abandoned to the sea eventually wasn't it?
EDIT: I think university expansions missed a trick here, to a certain type of student, coastal unis could have been ideal and dovetail well with summer tourism. Imagine if the Uni sector had developed Clacton, Yarmouth, Cleethorpes etc etc rather than expanding more in county towns.
The details are difficult and important but I do think Assisted Dying is an idea who's time has come. I hope something gets worked out.
It is one of those issues where modern medicine and technology have made edge cases much more glaring. Using modern machinery and medicine, we can keep people 'alive' for years, even if that life is an existence but not really a life. From that extreme, we go down to much gnarlier and more numerous edge cases.
In the olden days, these people would have died much quicker, if not from the condition itself, then from subsidiary illnesses. Now, we can prolong life.
The question is whether we always should in all cases, if all that does is increase suffering and misery.
Yes. Also in the "old days" doctors/nurses would often ease someone off with excess morphine without making a big song and dance about it. It was just done and tacitly accepted. Shipman rather changed that, sadly.
Ruddy serial killers, eh, stopping medical staff killing patients. What is the world coming to.
A compassionate acceleration of the end for people with terminal conditions in great pain is not the same as murder. There'd be no debate to be had if it were.
I said killing I didn't say murder. It could be manslaughter.
So, how much efficiency saving do we think the US government can actually find, by giving two businessmen the task of looking through the budget line by line to find things that are surplus to requirements?
The current US Federal budget is around $6.8trn, and the deficit $1.8trn per year. More than $1trn is spent annually on debt interest, which is now higher than the defence budget.
There’s loads of examples of a few million here and there on silly projects or academic studies, but can they actually find trillions when they’re all added up, and can they convince Congress to pass the appropriate legislation against the wishes of the many donors and lobbyists in Washington?
One of the questions is whether they will look line-by-line, or just announce things like "We don't need a Department of Education".
Like a lot of things, it depends on whether the Trump administration governs as it campaigned.
I think that Trump is more intent on governing as he campaigned this time, than he was last time.
Yes, the Department of Education is a big item, given that schools are run by the States themselves and the DoE supplies a small amount of funding in exchange for the schools pushing the DEI agenda. Better to just give the same money they spend now to the States, remove the Washington bureaucracy and reduce the paperwork required by the schools.
There’s probably a handful of these, where the scope of government can be reduced, but they’ll also need to find many more of the smaller items and hope they all add up to something meaningful.
“Pushing the DEI agenda”? You’re still reading MAGA propaganda.
Oh it’s going to be a very long four years.
Equality in education is literally their whole point, the DoE in its current form was set up in 1979 to progress the Civil Rights Act.
And do you think it was a good or bad thing to progress the Civil Rights Act in the seventies? Or do you think trying to reverse the effects of decades of segregation counts as "pushing the DEI agenda"?
I think that treating all men and women equally was a worthwhile aim, as Dr King famously said. But we have now moved far beyond treating people equally, and started again being racist in college admissions, so the DoE has outlined its usefulness.
Have we moved 'far beyond' that? I'm generally (*) not in favour of positive discrimination, but the idea that 'equality' happens organically is ridiculous. We're also far from equality in many areas - and it is far worse in America.
So something I wanted to investigate today was what signals there were available before the election that showed a Trump wave and I think it was on YouTube. I went back an looked at video metrics with a broadly pro-Trump vs pro-Harris and the difference was massive.
What I found was that videos on the pro-Trump side had huge subscribers to views ratios, you'd get videos from people with just 50k subscribers getting 2-3m views and the larger content creators with between 1m and 2m subs were easily doing over their total subscriber numbers, that to me says there's a level of grassroots interest in the content and generally these videos are pulling in lots of new eyeballs who aren't necessarily interested in politics or Trump, it's likely that they've seen the video shared somewhere in group chat or by some personality on Instagram or tiktok.
After watching the videos what also struck me is that 9/10 of them are either someone speaking into a camera from their bedroom just chatting about Trump and going through some of the new news or a react video or they're a guy with a camera man and a mic talking to real people getting real life opinions on screen, obviously they're edited so I can't take what was on screen as the full truth but the production values were very, err, rustic. What also surprised me was the sheer number of interviews with black and Latino people voting for Trump in working class areas and the reasons for those people voting for Trump all being broadly the same - jobs, prices, illegal immigrants.
...
The American right is very strong on YouTube. And of course the Daily Wire has turned into a huge operation, over 1 million paying subscribers.
Farage has been following a similar approach taping into YouTube, regularly gets 100k+ views on a video.
I think what's most interesting is that Trump supporting channels outside of a few very prominent ones like infowars or the daily wire are basically just a bloke/woman in a room speaking into a mic about what's going on in the world while the ones on the left have got really high production values with full sets/studios and they all feel like they're connected to the DNC in some way. It makes the Trump content feel much more authentic, when it's people talking about their own journeys or their own experiences and how that relates to what's happening wrt Trump vs Biden/Harris you don't feel sceptical because why would they lie? A lot of the time they disagree with Trump as well, one of the bigger streamers seemed to disagree with Trump on quite a lot very openly. They just never seemed to capture that kind of authenticity with the Harris content, or very rarely. You can see it too, the top viewed content for Harris seems to come from the campaign itself, for Trump it's from third party creators who support him.
But what YouTube shows you is based on what you’ve watched/liked before. You need to log out of your account, preferably use a new installation on a new device, use a VPN so you appear to be in the US, and then repeat the exercise in order to get an unbiased view of what videos are being made and watched.
Yes, this is what I did. Used two dummy accounts with fresh algorithms for both sides. The Trump content was just better than the Harris stuff, it felt more authentic and it had far better metrics for reach (probably because it felt real).
Again what struck me most was how the Trump side barely even acknowledged Harris other than a few piss takes here and there while Harris videos spent 80% of their time talking about Trump. An undecided going in to the election would struggle to get any idea of what Harris stood for from the YT content creators. It was all just "Trump said this" or "Trump did this last time" or "democracy is under threat if Trump wins the election". Even after spending a few hours watching content related to Harris I'm not sure I know what her policies were just what she was against from the Trump side.
Yes I saw something similar, from a much less scientific perspective of searching for videos about what was in the news today. The Harris campaign had lots of “vibes” and “joy”, but very little policy except orange man bad.
What struck me was the number of centrist creators on Youtube and Twitter, not just Joe Rogan and Tim Pool but also a number of less well-known commentators, who came out for Trump this year having voted for Democrats or Libertarians in the past.
Nate Silver did a good article on this, showing how much weaker the Harris stuff was compared to the Obama era and compared to the Trump material.
Have you got a link handy?
On your point about the DoE budget supporting students in default of their loans. Do you not think this is part of Trump's plan? He wants for Universities in the US to get rid of the woke infestation on campuses. Surely threatening to cut the funding from the DoE for defaulters will force them in line and they'll need to cut spending on DEI initiatives in order to not go bankrupt.
I'd have thought that this is the intended outcome of the policy - Universities going bankrupt and fewer kids going to college.
If you stop guaranteeing the loans now, that will result in fewer kids going to college but it won't significantly reducing the federal budget deficit right now, because the current cost to the government is of previous loans (which are already guaranteed) defaulting.
This would be an absolute boon for people like me, who can afford to pay my kids college bills. It means competition for my kids to go to top schools will be significantly reduced.
It will suck for the people described in Hillbilly Elegy, because it is one less route of advancement.
Vance and Musk are not on the same page on this or workers or tariffs. There may be other differences. Was there anything in Hillbilly Elegy about spending billions of dollars to go to Mars?
UEFA has decided to move Maccabi Tel Aviv's upcoming Europa League match against Beşiktaş from Turkey to Hungary out of caution following the Amsterdam Pogrom
Why should Turks be punished for issues elsewhere that were partly caused by Israeli supporters.
I'd sooner toss hundreds of political appointees out, but there we are.
A sad day. Many of the hereditaries do an excellent job.
Perhaps, but the qualification for the role ought not be who your parents are/were.
As opposed to the qualification for the role being who you donated to or you or your parents buttered up for the role?
I'd far rather have some British hereditaries who have been tied to their land and communities for centuries, have a family tradition of service and have an interest in the good governance of the nation, than a Russian plutocrat or dodgy Labour donor.
How are you assessing whether they have a family tradition of service? Have are you assessing whether they have an interest in the good governance of the nation?
So, how much efficiency saving do we think the US government can actually find, by giving two businessmen the task of looking through the budget line by line to find things that are surplus to requirements?
The current US Federal budget is around $6.8trn, and the deficit $1.8trn per year. More than $1trn is spent annually on debt interest, which is now higher than the defence budget.
There’s loads of examples of a few million here and there on silly projects or academic studies, but can they actually find trillions when they’re all added up, and can they convince Congress to pass the appropriate legislation against the wishes of the many donors and lobbyists in Washington?
Around two-thirds of the US Federal Budget is made up is Mandatory Spending, that is "locked in" unless Congress passes laws to actually change it. This is Interest ($1trn), Social Security ($1.4trn), Medicare & Medicaid ($1.5trn), and support for welfare programs for low income Americans, such as SNAP and Earned Income Tax Credit ($1.1trn).
That's close to $5bn of the Federal Government's spending that is Mandatory and would require laws passed by Congress to change.
The rest of spending is theoretically Discretionary in nature: Defense ($773bn), Veteran's Affairs ($303bn), Energy ($45bn), Education ($80bn), NASA ($25bn), the FDA ($7bn) and the like,
The reality is that a lot of the Discretionary Spending is essentially untouchable. Veteran's Affairs is healthcare and pensions for ex-servicemen and their families. There is literally no way that can be touched. And I'm not sure that Defense can easily be signifcantly reduced either.
One could, of course, close down the Departments of Energy and Education (although I suspect there might be some impacts from that), but the total saved would be tiny - $125bn out of a budget of $6.8 trillion or just 2% of the total. The FDA could likewise be shuttered, albeit its duties are mandated by Congress, and its budget is miniscule.
In other words, I think we can reasonably assume that getting massive savings from the Federal Government without cutting into Mandatory Spending is going to be next to impossible.
And here's the kicker: the US like other countries is getting older. That means that the amount that is due to be spent on Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security and Veterans Affairs will grow faster than the economy going forward almost irrespective of what the government does.
Given I'm also not convinced that Republican lawmakers are going to be lining up to cut payments to their constituents, I think Elon Musk and Donald Trump face an extremely uphill battle in substantially reducing US Government expenditure.
---
On the subject of interest, it does bear mentioning that the effective (real) value of US national debt falls by inflation every year. So if your budget deficit each year is just the interest payment, then in inflation adjusted terms, the value of your debt remains stable. And if you consider the value of the national debt relative to GDP, then (as the economy usually grows) in this scenario national debt as a percentage of GDP would decline. So: I wouldn't worry *too much* about interest payments.
The lowest of low hanging fruit is the defense budget. It is plainly ridiculous to blow $1 trillion per year on that - half of the world's total military spend - if the US is to become more isolationist and parochial.
It should really be able to fund itself via conquest rather than expecting taxpayers to subsidise it.
Ideal world, yes. Like us with the East India Co. But Trump's a "no more foreign wars" peace-monger, isn't he. America the global policeman is over. So there's huge scope for saving money there. There's $1 TRILLION a year to go at. If Musk can't squeeze a few hundred billion off that he's a waste of space.
Some years ago, under the Bush II administration, there was debate about missile defence.
In Canada, various anti-war groups (who are always again missile defence) claimed that a US ABM system would "drag Canada in". All very ghastly, apparently.
A US general was being interviewed on Canadian radio. He said that this was incorrect - the plan was that the Keep Out zones for the system would be defined so that only countries that wished to participate would be protected. This set off a further storm - the anti-missile-defence people apparently believed that they had a moral right both to complain about missile defence. And get it for free....
There were some jokes that the Pentagon should setup a website/hotline. Buy your missile defence like insurance......
Yep. Being World Policeman comes with a big cost to America and it's all the higher if others don't cough up. If they are to relinquish that role, or step back from it somewhat, it opens up the possibility of major savings on the defense budget. Of the order $250 billion per annum, I'd have thought, just back of envelope, but let's see what Musk makes of it. He's the man, not me.
Or a pay to play.
If Germany wants not to have a functional military, they can rent one. Some kind of measure of GDP vs land area, with prices for nuclear deterrence, border guarantees.
"So, do you want to upgrade your package from Basic Existential, to Deluxe Protect? If you buy Deluxe Protect this month, we also throw in a years Protect Aboard - air cover and logistic support for invading countries up to 500 miles away."
That’s the Wagner business model, essentially.
I’m sure Musk could turn his hand to something like that. Once NASA has been abolished I’m sure it’s only a matter of time before he acquires the Pentagon and kick starts its new era in the private sector.
Why would he abolish NASA? Given the contracts he gets from them, for a start.
The people saying that "He will abolish NASA" seem to be those in favour of SLS/Orion. Which indicates their thinking.
There is lots of NASA that Musk has no interests in - the underfunded 'Aeronautics' part, for a start.
As Mary Shafer used to say, Aeronautics gets to the feeding bowl after all the other groups are done. It's been that way since NACA went away.
I'd sooner toss hundreds of political appointees out, but there we are.
A small step in taking back control from our unelected rulers.
Would you accept hereditary doctors? If not, then you shouldn't accept hereditary parliamentarians.
They are better than appointed parliamentarians
The promise was that they would be removed IF AND ONLY WHEN the Lords was properly reconstituted
Labour lied, once again, and are messing with the constitution for partisan advantage.
But, of course, we hear no complaints from the hypocrites on here who were so focused on voter ID and other changes made by the Tories
It was in their manifesto
Although Labour recognises the good work of many peers who scrutinise the government and improve the quality of legislation passed in Parliament, reform is long over-due and essential. Too many peers do not play a proper role in our democracy. Hereditary peers remain indefensible. And because appointments are for life, the second chamber of Parliament has become too big. The next Labour government will therefore bring about an immediate modernisation, by introducing legislation to remove the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. Labour will also introduce a mandatory retirement age. At the end of the Parliament in which a member reaches 80 years of age, they will be required to retire from the House of Lords
A few things about this:
"Hereditary peers remain indefensible"
Which is untrue, especially as I'd argue they're better than many of the appointees.
"...the second chamber of Parliament has become too big."
True. But they're getting rid of a part than cannot grow. The easy answer would be for this parliament to make no appointments. But we all know why that isn't going to happen.
"Labour will also introduce a mandatory retirement age. At the end of the Parliament in which a member reaches 80 years of age"
Why 80? Surely the state retirement age would be a better fit?
The HoL deserves better than to get yet another round of self-serving 'modernisations' that do nothing but help the ruling party. This will be bad for the HoL and bad for the country.
I disagree about State Retirement Age being the measure. I always thought the whole point of a reformed Lords would be that it would contain those who could bring a lifetime's experiences in work, charity, military or any other discipline to bear on amending law making and making it fit for purpose. I would actually go the other way and say that no one could become a member of the Lords until they had done 25-30 years in some discipline outside of politics.
Oh beat me to it. I thought @Jossiasjessop post was very thoughtful, but I then focused on the changing the limit from 80 to retirement age. Retirement age is misnamed. It is not an age where you need to retire and now many (most?) don't. It is simply the age when you get your state pension. Many retire earlier and many later. I agree with @Richard_Tyndall comment of bringing experience to the job.
There does come an age when you no longer do that, but that age is different for everyone. I guess if you have to have an arbitrary age 80 is a lot better than 66 or whatever it is now (comment from someone turning 70 in a couple of weeks)
Not many horny-handed sons of toil amongst the PB sitting down workers.
The details are difficult and important but I do think Assisted Dying is an idea who's time has come. I hope something gets worked out.
It is one of those issues where modern medicine and technology have made edge cases much more glaring. Using modern machinery and medicine, we can keep people 'alive' for years, even if that life is an existence but not really a life. From that extreme, we go down to much gnarlier and more numerous edge cases.
In the olden days, these people would have died much quicker, if not from the condition itself, then from subsidiary illnesses. Now, we can prolong life.
The question is whether we always should in all cases, if all that does is increase suffering and misery.
Yes. Also in the "old days" doctors/nurses would often ease someone off with excess morphine without making a big song and dance about it. It was just done and tacitly accepted. Shipman rather changed that, sadly.
Ruddy serial killers, eh, stopping medical staff killing patients. What is the world coming to.
A compassionate acceleration of the end for people with terminal conditions in great pain is not the same as murder. There'd be no debate to be had if it were.
I said killing I didn't say murder. It could be manslaughter.
You consider assisted dying to be manslaughter?
It depends on the level of er... acquiescence... by the person in question.
Having heard a member of medical staff advocate my mother being killed off and seen my father neglected (while surrounded by medical staff), I have my doubts about the purity of the ethical and moral decision making of some people.
UEFA has decided to move Maccabi Tel Aviv's upcoming Europa League match against Beşiktaş from Turkey to Hungary out of caution following the Amsterdam Pogrom
UEFA has decided to move Maccabi Tel Aviv's upcoming Europa League match against Beşiktaş from Turkey to Hungary out of caution following the Amsterdam Pogrom
“Out of an abundance of anti-Semitism”
So they moved it to Hungary???
It is a bittersweet irony that, due to poverty and communism the highly antisemitic corners of Eastern Europe avoided large scale immigration from MENA, so they are now relatively much safer for Jews
Eg I’d rather be Jewish in Krakow than Bradford, which is quite astonishing, in context
In Kraków, they "rm -rf" all the anti-semites, a while back. There may be a fresh crop - I haven't seen recently - but that was a variously vigorous program.
It says a lot about how difficult this debate on assisted dying is that I find myself agreeing with the most of the posters for it and most against it this morning.
A rare thing on politicalbetting where one listens to everyone and still struggles to make up one's own mind.
I am exactly the same
Perhaps the reason I made such a flippant throwaway early remark in response to @Cyclefree’s excellent threader is because I am facing this dilemma RIGHT NOW
My dear beloved mother is demented, and getting worse, and she’s 88, and she won’t get better and - I’ll spare you further deets - right now I’d put her life quality at somewhere south of zero. She would be Better Off Dead. That’s brutal and hard to write - especially as major medical advances are coming, but they aren’t gonna be the cavalry on the hill for her, and what I say is true
Worse, she always said to me, when younger “If I ever get like that, just take me out with a hammer, please” - and she meant it
Now she is LIKE THAT
So I see all the arguments for Assisted Dying and yet something in me rebels, spiritually. I am not sure these feelings can be reconciled
I definitely think Parliament needs a long long debate on this, I abhor the sense of this being rushed through “because of Esther Rantzen”. When did we vote for Rule by Esther?
Good header. I certainly have reservations about assisted suicide. While suicide is now legal allowing another to help you take your own life risks undue pressure being put on the patient. While the safeguard of a terminal illness in severe pain is meant to be there, in Canada now they now have even those with mental illness pressured to end their lives. Hence Conservative Opposition Leader Poilievre has promised to cut back on access to assisted suicide in Canada if elected PM next year
On undue pressure being put on the patient - the importance of this is being exaggerated. I doubt whether family coercion would happen given the patient has less that six months to live anyway. Forgive me but I suspect your objection is religious - only God should take life.
This is the thing.
There is overwhelming public support for assisted dying. It seems pretty obvious that people who object for moral reasons are throwing up all kinds of objections as deep down they know the public don't support their moral reasons.
It seems quite extraordinary that everybody should be prevented from doing something just because a far smaller number of people MIGHT be pressured to do something against their will.
We wouldn't stop everyone driving a car because a small number of people might be killed (or indeed we know some people will be killed). How about stopping bank transfers of money - after all someone might be pressured to give someone money against their will?
Of course life is much more important than a bank transfer. But then you come to the point - can it really be right that everyone has control over everything they do in life except the one most important thing - whether to continue living.
Wherever assisted dying has been brought in, it's been a popular change to the law. No countries are repealing such laws after they have been introduced. Where the scope has been extended that's a positive sign - it shows the law is popular and more peoole want to use it.
The public simply does not support being prevented from doing what they want because it goes against other people's morals or religion - we need to cut through the objections and get this done.
It's very similar to abortion and gay marriage where all kinds of objections were raised. It's very simple - if you don't want an abortion or a gay marriage then don't have one. But don't tell everyone else what to do.
If you don't like assisted dying, don't do it. But don't tell everyone else what to do.
Does the unborn child get any say in that? Does the mentally ill patient being pressured to take their life? It is a very slippery and dangerous slope
For the vast majority of abortions, we're talking about a small blob of cells.
UEFA has decided to move Maccabi Tel Aviv's upcoming Europa League match against Beşiktaş from Turkey to Hungary out of caution following the Amsterdam Pogrom
Why should Turks be punished for issues elsewhere that were partly caused by Israeli supporters.
It'll be interesting whether uefa fine both the Dutch team and the Israeli team for poor control
I have seen the future of universities. And it’s called General Luna
It’s a classic backpacker town on Sirgao island in the Philippines. It’s grown up around a very nice surf break called “cloud 9”
The pace is idyllic half the people are barefoot the variety of bars and pubs and pizza shacks and special ice bath 24/7 juice bars with free pedicures is amazing. The sea is blue the air is soft the beer is cheap and there’s 3000 young people
There are signs everywhere for “digital nomad” conferences but I don’t think it’s stressed out consultants who will be attracted here in the future. Its kids. As most careers are progressively closed down and university becomes increasingly pointless why will kids take on massive debt to go to uni? For the social experience? Meeting people?
Maybe. But they could come to General luna and have a very nice life for $100 a week and maybe learn remotely if they insist or just surf and screw and drink and they will do all that socialising on the beach instead of in freezing expensive places like Paris london or New York - or Oxford or heidelberg or Harvard
Universities are fucked. All our kids will want to go to General Luna
You won't can an accredited degree from somewhere like this and you won't gain a degree that has any component of lab work, or patient interactive training. The open university has for many years shown a different model of University education yet we still have 140+ Unis in the country that students attend in person. Its not right for everyone, but in general having more university educated people in a society seems to be better for all.
We also see just how catastrophically poor it is when we try to teach remotely. Students find it far harder to engage. Watch a lecture in your bedroom and within minutes you are distracted. Watch in a lecture theatre and for the most part you get for more out of it.
I think you miss what a university education is about. For pharmacy (the main course I teach on) the expectations and outcomes for the students are tightly controlled by the professional body. If you want to be a pharmacist you must attend and gain a degree from an accredited course.
The current funding model isn't perfect. I believe it was a half-way house between the state paying for everything and a full blown graduate tax. The idea being that a graduate tax is unlimited whereas the loans can be paid back and then you stop. In practice many loans are going to be written off, and the loans can be seen as a graduate tax with limits. Most students accept this. Perhaps its mostly our generation, the ones who were the 5-10% who went to Uni for free that complain most about the fees?
And we are back to professional qualifications vs abstract academic study.
My daughter, at UCL, tells me that while she attends all the lectures, many do not. Everything is available online. Many do their tutorials online as well.
So, why go. Why get all the debt. Especially when 50-95% of cognitive jobs at the end of it are gonna disappear entirely
It;s fucking obvious. Universities are completely doomed, the model is collapsing in multiple ways, and like bankruptcy is happening slowly and then it will be very fast
A few super posh ones will survive as finishing schools, or for kids who urgently want to be in London, New York, Paris, and maybe some art schools, dance schools etc. Indeed the last-named may prosper
'Especially when 50-95% of cognitive jobs at the end of it are gonna disappear entirely.'
In which case most jobs will go anyway and most people will live off a UBI funded by a robot tax with the occasional contract role.
So more people will want to study more to fill their time and the few permanent and full time jobs which remain will largely be very creative and not things AI can do which also requires education to get
Why are the robots going to be willing to fund our UBI?
The corporations which employ robots and eliminate human jobs as a result will be the ones paying tax to fund the UBI not the robots themselves.
They must be shown that eliminating most human jobs won't come without cost to their profits either
Yes that is exactly why Musk and the billionaire elite have gone deep into politics. For them to pay more tax so that the rest of us can laze about.
I may need to read this one in the Telegraph (unfortunately).
I'm not sure how the Bishop of Birkenhead became a "Top Bishop". She's a Suffragan (ie assistant Bishop - one Mrs Thatcher termed "little bishops"), who has been in post for 2 years.
(I'm not commenting on the Bishop, who has an interesting background as they all usually do - including a decade as a probation officer, or her suggestion, but mainly that the Telegraph are BS-merchants, as on any day with D in it.
Her views on same sex marriage would, if I have it right, normally lead to he being excoriated in that publication. Happy to be corrected on this last if the T supports same sex marriage blessings and same sex civil partnerships for clergy.)
Doesn’t she have some role in charge of safeguarding, hence why she’s been talking about this?
I've been quite open in my scepticism of the Telegraph, and have shown them inserting outright fabrications into their news reports where the CofE is concerned. Here my concern is that they are trying to leverage this into their culture war.
Having read the piece, +Birkenhead explicitly refused to mention names, so they pick out two from the report and say "these have been called upon to resign". No idea whether this is true - given the UK media, someone is probably outraged that the church mouse hasn't got a safeguarding certificate, and have called for the mice carved by Robert Thompson to resign.
They mention two names: Rev Dr Jo Bailey Wells, who was personal chaplain to the ABC around 2013, and Rev Stephen Conway, Bp of Lincoln. Both are mentioned in the Makin Report and Appendices.
My take on the Telegraph is that they are trying to promote a narrative around what they call an "ecclesial blob", and have Welby and people and places they think are like him down as the villains, as part of their 'war on woke'. Others here will have views on this particular subject - especially perhaps those who have spoken about the Save the Parish organisation.
This piece by Madeleine Grant seems to me to be characteristic of that: https://archive.ph/8pEdu
The more serious concern here is that causes are not purely about people and opinions, they are about systems, organisations and cultures - and apply across the piece. Making it sectarian undermines addressing broader questions.
So, how much efficiency saving do we think the US government can actually find, by giving two businessmen the task of looking through the budget line by line to find things that are surplus to requirements?
The current US Federal budget is around $6.8trn, and the deficit $1.8trn per year. More than $1trn is spent annually on debt interest, which is now higher than the defence budget.
There’s loads of examples of a few million here and there on silly projects or academic studies, but can they actually find trillions when they’re all added up, and can they convince Congress to pass the appropriate legislation against the wishes of the many donors and lobbyists in Washington?
One of the questions is whether they will look line-by-line, or just announce things like "We don't need a Department of Education".
Like a lot of things, it depends on whether the Trump administration governs as it campaigned.
I think that Trump is more intent on governing as he campaigned this time, than he was last time.
Yes, the Department of Education is a big item, given that schools are run by the States themselves and the DoE supplies a small amount of funding in exchange for the schools pushing the DEI agenda. Better to just give the same money they spend now to the States, remove the Washington bureaucracy and reduce the paperwork required by the schools.
There’s probably a handful of these, where the scope of government can be reduced, but they’ll also need to find many more of the smaller items and hope they all add up to something meaningful.
“Pushing the DEI agenda”? You’re still reading MAGA propaganda.
Oh it’s going to be a very long four years.
Equality in education is literally their whole point, the DoE in its current form was set up in 1979 to progress the Civil Rights Act.
And do you think it was a good or bad thing to progress the Civil Rights Act in the seventies? Or do you think trying to reverse the effects of decades of segregation counts as "pushing the DEI agenda"?
I think that treating all men and women equally was a worthwhile aim, as Dr King famously said. But we have now moved far beyond treating people equally, and started again being racist in college admissions, so the DoE has outlined its usefulness.
You know, I do wonder whether the new President, who talks about "bad blood", is entirely in alignment with the views of Dr King.
Anyway, I'm jumping back into a thread late. As has been discussed upthread, the DoE has various roles. The idea these all constitute "pushing the DEI agenda" is naif.
I'd sooner toss hundreds of political appointees out, but there we are.
A small step in taking back control from our unelected rulers.
Would you accept hereditary doctors? If not, then you shouldn't accept hereditary parliamentarians.
They are better than appointed parliamentarians
The promise was that they would be removed IF AND ONLY WHEN the Lords was properly reconstituted
Labour lied, once again, and are messing with the constitution for partisan advantage.
But, of course, we hear no complaints from the hypocrites on here who were so focused on voter ID and other changes made by the Tories
It was in their manifesto
Although Labour recognises the good work of many peers who scrutinise the government and improve the quality of legislation passed in Parliament, reform is long over-due and essential. Too many peers do not play a proper role in our democracy. Hereditary peers remain indefensible. And because appointments are for life, the second chamber of Parliament has become too big. The next Labour government will therefore bring about an immediate modernisation, by introducing legislation to remove the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. Labour will also introduce a mandatory retirement age. At the end of the Parliament in which a member reaches 80 years of age, they will be required to retire from the House of Lords
A few things about this:
"Hereditary peers remain indefensible"
Which is untrue, especially as I'd argue they're better than many of the appointees.
"...the second chamber of Parliament has become too big."
True. But they're getting rid of a part than cannot grow. The easy answer would be for this parliament to make no appointments. But we all know why that isn't going to happen.
"Labour will also introduce a mandatory retirement age. At the end of the Parliament in which a member reaches 80 years of age"
Why 80? Surely the state retirement age would be a better fit?
The HoL deserves better than to get yet another round of self-serving 'modernisations' that do nothing but help the ruling party. This will be bad for the HoL and bad for the country.
I disagree about State Retirement Age being the measure. I always thought the whole point of a reformed Lords would be that it would contain those who could bring a lifetime's experiences in work, charity, military or any other discipline to bear on amending law making and making it fit for purpose. I would actually go the other way and say that no one could become a member of the Lords until they had done 25-30 years in some discipline outside of politics.
I guess that's the question. What is the point of the House of Lords?
Originally the point of a two-chamber system was that different people and different interests were represented in the two houses. Lords and Commons. Having two houses allows these differences to be debated openly and compromise agreed.
You can see a parallel with the two chambers in Congress in the US. The Senate represents the interests of the States, while the House represents the interests of the populace (though, since they stopped increasing the number of Representatives, that has been weakened).
Do we really need a revising chamber of oldsters given a direct role in the legislature, and invited to act on multiple areas outside their area of expertise?
Perhaps we had better think of what divides exist in our society, and which we might usefully manage conflict by having them given institutional form.
For example, what if we had a House of the Young and a House of the Old? People might be eligible to vote for and stands for election to, the House of the Young until they are above the median age (about 45 at the moment I think). And thereafter vote and stand for election to the House of the Old.
Or you could have a House of Women and a House of Men. Perhaps a House for net taxpayers and a House for those in deficit?
I think we can be a lot more inventive with our thinking about this.
Yes I think we do need a revising upper chamber. Too much law is made for political or personal reasons without considering either the wider implications or the detail which can have unexpected and unwelcome results. That should be the purpose of the second chamber, to prevent so much bad legialation making it into law. They certainly don't do a perfect job now - not least because there is still too much politics even in the Lords. Which is why we don't want it to be elected.
But they certainly make a lot of law better and more coherent even if they have some failings. The Lords should be an entirely appointed non political chamber with appointments made from across society by a properly independent body. And no it should not be based on what divides us but on what unites us. The desire for good law.
An independent, non-political chamber does sound ideal - but the real problem is how to get there from here. It's hard to see how the current patronage-based system could be reformed piecemeal into something less inherently corrupt, and any proposal to replace it wholesale would likely end up with an elected senate instead.
Churchill proposed doing away with the upper house altogether, with the scrutiny and revising functions replaced by the appointment of lay members to HoC committees.
I wonder if that's an idea that might be worth revisiting?
I'd sooner toss hundreds of political appointees out, but there we are.
A small step in taking back control from our unelected rulers.
Would you accept hereditary doctors? If not, then you shouldn't accept hereditary parliamentarians.
They are better than appointed parliamentarians
The promise was that they would be removed IF AND ONLY WHEN the Lords was properly reconstituted
Labour lied, once again, and are messing with the constitution for partisan advantage.
But, of course, we hear no complaints from the hypocrites on here who were so focused on voter ID and other changes made by the Tories
It was in their manifesto
Although Labour recognises the good work of many peers who scrutinise the government and improve the quality of legislation passed in Parliament, reform is long over-due and essential. Too many peers do not play a proper role in our democracy. Hereditary peers remain indefensible. And because appointments are for life, the second chamber of Parliament has become too big. The next Labour government will therefore bring about an immediate modernisation, by introducing legislation to remove the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. Labour will also introduce a mandatory retirement age. At the end of the Parliament in which a member reaches 80 years of age, they will be required to retire from the House of Lords
A few things about this:
"Hereditary peers remain indefensible"
Which is untrue, especially as I'd argue they're better than many of the appointees.
"...the second chamber of Parliament has become too big."
True. But they're getting rid of a part than cannot grow. The easy answer would be for this parliament to make no appointments. But we all know why that isn't going to happen.
"Labour will also introduce a mandatory retirement age. At the end of the Parliament in which a member reaches 80 years of age"
Why 80? Surely the state retirement age would be a better fit?
The HoL deserves better than to get yet another round of self-serving 'modernisations' that do nothing but help the ruling party. This will be bad for the HoL and bad for the country.
I disagree about State Retirement Age being the measure. I always thought the whole point of a reformed Lords would be that it would contain those who could bring a lifetime's experiences in work, charity, military or any other discipline to bear on amending law making and making it fit for purpose. I would actually go the other way and say that no one could become a member of the Lords until they had done 25-30 years in some discipline outside of politics.
I guess that's the question. What is the point of the House of Lords?
Originally the point of a two-chamber system was that different people and different interests were represented in the two houses. Lords and Commons. Having two houses allows these differences to be debated openly and compromise agreed.
You can see a parallel with the two chambers in Congress in the US. The Senate represents the interests of the States, while the House represents the interests of the populace (though, since they stopped increasing the number of Representatives, that has been weakened).
Do we really need a revising chamber of oldsters given a direct role in the legislature, and invited to act on multiple areas outside their area of expertise?
Perhaps we had better think of what divides exist in our society, and which we might usefully manage conflict by having them given institutional form.
For example, what if we had a House of the Young and a House of the Old? People might be eligible to vote for and stands for election to, the House of the Young until they are above the median age (about 45 at the moment I think). And thereafter vote and stand for election to the House of the Old.
Or you could have a House of Women and a House of Men. Perhaps a House for net taxpayers and a House for those in deficit?
I think we can be a lot more inventive with our thinking about this.
Yes I think we do need a revising upper chamber. Too much law is made for political or personal reasons without considering either the wider implications or the detail which can have unexpected and unwelcome results. That should be the purpose of the second chamber, to prevent so much bad legialation making it into law. They certainly don't do a perfect job now - not least because there is still too much politics even in the Lords. Which is why we don't want it to be elected.
But they certainly make a lot of law better and more coherent even if they have some failings. The Lords should be an entirely appointed non political chamber with appointments made from across society by a properly independent body. And no it should not be based on what divides us but on what unites us. The desire for good law.
An independent, non-political chamber does sound ideal - but the real problem is how to get there from here. It's hard to see how the current patronage-based system could be reformed piecemeal into something less inherently corrupt, and any proposal to replace it wholesale would likely end up with an elected senate instead.
Churchill proposed doing away with the upper house altogether, with the scrutiny and revising functions replaced with the appointment of lay members to HoC committees.
I wonder if that's an idea that might be worth revisting?
I think the majority of countries in the world do fine with an elected, bicameral system.
I'd sooner toss hundreds of political appointees out, but there we are.
A small step in taking back control from our unelected rulers.
Would you accept hereditary doctors? If not, then you shouldn't accept hereditary parliamentarians.
They are better than appointed parliamentarians
The promise was that they would be removed IF AND ONLY WHEN the Lords was properly reconstituted
Labour lied, once again, and are messing with the constitution for partisan advantage.
But, of course, we hear no complaints from the hypocrites on here who were so focused on voter ID and other changes made by the Tories
It was in their manifesto
Although Labour recognises the good work of many peers who scrutinise the government and improve the quality of legislation passed in Parliament, reform is long over-due and essential. Too many peers do not play a proper role in our democracy. Hereditary peers remain indefensible. And because appointments are for life, the second chamber of Parliament has become too big. The next Labour government will therefore bring about an immediate modernisation, by introducing legislation to remove the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. Labour will also introduce a mandatory retirement age. At the end of the Parliament in which a member reaches 80 years of age, they will be required to retire from the House of Lords
A few things about this:
"Hereditary peers remain indefensible"
Which is untrue, especially as I'd argue they're better than many of the appointees.
"...the second chamber of Parliament has become too big."
True. But they're getting rid of a part than cannot grow. The easy answer would be for this parliament to make no appointments. But we all know why that isn't going to happen.
"Labour will also introduce a mandatory retirement age. At the end of the Parliament in which a member reaches 80 years of age"
Why 80? Surely the state retirement age would be a better fit?
The HoL deserves better than to get yet another round of self-serving 'modernisations' that do nothing but help the ruling party. This will be bad for the HoL and bad for the country.
I disagree about State Retirement Age being the measure. I always thought the whole point of a reformed Lords would be that it would contain those who could bring a lifetime's experiences in work, charity, military or any other discipline to bear on amending law making and making it fit for purpose. I would actually go the other way and say that no one could become a member of the Lords until they had done 25-30 years in some discipline outside of politics.
So, how much efficiency saving do we think the US government can actually find, by giving two businessmen the task of looking through the budget line by line to find things that are surplus to requirements?
The current US Federal budget is around $6.8trn, and the deficit $1.8trn per year. More than $1trn is spent annually on debt interest, which is now higher than the defence budget.
There’s loads of examples of a few million here and there on silly projects or academic studies, but can they actually find trillions when they’re all added up, and can they convince Congress to pass the appropriate legislation against the wishes of the many donors and lobbyists in Washington?
One of the questions is whether they will look line-by-line, or just announce things like "We don't need a Department of Education".
Like a lot of things, it depends on whether the Trump administration governs as it campaigned.
I think that Trump is more intent on governing as he campaigned this time, than he was last time.
Yes, the Department of Education is a big item, given that schools are run by the States themselves and the DoE supplies a small amount of funding in exchange for the schools pushing the DEI agenda. Better to just give the same money they spend now to the States, remove the Washington bureaucracy and reduce the paperwork required by the schools.
There’s probably a handful of these, where the scope of government can be reduced, but they’ll also need to find many more of the smaller items and hope they all add up to something meaningful.
“Pushing the DEI agenda”? You’re still reading MAGA propaganda.
Oh it’s going to be a very long four years.
Equality in education is literally their whole point, the DoE in its current form was set up in 1979 to progress the Civil Rights Act.
Did legacy media lose it for Harris, and new media win it for Trump? Marina and Richard take us through how both campaigns used the media as tools to put their messages across and support their campaigns. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8-ZW3IZFMY
The details are difficult and important but I do think Assisted Dying is an idea who's time has come. I hope something gets worked out.
It is one of those issues where modern medicine and technology have made edge cases much more glaring. Using modern machinery and medicine, we can keep people 'alive' for years, even if that life is an existence but not really a life. From that extreme, we go down to much gnarlier and more numerous edge cases.
In the olden days, these people would have died much quicker, if not from the condition itself, then from subsidiary illnesses. Now, we can prolong life.
The question is whether we always should in all cases, if all that does is increase suffering and misery.
Yes. Also in the "old days" doctors/nurses would often ease someone off with excess morphine without making a big song and dance about it. It was just done and tacitly accepted. Shipman rather changed that, sadly.
Ruddy serial killers, eh, stopping medical staff killing patients. What is the world coming to.
A compassionate acceleration of the end for people with terminal conditions in great pain is not the same as murder. There'd be no debate to be had if it were.
I said killing I didn't say murder. It could be manslaughter.
You consider assisted dying to be manslaughter?
It depends on the level of er... acquiescence... by the person in question.
Having heard a member of medical staff advocate my mother being killed off and seen my father neglected (while surrounded by medical staff), I have my doubts about the purity of the ethical and moral decision making of some people.
It's healthy for people to have such doubts. The mission - should parliament choose to accept it - is to draft a good piece of legislation which addresses them.
So, how much efficiency saving do we think the US government can actually find, by giving two businessmen the task of looking through the budget line by line to find things that are surplus to requirements?
The current US Federal budget is around $6.8trn, and the deficit $1.8trn per year. More than $1trn is spent annually on debt interest, which is now higher than the defence budget.
There’s loads of examples of a few million here and there on silly projects or academic studies, but can they actually find trillions when they’re all added up, and can they convince Congress to pass the appropriate legislation against the wishes of the many donors and lobbyists in Washington?
Around two-thirds of the US Federal Budget is made up is Mandatory Spending, that is "locked in" unless Congress passes laws to actually change it. This is Interest ($1trn), Social Security ($1.4trn), Medicare & Medicaid ($1.5trn), and support for welfare programs for low income Americans, such as SNAP and Earned Income Tax Credit ($1.1trn).
That's close to $5bn of the Federal Government's spending that is Mandatory and would require laws passed by Congress to change.
The rest of spending is theoretically Discretionary in nature: Defense ($773bn), Veteran's Affairs ($303bn), Energy ($45bn), Education ($80bn), NASA ($25bn), the FDA ($7bn) and the like,
The reality is that a lot of the Discretionary Spending is essentially untouchable. Veteran's Affairs is healthcare and pensions for ex-servicemen and their families. There is literally no way that can be touched. And I'm not sure that Defense can easily be signifcantly reduced either.
One could, of course, close down the Departments of Energy and Education (although I suspect there might be some impacts from that), but the total saved would be tiny - $125bn out of a budget of $6.8 trillion or just 2% of the total. The FDA could likewise be shuttered, albeit its duties are mandated by Congress, and its budget is miniscule.
In other words, I think we can reasonably assume that getting massive savings from the Federal Government without cutting into Mandatory Spending is going to be next to impossible.
And here's the kicker: the US like other countries is getting older. That means that the amount that is due to be spent on Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security and Veterans Affairs will grow faster than the economy going forward almost irrespective of what the government does.
Given I'm also not convinced that Republican lawmakers are going to be lining up to cut payments to their constituents, I think Elon Musk and Donald Trump face an extremely uphill battle in substantially reducing US Government expenditure.
---
On the subject of interest, it does bear mentioning that the effective (real) value of US national debt falls by inflation every year. So if your budget deficit each year is just the interest payment, then in inflation adjusted terms, the value of your debt remains stable. And if you consider the value of the national debt relative to GDP, then (as the economy usually grows) in this scenario national debt as a percentage of GDP would decline. So: I wouldn't worry *too much* about interest payments.
The lowest of low hanging fruit is the defense budget. It is plainly ridiculous to blow $1 trillion per year on that - half of the world's total military spend - if the US is to become more isolationist and parochial.
It should really be able to fund itself via conquest rather than expecting taxpayers to subsidise it.
Ideal world, yes. Like us with the East India Co. But Trump's a "no more foreign wars" peace-monger, isn't he. America the global policeman is over. So there's huge scope for saving money there. There's $1 TRILLION a year to go at. If Musk can't squeeze a few hundred billion off that he's a waste of space.
Some years ago, under the Bush II administration, there was debate about missile defence.
In Canada, various anti-war groups (who are always again missile defence) claimed that a US ABM system would "drag Canada in". All very ghastly, apparently.
A US general was being interviewed on Canadian radio. He said that this was incorrect - the plan was that the Keep Out zones for the system would be defined so that only countries that wished to participate would be protected. This set off a further storm - the anti-missile-defence people apparently believed that they had a moral right both to complain about missile defence. And get it for free....
There were some jokes that the Pentagon should setup a website/hotline. Buy your missile defence like insurance......
Yep. Being World Policeman comes with a big cost to America and it's all the higher if others don't cough up. If they are to relinquish that role, or step back from it somewhat, it opens up the possibility of major savings on the defense budget. Of the order $250 billion per annum, I'd have thought, just back of envelope, but let's see what Musk makes of it. He's the man, not me.
Or a pay to play.
If Germany wants not to have a functional military, they can rent one. Some kind of measure of GDP vs land area, with prices for nuclear deterrence, border guarantees.
"So, do you want to upgrade your package from Basic Existential, to Deluxe Protect? If you buy Deluxe Protect this month, we also throw in a years Protect Aboard - air cover and logistic support for invading countries up to 500 miles away."
That’s the Wagner business model, essentially.
I’m sure Musk could turn his hand to something like that. Once NASA has been abolished I’m sure it’s only a matter of time before he acquires the Pentagon and kick starts its new era in the private sector.
Why would he abolish NASA? Given the contracts he gets from them, for a start.
The people saying that "He will abolish NASA" seem to be those in favour of SLS/Orion. Which indicates their thinking.
True. Better than abolition is a hollowing out / outsourcing model. Strip out all of the in-house capabilities meaning the organisation relies on contractors (like Musk) to deliver its objectives
I have seen the future of universities. And it’s called General Luna
It’s a classic backpacker town on Sirgao island in the Philippines. It’s grown up around a very nice surf break called “cloud 9”
The pace is idyllic half the people are barefoot the variety of bars and pubs and pizza shacks and special ice bath 24/7 juice bars with free pedicures is amazing. The sea is blue the air is soft the beer is cheap and there’s 3000 young people
There are signs everywhere for “digital nomad” conferences but I don’t think it’s stressed out consultants who will be attracted here in the future. Its kids. As most careers are progressively closed down and university becomes increasingly pointless why will kids take on massive debt to go to uni? For the social experience? Meeting people?
Maybe. But they could come to General luna and have a very nice life for $100 a week and maybe learn remotely if they insist or just surf and screw and drink and they will do all that socialising on the beach instead of in freezing expensive places like Paris london or New York - or Oxford or heidelberg or Harvard
Universities are fucked. All our kids will want to go to General Luna
You won't can an accredited degree from somewhere like this and you won't gain a degree that has any component of lab work, or patient interactive training. The open university has for many years shown a different model of University education yet we still have 140+ Unis in the country that students attend in person. Its not right for everyone, but in general having more university educated people in a society seems to be better for all.
We also see just how catastrophically poor it is when we try to teach remotely. Students find it far harder to engage. Watch a lecture in your bedroom and within minutes you are distracted. Watch in a lecture theatre and for the most part you get for more out of it.
I think you miss what a university education is about. For pharmacy (the main course I teach on) the expectations and outcomes for the students are tightly controlled by the professional body. If you want to be a pharmacist you must attend and gain a degree from an accredited course.
The current funding model isn't perfect. I believe it was a half-way house between the state paying for everything and a full blown graduate tax. The idea being that a graduate tax is unlimited whereas the loans can be paid back and then you stop. In practice many loans are going to be written off, and the loans can be seen as a graduate tax with limits. Most students accept this. Perhaps its mostly our generation, the ones who were the 5-10% who went to Uni for free that complain most about the fees?
And we are back to professional qualifications vs abstract academic study.
My daughter, at UCL, tells me that while she attends all the lectures, many do not. Everything is available online. Many do their tutorials online as well.
What's the point in being at university if you do most of it online? (Unless you have special reasons for only being able to do it online).
UEFA has decided to move Maccabi Tel Aviv's upcoming Europa League match against Beşiktaş from Turkey to Hungary out of caution following the Amsterdam Pogrom
Standards are slipping. The Arrow Cross party would laugh their little black socks off at the term ‘Pogrom’ being applied to 5 violent, racist football fans being hospitalised overnight then released the next morning after they and their pals rioted in a foreign city.
Arizona Senate. Estimated 88 percent of votes have been counted.
Votes received and percentages of total vote Candidate Votes Pct. Ruben Gallego DEM 1,484,205 49.7 Kari Lake GOP 1,436,045 48.1 Eduardo Quintana GRN 63,582 2.1
Lead: 48,160
Arizona Senate. Estimated 88.9 percent of votes have been counted.
Votes received and percentages of total vote Candidate Votes Pct. Ruben Gallego DEM 1,500,850 49.8 Kari Lake GOP 1,449,464 48.1 Eduardo Quintana GRN 64,552 2.1
Lead: 51,386
Arizona Senate. Estimated 91.8 percent of votes have been counted.
Votes received and percentages of total vote Candidate Votes Pct. Ruben Gallego DEM 1,555,426 50.0 Kari Lake GOP 1,488,733 47.8 Eduardo Quintana GRN 67,961 2.2
Lead: 66,693
Arizona Senate. Estimated 93.1 percent of votes have been counted.
Votes received and percentages of total vote Candidate Votes Pct. Ruben Gallego DEM 1,574,597 50.0 Kari Lake GOP 1,505,837 47.8 Eduardo Quintana GRN 69,107 2.2
Lead 68,760
Arizona Senate. Estimated 94.6 percent of votes have been counted.
Votes received and percentages of total vote Candidate Votes Pct. Ruben Gallego DEM 1,600,923 50.0 Kari Lake GOP 1,528,297 47.8 Eduardo Quintana GRN 70,678 2.2
Lead 72,626.
Gallego (D) is projected to win by the Associated Press.
Arizona Senate. Estimated 95.8 percent of votes have been counted.
Votes received and percentages of total vote Candidate Votes Pct. Ruben Gallego DEM 1,618,527 50.0 Kari Lake GOP 1,545,791 47.8 Eduardo Quintana GRN 71,869 2.2
Lead 72,736
Gallego (D) is projected to win by the Associated Press.
One genuinely still in-play question is whether Trump will end up above or below 50% of the popular vote. It doesn't really matter but I hope it's below (1.68 fav atm) since that will mean more Americans voted against him than for him.
I think the chances are he'll go below 50% with all those votes still to come from the west coast.
What are the conflict of interest rules for US government jobs? How can Musk have a major government job while still benefitting financially from government contracts?
I'd sooner toss hundreds of political appointees out, but there we are.
A small step in taking back control from our unelected rulers.
Would you accept hereditary doctors? If not, then you shouldn't accept hereditary parliamentarians.
They are better than appointed parliamentarians
The promise was that they would be removed IF AND ONLY WHEN the Lords was properly reconstituted
Labour lied, once again, and are messing with the constitution for partisan advantage.
But, of course, we hear no complaints from the hypocrites on here who were so focused on voter ID and other changes made by the Tories
It was in their manifesto
Although Labour recognises the good work of many peers who scrutinise the government and improve the quality of legislation passed in Parliament, reform is long over-due and essential. Too many peers do not play a proper role in our democracy. Hereditary peers remain indefensible. And because appointments are for life, the second chamber of Parliament has become too big. The next Labour government will therefore bring about an immediate modernisation, by introducing legislation to remove the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. Labour will also introduce a mandatory retirement age. At the end of the Parliament in which a member reaches 80 years of age, they will be required to retire from the House of Lords
A few things about this:
"Hereditary peers remain indefensible"
Which is untrue, especially as I'd argue they're better than many of the appointees.
"...the second chamber of Parliament has become too big."
True. But they're getting rid of a part than cannot grow. The easy answer would be for this parliament to make no appointments. But we all know why that isn't going to happen.
"Labour will also introduce a mandatory retirement age. At the end of the Parliament in which a member reaches 80 years of age"
Why 80? Surely the state retirement age would be a better fit?
The HoL deserves better than to get yet another round of self-serving 'modernisations' that do nothing but help the ruling party. This will be bad for the HoL and bad for the country.
I disagree about State Retirement Age being the measure. I always thought the whole point of a reformed Lords would be that it would contain those who could bring a lifetime's experiences in work, charity, military or any other discipline to bear on amending law making and making it fit for purpose. I would actually go the other way and say that no one could become a member of the Lords until they had done 25-30 years in some discipline outside of politics.
Yes.
To me, 80 seems reasonable.
But then I've argued that before.
I don't think it's reasonable. 80 today is the same as 65 a few decades ago.
I may need to read this one in the Telegraph (unfortunately).
I'm not sure how the Bishop of Birkenhead became a "Top Bishop". She's a Suffragan (ie assistant Bishop - one Mrs Thatcher termed "little bishops"), who has been in post for 2 years.
(I'm not commenting on the Bishop, who has an interesting background as they all usually do - including a decade as a probation officer, or her suggestion, but mainly that the Telegraph are BS-merchants, as on any day with D in it.
Her views on same sex marriage would, if I have it right, normally lead to he being excoriated in that publication. Happy to be corrected on this last if the T supports same sex marriage blessings and same sex civil partnerships for clergy.)
Doesn’t she have some role in charge of safeguarding, hence why she’s been talking about this?
I've been quite open in my scepticism of the Telegraph, and have shown them inserting outright fabrications into their news reports where the CofE is concerned. Here my concern is that they are trying to leverage this into their culture war.
Having read the piece, +Birkenhead explicitly refused to mention names, so they pick out two from the report and say "these have been called upon to resign". No idea whether this is true - given the UK media, someone is probably outraged that the church mouse hasn't got a safeguarding certificate.
They mention two names: Rev Dr Jo Bailey Wells, who was personal chaplain to the ABC around 2013, and Rev Stephen Conway, Bp of Lincoln. Both are mentioned in the Makin Report and Appendices.
My take on the Telegraph is that they are trying to promote a narrative around what they call an "ecclesial blob", and have Welby and people and places they think are like him down as the villains, as part of their 'war on woke'. Others here will have views on this particular subject - especially perhaps those who have spoken about the Save the Parish organisation.
This piece by Madeleine Grant seems to me to be characteristic of that: https://archive.ph/8pEdu
+Julie Birkenhead is +Joanne Stepney's deputy on safeguarding matters, so it's reasonable for her to stick her crozier in.
And I think it's fair to say that there's a generational shift here- people have a valid point when they say "this wasn't so bad, by the standards of the time", but others have a much more valid point when they say "those standards were wrong, and the current ones are better".
That doesn't excuse the Telegraph doing what the Telegraph now does all the blooming time. The only irony being that, by exploiting safeguarding as a way to topple someone they find uncongenial, they are likely to end up with someone younger, woker and fundamentally even less agreeable.
I may need to read this one in the Telegraph (unfortunately).
I'm not sure how the Bishop of Birkenhead became a "Top Bishop". She's a Suffragan (ie assistant Bishop - one Mrs Thatcher termed "little bishops"), who has been in post for 2 years.
(I'm not commenting on the Bishop, who has an interesting background as they all usually do - including a decade as a probation officer, or her suggestion, but mainly that the Telegraph are BS-merchants, as on any day with D in it.
Her views on same sex marriage would, if I have it right, normally lead to he being excoriated in that publication. Happy to be corrected on this last if the T supports same sex marriage blessings and same sex civil partnerships for clergy.)
Doesn’t she have some role in charge of safeguarding, hence why she’s been talking about this?
I've been quite open in my scepticism of the Telegraph, and have shown them inserting outright fabrications into their news reports where the CofE is concerned. Here my concern is that they are trying to leverage this into their culture war.
Having read the piece, +Birkenhead explicitly refused to mention names, so they pick out two from the report and say "these have been called upon to resign". No idea whether this is true - given the UK media, someone is probably outraged that the church mouse hasn't got a safeguarding certificate, and have called for the mice carved by Robert Thompson to resign.
They mention two names: Rev Dr Jo Bailey Wells, who was personal chaplain to the ABC around 2013, and Rev Stephen Conway, Bp of Lincoln. Both are mentioned in the Makin Report and Appendices.
My take on the Telegraph is that they are trying to promote a narrative around what they call an "ecclesial blob", and have Welby and people and places they think are like him down as the villains, as part of their 'war on woke'. Others here will have views on this particular subject - especially perhaps those who have spoken about the Save the Parish organisation.
This piece by Madeleine Grant seems to me to be characteristic of that: https://archive.ph/8pEdu
The more serious concern here is that causes are not purely about people and opinions, they are about systems, organisations and cultures - and apply across the piece. Making it sectarian undermines addressing broader questions.
Save the Parish is an excellent organisation.
Their message of returning more resources from the C of E's vast investment fund from the centre and Lambeth and dioceses to Parishes is very sensible.
I would also appoint a sensible woman as next Archbishop like the Bishop of Chelmsford or Bishop of Newcastle
Arizona Senate. Estimated 88 percent of votes have been counted.
Votes received and percentages of total vote Candidate Votes Pct. Ruben Gallego DEM 1,484,205 49.7 Kari Lake GOP 1,436,045 48.1 Eduardo Quintana GRN 63,582 2.1
Lead: 48,160
Arizona Senate. Estimated 88.9 percent of votes have been counted.
Votes received and percentages of total vote Candidate Votes Pct. Ruben Gallego DEM 1,500,850 49.8 Kari Lake GOP 1,449,464 48.1 Eduardo Quintana GRN 64,552 2.1
Lead: 51,386
Arizona Senate. Estimated 91.8 percent of votes have been counted.
Votes received and percentages of total vote Candidate Votes Pct. Ruben Gallego DEM 1,555,426 50.0 Kari Lake GOP 1,488,733 47.8 Eduardo Quintana GRN 67,961 2.2
Lead: 66,693
Arizona Senate. Estimated 93.1 percent of votes have been counted.
Votes received and percentages of total vote Candidate Votes Pct. Ruben Gallego DEM 1,574,597 50.0 Kari Lake GOP 1,505,837 47.8 Eduardo Quintana GRN 69,107 2.2
Lead 68,760
Arizona Senate. Estimated 94.6 percent of votes have been counted.
Votes received and percentages of total vote Candidate Votes Pct. Ruben Gallego DEM 1,600,923 50.0 Kari Lake GOP 1,528,297 47.8 Eduardo Quintana GRN 70,678 2.2
Lead 72,626.
Gallego (D) is projected to win by the Associated Press.
Arizona Senate. Estimated 95.8 percent of votes have been counted.
Votes received and percentages of total vote Candidate Votes Pct. Ruben Gallego DEM 1,618,527 50.0 Kari Lake GOP 1,545,791 47.8 Eduardo Quintana GRN 71,869 2.2
Lead 72,736
Gallego (D) is projected to win by the Associated Press.
One genuinely still in-play question is whether Trump will end up above or below 50% of the popular vote. It doesn't really matter but I hope it's below (1.68 fav atm) since that will mean more Americans voted against him than for him.
I think the chances are he'll go below 50% with all those votes still to come from the west coast.
The feeblest of straws but let us hope so. It is the fav now.
What are the conflict of interest rules for US government jobs? How can Musk have a major government job while still benefitting financially from government contracts?
I have been busy and still have stuff to do so will respond later to some of the questions and comments.
The Bill has far more in it than I have been able to explain in this header. I will only say this: reading and understanding it and the relevant law, cases, existing guidance, evidence etc will take one person way more than 5 hours. The idea that the principle of this can be debated and voted for in 5 hours is for the birds. Bluntly it is dishonest and suggests to me - for reasons I will explain later - an attempt to smuggle through a measure which will be used to bring in euthanasia and not simply assistance to those wishing to commit suicide. I react very strongly against the the intellectual and moral dishonesty involved in claiming that a morally freighted decision is simply a kind box ticking measure which no-one should have any concerns about.
Arizona Senate. Estimated 88 percent of votes have been counted.
Votes received and percentages of total vote Candidate Votes Pct. Ruben Gallego DEM 1,484,205 49.7 Kari Lake GOP 1,436,045 48.1 Eduardo Quintana GRN 63,582 2.1
Lead: 48,160
Arizona Senate. Estimated 88.9 percent of votes have been counted.
Votes received and percentages of total vote Candidate Votes Pct. Ruben Gallego DEM 1,500,850 49.8 Kari Lake GOP 1,449,464 48.1 Eduardo Quintana GRN 64,552 2.1
Lead: 51,386
Arizona Senate. Estimated 91.8 percent of votes have been counted.
Votes received and percentages of total vote Candidate Votes Pct. Ruben Gallego DEM 1,555,426 50.0 Kari Lake GOP 1,488,733 47.8 Eduardo Quintana GRN 67,961 2.2
Lead: 66,693
Arizona Senate. Estimated 93.1 percent of votes have been counted.
Votes received and percentages of total vote Candidate Votes Pct. Ruben Gallego DEM 1,574,597 50.0 Kari Lake GOP 1,505,837 47.8 Eduardo Quintana GRN 69,107 2.2
Lead 68,760
Arizona Senate. Estimated 94.6 percent of votes have been counted.
Votes received and percentages of total vote Candidate Votes Pct. Ruben Gallego DEM 1,600,923 50.0 Kari Lake GOP 1,528,297 47.8 Eduardo Quintana GRN 70,678 2.2
Lead 72,626.
Gallego (D) is projected to win by the Associated Press.
Arizona Senate. Estimated 95.8 percent of votes have been counted.
Votes received and percentages of total vote Candidate Votes Pct. Ruben Gallego DEM 1,618,527 50.0 Kari Lake GOP 1,545,791 47.8 Eduardo Quintana GRN 71,869 2.2
Lead 72,736
Gallego (D) is projected to win by the Associated Press.
One genuinely still in-play question is whether Trump will end up above or below 50% of the popular vote. It doesn't really matter but I hope it's below (1.68 fav atm) since that will mean more Americans voted against him than for him.
I think the chances are he'll go below 50% with all those votes still to come from the west coast.
Basically, a third voted for him, a third voted for Harris and a third didn't vote. However, a good President can reach beyond those who voted for him to unite the nation!
I have been busy and still have stuff to do so will respond later to some of the questions and comments.
The Bill has far more in it than I have been able to explain in this header. I will only say this: reading and understanding it and the relevant law, cases, existing guidance, evidence etc will take one person way more than 5 hours. The idea that the principle of this can be debated and voted for in 5 hours is for the birds. Bluntly it is dishonest and suggests to me - for reasons I will explain later - an attempt to smuggle through a measure which will be used to bring in euthanasia and not simply assistance to those wishing to commit suicide. I react very strongly against the the intellectual and moral dishonesty involved in claiming that a morally freighted decision is simply a kind box ticking measure which no-one should have any concerns about.
Something as important as this ought to have a debate, or series of debates, going on for several days, at least.
I may need to read this one in the Telegraph (unfortunately).
I'm not sure how the Bishop of Birkenhead became a "Top Bishop". She's a Suffragan (ie assistant Bishop - one Mrs Thatcher termed "little bishops"), who has been in post for 2 years.
(I'm not commenting on the Bishop, who has an interesting background as they all usually do - including a decade as a probation officer, or her suggestion, but mainly that the Telegraph are BS-merchants, as on any day with D in it.
Her views on same sex marriage would, if I have it right, normally lead to he being excoriated in that publication. Happy to be corrected on this last if the T supports same sex marriage blessings and same sex civil partnerships for clergy.)
Doesn’t she have some role in charge of safeguarding, hence why she’s been talking about this?
It would be hard to imagine, with the duties of a Bishop being what they are, that she doesn't have a legal responsibility for safeguarding.
She was presented on Today as deputy head of safeguarding for the CoE.
Thank-you. That helps clarify.
It doesn't make her a "top bishop", however - it makes her Deputy Bishop for Safeguarding.
Why can't the f*cking Telegraph just report the selection of facts needed to make their report a good representation of what they are covering?
What are the conflict of interest rules for US government jobs? How can Musk have a major government job while still benefitting financially from government contracts?
Good morning
Unfortunately Trump makes his own rules and for the next 4 years
I have been busy and still have stuff to do so will respond later to some of the questions and comments.
The Bill has far more in it than I have been able to explain in this header. I will only say this: reading and understanding it and the relevant law, cases, existing guidance, evidence etc will take one person way more than 5 hours. The idea that the principle of this can be debated and voted for in 5 hours is for the birds. Bluntly it is dishonest and suggests to me - for reasons I will explain later - an attempt to smuggle through a measure which will be used to bring in euthanasia and not simply assistance to those wishing to commit suicide. I react very strongly against the the intellectual and moral dishonesty involved in claiming that a morally freighted decision is simply a kind box ticking measure which no-one should have any concerns about.
Something as important as this ought to have a debate, or series of debates, going on for several days, at least.
It's why I want Chope and co to talk it out. That would allow time for a proper debate before it returned to Parliament and proper debates once it returned to Parliament next year...
Comments
I'd far rather have some British hereditaries who have been tied to their land and communities for centuries, have a family tradition of service and have an interest in the good governance of the nation, than a Russian plutocrat or dodgy Labour donor.
Those who desire to die should be provided a dignified way to die. Which doesn't involve starvation or dehydration.
Those who desire to live should be provided all the medicine and other treatments they require.
Nobody should be put on a "pathway" not of their choosing and except in the exceptionally rare circumstances where medically required denying food or water is never appropriate.
But they certainly make a lot of law better and more coherent even if they have some failings. The Lords should be an entirely appointed non political chamber with appointments made from across society by a properly independent body. And no it should not be based on what divides us but on what unites us. The desire for good law.
For every job eliminated something else will rapidly take its place.
@visegrad24
BREAKING:
UEFA has decided to move Maccabi Tel Aviv's upcoming Europa League match against Beşiktaş from Turkey to Hungary out of caution following the Amsterdam Pogrom
No taxation without representation, and all that.
Do you see 'better' as just cutting the budget; or as having a cohesive and working society, or something else?
Of course you are a left liberal, also precisely the type of person US voters voted Trump for purely to annoy the likes of you.
In the culture wars the likes of you are everything conservatives and rightwingers despise
As I think you have argued it is going to be much easier automating a writer, accountant, lawyer than it is to learn how to load a dishwasher. When you buy a new dishwasher there will be a lot of broken plates before the robot cracks it.
I find the coercion argument the weaker of the two: coercion can be legislated against, as it is in other walks of life. But we don’t outlaw emotional pressure. There’s plenty of that in areas like abortion, social drinking, not being vaccinated and so on. At the end of the day if the patient knows what they are doing and is demonstrably able to make their own decision then they should be helped to do so.
Decisions made on a patient’s behalf when they are not in a state to decide themselves are different. That’s the Shipman scenario, and I think much more care is needed. Perhaps a mixture of statement of wishes by the patient before it’s too late, and some sort of double lock doctor and family sign off, would help.
If Germany wants not to have a functional military, they can rent one. Some kind of measure of GDP vs land area, with prices for nuclear deterrence, border guarantees.
"So, do you want to upgrade your package from Basic Existential, to Deluxe Protect? If you buy Deluxe Protect this month, we also throw in a years Protect Aboard - air cover and logistic support for invading countries up to 500 miles away."
Those Greater Manchester bishops in full:
Manchester, Middleton, Bolton, Stockport (under Chester, as is Birkenhead).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bishops_in_the_Church_of_England?wprov=sfla1
- "It own itself?"
- "Swiss citizen, but T-A own the basic software and the mainframe."
- "That's a good one," the construct said. "Like, I own your brain and what you know, but your thoughts have Swiss citizenship. Sure. Lotsa luck, AI."
Though there are animals which are still neither used as human livestock or are our pets
I’m sure Musk could turn his hand to something like that. Once NASA has been abolished I’m sure it’s only a matter of time before he acquires the Pentagon and kick starts its new era in the private sector.
They can now absolutely load dishwashers. Slowly, but they can do it. In a year they will be brilliant
This is the frightening thing on all fronts: the speed of advance is not slowing, if anything it is accelerating
Scary times. Exciting but scary
They must be shown that eliminating most human jobs won't come without cost to their profits either
The people saying that "He will abolish NASA" seem to be those in favour of SLS/Orion. Which indicates their thinking.
If it was, they would stop researching and trying to profit from it themselves.
(ISTR one ML company head actually said something like "we are moral, but new entrants might not be.")
First, is staff with partners working outside of the university.
Second is that it's essentially a service sector import on the balance of payments. The UK sends money to Thailand for university education. Perhaps it's cheaper then doing the university education here, but the balance of payments is already dire, and at some point Britain has to get serious about improving it.
Eg I’d rather be Jewish in Krakow than Bradford, which is quite astonishing, in context
A rare thing on politicalbetting where one listens to everyone and still struggles to make up one's own mind.
EDIT: I think university expansions missed a trick here, to a certain type of student, coastal unis could have been ideal and dovetail well with summer tourism. Imagine if the Uni sector had developed Clacton, Yarmouth, Cleethorpes etc etc rather than expanding more in county towns.
(*) Except in certain cases.
Turks are highly anti semitic, in my experience
Ugly, but true
Having heard a member of medical staff advocate my mother being killed off and seen my father neglected (while surrounded by medical staff), I have my doubts about the purity of the ethical and moral decision making of some people.
Perhaps the reason I made such a flippant throwaway early remark in response to @Cyclefree’s excellent threader is because I am facing this dilemma RIGHT NOW
My dear beloved mother is demented, and getting worse, and she’s 88, and she won’t get better and - I’ll spare you further deets - right now I’d put her life quality at somewhere south of zero. She would be Better Off Dead. That’s brutal and hard to write - especially as major medical advances are coming, but they aren’t gonna be the cavalry on the hill for her, and what I say is true
Worse, she always said to me, when younger “If I ever get like that, just take me out with a hammer, please” - and she meant it
Now she is LIKE THAT
So I see all the arguments for Assisted Dying and yet something in me rebels, spiritually. I am not sure these feelings can be reconciled
I definitely think Parliament needs a long long debate on this, I abhor the sense of this being rushed through “because of Esther Rantzen”. When did we vote for Rule by Esther?
The lead Bishop for safeguarding is the Bishop of Stepney:
https://survivingchurch.org/2023/01/20/new-lead-bishop-for-safeguarding-questions/
I've been quite open in my scepticism of the Telegraph, and have shown them inserting outright fabrications into their news reports where the CofE is concerned. Here my concern is that they are trying to leverage this into their culture war.
https://archive.ph/wCPQ7
Having read the piece, +Birkenhead explicitly refused to mention names, so they pick out two from the report and say "these have been called upon to resign". No idea whether this is true - given the UK media, someone is probably outraged that the church mouse hasn't got a safeguarding certificate, and have called for the mice carved by Robert Thompson to resign.
They mention two names: Rev Dr Jo Bailey Wells, who was personal chaplain to the ABC around 2013, and Rev Stephen Conway, Bp of Lincoln. Both are mentioned in the Makin Report and Appendices.
To get a handle on this, we need to be reading the report itself, as well as the cherries picked by media from it:
https://www.churchofengland.org/media/press-releases/independent-review-churchs-handling-smyth-case-published
My take on the Telegraph is that they are trying to promote a narrative around what they call an "ecclesial blob", and have Welby and people and places they think are like him down as the villains, as part of their 'war on woke'. Others here will have views on this particular subject - especially perhaps those who have spoken about the Save the Parish organisation.
This piece by Madeleine Grant seems to me to be characteristic of that:
https://archive.ph/8pEdu
The more serious concern here is that causes are not purely about people and opinions, they are about systems, organisations and cultures - and apply across the piece. Making it sectarian undermines addressing broader questions.
Anyway, I'm jumping back into a thread late. As has been discussed upthread, the DoE has various roles. The idea these all constitute "pushing the DEI agenda" is naif.
Churchill proposed doing away with the upper house altogether, with the scrutiny and revising functions replaced by the appointment of lay members to HoC committees.
I wonder if that's an idea that might be worth revisiting?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwJkFWKH18s
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/consumer-affairs/why-thousands-are-fleeing-to-scotland-you-should-too/?s=09
But then I've argued that before.
Did legacy media lose it for Harris, and new media win it for Trump? Marina and Richard take us through how both campaigns used the media as tools to put their messages across and support their campaigns.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8-ZW3IZFMY
The Rest Is Entertainment.
And I think it's fair to say that there's a generational shift here- people have a valid point when they say "this wasn't so bad, by the standards of the time", but others have a much more valid point when they say "those standards were wrong, and the current ones are better".
That doesn't excuse the Telegraph doing what the Telegraph now does all the blooming time. The only irony being that, by exploiting safeguarding as a way to topple someone they find uncongenial, they are likely to end up with someone younger, woker and fundamentally even less agreeable.
Their message of returning more resources from the C of E's vast investment fund from the centre and Lambeth and dioceses to Parishes is very sensible.
I would also appoint a sensible woman as next Archbishop like the Bishop of Chelmsford or Bishop of Newcastle
The Bill has far more in it than I have been able to explain in this header. I will only say this: reading and understanding it and the relevant law, cases, existing guidance, evidence etc will take one person way more than 5 hours. The idea that the principle of this can be debated and voted for in 5 hours is for the birds. Bluntly it is dishonest and suggests to me - for reasons I will explain later - an attempt to smuggle through a measure which will be used to bring in euthanasia and not simply assistance to those wishing to commit suicide. I react very strongly against the the intellectual and moral dishonesty involved in claiming that a morally freighted decision is simply a kind box ticking measure which no-one should have any concerns about.
It doesn't make her a "top bishop", however - it makes her Deputy Bishop for Safeguarding.
Why can't the f*cking Telegraph just report the selection of facts needed to make their report a good representation of what they are covering?
We will stop posting from our official editorial accounts on the platform, but X users can still share our articles
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2024/nov/13/why-the-guardian-is-no-longer-posting-on-x
Unfortunately Trump makes his own rules and for the next 4 years