Saydnaya Prison sounds like Tuol Sleng, under Comrade Duch.
Different pedigree.
As Assad's prisons open, another mind-boggling fact to recall. After '45, Syria took in many senior nazis and weaponry. Among them: Alois Brunner--Eichmann's lieutenant. Alois Brunner designed Assad's systems. He died only in 2010.
The Syrian regime(s), right from post independence, were considered the most paranoid and nasty in the area. Even by the standards of the other dictatorships.
Remember that just yesterday, a poster was saying that we should have supported Assad in the civil war.
To be fair, Assad used chemical weapons against civilians. Which are apparently more merciful.
That is the defence of Churchill's call for chemical weapons to be used against Iraqi citizens back in the day: that tear gas is kinder than bullets and bombs. If you want to boycott £5 notes, I can help with that.
Tear gas is more merciful than bullets and bombs. Which is why police forces around he world use it.
Chlorine, Sulphur Mustard and Sarin aren’t.
Tear gas is no fun. Any other PBers been tear-gassed?
But I'm glad the Italian cops weren't using mustard gas.
Pepper spray also seems to be somewhat unpleasant too.
Some PBers may recall that I work with capsaicin (the main agent in pepper spray) and related compounds. I made a stupid error last year when washing up some glassware that contained one of these compounds and rubbed my forehead and eyes with a the glove that was in the washing up water.
Thirty mins of not being able to open my eye and rather nasty burning sensation later...
Kemi's speech to the Washington think tank felt like it was written by an intern: just a list of hackneyed right-wing bugbears that had been overheard over the years and only vaguely understood. And this from the supposed warrior princess of the anti-Woke crusade. Nothing new or imaginative. No vim or intellectual heft. Disappointing.
Actually it was quite good. She gets the menace of the cultural left and how it tries in Gramscian fashion to take over the institutions but without the OTT style of Trump or De Santis. What can she do about the practical issues of the economy, public services etc? That remains the question. But what does Farage really offer? And Starmer thinks he can fix it without raising taxes on 'working people'.
Some helpful (I think) advice for Badenoch:
1. Jump on the 'crush crime' agenda - this is a good (potentially amazing) prospectus from the man who got XL Bully dogs banned. It is a very suitable agenda for Badenoch's 'neither left nor right' approach is it is a thoughtful set of policies with no overtones of profiling, and very little 'anger', but a lot of potential solutions. https://youtu.be/_4EfwqQuN7I?feature=shared
Both blights on the country, both reasonable soft-right spokespeople, both leading into good, effective changes that Kemi can claim she has 'engineered'.
Get some policies and stop being scared of the ball.
Off topic, but on Badenoch. When she was elected I thought she may be a genuinely formidable opponent to the left/centre, and a breath of fresh air for the Conservative Party. I think I was wrong. The evidence is stacking up against her. I've just carefully read her Washington speech, and come to the conclusion that it's awful. Intellectually incoherent. All over the place. Far too focused on culture wars. Hints of conspiracy theory. No real attempt to offer solutions to the challenges we, or the right, faces. It's as if she's arguing that the liberal left has been running the UK for the last 14 years - she's basically disavowing her own party. I know it has been linked to before, but if anybody's interested it's here: https://conservativehome.com/2024/12/07/if-we-dont-defend-our-culture-who-will-badenochs-washington-speech-in-full/ I'd be interested to know what our right-wing PBers think of it.
Yes, quite a poor speech, and littered with typos, does nobody check these things before they're published? Some ludicrous stuff in there, like the idea that the left has no concept of liberty! Where does she get that from? Idiotic stuff. The Tories really screwed up offering the members a choice between her and the loathsome Jenrick.
When libertarianism had a brief spike in the U.K., I recall a brilliantly funny column in the Guardian.
Apparently, liberty of the individual was Bad Libertarianism. Whereas handing over control to the benevolent government was Good Libertarianism. So good in fact, that it was the real Libertarianism.
There is a chunk of the British left, who do indeed, see little value in rights outside what is granted by The State.
Hence the comic inability to understand what was wrong with the previous, insane, attempt at ID cards.
I guess her ludicrous caricature is more widely believed than I thought. It's a patently absurd idea, as even a glancing acquaintance with the history of Western political thought would demonstrate. Is there a single example of a personal freedom that we enjoy that was won by the political right in this country?
It’s about the belief of where those rights are possessed. Either granted by a benevolent government, or inherent to the individual. It’s a fairly major dividing line between Liberal Democrat’s and Socialists, for example.
But in practice the rights that an individual possesses inherently are of limited use unless whatever government the individual lives under is prepared to protect them.
People are motivated by belief. If people believe that they possess inherent rights then they are more likely to fight for them and insist that a government codifies those rights into law.
It also shapes the way those laws are written. Whether it's in terms of things that the state is not allowed to do, or in terms of what a citizen is allowed to do. That makes quite a difference, particularly when there's a gap in the law and a court is asked to interpret.
It's a belief I share. Universal human rights. I also recognise the importance of government in enshrining and enforcing them. Malmesbury's characterisation of it as the one vs the other doesn't really scan for me. It's more of a theory vs practice situation.
But then again, you couldn't see what was wrong with the ID card proposal.
That it clashed so severely, with later European law, should be of interest to you. The convenience of the state was quite explicitly made secondary to the rights of the individual.
The ID card calculus is a cost risk benefit one. The benefits are greater the more it's integrated but so are the costs and the risks. I'm not particularly gagging for one but I wouldn't rule it out on principle.
Even if it meant having a major government system incompatible with European law?
As a start, if you start putting European citizens into such a system, you will spark a diplomatic collision.
On the practicalities - note that no European country (and no democracy around the world) requires everything linked up like that, with unfettered access. And that it would be illegal in many of them.
Now the Ukrainians have got F16s is there anything they can do about the Russian bases in Syria? They would need to fly over Nato airspace and they may have their hands full as it is. We'll see if Turkey allow the Russians to fly over their own airspace (I hope not) but it would be seriously infuriating if they were given permission to and the Ukrainians weren't.
Why would the Ukrainians want to risk valuable aircraft and expend munitions and fuel to spread the war to another country?
It’s a shame the rebels are letting the Russians leave with lorry loads of their equipment, and not just giving them a bus ride to the airport.
They've already captured a shitload. I doubt the Russians will leave with a huge amount of valuable kit. And anyway, what's far more important to whomever takes power is the maintenance of some kind of order.
As I noted earlier, they've at the very least postponed taking brutal revenge on members of the regime, and are using those that remain to hand things over intact.
Early indications are that it's a less chaotic fall of a regime than the US defeat of Saddam in 2003.
Looks like a chunk of Team Assad cut deals with various factions of the rebels, doesn't it?
It's certainly alleged the Syrian PM did a deal.
"The leader of the main armed opposition group in Syria says former Prime Minister Mohammed Ghazi al-Jalali will supervise state institutions until they are handed over, as fighters declared an end to Bashar al-Assad’s 24-year rule."
Syria's on-the-ground transition is underway -- as #HTS leader Jolani, Salvation Gov't PM Mohammed al-Bashir & outgoing #Assad-appointed PM Mohammed al-Jalali are meeting in #Damascus.
"On December 4 2024, al-Bashir travelled to Aleppo to supervise the reopening of government offices, praising employees of the previous government who returned to work."
Off topic, but on Badenoch. When she was elected I thought she may be a genuinely formidable opponent to the left/centre, and a breath of fresh air for the Conservative Party. I think I was wrong. The evidence is stacking up against her. I've just carefully read her Washington speech, and come to the conclusion that it's awful. Intellectually incoherent. All over the place. Far too focused on culture wars. Hints of conspiracy theory. No real attempt to offer solutions to the challenges we, or the right, faces. It's as if she's arguing that the liberal left has been running the UK for the last 14 years - she's basically disavowing her own party. I know it has been linked to before, but if anybody's interested it's here: https://conservativehome.com/2024/12/07/if-we-dont-defend-our-culture-who-will-badenochs-washington-speech-in-full/ I'd be interested to know what our right-wing PBers think of it.
Yes, quite a poor speech, and littered with typos, does nobody check these things before they're published? Some ludicrous stuff in there, like the idea that the left has no concept of liberty! Where does she get that from? Idiotic stuff. The Tories really screwed up offering the members a choice between her and the loathsome Jenrick.
When libertarianism had a brief spike in the U.K., I recall a brilliantly funny column in the Guardian.
Apparently, liberty of the individual was Bad Libertarianism. Whereas handing over control to the benevolent government was Good Libertarianism. So good in fact, that it was the real Libertarianism.
There is a chunk of the British left, who do indeed, see little value in rights outside what is granted by The State.
Hence the comic inability to understand what was wrong with the previous, insane, attempt at ID cards.
I guess her ludicrous caricature is more widely believed than I thought. It's a patently absurd idea, as even a glancing acquaintance with the history of Western political thought would demonstrate. Is there a single example of a personal freedom that we enjoy that was won by the political right in this country?
It’s about the belief of where those rights are possessed. Either granted by a benevolent government, or inherent to the individual. It’s a fairly major dividing line between Liberal Democrat’s and Socialists, for example.
But in practice the rights that an individual possesses inherently are of limited use unless whatever government the individual lives under is prepared to protect them.
To an extent. Constitutionalism has strong limits in the practical sphere. However, giving the state untrammelled power and expecting it not to be abused... it has failed every time it has been tried.
That's a different point. Also it's a general point. Untrammelled power in the hands of anybody or anything is prone to abuse. Look at Musk.
No, it isn't a different point.
If you build systems that give such untrammelled power then it will be used. If you build system precisely so that they don't, then it can't.
For example, the ID card system was supposed to link all government data to a single ID. And provide all of that data to anyone with access to the system. So, someone could key @kinabalu into the system, and get your tax record, your medical records, spent convictions, every time you had had contact with the police, your DNA (if recorded)..... Everything. What do you think the Reform government might do with that? Yes, indeed.
Comically, there were complaints within the top of the civil service. So they added a special segregated database for Important People. Where access would be blocked.
The latter is the model that is used within HMRC. Most people's records are in the normal database, accessible by everyone with any sort of access. And then there's a special database for the Gary Linekars and Boris Johnsons. The temptation to have a peek would be too great for most people.
I think in Norway they sort of get around this problem - at least for tax records - by making everyone's tax records publicly available.
In systems that are GDPR (and other things) compliant, only those with a specific reason to see data should have access. Access must be logged. And only the data relevant to the enquiry should be provided.
Access is logged, I believe. But HMRC would lose most of its staff if everyone nosy enough to glance at their neighbour's tax records was sacked.
There's something about the difficulty of looking up records in paper-based systems that has something to recommend it, in making this sort of low-level abuse more difficult.
There are things you could do to make it less likely. Throw a bit of grit into the system. Restrict access geographically. Require manual approval for a small percentage of access requests.
Well designed, modern systems do not grant universal access to everyone. That's how we do it in the banks - otherwise we would be non-compliant.
Off topic, but on Badenoch. When she was elected I thought she may be a genuinely formidable opponent to the left/centre, and a breath of fresh air for the Conservative Party. I think I was wrong. The evidence is stacking up against her. I've just carefully read her Washington speech, and come to the conclusion that it's awful. Intellectually incoherent. All over the place. Far too focused on culture wars. Hints of conspiracy theory. No real attempt to offer solutions to the challenges we, or the right, faces. It's as if she's arguing that the liberal left has been running the UK for the last 14 years - she's basically disavowing her own party. I know it has been linked to before, but if anybody's interested it's here: https://conservativehome.com/2024/12/07/if-we-dont-defend-our-culture-who-will-badenochs-washington-speech-in-full/ I'd be interested to know what our right-wing PBers think of it.
Yes, quite a poor speech, and littered with typos, does nobody check these things before they're published? Some ludicrous stuff in there, like the idea that the left has no concept of liberty! Where does she get that from? Idiotic stuff. The Tories really screwed up offering the members a choice between her and the loathsome Jenrick.
When libertarianism had a brief spike in the U.K., I recall a brilliantly funny column in the Guardian.
Apparently, liberty of the individual was Bad Libertarianism. Whereas handing over control to the benevolent government was Good Libertarianism. So good in fact, that it was the real Libertarianism.
There is a chunk of the British left, who do indeed, see little value in rights outside what is granted by The State.
Hence the comic inability to understand what was wrong with the previous, insane, attempt at ID cards.
I guess her ludicrous caricature is more widely believed than I thought. It's a patently absurd idea, as even a glancing acquaintance with the history of Western political thought would demonstrate. Is there a single example of a personal freedom that we enjoy that was won by the political right in this country?
It’s about the belief of where those rights are possessed. Either granted by a benevolent government, or inherent to the individual. It’s a fairly major dividing line between Liberal Democrat’s and Socialists, for example.
But in practice the rights that an individual possesses inherently are of limited use unless whatever government the individual lives under is prepared to protect them.
To an extent. Constitutionalism has strong limits in the practical sphere. However, giving the state untrammelled power and expecting it not to be abused... it has failed every time it has been tried.
That's a different point. Also it's a general point. Untrammelled power in the hands of anybody or anything is prone to abuse. Look at Musk.
No, it isn't a different point.
If you build systems that give such untrammelled power then it will be used. If you build system precisely so that they don't, then it can't.
For example, the ID card system was supposed to link all government data to a single ID. And provide all of that data to anyone with access to the system. So, someone could key @kinabalu into the system, and get your tax record, your medical records, spent convictions, every time you had had contact with the police, your DNA (if recorded)..... Everything. What do you think the Reform government might do with that? Yes, indeed.
Comically, there were complaints within the top of the civil service. So they added a special segregated database for Important People. Where access would be blocked.
The latter is the model that is used within HMRC. Most people's records are in the normal database, accessible by everyone with any sort of access. And then there's a special database for the Gary Linekars and Boris Johnsons. The temptation to have a peek would be too great for most people.
I think in Norway they sort of get around this problem - at least for tax records - by making everyone's tax records publicly available.
In systems that are GDPR (and other things) compliant, only those with a specific reason to see data should have access. Access must be logged. And only the data relevant to the enquiry should be provided.
Access is logged, I believe. But HMRC would lose most of its staff if everyone nosy enough to glance at their neighbour's tax records was sacked.
There's something about the difficulty of looking up records in paper-based systems that has something to recommend it, in making this sort of low-level abuse more difficult.
There are things you could do to make it less likely. Throw a bit of grit into the system. Restrict access geographically. Require manual approval for a small percentage of access requests.
Any decent database should have access logs, especially one containing personal information.
There’s regular stories of police officers being disciplined for data protection breaches, usually stuff like looking up current or former partners on the computer. For any such national database you should have a small fraud team, who spend their days going through the logs looking for suspicious activity or patterns of behaviour.
This is probably how self-driving comes about. They just run trials in more and more cities, as the early adopters (SF; LA etc) progress.
Self-driving cars are being tested in southeast Ohio, Miami, and Austin. Many more cities are becoming hubs for trial and error, and this only means one thing: we’ll slowly start transitioning from Human-driven to human-less drivers. https://x.com/PeterDiamandis/status/1866090873135464890
The hard problem - a universal driving machine - is bypassed.
I hope Assad has been allocated a flat in the Projects. Perhaps next to Snowdon.
Sounds like Snowdon wont be there too much longer.
It went last year. Its now verboten to call it anything other than Yr Wyddfa, because reasons. Apparently.
There is an analogy between the renaming of Welsh National Parks (though it works better for Brecon Beacons) and voting for the populist right: Both are reliant on the argument of "this is actually sub-optimal for me - but it will REALLY annoy my opponents".
Kemi's speech to the Washington think tank felt like it was written by an intern: just a list of hackneyed right-wing bugbears that had been overheard over the years and only vaguely understood. And this from the supposed warrior princess of the anti-Woke crusade. Nothing new or imaginative. No vim or intellectual heft. Disappointing.
Actually it was quite good. She gets the menace of the cultural left and how it tries in Gramscian fashion to take over the institutions but without the OTT style of Trump or De Santis. What can she do about the practical issues of the economy, public services etc? That remains the question. But what does Farage really offer? And Starmer thinks he can fix it without raising taxes on 'working people'.
Some helpful (I think) advice for Badenoch:
1. Jump on the 'crush crime' agenda - this is a good (potentially amazing) prospectus from the man who got XL Bully dogs banned. It is a very suitable agenda for Badenoch's 'neither left nor right' approach is it is a thoughtful set of policies with no overtones of profiling, and very little 'anger', but a lot of potential solutions. https://youtu.be/_4EfwqQuN7I?feature=shared
Both blights on the country, both reasonable soft-right spokespeople, both leading into good, effective changes that Kemi can claim she has 'engineered'.
Get some policies and stop being scared of the ball.
You can't do #2. "Not invented here". The Civil Service has to create everything ab initio, because the UK is unique, or something.
Off topic, but on Badenoch. When she was elected I thought she may be a genuinely formidable opponent to the left/centre, and a breath of fresh air for the Conservative Party. I think I was wrong. The evidence is stacking up against her. I've just carefully read her Washington speech, and come to the conclusion that it's awful. Intellectually incoherent. All over the place. Far too focused on culture wars. Hints of conspiracy theory. No real attempt to offer solutions to the challenges we, or the right, faces. It's as if she's arguing that the liberal left has been running the UK for the last 14 years - she's basically disavowing her own party. I know it has been linked to before, but if anybody's interested it's here: https://conservativehome.com/2024/12/07/if-we-dont-defend-our-culture-who-will-badenochs-washington-speech-in-full/ I'd be interested to know what our right-wing PBers think of it.
Yes, quite a poor speech, and littered with typos, does nobody check these things before they're published? Some ludicrous stuff in there, like the idea that the left has no concept of liberty! Where does she get that from? Idiotic stuff. The Tories really screwed up offering the members a choice between her and the loathsome Jenrick.
When libertarianism had a brief spike in the U.K., I recall a brilliantly funny column in the Guardian.
Apparently, liberty of the individual was Bad Libertarianism. Whereas handing over control to the benevolent government was Good Libertarianism. So good in fact, that it was the real Libertarianism.
There is a chunk of the British left, who do indeed, see little value in rights outside what is granted by The State.
Hence the comic inability to understand what was wrong with the previous, insane, attempt at ID cards.
I guess her ludicrous caricature is more widely believed than I thought. It's a patently absurd idea, as even a glancing acquaintance with the history of Western political thought would demonstrate. Is there a single example of a personal freedom that we enjoy that was won by the political right in this country?
It’s about the belief of where those rights are possessed. Either granted by a benevolent government, or inherent to the individual. It’s a fairly major dividing line between Liberal Democrat’s and Socialists, for example.
But in practice the rights that an individual possesses inherently are of limited use unless whatever government the individual lives under is prepared to protect them.
People are motivated by belief. If people believe that they possess inherent rights then they are more likely to fight for them and insist that a government codifies those rights into law.
It also shapes the way those laws are written. Whether it's in terms of things that the state is not allowed to do, or in terms of what a citizen is allowed to do. That makes quite a difference, particularly when there's a gap in the law and a court is asked to interpret.
It's a belief I share. Universal human rights. I also recognise the importance of government in enshrining and enforcing them. Malmesbury's characterisation of it as the one vs the other doesn't really scan for me. It's more of a theory vs practice situation.
But then again, you couldn't see what was wrong with the ID card proposal.
That it clashed so severely, with later European law, should be of interest to you. The convenience of the state was quite explicitly made secondary to the rights of the individual.
The ID card calculus is a cost risk benefit one. The benefits are greater the more it's integrated but so are the costs and the risks. I'm not particularly gagging for one but I wouldn't rule it out on principle.
Even if it meant having a major government system incompatible with European law?
As a start, if you start putting European citizens into such a system, you will spark a diplomatic collision.
On the practicalities - note that no European country (and no democracy around the world) requires everything linked up like that, with unfettered access. And that it would be illegal in many of them.
Just on the fraud issue it is insane.
It's boring, this answer, but it has the merits of being utterly sincere - I would weigh it all up and decide based on the pros and cons. If what was proposed was indeed contrary to European law this would be a con. I wasn't a Remainer for nothing.
I’ve just listened to Ken Clarke’s analysis of the Budget again.
I think he’s right that Reeves completely boxed herself in by promising not to raise certain taxes.
But the question is, if she hadn’t, would it have damaged Labour’s electoral chances?
I was intrigued he supported the changes on farmers.
I think he’s right, she should have raised VAT and fuel duty.
She could hardly have done more damage - Labour could end up third in a poll in the near future.
I am not as convinced as others that this is the end but I am convinced the winter fuel allowance cut was a big mistake.
Ken Clarke is a big supporter of what might be termed a globalist agenda. He has an almost mythical status as someone perceived as a competent Tory COTE, and he did preside over an economy going in the right direction, but recovery was always fairly likely with a good industrial base and (after Black Wednesday) a low pound. He would have made a poor and divisive leader, and though he might have some interesting tactical or presentational advice for Reeves, his policies in this instance would have taken as much money off people, and would therefore have ended up just as unpopular.
I do not perceive there being any way that budget was going to be popular based on the money they needed to raise.
Hunt would have had just the same problem.
The question therefore is. what would be the least unpopular or most long-term impactful changes for the country.
I therefore think the changes to the farmers were and are right.
Winter fuel seems like something they’ll just bring back again so I can’t see how long term it made sense to cut that. Bad decision.
Tax changes to employers. Unsure about this one.
Not raising fuel duty is and was lunacy.
Same for the triple lock. They should have removed that whilst they were at it.
Overall, if they wanted to be unpopular from this budget it’s quite mad they didn’t do more stuff to actually re-balance the economy.
Winter fuel though is politically unsustainable at this point without change.
Why can the size of the civil service not be reduced to pre-Covid numbers? That would have both improved the numbers, and the public's perception that the pain was being heaped on taxpayers while those employed by the state got big pay rises and continued to be shit.
Brexit? I've speculated this before, but the ramp up in numbers coincides, with a short lag, with the referendum. Is it simply that we've had to do more administration ourselves rather than outsourcing to the EU? There must be some roles that we used to pay for as part of the EU and now employ directly ourselves.
Or were the cuts from 2010-2016 simply unsustainable and this is the unwind? We're only a little above 2010 levels with a much larger population.
There needs to be a proper distinction drawn between extra civil servants needed for the brexit process, and extra civil servants needed permanently to administer matters now within our control. It can't be huge numbers because, as pro-europeans enjoy reminding us, the Brussels bureaucracy is actually quite small.
Though creating bits of admin which previously didn't exist and putting all the admin load on one state rather than across 28 can't help.
There's that AJP Taylor extract that a certain kind of small-stater likes to quote,
Until August 1914 a sensible, law-abiding Englishman could pass through life and hardly notice the existence of the state, beyond the post office and the policeman. He could live where he liked and as he liked. He had no official number or identity card. He could travel abroad or leave his country for ever without a passport or any sort of official permission. He could exchange his money for any other currency without restriction or limit. He could buy goods from any country in the world on the same terms as he bought goods at home. For that matter, a foreigner could spend his life in this country without permit and without informing the police.
If that is your ideal, then Britain post-Brexit is further from it than it was immediately before.
Funny old world.
That world (if it really existed - no tariffs before 1914, really?) was killed by the welfare state. So you do have to be a certain kind of small stater - one who wants to abolish the welfare state as a whole. Bit fringe.
Kemi's speech to the Washington think tank felt like it was written by an intern: just a list of hackneyed right-wing bugbears that had been overheard over the years and only vaguely understood. And this from the supposed warrior princess of the anti-Woke crusade. Nothing new or imaginative. No vim or intellectual heft. Disappointing.
Actually it was quite good. She gets the menace of the cultural left and how it tries in Gramscian fashion to take over the institutions but without the OTT style of Trump or De Santis. What can she do about the practical issues of the economy, public services etc? That remains the question. But what does Farage really offer? And Starmer thinks he can fix it without raising taxes on 'working people'.
Some helpful (I think) advice for Badenoch:
1. Jump on the 'crush crime' agenda - this is a good (potentially amazing) prospectus from the man who got XL Bully dogs banned. It is a very suitable agenda for Badenoch's 'neither left nor right' approach is it is a thoughtful set of policies with no overtones of profiling, and very little 'anger', but a lot of potential solutions. https://youtu.be/_4EfwqQuN7I?feature=shared
Both blights on the country, both reasonable soft-right spokespeople, both leading into good, effective changes that Kemi can claim she has 'engineered'.
Get some policies and stop being scared of the ball.
You can't do #2. "Not invented here". The Civil Service has to create everything ab initio, because the UK is unique, or something.
All the better for Kemi, she can pick a fight with the blob.
Kemi's speech to the Washington think tank felt like it was written by an intern: just a list of hackneyed right-wing bugbears that had been overheard over the years and only vaguely understood. And this from the supposed warrior princess of the anti-Woke crusade. Nothing new or imaginative. No vim or intellectual heft. Disappointing.
Actually it was quite good. She gets the menace of the cultural left and how it tries in Gramscian fashion to take over the institutions but without the OTT style of Trump or De Santis. What can she do about the practical issues of the economy, public services etc? That remains the question. But what does Farage really offer? And Starmer thinks he can fix it without raising taxes on 'working people'.
Some helpful (I think) advice for Badenoch:
1. Jump on the 'crush crime' agenda - this is a good (potentially amazing) prospectus from the man who got XL Bully dogs banned. It is a very suitable agenda for Badenoch's 'neither left nor right' approach is it is a thoughtful set of policies with no overtones of profiling, and very little 'anger', but a lot of potential solutions. https://youtu.be/_4EfwqQuN7I?feature=shared
Both blights on the country, both reasonable soft-right spokespeople, both leading into good, effective changes that Kemi can claim she has 'engineered'.
Get some policies and stop being scared of the ball.
You can't do #2. "Not invented here". The Civil Service has to create everything ab initio, because the UK is unique, or something.
Liam Halligan was proposing that you help disabled/long term sick back to work by not withdrawing their benefits the second they start work or even, it seems, incredibly, the second they start training.
I don't understand UC enough to be able to say but possibly UC-based ESA does already do this????
Contributory ESA certainly doesn't although you are allowed "permitted work". But many steer well clear of this because they know it is a trap to trigger a re-assessment.
First thing to do is stop the things that are making people cling to the benefit because they fear losing everything.
Off topic, but on Badenoch. When she was elected I thought she may be a genuinely formidable opponent to the left/centre, and a breath of fresh air for the Conservative Party. I think I was wrong. The evidence is stacking up against her. I've just carefully read her Washington speech, and come to the conclusion that it's awful. Intellectually incoherent. All over the place. Far too focused on culture wars. Hints of conspiracy theory. No real attempt to offer solutions to the challenges we, or the right, faces. It's as if she's arguing that the liberal left has been running the UK for the last 14 years - she's basically disavowing her own party. I know it has been linked to before, but if anybody's interested it's here: https://conservativehome.com/2024/12/07/if-we-dont-defend-our-culture-who-will-badenochs-washington-speech-in-full/ I'd be interested to know what our right-wing PBers think of it.
Yes, quite a poor speech, and littered with typos, does nobody check these things before they're published? Some ludicrous stuff in there, like the idea that the left has no concept of liberty! Where does she get that from? Idiotic stuff. The Tories really screwed up offering the members a choice between her and the loathsome Jenrick.
When libertarianism had a brief spike in the U.K., I recall a brilliantly funny column in the Guardian.
Apparently, liberty of the individual was Bad Libertarianism. Whereas handing over control to the benevolent government was Good Libertarianism. So good in fact, that it was the real Libertarianism.
There is a chunk of the British left, who do indeed, see little value in rights outside what is granted by The State.
Hence the comic inability to understand what was wrong with the previous, insane, attempt at ID cards.
I guess her ludicrous caricature is more widely believed than I thought. It's a patently absurd idea, as even a glancing acquaintance with the history of Western political thought would demonstrate. Is there a single example of a personal freedom that we enjoy that was won by the political right in this country?
It’s about the belief of where those rights are possessed. Either granted by a benevolent government, or inherent to the individual. It’s a fairly major dividing line between Liberal Democrat’s and Socialists, for example.
But in practice the rights that an individual possesses inherently are of limited use unless whatever government the individual lives under is prepared to protect them.
People are motivated by belief. If people believe that they possess inherent rights then they are more likely to fight for them and insist that a government codifies those rights into law.
It also shapes the way those laws are written. Whether it's in terms of things that the state is not allowed to do, or in terms of what a citizen is allowed to do. That makes quite a difference, particularly when there's a gap in the law and a court is asked to interpret.
It's a belief I share. Universal human rights. I also recognise the importance of government in enshrining and enforcing them. Malmesbury's characterisation of it as the one vs the other doesn't really scan for me. It's more of a theory vs practice situation.
But then again, you couldn't see what was wrong with the ID card proposal.
That it clashed so severely, with later European law, should be of interest to you. The convenience of the state was quite explicitly made secondary to the rights of the individual.
The ID card calculus is a cost risk benefit one. The benefits are greater the more it's integrated but so are the costs and the risks. I'm not particularly gagging for one but I wouldn't rule it out on principle.
Even if it meant having a major government system incompatible with European law?
As a start, if you start putting European citizens into such a system, you will spark a diplomatic collision.
On the practicalities - note that no European country (and no democracy around the world) requires everything linked up like that, with unfettered access. And that it would be illegal in many of them.
Just on the fraud issue it is insane.
It's boring, this answer, but it has the merits of being utterly sincere - I would weigh it all up and decide based on the pros and cons. If what was proposed was indeed contrary to European law this would be a con. I wasn't a Remainer for nothing.
Interesting, that you have no apparent interest in the socio-political and ethical reasons why it was made illegal in European law. Is Europe just a totem to you, then?
Kemi's speech to the Washington think tank felt like it was written by an intern: just a list of hackneyed right-wing bugbears that had been overheard over the years and only vaguely understood. And this from the supposed warrior princess of the anti-Woke crusade. Nothing new or imaginative. No vim or intellectual heft. Disappointing.
Actually it was quite good. She gets the menace of the cultural left and how it tries in Gramscian fashion to take over the institutions but without the OTT style of Trump or De Santis. What can she do about the practical issues of the economy, public services etc? That remains the question. But what does Farage really offer? And Starmer thinks he can fix it without raising taxes on 'working people'.
Some helpful (I think) advice for Badenoch:
1. Jump on the 'crush crime' agenda - this is a good (potentially amazing) prospectus from the man who got XL Bully dogs banned. It is a very suitable agenda for Badenoch's 'neither left nor right' approach is it is a thoughtful set of policies with no overtones of profiling, and very little 'anger', but a lot of potential solutions. https://youtu.be/_4EfwqQuN7I?feature=shared
Both blights on the country, both reasonable soft-right spokespeople, both leading into good, effective changes that Kemi can claim she has 'engineered'.
Get some policies and stop being scared of the ball.
You can't do #2. "Not invented here". The Civil Service has to create everything ab initio, because the UK is unique, or something.
All the better for Kemi, she can pick a fight with the blob.
Love to know how she could support a system that continued to pay people while they started work - while arguing that maternity pay is wrong,
I’ve just listened to Ken Clarke’s analysis of the Budget again.
I think he’s right that Reeves completely boxed herself in by promising not to raise certain taxes.
But the question is, if she hadn’t, would it have damaged Labour’s electoral chances?
I was intrigued he supported the changes on farmers.
I think he’s right, she should have raised VAT and fuel duty.
She could hardly have done more damage - Labour could end up third in a poll in the near future.
I am not as convinced as others that this is the end but I am convinced the winter fuel allowance cut was a big mistake.
Ken Clarke is a big supporter of what might be termed a globalist agenda. He has an almost mythical status as someone perceived as a competent Tory COTE, and he did preside over an economy going in the right direction, but recovery was always fairly likely with a good industrial base and (after Black Wednesday) a low pound. He would have made a poor and divisive leader, and though he might have some interesting tactical or presentational advice for Reeves, his policies in this instance would have taken as much money off people, and would therefore have ended up just as unpopular.
I do not perceive there being any way that budget was going to be popular based on the money they needed to raise.
Hunt would have had just the same problem.
The question therefore is. what would be the least unpopular or most long-term impactful changes for the country.
I therefore think the changes to the farmers were and are right.
Winter fuel seems like something they’ll just bring back again so I can’t see how long term it made sense to cut that. Bad decision.
Tax changes to employers. Unsure about this one.
Not raising fuel duty is and was lunacy.
Same for the triple lock. They should have removed that whilst they were at it.
Overall, if they wanted to be unpopular from this budget it’s quite mad they didn’t do more stuff to actually re-balance the economy.
Winter fuel though is politically unsustainable at this point without change.
Why can the size of the civil service not be reduced to pre-Covid numbers? That would have both improved the numbers, and the public's perception that the pain was being heaped on taxpayers while those employed by the state got big pay rises and continued to be shit.
Brexit? I've speculated this before, but the ramp up in numbers coincides, with a short lag, with the referendum. Is it simply that we've had to do more administration ourselves rather than outsourcing to the EU? There must be some roles that we used to pay for as part of the EU and now employ directly ourselves.
Or were the cuts from 2010-2016 simply unsustainable and this is the unwind? We're only a little above 2010 levels with a much larger population.
There needs to be a proper distinction drawn between extra civil servants needed for the brexit process, and extra civil servants needed permanently to administer matters now within our control. It can't be huge numbers because, as pro-europeans enjoy reminding us, the Brussels bureaucracy is actually quite small.
Wasn't meant to be a partisan point, as I think you understand. We paid for (our share, at least) of the admin either way, but it's one possible/partial explanation for the home head count going up.
On your last point though, you may be correct - EU commission head count is apparently 32k, far smaller than our increase in head count. Maybe it's all in agencies etc, but e.g. EMA has apparently 897 (!) staff compared to MHRA with 1.4k (different remits, of course, but the EMA looks astonishingly small to me)
Kemi's speech to the Washington think tank felt like it was written by an intern: just a list of hackneyed right-wing bugbears that had been overheard over the years and only vaguely understood. And this from the supposed warrior princess of the anti-Woke crusade. Nothing new or imaginative. No vim or intellectual heft. Disappointing.
Actually it was quite good. She gets the menace of the cultural left and how it tries in Gramscian fashion to take over the institutions but without the OTT style of Trump or De Santis. What can she do about the practical issues of the economy, public services etc? That remains the question. But what does Farage really offer? And Starmer thinks he can fix it without raising taxes on 'working people'.
Some helpful (I think) advice for Badenoch:
1. Jump on the 'crush crime' agenda - this is a good (potentially amazing) prospectus from the man who got XL Bully dogs banned. It is a very suitable agenda for Badenoch's 'neither left nor right' approach is it is a thoughtful set of policies with no overtones of profiling, and very little 'anger', but a lot of potential solutions. https://youtu.be/_4EfwqQuN7I?feature=shared
Both blights on the country, both reasonable soft-right spokespeople, both leading into good, effective changes that Kemi can claim she has 'engineered'.
Get some policies and stop being scared of the ball.
You can't do #2. "Not invented here". The Civil Service has to create everything ab initio, because the UK is unique, or something.
Liam Halligan was proposing that you help disabled/long term sick back to work by not withdrawing their benefits the second they start work or even, it seems, incredibly, the second they start training.
I don't understand UC enough to be able to say but possibly UC-based ESA does already do this????
Contributory ESA certainly doesn't although you are allowed "permitted work". But many steer well clear of this because they know it is a trap to trigger a re-assessment.
First thing to do is stop the things that are making people cling to the benefit because they fear losing everything.
The Daily T interview with Nelson on this is genuinely horrifying. I'm astonished anyone on a low wage bothers to work at all. The system is broken and it must be fixed, and I really don't know why Kemi is farting around on culture war issues (whilst simultaneously complaining that SKS is 'mansplaining' in a borderline racist way), when here is something she can actually 'engineer'.
I’ve just listened to Ken Clarke’s analysis of the Budget again.
I think he’s right that Reeves completely boxed herself in by promising not to raise certain taxes.
But the question is, if she hadn’t, would it have damaged Labour’s electoral chances?
I was intrigued he supported the changes on farmers.
I think he’s right, she should have raised VAT and fuel duty.
She could hardly have done more damage - Labour could end up third in a poll in the near future.
I am not as convinced as others that this is the end but I am convinced the winter fuel allowance cut was a big mistake.
Ken Clarke is a big supporter of what might be termed a globalist agenda. He has an almost mythical status as someone perceived as a competent Tory COTE, and he did preside over an economy going in the right direction, but recovery was always fairly likely with a good industrial base and (after Black Wednesday) a low pound. He would have made a poor and divisive leader, and though he might have some interesting tactical or presentational advice for Reeves, his policies in this instance would have taken as much money off people, and would therefore have ended up just as unpopular.
I do not perceive there being any way that budget was going to be popular based on the money they needed to raise.
Hunt would have had just the same problem.
The question therefore is. what would be the least unpopular or most long-term impactful changes for the country.
I therefore think the changes to the farmers were and are right.
Winter fuel seems like something they’ll just bring back again so I can’t see how long term it made sense to cut that. Bad decision.
Tax changes to employers. Unsure about this one.
Not raising fuel duty is and was lunacy.
Same for the triple lock. They should have removed that whilst they were at it.
Overall, if they wanted to be unpopular from this budget it’s quite mad they didn’t do more stuff to actually re-balance the economy.
Winter fuel though is politically unsustainable at this point without change.
Why can the size of the civil service not be reduced to pre-Covid numbers? That would have both improved the numbers, and the public's perception that the pain was being heaped on taxpayers while those employed by the state got big pay rises and continued to be shit.
Brexit? I've speculated this before, but the ramp up in numbers coincides, with a short lag, with the referendum. Is it simply that we've had to do more administration ourselves rather than outsourcing to the EU? There must be some roles that we used to pay for as part of the EU and now employ directly ourselves.
Or were the cuts from 2010-2016 simply unsustainable and this is the unwind? We're only a little above 2010 levels with a much larger population.
There needs to be a proper distinction drawn between extra civil servants needed for the brexit process, and extra civil servants needed permanently to administer matters now within our control. It can't be huge numbers because, as pro-europeans enjoy reminding us, the Brussels bureaucracy is actually quite small.
Though creating bits of admin which previously didn't exist and putting all the admin load on one state rather than across 28 can't help.
There's that AJP Taylor extract that a certain kind of small-stater likes to quote,
Until August 1914 a sensible, law-abiding Englishman could pass through life and hardly notice the existence of the state, beyond the post office and the policeman. He could live where he liked and as he liked. He had no official number or identity card. He could travel abroad or leave his country for ever without a passport or any sort of official permission. He could exchange his money for any other currency without restriction or limit. He could buy goods from any country in the world on the same terms as he bought goods at home. For that matter, a foreigner could spend his life in this country without permit and without informing the police.
If that is your ideal, then Britain post-Brexit is further from it than it was immediately before.
Funny old world.
That world (if it really existed - no tariffs before 1914, really?) was killed by the welfare state. So you do have to be a certain kind of small stater - one who wants to abolish the welfare state as a whole. Bit fringe.
Tarrifs were imposed on bulk goods. No one bothered to search your luggage to check for the odd bottle of bandy or silk scarf or whatever.
Why would you have to abolish the welfare state? Old age pensions came into existence in this world, after all.
Kemi's speech to the Washington think tank felt like it was written by an intern: just a list of hackneyed right-wing bugbears that had been overheard over the years and only vaguely understood. And this from the supposed warrior princess of the anti-Woke crusade. Nothing new or imaginative. No vim or intellectual heft. Disappointing.
Actually it was quite good. She gets the menace of the cultural left and how it tries in Gramscian fashion to take over the institutions but without the OTT style of Trump or De Santis. What can she do about the practical issues of the economy, public services etc? That remains the question. But what does Farage really offer? And Starmer thinks he can fix it without raising taxes on 'working people'.
Some helpful (I think) advice for Badenoch:
1. Jump on the 'crush crime' agenda - this is a good (potentially amazing) prospectus from the man who got XL Bully dogs banned. It is a very suitable agenda for Badenoch's 'neither left nor right' approach is it is a thoughtful set of policies with no overtones of profiling, and very little 'anger', but a lot of potential solutions. https://youtu.be/_4EfwqQuN7I?feature=shared
Both blights on the country, both reasonable soft-right spokespeople, both leading into good, effective changes that Kemi can claim she has 'engineered'.
Get some policies and stop being scared of the ball.
You can't do #2. "Not invented here". The Civil Service has to create everything ab initio, because the UK is unique, or something.
Liam Halligan was proposing that you help disabled/long term sick back to work by not withdrawing their benefits the second they start work or even, it seems, incredibly, the second they start training.
I don't understand UC enough to be able to say but possibly UC-based ESA does already do this????
Contributory ESA certainly doesn't although you are allowed "permitted work". But many steer well clear of this because they know it is a trap to trigger a re-assessment.
First thing to do is stop the things that are making people cling to the benefit because they fear losing everything.
That is so utterly, utterly true. Especially the last sentence.
I’ve just listened to Ken Clarke’s analysis of the Budget again.
I think he’s right that Reeves completely boxed herself in by promising not to raise certain taxes.
But the question is, if she hadn’t, would it have damaged Labour’s electoral chances?
I was intrigued he supported the changes on farmers.
I think he’s right, she should have raised VAT and fuel duty.
She could hardly have done more damage - Labour could end up third in a poll in the near future.
I am not as convinced as others that this is the end but I am convinced the winter fuel allowance cut was a big mistake.
Ken Clarke is a big supporter of what might be termed a globalist agenda. He has an almost mythical status as someone perceived as a competent Tory COTE, and he did preside over an economy going in the right direction, but recovery was always fairly likely with a good industrial base and (after Black Wednesday) a low pound. He would have made a poor and divisive leader, and though he might have some interesting tactical or presentational advice for Reeves, his policies in this instance would have taken as much money off people, and would therefore have ended up just as unpopular.
I do not perceive there being any way that budget was going to be popular based on the money they needed to raise.
Hunt would have had just the same problem.
The question therefore is. what would be the least unpopular or most long-term impactful changes for the country.
I therefore think the changes to the farmers were and are right.
Winter fuel seems like something they’ll just bring back again so I can’t see how long term it made sense to cut that. Bad decision.
Tax changes to employers. Unsure about this one.
Not raising fuel duty is and was lunacy.
Same for the triple lock. They should have removed that whilst they were at it.
Overall, if they wanted to be unpopular from this budget it’s quite mad they didn’t do more stuff to actually re-balance the economy.
Winter fuel though is politically unsustainable at this point without change.
Why can the size of the civil service not be reduced to pre-Covid numbers? That would have both improved the numbers, and the public's perception that the pain was being heaped on taxpayers while those employed by the state got big pay rises and continued to be shit.
Brexit? I've speculated this before, but the ramp up in numbers coincides, with a short lag, with the referendum. Is it simply that we've had to do more administration ourselves rather than outsourcing to the EU? There must be some roles that we used to pay for as part of the EU and now employ directly ourselves.
Or were the cuts from 2010-2016 simply unsustainable and this is the unwind? We're only a little above 2010 levels with a much larger population.
There needs to be a proper distinction drawn between extra civil servants needed for the brexit process, and extra civil servants needed permanently to administer matters now within our control. It can't be huge numbers because, as pro-europeans enjoy reminding us, the Brussels bureaucracy is actually quite small.
Though creating bits of admin which previously didn't exist and putting all the admin load on one state rather than across 28 can't help.
There's that AJP Taylor extract that a certain kind of small-stater likes to quote,
Until August 1914 a sensible, law-abiding Englishman could pass through life and hardly notice the existence of the state, beyond the post office and the policeman. He could live where he liked and as he liked. He had no official number or identity card. He could travel abroad or leave his country for ever without a passport or any sort of official permission. He could exchange his money for any other currency without restriction or limit. He could buy goods from any country in the world on the same terms as he bought goods at home. For that matter, a foreigner could spend his life in this country without permit and without informing the police.
If that is your ideal, then Britain post-Brexit is further from it than it was immediately before.
Funny old world.
That world (if it really existed - no tariffs before 1914, really?) was killed by the welfare state. So you do have to be a certain kind of small stater - one who wants to abolish the welfare state as a whole. Bit fringe.
As a corollary, the practical application of a UBI comes with a whole body of questions about eligibility based on citizenship and residency that imply quite a hard line on border drawing, to an extent that I don't think many supporters of UBI appreciate.
Do we not perceive any world where Reform UK supports Labour? Why must we assume they will ally with the Tories?
If Labour were the Opposition then that might be conceivable, but not to prop up an incumbent government, no.
I meant after the election. People assume Reform UK will support the Tories into government.
Do we not perceive any scenario where they actually support Labour?
What if the seats don’t work?
Can Reform support Labour? Yes, if Big Nige wants to, he might easily point to Labour's deportations and reduced immigration as justification for supporting Labour.
Would Reform want to support Labour? Well, both parties' voters probably like increased spending.
So it is certainly possible that Reform will support Labour. Whether it is likely is another matter.
The single most important thing about Reform is that they are against the status quo. So if the next election results in a hung Parliament I would think there's very little chance of Reform supporting the status quo option - of Labour continuing in government.
Which was of course a key consideration for the LibDems in 2010. It’s bad enough going into coalition, without having to explain why you are propping up the very government you have spent five years attacking.
Do we not perceive any world where Reform UK supports Labour? Why must we assume they will ally with the Tories?
If Labour were the Opposition then that might be conceivable, but not to prop up an incumbent government, no.
I meant after the election. People assume Reform UK will support the Tories into government.
Do we not perceive any scenario where they actually support Labour?
What if the seats don’t work?
Can Reform support Labour? Yes, if Big Nige wants to, he might easily point to Labour's deportations and reduced immigration as justification for supporting Labour.
Would Reform want to support Labour? Well, both parties' voters probably like increased spending.
So it is certainly possible that Reform will support Labour. Whether it is likely is another matter.
The single most important thing about Reform is that they are against the status quo. So if the next election results in a hung Parliament I would think there's very little chance of Reform supporting the status quo option - of Labour continuing in government.
Yes - I think that is correct.
I further think that they would rule out any coalitions with the existing parties. A weak, minority government of *someone else* is exactly what they would want.
Hitler was offered the deputy chancellor position a whole stack of times, but resolutely refused to take that role, until eventually they ran out of alternative credible chancellors.
The UK government could remove Islamist militant group Hayat Tahrir al-Sham from the list of banned terrorist groups after the rebels led the overthrow of Bashar al-Assad in Syria. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cz7qenxy8r2o
Now the Ukrainians have got F16s is there anything they can do about the Russian bases in Syria? They would need to fly over Nato airspace and they may have their hands full as it is. We'll see if Turkey allow the Russians to fly over their own airspace (I hope not) but it would be seriously infuriating if they were given permission to and the Ukrainians weren't.
Why would the Ukrainians want to risk valuable aircraft and expend munitions and fuel to spread the war to another country?
It’s a shame the rebels are letting the Russians leave with lorry loads of their equipment, and not just giving them a bus ride to the airport.
They've already captured a shitload. I doubt the Russians will leave with a huge amount of valuable kit. And anyway, what's far more important to whomever takes power is the maintenance of some kind of order.
As I noted earlier, they've at the very least postponed taking brutal revenge on members of the regime, and are using those that remain to hand things over intact.
Early indications are that it's a less chaotic fall of a regime than the US defeat of Saddam in 2003.
Early indications? On the first day back then, people were cheering in the streets, attacking statues with hammers, and letting off fireworks and gunshots into the air. While western media was full of hope for a better future.
How was yesterday any different?
It was, of course, because Iraq had been invaded by foreign troops who supposedly brought resources and a plan…
Off topic, but on Badenoch. When she was elected I thought she may be a genuinely formidable opponent to the left/centre, and a breath of fresh air for the Conservative Party. I think I was wrong. The evidence is stacking up against her. I've just carefully read her Washington speech, and come to the conclusion that it's awful. Intellectually incoherent. All over the place. Far too focused on culture wars. Hints of conspiracy theory. No real attempt to offer solutions to the challenges we, or the right, faces. It's as if she's arguing that the liberal left has been running the UK for the last 14 years - she's basically disavowing her own party. I know it has been linked to before, but if anybody's interested it's here: https://conservativehome.com/2024/12/07/if-we-dont-defend-our-culture-who-will-badenochs-washington-speech-in-full/ I'd be interested to know what our right-wing PBers think of it.
Yes, quite a poor speech, and littered with typos, does nobody check these things before they're published? Some ludicrous stuff in there, like the idea that the left has no concept of liberty! Where does she get that from? Idiotic stuff. The Tories really screwed up offering the members a choice between her and the loathsome Jenrick.
When libertarianism had a brief spike in the U.K., I recall a brilliantly funny column in the Guardian.
Apparently, liberty of the individual was Bad Libertarianism. Whereas handing over control to the benevolent government was Good Libertarianism. So good in fact, that it was the real Libertarianism.
There is a chunk of the British left, who do indeed, see little value in rights outside what is granted by The State.
Hence the comic inability to understand what was wrong with the previous, insane, attempt at ID cards.
I guess her ludicrous caricature is more widely believed than I thought. It's a patently absurd idea, as even a glancing acquaintance with the history of Western political thought would demonstrate. Is there a single example of a personal freedom that we enjoy that was won by the political right in this country?
It’s about the belief of where those rights are possessed. Either granted by a benevolent government, or inherent to the individual. It’s a fairly major dividing line between Liberal Democrat’s and Socialists, for example.
But in practice the rights that an individual possesses inherently are of limited use unless whatever government the individual lives under is prepared to protect them.
People are motivated by belief. If people believe that they possess inherent rights then they are more likely to fight for them and insist that a government codifies those rights into law.
It also shapes the way those laws are written. Whether it's in terms of things that the state is not allowed to do, or in terms of what a citizen is allowed to do. That makes quite a difference, particularly when there's a gap in the law and a court is asked to interpret.
It's a belief I share. Universal human rights. I also recognise the importance of government in enshrining and enforcing them. Malmesbury's characterisation of it as the one vs the other doesn't really scan for me. It's more of a theory vs practice situation.
But then again, you couldn't see what was wrong with the ID card proposal.
That it clashed so severely, with later European law, should be of interest to you. The convenience of the state was quite explicitly made secondary to the rights of the individual.
The ID card calculus is a cost risk benefit one. The benefits are greater the more it's integrated but so are the costs and the risks. I'm not particularly gagging for one but I wouldn't rule it out on principle.
Even if it meant having a major government system incompatible with European law?
As a start, if you start putting European citizens into such a system, you will spark a diplomatic collision.
On the practicalities - note that no European country (and no democracy around the world) requires everything linked up like that, with unfettered access. And that it would be illegal in many of them.
Just on the fraud issue it is insane.
It's boring, this answer, but it has the merits of being utterly sincere - I would weigh it all up and decide based on the pros and cons. If what was proposed was indeed contrary to European law this would be a con. I wasn't a Remainer for nothing.
Interesting, that you have no apparent interest in the socio-political and ethical reasons why it was made illegal in European law. Is Europe just a totem to you, then?
Well that doesn't follow at all. If it transpires that our ID card proposal, when SKS gets round to it, violates European law I will be very interested in the basis of that.
However what I'm sensing here is you bridling at the gate to tell me for the 100th time what a horror iyo that Blair era aborted scheme was. I'm not releasing that gate.
Kemi's speech to the Washington think tank felt like it was written by an intern: just a list of hackneyed right-wing bugbears that had been overheard over the years and only vaguely understood. And this from the supposed warrior princess of the anti-Woke crusade. Nothing new or imaginative. No vim or intellectual heft. Disappointing.
Actually it was quite good. She gets the menace of the cultural left and how it tries in Gramscian fashion to take over the institutions but without the OTT style of Trump or De Santis. What can she do about the practical issues of the economy, public services etc? That remains the question. But what does Farage really offer? And Starmer thinks he can fix it without raising taxes on 'working people'.
Some helpful (I think) advice for Badenoch:
1. Jump on the 'crush crime' agenda - this is a good (potentially amazing) prospectus from the man who got XL Bully dogs banned. It is a very suitable agenda for Badenoch's 'neither left nor right' approach is it is a thoughtful set of policies with no overtones of profiling, and very little 'anger', but a lot of potential solutions. https://youtu.be/_4EfwqQuN7I?feature=shared
Both blights on the country, both reasonable soft-right spokespeople, both leading into good, effective changes that Kemi can claim she has 'engineered'.
Get some policies and stop being scared of the ball.
You can't do #2. "Not invented here". The Civil Service has to create everything ab initio, because the UK is unique, or something.
Liam Halligan was proposing that you help disabled/long term sick back to work by not withdrawing their benefits the second they start work or even, it seems, incredibly, the second they start training.
I don't understand UC enough to be able to say but possibly UC-based ESA does already do this????
Contributory ESA certainly doesn't although you are allowed "permitted work". But many steer well clear of this because they know it is a trap to trigger a re-assessment.
First thing to do is stop the things that are making people cling to the benefit because they fear losing everything.
The Daily T interview with Nelson on this is genuinely horrifying. I'm astonished anyone on a low wage bothers to work at all. The system is broken and it must be fixed, and I really don't know why Kemi is farting around on culture war issues (whilst simultaneously complaining that SKS is 'mansplaining' in a borderline racist way), when here is something she can actually 'engineer'.
This is what several people, here, have been saying for a long time.
It's the Laffer Curve in action - if you impose effective atxation of up to 100% (complete loss of benefits, instantly), then people will not take that action. Even at 86% - it means working for a £2 an hour, take home.
Do we not perceive any world where Reform UK supports Labour? Why must we assume they will ally with the Tories?
If Labour were the Opposition then that might be conceivable, but not to prop up an incumbent government, no.
I meant after the election. People assume Reform UK will support the Tories into government.
Do we not perceive any scenario where they actually support Labour?
What if the seats don’t work?
Can Reform support Labour? Yes, if Big Nige wants to, he might easily point to Labour's deportations and reduced immigration as justification for supporting Labour.
Would Reform want to support Labour? Well, both parties' voters probably like increased spending.
So it is certainly possible that Reform will support Labour. Whether it is likely is another matter.
The single most important thing about Reform is that they are against the status quo. So if the next election results in a hung Parliament I would think there's very little chance of Reform supporting the status quo option - of Labour continuing in government.
Yes - I think that is correct.
I further think that they would rule out any coalitions with the existing parties. A weak, minority government of *someone else* is exactly what they would want.
Hitler was offered the deputy chancellor position a whole stack of times, but resolutely refused to take that role, until eventually they ran out of alternative credible chancellors.
Changing the subject, of course.
Do Reform actually want power? I have no way of knowing, but I suspect that they know that the compromises with reality that actual power will entail will not be much fun. Meanwhile, they have the opportunity of being almost as effective in moving the dial on public policy by sitting on the right hand side of both Labour and the Conservatives with the threat of hoovering off votes should either of those parties get too technocratic.
That is, after all, how UKIP effected their #1 policy item without actually having to touch government.
I’ve just listened to Ken Clarke’s analysis of the Budget again.
I think he’s right that Reeves completely boxed herself in by promising not to raise certain taxes.
But the question is, if she hadn’t, would it have damaged Labour’s electoral chances?
I was intrigued he supported the changes on farmers.
I think he’s right, she should have raised VAT and fuel duty.
She could hardly have done more damage - Labour could end up third in a poll in the near future.
I am not as convinced as others that this is the end but I am convinced the winter fuel allowance cut was a big mistake.
Ken Clarke is a big supporter of what might be termed a globalist agenda. He has an almost mythical status as someone perceived as a competent Tory COTE, and he did preside over an economy going in the right direction, but recovery was always fairly likely with a good industrial base and (after Black Wednesday) a low pound. He would have made a poor and divisive leader, and though he might have some interesting tactical or presentational advice for Reeves, his policies in this instance would have taken as much money off people, and would therefore have ended up just as unpopular.
I do not perceive there being any way that budget was going to be popular based on the money they needed to raise.
Hunt would have had just the same problem.
The question therefore is. what would be the least unpopular or most long-term impactful changes for the country.
I therefore think the changes to the farmers were and are right.
Winter fuel seems like something they’ll just bring back again so I can’t see how long term it made sense to cut that. Bad decision.
Tax changes to employers. Unsure about this one.
Not raising fuel duty is and was lunacy.
Same for the triple lock. They should have removed that whilst they were at it.
Overall, if they wanted to be unpopular from this budget it’s quite mad they didn’t do more stuff to actually re-balance the economy.
Winter fuel though is politically unsustainable at this point without change.
Why can the size of the civil service not be reduced to pre-Covid numbers? That would have both improved the numbers, and the public's perception that the pain was being heaped on taxpayers while those employed by the state got big pay rises and continued to be shit.
Brexit? I've speculated this before, but the ramp up in numbers coincides, with a short lag, with the referendum. Is it simply that we've had to do more administration ourselves rather than outsourcing to the EU? There must be some roles that we used to pay for as part of the EU and now employ directly ourselves.
Or were the cuts from 2010-2016 simply unsustainable and this is the unwind? We're only a little above 2010 levels with a much larger population.
There needs to be a proper distinction drawn between extra civil servants needed for the brexit process, and extra civil servants needed permanently to administer matters now within our control. It can't be huge numbers because, as pro-europeans enjoy reminding us, the Brussels bureaucracy is actually quite small.
Though creating bits of admin which previously didn't exist and putting all the admin load on one state rather than across 28 can't help.
There's that AJP Taylor extract that a certain kind of small-stater likes to quote,
Until August 1914 a sensible, law-abiding Englishman could pass through life and hardly notice the existence of the state, beyond the post office and the policeman. He could live where he liked and as he liked. He had no official number or identity card. He could travel abroad or leave his country for ever without a passport or any sort of official permission. He could exchange his money for any other currency without restriction or limit. He could buy goods from any country in the world on the same terms as he bought goods at home. For that matter, a foreigner could spend his life in this country without permit and without informing the police.
If that is your ideal, then Britain post-Brexit is further from it than it was immediately before.
Funny old world.
That world (if it really existed - no tariffs before 1914, really?) was killed by the welfare state. So you do have to be a certain kind of small stater - one who wants to abolish the welfare state as a whole. Bit fringe.
As a corollary, the practical application of a UBI comes with a whole body of questions about eligibility based on citizenship and residency that imply quite a hard line on border drawing, to an extent that I don't think many supporters of UBI appreciate.
My personal view is that UBI is a horror show for all kinds of reasons.
I’ve just listened to Ken Clarke’s analysis of the Budget again.
I think he’s right that Reeves completely boxed herself in by promising not to raise certain taxes.
But the question is, if she hadn’t, would it have damaged Labour’s electoral chances?
I was intrigued he supported the changes on farmers.
I think he’s right, she should have raised VAT and fuel duty.
She could hardly have done more damage - Labour could end up third in a poll in the near future.
I am not as convinced as others that this is the end but I am convinced the winter fuel allowance cut was a big mistake.
Ken Clarke is a big supporter of what might be termed a globalist agenda. He has an almost mythical status as someone perceived as a competent Tory COTE, and he did preside over an economy going in the right direction, but recovery was always fairly likely with a good industrial base and (after Black Wednesday) a low pound. He would have made a poor and divisive leader, and though he might have some interesting tactical or presentational advice for Reeves, his policies in this instance would have taken as much money off people, and would therefore have ended up just as unpopular.
I do not perceive there being any way that budget was going to be popular based on the money they needed to raise.
Hunt would have had just the same problem.
The question therefore is. what would be the least unpopular or most long-term impactful changes for the country.
I therefore think the changes to the farmers were and are right.
Winter fuel seems like something they’ll just bring back again so I can’t see how long term it made sense to cut that. Bad decision.
Tax changes to employers. Unsure about this one.
Not raising fuel duty is and was lunacy.
Same for the triple lock. They should have removed that whilst they were at it.
Overall, if they wanted to be unpopular from this budget it’s quite mad they didn’t do more stuff to actually re-balance the economy.
Winter fuel though is politically unsustainable at this point without change.
Why can the size of the civil service not be reduced to pre-Covid numbers? That would have both improved the numbers, and the public's perception that the pain was being heaped on taxpayers while those employed by the state got big pay rises and continued to be shit.
Brexit? I've speculated this before, but the ramp up in numbers coincides, with a short lag, with the referendum. Is it simply that we've had to do more administration ourselves rather than outsourcing to the EU? There must be some roles that we used to pay for as part of the EU and now employ directly ourselves.
Or were the cuts from 2010-2016 simply unsustainable and this is the unwind? We're only a little above 2010 levels with a much larger population.
There needs to be a proper distinction drawn between extra civil servants needed for the brexit process, and extra civil servants needed permanently to administer matters now within our control. It can't be huge numbers because, as pro-europeans enjoy reminding us, the Brussels bureaucracy is actually quite small.
Though creating bits of admin which previously didn't exist and putting all the admin load on one state rather than across 28 can't help.
There's that AJP Taylor extract that a certain kind of small-stater likes to quote,
Until August 1914 a sensible, law-abiding Englishman could pass through life and hardly notice the existence of the state, beyond the post office and the policeman. He could live where he liked and as he liked. He had no official number or identity card. He could travel abroad or leave his country for ever without a passport or any sort of official permission. He could exchange his money for any other currency without restriction or limit. He could buy goods from any country in the world on the same terms as he bought goods at home. For that matter, a foreigner could spend his life in this country without permit and without informing the police.
If that is your ideal, then Britain post-Brexit is further from it than it was immediately before.
Funny old world.
That world (if it really existed - no tariffs before 1914, really?) was killed by the welfare state. So you do have to be a certain kind of small stater - one who wants to abolish the welfare state as a whole. Bit fringe.
As a corollary, the practical application of a UBI comes with a whole body of questions about eligibility based on citizenship and residency that imply quite a hard line on border drawing, to an extent that I don't think many supporters of UBI appreciate.
The answer, that many do not like, is that eligibility for a UBI would be strictly linked to citizenship and/or residency.
They do not like it, because the implication is
1) A large number of people would be outside the benefits system. 2) The cost of employing non citizen/resident labour would effectively skyrocket.
I dont object to having an official ID Card. But I would object to having it on my phone - or being mandated to carry it - or it being linked to a big brother database. In other words a bit like a simplified passport.
Now the Ukrainians have got F16s is there anything they can do about the Russian bases in Syria? They would need to fly over Nato airspace and they may have their hands full as it is. We'll see if Turkey allow the Russians to fly over their own airspace (I hope not) but it would be seriously infuriating if they were given permission to and the Ukrainians weren't.
Why would the Ukrainians want to risk valuable aircraft and expend munitions and fuel to spread the war to another country?
It’s a shame the rebels are letting the Russians leave with lorry loads of their equipment, and not just giving them a bus ride to the airport.
They've already captured a shitload. I doubt the Russians will leave with a huge amount of valuable kit. And anyway, what's far more important to whomever takes power is the maintenance of some kind of order.
As I noted earlier, they've at the very least postponed taking brutal revenge on members of the regime, and are using those that remain to hand things over intact.
Early indications are that it's a less chaotic fall of a regime than the US defeat of Saddam in 2003.
Early indications? On the first day back then, people were cheering in the streets, attacking statues with hammers, and letting off fireworks and gunshots into the air. While western media was full of hope for a better future.
How was yesterday any different?
It was, of course, because Iraq had been invaded by foreign troops who supposedly brought resources and a plan…
The early indications being that the newcomers to the capital are talking to the people previously in charge there. There has been looting of Assad's palace, but not of all government buildings, museums, etc as far as I've seen reported.
Piss poor academic, generalising from - apparently - one colleague
(I've no experience in the wordy parts of academia, so can't comment on the underlying issue, really, but I don't think you'd get away with writing the alleged at my institution).
I’ve just listened to Ken Clarke’s analysis of the Budget again.
I think he’s right that Reeves completely boxed herself in by promising not to raise certain taxes.
But the question is, if she hadn’t, would it have damaged Labour’s electoral chances?
I was intrigued he supported the changes on farmers.
I think he’s right, she should have raised VAT and fuel duty.
She could hardly have done more damage - Labour could end up third in a poll in the near future.
I am not as convinced as others that this is the end but I am convinced the winter fuel allowance cut was a big mistake.
Ken Clarke is a big supporter of what might be termed a globalist agenda. He has an almost mythical status as someone perceived as a competent Tory COTE, and he did preside over an economy going in the right direction, but recovery was always fairly likely with a good industrial base and (after Black Wednesday) a low pound. He would have made a poor and divisive leader, and though he might have some interesting tactical or presentational advice for Reeves, his policies in this instance would have taken as much money off people, and would therefore have ended up just as unpopular.
I do not perceive there being any way that budget was going to be popular based on the money they needed to raise.
Hunt would have had just the same problem.
The question therefore is. what would be the least unpopular or most long-term impactful changes for the country.
I therefore think the changes to the farmers were and are right.
Winter fuel seems like something they’ll just bring back again so I can’t see how long term it made sense to cut that. Bad decision.
Tax changes to employers. Unsure about this one.
Not raising fuel duty is and was lunacy.
Same for the triple lock. They should have removed that whilst they were at it.
Overall, if they wanted to be unpopular from this budget it’s quite mad they didn’t do more stuff to actually re-balance the economy.
Winter fuel though is politically unsustainable at this point without change.
Why can the size of the civil service not be reduced to pre-Covid numbers? That would have both improved the numbers, and the public's perception that the pain was being heaped on taxpayers while those employed by the state got big pay rises and continued to be shit.
Brexit? I've speculated this before, but the ramp up in numbers coincides, with a short lag, with the referendum. Is it simply that we've had to do more administration ourselves rather than outsourcing to the EU? There must be some roles that we used to pay for as part of the EU and now employ directly ourselves.
Or were the cuts from 2010-2016 simply unsustainable and this is the unwind? We're only a little above 2010 levels with a much larger population.
There needs to be a proper distinction drawn between extra civil servants needed for the brexit process, and extra civil servants needed permanently to administer matters now within our control. It can't be huge numbers because, as pro-europeans enjoy reminding us, the Brussels bureaucracy is actually quite small.
Though creating bits of admin which previously didn't exist and putting all the admin load on one state rather than across 28 can't help.
There's that AJP Taylor extract that a certain kind of small-stater likes to quote,
Until August 1914 a sensible, law-abiding Englishman could pass through life and hardly notice the existence of the state, beyond the post office and the policeman. He could live where he liked and as he liked. He had no official number or identity card. He could travel abroad or leave his country for ever without a passport or any sort of official permission. He could exchange his money for any other currency without restriction or limit. He could buy goods from any country in the world on the same terms as he bought goods at home. For that matter, a foreigner could spend his life in this country without permit and without informing the police.
If that is your ideal, then Britain post-Brexit is further from it than it was immediately before.
Funny old world.
That world (if it really existed - no tariffs before 1914, really?) was killed by the welfare state. So you do have to be a certain kind of small stater - one who wants to abolish the welfare state as a whole. Bit fringe.
As a corollary, the practical application of a UBI comes with a whole body of questions about eligibility based on citizenship and residency that imply quite a hard line on border drawing, to an extent that I don't think many supporters of UBI appreciate.
The answer, that many do not like, is that eligibility for a UBI would be strictly linked to citizenship and/or residency.
They do not like it, because the implication is
1) A large number of people would be outside the benefits system. 2) The cost of employing non citizen/resident labour would effectively skyrocket.
There’s a reason a chunk of US Republicans like the idea. As you say, many on the left here have not considered what it really means.
I dont object to having an official ID Card. But I would object to having it on my phone - or being mandated to carry it - or it being linked to a big brother database. In other words a bit like a simplified passport.
The problem isn't the ID card.
All the sane objections are to the bizarre ideas of linking everything with unfettered access via the card database.
I’ve just listened to Ken Clarke’s analysis of the Budget again.
I think he’s right that Reeves completely boxed herself in by promising not to raise certain taxes.
But the question is, if she hadn’t, would it have damaged Labour’s electoral chances?
I was intrigued he supported the changes on farmers.
I think he’s right, she should have raised VAT and fuel duty.
She could hardly have done more damage - Labour could end up third in a poll in the near future.
I am not as convinced as others that this is the end but I am convinced the winter fuel allowance cut was a big mistake.
Ken Clarke is a big supporter of what might be termed a globalist agenda. He has an almost mythical status as someone perceived as a competent Tory COTE, and he did preside over an economy going in the right direction, but recovery was always fairly likely with a good industrial base and (after Black Wednesday) a low pound. He would have made a poor and divisive leader, and though he might have some interesting tactical or presentational advice for Reeves, his policies in this instance would have taken as much money off people, and would therefore have ended up just as unpopular.
I do not perceive there being any way that budget was going to be popular based on the money they needed to raise.
Hunt would have had just the same problem.
The question therefore is. what would be the least unpopular or most long-term impactful changes for the country.
I therefore think the changes to the farmers were and are right.
Winter fuel seems like something they’ll just bring back again so I can’t see how long term it made sense to cut that. Bad decision.
Tax changes to employers. Unsure about this one.
Not raising fuel duty is and was lunacy.
Same for the triple lock. They should have removed that whilst they were at it.
Overall, if they wanted to be unpopular from this budget it’s quite mad they didn’t do more stuff to actually re-balance the economy.
Winter fuel though is politically unsustainable at this point without change.
Why can the size of the civil service not be reduced to pre-Covid numbers? That would have both improved the numbers, and the public's perception that the pain was being heaped on taxpayers while those employed by the state got big pay rises and continued to be shit.
Brexit? I've speculated this before, but the ramp up in numbers coincides, with a short lag, with the referendum. Is it simply that we've had to do more administration ourselves rather than outsourcing to the EU? There must be some roles that we used to pay for as part of the EU and now employ directly ourselves.
Or were the cuts from 2010-2016 simply unsustainable and this is the unwind? We're only a little above 2010 levels with a much larger population.
There needs to be a proper distinction drawn between extra civil servants needed for the brexit process, and extra civil servants needed permanently to administer matters now within our control. It can't be huge numbers because, as pro-europeans enjoy reminding us, the Brussels bureaucracy is actually quite small.
Though creating bits of admin which previously didn't exist and putting all the admin load on one state rather than across 28 can't help.
There's that AJP Taylor extract that a certain kind of small-stater likes to quote,
Until August 1914 a sensible, law-abiding Englishman could pass through life and hardly notice the existence of the state, beyond the post office and the policeman. He could live where he liked and as he liked. He had no official number or identity card. He could travel abroad or leave his country for ever without a passport or any sort of official permission. He could exchange his money for any other currency without restriction or limit. He could buy goods from any country in the world on the same terms as he bought goods at home. For that matter, a foreigner could spend his life in this country without permit and without informing the police.
If that is your ideal, then Britain post-Brexit is further from it than it was immediately before.
Funny old world.
That world (if it really existed - no tariffs before 1914, really?) was killed by the welfare state. So you do have to be a certain kind of small stater - one who wants to abolish the welfare state as a whole. Bit fringe.
As a corollary, the practical application of a UBI comes with a whole body of questions about eligibility based on citizenship and residency that imply quite a hard line on border drawing, to an extent that I don't think many supporters of UBI appreciate.
The answer, that many do not like, is that eligibility for a UBI would be strictly linked to citizenship and/or residency.
They do not like it, because the implication is
1) A large number of people would be outside the benefits system. 2) The cost of employing non citizen/resident labour would effectively skyrocket.
The latter, of course, would provide a very strong incentive to companies not to employ immigrant labour.
The logic of it makes UBI quite an attractive policy for Reform in some respects.
Do we not perceive any world where Reform UK supports Labour? Why must we assume they will ally with the Tories?
If Labour were the Opposition then that might be conceivable, but not to prop up an incumbent government, no.
I meant after the election. People assume Reform UK will support the Tories into government.
Do we not perceive any scenario where they actually support Labour?
What if the seats don’t work?
Can Reform support Labour? Yes, if Big Nige wants to, he might easily point to Labour's deportations and reduced immigration as justification for supporting Labour.
Would Reform want to support Labour? Well, both parties' voters probably like increased spending.
So it is certainly possible that Reform will support Labour. Whether it is likely is another matter.
The single most important thing about Reform is that they are against the status quo. So if the next election results in a hung Parliament I would think there's very little chance of Reform supporting the status quo option - of Labour continuing in government.
Yes - I think that is correct.
I further think that they would rule out any coalitions with the existing parties. A weak, minority government of *someone else* is exactly what they would want.
Hitler was offered the deputy chancellor position a whole stack of times, but resolutely refused to take that role, until eventually they ran out of alternative credible chancellors.
Changing the subject, of course.
Do Reform actually want power? I have no way of knowing, but I suspect that they know that the compromises with reality that actual power will entail will not be much fun. Meanwhile, they have the opportunity of being almost as effective in moving the dial on public policy by sitting on the right hand side of both Labour and the Conservatives with the threat of hoovering off votes should either of those parties get too technocratic.
That is, after all, how UKIP effected their #1 policy item without actually having to touch government.
Utlimately, what does Nigel want?
I'm sure he likes the idea of being Prime Minister- what ambitious politician wouldn't? But does he really want the ballsache of doing the job through his late sixties? And if he doesn't, what does he want?
I’ve just listened to Ken Clarke’s analysis of the Budget again.
I think he’s right that Reeves completely boxed herself in by promising not to raise certain taxes.
But the question is, if she hadn’t, would it have damaged Labour’s electoral chances?
I was intrigued he supported the changes on farmers.
I think he’s right, she should have raised VAT and fuel duty.
She could hardly have done more damage - Labour could end up third in a poll in the near future.
I am not as convinced as others that this is the end but I am convinced the winter fuel allowance cut was a big mistake.
Ken Clarke is a big supporter of what might be termed a globalist agenda. He has an almost mythical status as someone perceived as a competent Tory COTE, and he did preside over an economy going in the right direction, but recovery was always fairly likely with a good industrial base and (after Black Wednesday) a low pound. He would have made a poor and divisive leader, and though he might have some interesting tactical or presentational advice for Reeves, his policies in this instance would have taken as much money off people, and would therefore have ended up just as unpopular.
I do not perceive there being any way that budget was going to be popular based on the money they needed to raise.
Hunt would have had just the same problem.
The question therefore is. what would be the least unpopular or most long-term impactful changes for the country.
I therefore think the changes to the farmers were and are right.
Winter fuel seems like something they’ll just bring back again so I can’t see how long term it made sense to cut that. Bad decision.
Tax changes to employers. Unsure about this one.
Not raising fuel duty is and was lunacy.
Same for the triple lock. They should have removed that whilst they were at it.
Overall, if they wanted to be unpopular from this budget it’s quite mad they didn’t do more stuff to actually re-balance the economy.
Winter fuel though is politically unsustainable at this point without change.
Why can the size of the civil service not be reduced to pre-Covid numbers? That would have both improved the numbers, and the public's perception that the pain was being heaped on taxpayers while those employed by the state got big pay rises and continued to be shit.
Brexit? I've speculated this before, but the ramp up in numbers coincides, with a short lag, with the referendum. Is it simply that we've had to do more administration ourselves rather than outsourcing to the EU? There must be some roles that we used to pay for as part of the EU and now employ directly ourselves.
Or were the cuts from 2010-2016 simply unsustainable and this is the unwind? We're only a little above 2010 levels with a much larger population.
There needs to be a proper distinction drawn between extra civil servants needed for the brexit process, and extra civil servants needed permanently to administer matters now within our control. It can't be huge numbers because, as pro-europeans enjoy reminding us, the Brussels bureaucracy is actually quite small.
Though creating bits of admin which previously didn't exist and putting all the admin load on one state rather than across 28 can't help.
There's that AJP Taylor extract that a certain kind of small-stater likes to quote,
Until August 1914 a sensible, law-abiding Englishman could pass through life and hardly notice the existence of the state, beyond the post office and the policeman. He could live where he liked and as he liked. He had no official number or identity card. He could travel abroad or leave his country for ever without a passport or any sort of official permission. He could exchange his money for any other currency without restriction or limit. He could buy goods from any country in the world on the same terms as he bought goods at home. For that matter, a foreigner could spend his life in this country without permit and without informing the police.
If that is your ideal, then Britain post-Brexit is further from it than it was immediately before.
Funny old world.
That world (if it really existed - no tariffs before 1914, really?) was killed by the welfare state. So you do have to be a certain kind of small stater - one who wants to abolish the welfare state as a whole. Bit fringe.
As a corollary, the practical application of a UBI comes with a whole body of questions about eligibility based on citizenship and residency that imply quite a hard line on border drawing, to an extent that I don't think many supporters of UBI appreciate.
The answer, that many do not like, is that eligibility for a UBI would be strictly linked to citizenship and/or residency.
They do not like it, because the implication is
1) A large number of people would be outside the benefits system. 2) The cost of employing non citizen/resident labour would effectively skyrocket.
Well you or I might think that. But it's not obvious to me that those in power would link UBI to British citizens.
I’ve just listened to Ken Clarke’s analysis of the Budget again.
I think he’s right that Reeves completely boxed herself in by promising not to raise certain taxes.
But the question is, if she hadn’t, would it have damaged Labour’s electoral chances?
I was intrigued he supported the changes on farmers.
I think he’s right, she should have raised VAT and fuel duty.
She could hardly have done more damage - Labour could end up third in a poll in the near future.
I am not as convinced as others that this is the end but I am convinced the winter fuel allowance cut was a big mistake.
Ken Clarke is a big supporter of what might be termed a globalist agenda. He has an almost mythical status as someone perceived as a competent Tory COTE, and he did preside over an economy going in the right direction, but recovery was always fairly likely with a good industrial base and (after Black Wednesday) a low pound. He would have made a poor and divisive leader, and though he might have some interesting tactical or presentational advice for Reeves, his policies in this instance would have taken as much money off people, and would therefore have ended up just as unpopular.
I do not perceive there being any way that budget was going to be popular based on the money they needed to raise.
Hunt would have had just the same problem.
The question therefore is. what would be the least unpopular or most long-term impactful changes for the country.
I therefore think the changes to the farmers were and are right.
Winter fuel seems like something they’ll just bring back again so I can’t see how long term it made sense to cut that. Bad decision.
Tax changes to employers. Unsure about this one.
Not raising fuel duty is and was lunacy.
Same for the triple lock. They should have removed that whilst they were at it.
Overall, if they wanted to be unpopular from this budget it’s quite mad they didn’t do more stuff to actually re-balance the economy.
Winter fuel though is politically unsustainable at this point without change.
Why can the size of the civil service not be reduced to pre-Covid numbers? That would have both improved the numbers, and the public's perception that the pain was being heaped on taxpayers while those employed by the state got big pay rises and continued to be shit.
Brexit? I've speculated this before, but the ramp up in numbers coincides, with a short lag, with the referendum. Is it simply that we've had to do more administration ourselves rather than outsourcing to the EU? There must be some roles that we used to pay for as part of the EU and now employ directly ourselves.
Or were the cuts from 2010-2016 simply unsustainable and this is the unwind? We're only a little above 2010 levels with a much larger population.
There needs to be a proper distinction drawn between extra civil servants needed for the brexit process, and extra civil servants needed permanently to administer matters now within our control. It can't be huge numbers because, as pro-europeans enjoy reminding us, the Brussels bureaucracy is actually quite small.
Though creating bits of admin which previously didn't exist and putting all the admin load on one state rather than across 28 can't help.
There's that AJP Taylor extract that a certain kind of small-stater likes to quote,
Until August 1914 a sensible, law-abiding Englishman could pass through life and hardly notice the existence of the state, beyond the post office and the policeman. He could live where he liked and as he liked. He had no official number or identity card. He could travel abroad or leave his country for ever without a passport or any sort of official permission. He could exchange his money for any other currency without restriction or limit. He could buy goods from any country in the world on the same terms as he bought goods at home. For that matter, a foreigner could spend his life in this country without permit and without informing the police.
If that is your ideal, then Britain post-Brexit is further from it than it was immediately before.
Funny old world.
That world (if it really existed - no tariffs before 1914, really?) was killed by the welfare state. So you do have to be a certain kind of small stater - one who wants to abolish the welfare state as a whole. Bit fringe.
As a corollary, the practical application of a UBI comes with a whole body of questions about eligibility based on citizenship and residency that imply quite a hard line on border drawing, to an extent that I don't think many supporters of UBI appreciate.
My personal view is that UBI is a horror show for all kinds of reasons.
Unless AI slashes the number of permanent full time jobs available, UBI is simply too costly
Do we not perceive any world where Reform UK supports Labour? Why must we assume they will ally with the Tories?
If Labour were the Opposition then that might be conceivable, but not to prop up an incumbent government, no.
I meant after the election. People assume Reform UK will support the Tories into government.
Do we not perceive any scenario where they actually support Labour?
What if the seats don’t work?
Can Reform support Labour? Yes, if Big Nige wants to, he might easily point to Labour's deportations and reduced immigration as justification for supporting Labour.
Would Reform want to support Labour? Well, both parties' voters probably like increased spending.
So it is certainly possible that Reform will support Labour. Whether it is likely is another matter.
The single most important thing about Reform is that they are against the status quo. So if the next election results in a hung Parliament I would think there's very little chance of Reform supporting the status quo option - of Labour continuing in government.
Yes - I think that is correct.
I further think that they would rule out any coalitions with the existing parties. A weak, minority government of *someone else* is exactly what they would want.
Hitler was offered the deputy chancellor position a whole stack of times, but resolutely refused to take that role, until eventually they ran out of alternative credible chancellors.
Changing the subject, of course.
Do Reform actually want power? I have no way of knowing, but I suspect that they know that the compromises with reality that actual power will entail will not be much fun. Meanwhile, they have the opportunity of being almost as effective in moving the dial on public policy by sitting on the right hand side of both Labour and the Conservatives with the threat of hoovering off votes should either of those parties get too technocratic.
That is, after all, how UKIP effected their #1 policy item without actually having to touch government.
Utlimately, what does Nigel want?
I'm sure he likes the idea of being Prime Minister- what ambitious politician wouldn't? But does he really want the ballsache of doing the job through his late sixties? And if he doesn't, what does he want?
To have a platform, to have people listen to him, to have the excitement of being the guy upsetting the apple cart.
I think that's it, isn't it? Brexit is done, he could have retired happily, job done (and he did leave UKIP leadership, afterall) but I think he missed being in the limelight, which is understandable. Wishing happy birthday to Hugh Janus didn't quite cut it
Actually being PM, I agree, could be his worst nightmare after the first couple of days or so.
I’ve just listened to Ken Clarke’s analysis of the Budget again.
I think he’s right that Reeves completely boxed herself in by promising not to raise certain taxes.
But the question is, if she hadn’t, would it have damaged Labour’s electoral chances?
I was intrigued he supported the changes on farmers.
I think he’s right, she should have raised VAT and fuel duty.
She could hardly have done more damage - Labour could end up third in a poll in the near future.
I am not as convinced as others that this is the end but I am convinced the winter fuel allowance cut was a big mistake.
Ken Clarke is a big supporter of what might be termed a globalist agenda. He has an almost mythical status as someone perceived as a competent Tory COTE, and he did preside over an economy going in the right direction, but recovery was always fairly likely with a good industrial base and (after Black Wednesday) a low pound. He would have made a poor and divisive leader, and though he might have some interesting tactical or presentational advice for Reeves, his policies in this instance would have taken as much money off people, and would therefore have ended up just as unpopular.
I do not perceive there being any way that budget was going to be popular based on the money they needed to raise.
Hunt would have had just the same problem.
The question therefore is. what would be the least unpopular or most long-term impactful changes for the country.
I therefore think the changes to the farmers were and are right.
Winter fuel seems like something they’ll just bring back again so I can’t see how long term it made sense to cut that. Bad decision.
Tax changes to employers. Unsure about this one.
Not raising fuel duty is and was lunacy.
Same for the triple lock. They should have removed that whilst they were at it.
Overall, if they wanted to be unpopular from this budget it’s quite mad they didn’t do more stuff to actually re-balance the economy.
Winter fuel though is politically unsustainable at this point without change.
Why can the size of the civil service not be reduced to pre-Covid numbers? That would have both improved the numbers, and the public's perception that the pain was being heaped on taxpayers while those employed by the state got big pay rises and continued to be shit.
Brexit? I've speculated this before, but the ramp up in numbers coincides, with a short lag, with the referendum. Is it simply that we've had to do more administration ourselves rather than outsourcing to the EU? There must be some roles that we used to pay for as part of the EU and now employ directly ourselves.
Or were the cuts from 2010-2016 simply unsustainable and this is the unwind? We're only a little above 2010 levels with a much larger population.
There needs to be a proper distinction drawn between extra civil servants needed for the brexit process, and extra civil servants needed permanently to administer matters now within our control. It can't be huge numbers because, as pro-europeans enjoy reminding us, the Brussels bureaucracy is actually quite small.
Though creating bits of admin which previously didn't exist and putting all the admin load on one state rather than across 28 can't help.
There's that AJP Taylor extract that a certain kind of small-stater likes to quote,
Until August 1914 a sensible, law-abiding Englishman could pass through life and hardly notice the existence of the state, beyond the post office and the policeman. He could live where he liked and as he liked. He had no official number or identity card. He could travel abroad or leave his country for ever without a passport or any sort of official permission. He could exchange his money for any other currency without restriction or limit. He could buy goods from any country in the world on the same terms as he bought goods at home. For that matter, a foreigner could spend his life in this country without permit and without informing the police.
If that is your ideal, then Britain post-Brexit is further from it than it was immediately before.
Funny old world.
That world (if it really existed - no tariffs before 1914, really?) was killed by the welfare state. So you do have to be a certain kind of small stater - one who wants to abolish the welfare state as a whole. Bit fringe.
Well we had repealed the Corn Laws...
And the was a mass liberalisation of trade towards the end of the 19thC.
I’ve just listened to Ken Clarke’s analysis of the Budget again.
I think he’s right that Reeves completely boxed herself in by promising not to raise certain taxes.
But the question is, if she hadn’t, would it have damaged Labour’s electoral chances?
I was intrigued he supported the changes on farmers.
I think he’s right, she should have raised VAT and fuel duty.
She could hardly have done more damage - Labour could end up third in a poll in the near future.
I am not as convinced as others that this is the end but I am convinced the winter fuel allowance cut was a big mistake.
Ken Clarke is a big supporter of what might be termed a globalist agenda. He has an almost mythical status as someone perceived as a competent Tory COTE, and he did preside over an economy going in the right direction, but recovery was always fairly likely with a good industrial base and (after Black Wednesday) a low pound. He would have made a poor and divisive leader, and though he might have some interesting tactical or presentational advice for Reeves, his policies in this instance would have taken as much money off people, and would therefore have ended up just as unpopular.
I do not perceive there being any way that budget was going to be popular based on the money they needed to raise.
Hunt would have had just the same problem.
The question therefore is. what would be the least unpopular or most long-term impactful changes for the country.
I therefore think the changes to the farmers were and are right.
Winter fuel seems like something they’ll just bring back again so I can’t see how long term it made sense to cut that. Bad decision.
Tax changes to employers. Unsure about this one.
Not raising fuel duty is and was lunacy.
Same for the triple lock. They should have removed that whilst they were at it.
Overall, if they wanted to be unpopular from this budget it’s quite mad they didn’t do more stuff to actually re-balance the economy.
Winter fuel though is politically unsustainable at this point without change.
Why can the size of the civil service not be reduced to pre-Covid numbers? That would have both improved the numbers, and the public's perception that the pain was being heaped on taxpayers while those employed by the state got big pay rises and continued to be shit.
Brexit? I've speculated this before, but the ramp up in numbers coincides, with a short lag, with the referendum. Is it simply that we've had to do more administration ourselves rather than outsourcing to the EU? There must be some roles that we used to pay for as part of the EU and now employ directly ourselves.
Or were the cuts from 2010-2016 simply unsustainable and this is the unwind? We're only a little above 2010 levels with a much larger population.
There needs to be a proper distinction drawn between extra civil servants needed for the brexit process, and extra civil servants needed permanently to administer matters now within our control. It can't be huge numbers because, as pro-europeans enjoy reminding us, the Brussels bureaucracy is actually quite small.
Though creating bits of admin which previously didn't exist and putting all the admin load on one state rather than across 28 can't help.
There's that AJP Taylor extract that a certain kind of small-stater likes to quote,
Until August 1914 a sensible, law-abiding Englishman could pass through life and hardly notice the existence of the state, beyond the post office and the policeman. He could live where he liked and as he liked. He had no official number or identity card. He could travel abroad or leave his country for ever without a passport or any sort of official permission. He could exchange his money for any other currency without restriction or limit. He could buy goods from any country in the world on the same terms as he bought goods at home. For that matter, a foreigner could spend his life in this country without permit and without informing the police.
If that is your ideal, then Britain post-Brexit is further from it than it was immediately before.
Funny old world.
That world (if it really existed - no tariffs before 1914, really?) was killed by the welfare state. So you do have to be a certain kind of small stater - one who wants to abolish the welfare state as a whole. Bit fringe.
As a corollary, the practical application of a UBI comes with a whole body of questions about eligibility based on citizenship and residency that imply quite a hard line on border drawing, to an extent that I don't think many supporters of UBI appreciate.
The answer, that many do not like, is that eligibility for a UBI would be strictly linked to citizenship and/or residency.
They do not like it, because the implication is
1) A large number of people would be outside the benefits system. 2) The cost of employing non citizen/resident labour would effectively skyrocket.
Well you or I might think that. But it's not obvious to me that those in power would link UBI to British citizens.
If you simply offered 20K a year for existing here, immigration would get.... interesting.
As it is, the myth in the various bits of the developing world (carefully cultivated) is that you can claim benefits & work here the moment you turn up....
I’ve just listened to Ken Clarke’s analysis of the Budget again.
I think he’s right that Reeves completely boxed herself in by promising not to raise certain taxes.
But the question is, if she hadn’t, would it have damaged Labour’s electoral chances?
I was intrigued he supported the changes on farmers.
I think he’s right, she should have raised VAT and fuel duty.
She could hardly have done more damage - Labour could end up third in a poll in the near future.
I am not as convinced as others that this is the end but I am convinced the winter fuel allowance cut was a big mistake.
Ken Clarke is a big supporter of what might be termed a globalist agenda. He has an almost mythical status as someone perceived as a competent Tory COTE, and he did preside over an economy going in the right direction, but recovery was always fairly likely with a good industrial base and (after Black Wednesday) a low pound. He would have made a poor and divisive leader, and though he might have some interesting tactical or presentational advice for Reeves, his policies in this instance would have taken as much money off people, and would therefore have ended up just as unpopular.
I do not perceive there being any way that budget was going to be popular based on the money they needed to raise.
Hunt would have had just the same problem.
The question therefore is. what would be the least unpopular or most long-term impactful changes for the country.
I therefore think the changes to the farmers were and are right.
Winter fuel seems like something they’ll just bring back again so I can’t see how long term it made sense to cut that. Bad decision.
Tax changes to employers. Unsure about this one.
Not raising fuel duty is and was lunacy.
Same for the triple lock. They should have removed that whilst they were at it.
Overall, if they wanted to be unpopular from this budget it’s quite mad they didn’t do more stuff to actually re-balance the economy.
Winter fuel though is politically unsustainable at this point without change.
Why can the size of the civil service not be reduced to pre-Covid numbers? That would have both improved the numbers, and the public's perception that the pain was being heaped on taxpayers while those employed by the state got big pay rises and continued to be shit.
Brexit? I've speculated this before, but the ramp up in numbers coincides, with a short lag, with the referendum. Is it simply that we've had to do more administration ourselves rather than outsourcing to the EU? There must be some roles that we used to pay for as part of the EU and now employ directly ourselves.
Or were the cuts from 2010-2016 simply unsustainable and this is the unwind? We're only a little above 2010 levels with a much larger population.
There needs to be a proper distinction drawn between extra civil servants needed for the brexit process, and extra civil servants needed permanently to administer matters now within our control. It can't be huge numbers because, as pro-europeans enjoy reminding us, the Brussels bureaucracy is actually quite small.
Though creating bits of admin which previously didn't exist and putting all the admin load on one state rather than across 28 can't help.
There's that AJP Taylor extract that a certain kind of small-stater likes to quote,
Until August 1914 a sensible, law-abiding Englishman could pass through life and hardly notice the existence of the state, beyond the post office and the policeman. He could live where he liked and as he liked. He had no official number or identity card. He could travel abroad or leave his country for ever without a passport or any sort of official permission. He could exchange his money for any other currency without restriction or limit. He could buy goods from any country in the world on the same terms as he bought goods at home. For that matter, a foreigner could spend his life in this country without permit and without informing the police.
If that is your ideal, then Britain post-Brexit is further from it than it was immediately before.
Funny old world.
That world (if it really existed - no tariffs before 1914, really?) was killed by the welfare state. So you do have to be a certain kind of small stater - one who wants to abolish the welfare state as a whole. Bit fringe.
Plus you would need to abolish passport control and immigration border forces which wouldn't go down well with the anti immigration crowd. Nor would no tariffs
Just had a Christmas card hand delivered from "Your local Labour Councillors and Labour Party team of volunteers." If there making an effort round here they must be feeling confident.
County Council seat was, last time, a Green gain from Conservative and the District Council seats are both Indies, with Green support. Of course, 20 years ago we had a Labour MP for a while. Very good he was, too.
I’ve just listened to Ken Clarke’s analysis of the Budget again.
I think he’s right that Reeves completely boxed herself in by promising not to raise certain taxes.
But the question is, if she hadn’t, would it have damaged Labour’s electoral chances?
I was intrigued he supported the changes on farmers.
I think he’s right, she should have raised VAT and fuel duty.
She could hardly have done more damage - Labour could end up third in a poll in the near future.
I am not as convinced as others that this is the end but I am convinced the winter fuel allowance cut was a big mistake.
Ken Clarke is a big supporter of what might be termed a globalist agenda. He has an almost mythical status as someone perceived as a competent Tory COTE, and he did preside over an economy going in the right direction, but recovery was always fairly likely with a good industrial base and (after Black Wednesday) a low pound. He would have made a poor and divisive leader, and though he might have some interesting tactical or presentational advice for Reeves, his policies in this instance would have taken as much money off people, and would therefore have ended up just as unpopular.
I do not perceive there being any way that budget was going to be popular based on the money they needed to raise.
Hunt would have had just the same problem.
The question therefore is. what would be the least unpopular or most long-term impactful changes for the country.
I therefore think the changes to the farmers were and are right.
Winter fuel seems like something they’ll just bring back again so I can’t see how long term it made sense to cut that. Bad decision.
Tax changes to employers. Unsure about this one.
Not raising fuel duty is and was lunacy.
Same for the triple lock. They should have removed that whilst they were at it.
Overall, if they wanted to be unpopular from this budget it’s quite mad they didn’t do more stuff to actually re-balance the economy.
Winter fuel though is politically unsustainable at this point without change.
Why can the size of the civil service not be reduced to pre-Covid numbers? That would have both improved the numbers, and the public's perception that the pain was being heaped on taxpayers while those employed by the state got big pay rises and continued to be shit.
Brexit? I've speculated this before, but the ramp up in numbers coincides, with a short lag, with the referendum. Is it simply that we've had to do more administration ourselves rather than outsourcing to the EU? There must be some roles that we used to pay for as part of the EU and now employ directly ourselves.
Or were the cuts from 2010-2016 simply unsustainable and this is the unwind? We're only a little above 2010 levels with a much larger population.
There needs to be a proper distinction drawn between extra civil servants needed for the brexit process, and extra civil servants needed permanently to administer matters now within our control. It can't be huge numbers because, as pro-europeans enjoy reminding us, the Brussels bureaucracy is actually quite small.
Though creating bits of admin which previously didn't exist and putting all the admin load on one state rather than across 28 can't help.
There's that AJP Taylor extract that a certain kind of small-stater likes to quote,
Until August 1914 a sensible, law-abiding Englishman could pass through life and hardly notice the existence of the state, beyond the post office and the policeman. He could live where he liked and as he liked. He had no official number or identity card. He could travel abroad or leave his country for ever without a passport or any sort of official permission. He could exchange his money for any other currency without restriction or limit. He could buy goods from any country in the world on the same terms as he bought goods at home. For that matter, a foreigner could spend his life in this country without permit and without informing the police.
If that is your ideal, then Britain post-Brexit is further from it than it was immediately before.
Funny old world.
That world (if it really existed - no tariffs before 1914, really?) was killed by the welfare state. So you do have to be a certain kind of small stater - one who wants to abolish the welfare state as a whole. Bit fringe.
As a corollary, the practical application of a UBI comes with a whole body of questions about eligibility based on citizenship and residency that imply quite a hard line on border drawing, to an extent that I don't think many supporters of UBI appreciate.
The answer, that many do not like, is that eligibility for a UBI would be strictly linked to citizenship and/or residency.
They do not like it, because the implication is
1) A large number of people would be outside the benefits system. 2) The cost of employing non citizen/resident labour would effectively skyrocket.
Well you or I might think that. But it's not obvious to me that those in power would link UBI to British citizens.
If you simply offered 20K a year for existing here, immigration would get.... interesting.
As it is, the myth in the various bits of the developing world (carefully cultivated) is that you can claim benefits & work here the moment you turn up....
Which isn’t far wrong when we house immigrants and give them money as soon as they claim asylum.
I’m not sure how you resolve the issue though as our language makes us the preferred destination for an awful lot of people
I’ve just listened to Ken Clarke’s analysis of the Budget again.
I think he’s right that Reeves completely boxed herself in by promising not to raise certain taxes.
But the question is, if she hadn’t, would it have damaged Labour’s electoral chances?
I was intrigued he supported the changes on farmers.
I think he’s right, she should have raised VAT and fuel duty.
She could hardly have done more damage - Labour could end up third in a poll in the near future.
I am not as convinced as others that this is the end but I am convinced the winter fuel allowance cut was a big mistake.
Ken Clarke is a big supporter of what might be termed a globalist agenda. He has an almost mythical status as someone perceived as a competent Tory COTE, and he did preside over an economy going in the right direction, but recovery was always fairly likely with a good industrial base and (after Black Wednesday) a low pound. He would have made a poor and divisive leader, and though he might have some interesting tactical or presentational advice for Reeves, his policies in this instance would have taken as much money off people, and would therefore have ended up just as unpopular.
I do not perceive there being any way that budget was going to be popular based on the money they needed to raise.
Hunt would have had just the same problem.
The question therefore is. what would be the least unpopular or most long-term impactful changes for the country.
I therefore think the changes to the farmers were and are right.
Winter fuel seems like something they’ll just bring back again so I can’t see how long term it made sense to cut that. Bad decision.
Tax changes to employers. Unsure about this one.
Not raising fuel duty is and was lunacy.
Same for the triple lock. They should have removed that whilst they were at it.
Overall, if they wanted to be unpopular from this budget it’s quite mad they didn’t do more stuff to actually re-balance the economy.
Winter fuel though is politically unsustainable at this point without change.
Why can the size of the civil service not be reduced to pre-Covid numbers? That would have both improved the numbers, and the public's perception that the pain was being heaped on taxpayers while those employed by the state got big pay rises and continued to be shit.
Brexit? I've speculated this before, but the ramp up in numbers coincides, with a short lag, with the referendum. Is it simply that we've had to do more administration ourselves rather than outsourcing to the EU? There must be some roles that we used to pay for as part of the EU and now employ directly ourselves.
Or were the cuts from 2010-2016 simply unsustainable and this is the unwind? We're only a little above 2010 levels with a much larger population.
There needs to be a proper distinction drawn between extra civil servants needed for the brexit process, and extra civil servants needed permanently to administer matters now within our control. It can't be huge numbers because, as pro-europeans enjoy reminding us, the Brussels bureaucracy is actually quite small.
Though creating bits of admin which previously didn't exist and putting all the admin load on one state rather than across 28 can't help.
There's that AJP Taylor extract that a certain kind of small-stater likes to quote,
Until August 1914 a sensible, law-abiding Englishman could pass through life and hardly notice the existence of the state, beyond the post office and the policeman. He could live where he liked and as he liked. He had no official number or identity card. He could travel abroad or leave his country for ever without a passport or any sort of official permission. He could exchange his money for any other currency without restriction or limit. He could buy goods from any country in the world on the same terms as he bought goods at home. For that matter, a foreigner could spend his life in this country without permit and without informing the police.
If that is your ideal, then Britain post-Brexit is further from it than it was immediately before.
Funny old world.
That world (if it really existed - no tariffs before 1914, really?) was killed by the welfare state. So you do have to be a certain kind of small stater - one who wants to abolish the welfare state as a whole. Bit fringe.
As a corollary, the practical application of a UBI comes with a whole body of questions about eligibility based on citizenship and residency that imply quite a hard line on border drawing, to an extent that I don't think many supporters of UBI appreciate.
My personal view is that UBI is a horror show for all kinds of reasons.
Unless AI slashes the number of permanent full time jobs available, UBI is simply too costly
In which case I believe you are in favour of UBI funded by a robot tax.
I’ve just listened to Ken Clarke’s analysis of the Budget again.
I think he’s right that Reeves completely boxed herself in by promising not to raise certain taxes.
But the question is, if she hadn’t, would it have damaged Labour’s electoral chances?
I was intrigued he supported the changes on farmers.
I think he’s right, she should have raised VAT and fuel duty.
She could hardly have done more damage - Labour could end up third in a poll in the near future.
I am not as convinced as others that this is the end but I am convinced the winter fuel allowance cut was a big mistake.
Ken Clarke is a big supporter of what might be termed a globalist agenda. He has an almost mythical status as someone perceived as a competent Tory COTE, and he did preside over an economy going in the right direction, but recovery was always fairly likely with a good industrial base and (after Black Wednesday) a low pound. He would have made a poor and divisive leader, and though he might have some interesting tactical or presentational advice for Reeves, his policies in this instance would have taken as much money off people, and would therefore have ended up just as unpopular.
I do not perceive there being any way that budget was going to be popular based on the money they needed to raise.
Hunt would have had just the same problem.
The question therefore is. what would be the least unpopular or most long-term impactful changes for the country.
I therefore think the changes to the farmers were and are right.
Winter fuel seems like something they’ll just bring back again so I can’t see how long term it made sense to cut that. Bad decision.
Tax changes to employers. Unsure about this one.
Not raising fuel duty is and was lunacy.
Same for the triple lock. They should have removed that whilst they were at it.
Overall, if they wanted to be unpopular from this budget it’s quite mad they didn’t do more stuff to actually re-balance the economy.
Winter fuel though is politically unsustainable at this point without change.
Why can the size of the civil service not be reduced to pre-Covid numbers? That would have both improved the numbers, and the public's perception that the pain was being heaped on taxpayers while those employed by the state got big pay rises and continued to be shit.
Brexit? I've speculated this before, but the ramp up in numbers coincides, with a short lag, with the referendum. Is it simply that we've had to do more administration ourselves rather than outsourcing to the EU? There must be some roles that we used to pay for as part of the EU and now employ directly ourselves.
Or were the cuts from 2010-2016 simply unsustainable and this is the unwind? We're only a little above 2010 levels with a much larger population.
There needs to be a proper distinction drawn between extra civil servants needed for the brexit process, and extra civil servants needed permanently to administer matters now within our control. It can't be huge numbers because, as pro-europeans enjoy reminding us, the Brussels bureaucracy is actually quite small.
Though creating bits of admin which previously didn't exist and putting all the admin load on one state rather than across 28 can't help.
There's that AJP Taylor extract that a certain kind of small-stater likes to quote,
Until August 1914 a sensible, law-abiding Englishman could pass through life and hardly notice the existence of the state, beyond the post office and the policeman. He could live where he liked and as he liked. He had no official number or identity card. He could travel abroad or leave his country for ever without a passport or any sort of official permission. He could exchange his money for any other currency without restriction or limit. He could buy goods from any country in the world on the same terms as he bought goods at home. For that matter, a foreigner could spend his life in this country without permit and without informing the police.
If that is your ideal, then Britain post-Brexit is further from it than it was immediately before.
Funny old world.
That world (if it really existed - no tariffs before 1914, really?) was killed by the welfare state. So you do have to be a certain kind of small stater - one who wants to abolish the welfare state as a whole. Bit fringe.
As a corollary, the practical application of a UBI comes with a whole body of questions about eligibility based on citizenship and residency that imply quite a hard line on border drawing, to an extent that I don't think many supporters of UBI appreciate.
The answer, that many do not like, is that eligibility for a UBI would be strictly linked to citizenship and/or residency.
They do not like it, because the implication is
1) A large number of people would be outside the benefits system. 2) The cost of employing non citizen/resident labour would effectively skyrocket.
Well you or I might think that. But it's not obvious to me that those in power would link UBI to British citizens.
If you simply offered 20K a year for existing here, immigration would get.... interesting.
As it is, the myth in the various bits of the developing world (carefully cultivated) is that you can claim benefits & work here the moment you turn up....
Which isn’t far wrong when we house immigrants and give them money as soon as they claim asylum.
I’m not sure how you resolve the issue though as our language makes us the preferred destination for an awful lot of people
Adopt Welsh as the official UK language and phase out English?
I’ve just listened to Ken Clarke’s analysis of the Budget again.
I think he’s right that Reeves completely boxed herself in by promising not to raise certain taxes.
But the question is, if she hadn’t, would it have damaged Labour’s electoral chances?
I was intrigued he supported the changes on farmers.
I think he’s right, she should have raised VAT and fuel duty.
She could hardly have done more damage - Labour could end up third in a poll in the near future.
I am not as convinced as others that this is the end but I am convinced the winter fuel allowance cut was a big mistake.
Ken Clarke is a big supporter of what might be termed a globalist agenda. He has an almost mythical status as someone perceived as a competent Tory COTE, and he did preside over an economy going in the right direction, but recovery was always fairly likely with a good industrial base and (after Black Wednesday) a low pound. He would have made a poor and divisive leader, and though he might have some interesting tactical or presentational advice for Reeves, his policies in this instance would have taken as much money off people, and would therefore have ended up just as unpopular.
I do not perceive there being any way that budget was going to be popular based on the money they needed to raise.
Hunt would have had just the same problem.
The question therefore is. what would be the least unpopular or most long-term impactful changes for the country.
I therefore think the changes to the farmers were and are right.
Winter fuel seems like something they’ll just bring back again so I can’t see how long term it made sense to cut that. Bad decision.
Tax changes to employers. Unsure about this one.
Not raising fuel duty is and was lunacy.
Same for the triple lock. They should have removed that whilst they were at it.
Overall, if they wanted to be unpopular from this budget it’s quite mad they didn’t do more stuff to actually re-balance the economy.
Winter fuel though is politically unsustainable at this point without change.
Why can the size of the civil service not be reduced to pre-Covid numbers? That would have both improved the numbers, and the public's perception that the pain was being heaped on taxpayers while those employed by the state got big pay rises and continued to be shit.
Brexit? I've speculated this before, but the ramp up in numbers coincides, with a short lag, with the referendum. Is it simply that we've had to do more administration ourselves rather than outsourcing to the EU? There must be some roles that we used to pay for as part of the EU and now employ directly ourselves.
Or were the cuts from 2010-2016 simply unsustainable and this is the unwind? We're only a little above 2010 levels with a much larger population.
There needs to be a proper distinction drawn between extra civil servants needed for the brexit process, and extra civil servants needed permanently to administer matters now within our control. It can't be huge numbers because, as pro-europeans enjoy reminding us, the Brussels bureaucracy is actually quite small.
Though creating bits of admin which previously didn't exist and putting all the admin load on one state rather than across 28 can't help.
There's that AJP Taylor extract that a certain kind of small-stater likes to quote,
Until August 1914 a sensible, law-abiding Englishman could pass through life and hardly notice the existence of the state, beyond the post office and the policeman. He could live where he liked and as he liked. He had no official number or identity card. He could travel abroad or leave his country for ever without a passport or any sort of official permission. He could exchange his money for any other currency without restriction or limit. He could buy goods from any country in the world on the same terms as he bought goods at home. For that matter, a foreigner could spend his life in this country without permit and without informing the police.
If that is your ideal, then Britain post-Brexit is further from it than it was immediately before.
Funny old world.
That world (if it really existed - no tariffs before 1914, really?) was killed by the welfare state. So you do have to be a certain kind of small stater - one who wants to abolish the welfare state as a whole. Bit fringe.
As a corollary, the practical application of a UBI comes with a whole body of questions about eligibility based on citizenship and residency that imply quite a hard line on border drawing, to an extent that I don't think many supporters of UBI appreciate.
The answer, that many do not like, is that eligibility for a UBI would be strictly linked to citizenship and/or residency.
They do not like it, because the implication is
1) A large number of people would be outside the benefits system. 2) The cost of employing non citizen/resident labour would effectively skyrocket.
Well you or I might think that. But it's not obvious to me that those in power would link UBI to British citizens.
If you simply offered 20K a year for existing here, immigration would get.... interesting.
As it is, the myth in the various bits of the developing world (carefully cultivated) is that you can claim benefits & work here the moment you turn up....
Which isn’t far wrong when we house immigrants and give them money as soon as they claim asylum.
I’m not sure how you resolve the issue though as our language makes us the preferred destination for an awful lot of people
If you talk to people from such countries (and I have) there is a deep set belief/myth that the U.K. is The Place to emigrate to. Mostly about being able to get a job easily.
I dont object to having an official ID Card. But I would object to having it on my phone - or being mandated to carry it - or it being linked to a big brother database. In other words a bit like a simplified passport.
Do you drive? If you do you are mandated to carry a card linked to a big brother database that acts like a simplified passport.
This is quite interesting on the effects of post covid migration to western countries.
18/20 is the one we continually talk about here - if you are importing people you need to build a house for them to live in otherwise they are adding extra demand to a limited supply of houses which pushes up housing costs to no one’s benefit (except rent seekers)
I dont object to having an official ID Card. But I would object to having it on my phone - or being mandated to carry it - or it being linked to a big brother database. In other words a bit like a simplified passport.
Do you drive? If you do you are mandated to carry a card linked to a big brother database that acts like a simplified passport.
I dont object to having an official ID Card. But I would object to having it on my phone - or being mandated to carry it - or it being linked to a big brother database. In other words a bit like a simplified passport.
Do you drive? If you do you are mandated to carry a card linked to a big brother database that acts like a simplified passport.
There's no requirement to carry the card.
+1 the requirement is that you can provide it within 7 days
And police will nowadays accept a bank card at the roadside as that allows them to match things up enough anyway
I’ve just listened to Ken Clarke’s analysis of the Budget again.
I think he’s right that Reeves completely boxed herself in by promising not to raise certain taxes.
But the question is, if she hadn’t, would it have damaged Labour’s electoral chances?
I was intrigued he supported the changes on farmers.
I think he’s right, she should have raised VAT and fuel duty.
She could hardly have done more damage - Labour could end up third in a poll in the near future.
I am not as convinced as others that this is the end but I am convinced the winter fuel allowance cut was a big mistake.
Ken Clarke is a big supporter of what might be termed a globalist agenda. He has an almost mythical status as someone perceived as a competent Tory COTE, and he did preside over an economy going in the right direction, but recovery was always fairly likely with a good industrial base and (after Black Wednesday) a low pound. He would have made a poor and divisive leader, and though he might have some interesting tactical or presentational advice for Reeves, his policies in this instance would have taken as much money off people, and would therefore have ended up just as unpopular.
I do not perceive there being any way that budget was going to be popular based on the money they needed to raise.
Hunt would have had just the same problem.
The question therefore is. what would be the least unpopular or most long-term impactful changes for the country.
I therefore think the changes to the farmers were and are right.
Winter fuel seems like something they’ll just bring back again so I can’t see how long term it made sense to cut that. Bad decision.
Tax changes to employers. Unsure about this one.
Not raising fuel duty is and was lunacy.
Same for the triple lock. They should have removed that whilst they were at it.
Overall, if they wanted to be unpopular from this budget it’s quite mad they didn’t do more stuff to actually re-balance the economy.
Winter fuel though is politically unsustainable at this point without change.
Why can the size of the civil service not be reduced to pre-Covid numbers? That would have both improved the numbers, and the public's perception that the pain was being heaped on taxpayers while those employed by the state got big pay rises and continued to be shit.
Brexit? I've speculated this before, but the ramp up in numbers coincides, with a short lag, with the referendum. Is it simply that we've had to do more administration ourselves rather than outsourcing to the EU? There must be some roles that we used to pay for as part of the EU and now employ directly ourselves.
Or were the cuts from 2010-2016 simply unsustainable and this is the unwind? We're only a little above 2010 levels with a much larger population.
There needs to be a proper distinction drawn between extra civil servants needed for the brexit process, and extra civil servants needed permanently to administer matters now within our control. It can't be huge numbers because, as pro-europeans enjoy reminding us, the Brussels bureaucracy is actually quite small.
Though creating bits of admin which previously didn't exist and putting all the admin load on one state rather than across 28 can't help.
There's that AJP Taylor extract that a certain kind of small-stater likes to quote,
Until August 1914 a sensible, law-abiding Englishman could pass through life and hardly notice the existence of the state, beyond the post office and the policeman. He could live where he liked and as he liked. He had no official number or identity card. He could travel abroad or leave his country for ever without a passport or any sort of official permission. He could exchange his money for any other currency without restriction or limit. He could buy goods from any country in the world on the same terms as he bought goods at home. For that matter, a foreigner could spend his life in this country without permit and without informing the police.
If that is your ideal, then Britain post-Brexit is further from it than it was immediately before.
Funny old world.
That world (if it really existed - no tariffs before 1914, really?) was killed by the welfare state. So you do have to be a certain kind of small stater - one who wants to abolish the welfare state as a whole. Bit fringe.
As a corollary, the practical application of a UBI comes with a whole body of questions about eligibility based on citizenship and residency that imply quite a hard line on border drawing, to an extent that I don't think many supporters of UBI appreciate.
The answer, that many do not like, is that eligibility for a UBI would be strictly linked to citizenship and/or residency.
They do not like it, because the implication is
1) A large number of people would be outside the benefits system. 2) The cost of employing non citizen/resident labour would effectively skyrocket.
Well you or I might think that. But it's not obvious to me that those in power would link UBI to British citizens.
If you simply offered 20K a year for existing here, immigration would get.... interesting.
As it is, the myth in the various bits of the developing world (carefully cultivated) is that you can claim benefits & work here the moment you turn up....
Which isn’t far wrong when we house immigrants and give them money as soon as they claim asylum.
I’m not sure how you resolve the issue though as our language makes us the preferred destination for an awful lot of people
Simple make it self funding for 2 years, 10K deposit to cover any health issues , no benefits or anything till 2 years tax and NI paid. For any person coming to stay in country for any reason.
I’ve just listened to Ken Clarke’s analysis of the Budget again.
I think he’s right that Reeves completely boxed herself in by promising not to raise certain taxes.
But the question is, if she hadn’t, would it have damaged Labour’s electoral chances?
I was intrigued he supported the changes on farmers.
I think he’s right, she should have raised VAT and fuel duty.
She could hardly have done more damage - Labour could end up third in a poll in the near future.
I am not as convinced as others that this is the end but I am convinced the winter fuel allowance cut was a big mistake.
Ken Clarke is a big supporter of what might be termed a globalist agenda. He has an almost mythical status as someone perceived as a competent Tory COTE, and he did preside over an economy going in the right direction, but recovery was always fairly likely with a good industrial base and (after Black Wednesday) a low pound. He would have made a poor and divisive leader, and though he might have some interesting tactical or presentational advice for Reeves, his policies in this instance would have taken as much money off people, and would therefore have ended up just as unpopular.
I do not perceive there being any way that budget was going to be popular based on the money they needed to raise.
Hunt would have had just the same problem.
The question therefore is. what would be the least unpopular or most long-term impactful changes for the country.
I therefore think the changes to the farmers were and are right.
Winter fuel seems like something they’ll just bring back again so I can’t see how long term it made sense to cut that. Bad decision.
Tax changes to employers. Unsure about this one.
Not raising fuel duty is and was lunacy.
Same for the triple lock. They should have removed that whilst they were at it.
Overall, if they wanted to be unpopular from this budget it’s quite mad they didn’t do more stuff to actually re-balance the economy.
Winter fuel though is politically unsustainable at this point without change.
Why can the size of the civil service not be reduced to pre-Covid numbers? That would have both improved the numbers, and the public's perception that the pain was being heaped on taxpayers while those employed by the state got big pay rises and continued to be shit.
Brexit? I've speculated this before, but the ramp up in numbers coincides, with a short lag, with the referendum. Is it simply that we've had to do more administration ourselves rather than outsourcing to the EU? There must be some roles that we used to pay for as part of the EU and now employ directly ourselves.
Or were the cuts from 2010-2016 simply unsustainable and this is the unwind? We're only a little above 2010 levels with a much larger population.
There needs to be a proper distinction drawn between extra civil servants needed for the brexit process, and extra civil servants needed permanently to administer matters now within our control. It can't be huge numbers because, as pro-europeans enjoy reminding us, the Brussels bureaucracy is actually quite small.
Though creating bits of admin which previously didn't exist and putting all the admin load on one state rather than across 28 can't help.
There's that AJP Taylor extract that a certain kind of small-stater likes to quote,
Until August 1914 a sensible, law-abiding Englishman could pass through life and hardly notice the existence of the state, beyond the post office and the policeman. He could live where he liked and as he liked. He had no official number or identity card. He could travel abroad or leave his country for ever without a passport or any sort of official permission. He could exchange his money for any other currency without restriction or limit. He could buy goods from any country in the world on the same terms as he bought goods at home. For that matter, a foreigner could spend his life in this country without permit and without informing the police.
If that is your ideal, then Britain post-Brexit is further from it than it was immediately before.
Funny old world.
That world (if it really existed - no tariffs before 1914, really?) was killed by the welfare state. So you do have to be a certain kind of small stater - one who wants to abolish the welfare state as a whole. Bit fringe.
As a corollary, the practical application of a UBI comes with a whole body of questions about eligibility based on citizenship and residency that imply quite a hard line on border drawing, to an extent that I don't think many supporters of UBI appreciate.
The answer, that many do not like, is that eligibility for a UBI would be strictly linked to citizenship and/or residency.
They do not like it, because the implication is
1) A large number of people would be outside the benefits system. 2) The cost of employing non citizen/resident labour would effectively skyrocket.
Well you or I might think that. But it's not obvious to me that those in power would link UBI to British citizens.
If you simply offered 20K a year for existing here, immigration would get.... interesting.
As it is, the myth in the various bits of the developing world (carefully cultivated) is that you can claim benefits & work here the moment you turn up....
Which isn’t far wrong when we house immigrants and give them money as soon as they claim asylum.
I’m not sure how you resolve the issue though as our language makes us the preferred destination for an awful lot of people
If you talk to people from such countries (and I have) there is a deep set belief/myth that the U.K. is The Place to emigrate to. Mostly about being able to get a job easily.
or free housing , benefits , health service, etc, ie patsies
I dont object to having an official ID Card. But I would object to having it on my phone - or being mandated to carry it - or it being linked to a big brother database. In other words a bit like a simplified passport.
Do you drive? If you do you are mandated to carry a card linked to a big brother database that acts like a simplified passport.
There's no requirement to carry the card.
Only because if you tell them your name and date of birth they have all your details to hand. I carry it in case I get asked my age down the off licence.
I’ve just listened to Ken Clarke’s analysis of the Budget again.
I think he’s right that Reeves completely boxed herself in by promising not to raise certain taxes.
But the question is, if she hadn’t, would it have damaged Labour’s electoral chances?
I was intrigued he supported the changes on farmers.
I think he’s right, she should have raised VAT and fuel duty.
She could hardly have done more damage - Labour could end up third in a poll in the near future.
I am not as convinced as others that this is the end but I am convinced the winter fuel allowance cut was a big mistake.
Ken Clarke is a big supporter of what might be termed a globalist agenda. He has an almost mythical status as someone perceived as a competent Tory COTE, and he did preside over an economy going in the right direction, but recovery was always fairly likely with a good industrial base and (after Black Wednesday) a low pound. He would have made a poor and divisive leader, and though he might have some interesting tactical or presentational advice for Reeves, his policies in this instance would have taken as much money off people, and would therefore have ended up just as unpopular.
I do not perceive there being any way that budget was going to be popular based on the money they needed to raise.
Hunt would have had just the same problem.
The question therefore is. what would be the least unpopular or most long-term impactful changes for the country.
I therefore think the changes to the farmers were and are right.
Winter fuel seems like something they’ll just bring back again so I can’t see how long term it made sense to cut that. Bad decision.
Tax changes to employers. Unsure about this one.
Not raising fuel duty is and was lunacy.
Same for the triple lock. They should have removed that whilst they were at it.
Overall, if they wanted to be unpopular from this budget it’s quite mad they didn’t do more stuff to actually re-balance the economy.
Winter fuel though is politically unsustainable at this point without change.
Why can the size of the civil service not be reduced to pre-Covid numbers? That would have both improved the numbers, and the public's perception that the pain was being heaped on taxpayers while those employed by the state got big pay rises and continued to be shit.
Brexit? I've speculated this before, but the ramp up in numbers coincides, with a short lag, with the referendum. Is it simply that we've had to do more administration ourselves rather than outsourcing to the EU? There must be some roles that we used to pay for as part of the EU and now employ directly ourselves.
Or were the cuts from 2010-2016 simply unsustainable and this is the unwind? We're only a little above 2010 levels with a much larger population.
There needs to be a proper distinction drawn between extra civil servants needed for the brexit process, and extra civil servants needed permanently to administer matters now within our control. It can't be huge numbers because, as pro-europeans enjoy reminding us, the Brussels bureaucracy is actually quite small.
Though creating bits of admin which previously didn't exist and putting all the admin load on one state rather than across 28 can't help.
There's that AJP Taylor extract that a certain kind of small-stater likes to quote,
Until August 1914 a sensible, law-abiding Englishman could pass through life and hardly notice the existence of the state, beyond the post office and the policeman. He could live where he liked and as he liked. He had no official number or identity card. He could travel abroad or leave his country for ever without a passport or any sort of official permission. He could exchange his money for any other currency without restriction or limit. He could buy goods from any country in the world on the same terms as he bought goods at home. For that matter, a foreigner could spend his life in this country without permit and without informing the police.
If that is your ideal, then Britain post-Brexit is further from it than it was immediately before.
Funny old world.
That world (if it really existed - no tariffs before 1914, really?) was killed by the welfare state. So you do have to be a certain kind of small stater - one who wants to abolish the welfare state as a whole. Bit fringe.
As a corollary, the practical application of a UBI comes with a whole body of questions about eligibility based on citizenship and residency that imply quite a hard line on border drawing, to an extent that I don't think many supporters of UBI appreciate.
My personal view is that UBI is a horror show for all kinds of reasons.
Unless AI slashes the number of permanent full time jobs available, UBI is simply too costly
In which case I believe you are in favour of UBI funded by a robot tax.
If it was a robot it would be far easier to tax than a computer program which could move to another computer in another country any time it wanted to.
I just doesn’t believe AI as something that can be taxed easily.
I’ve just listened to Ken Clarke’s analysis of the Budget again.
I think he’s right that Reeves completely boxed herself in by promising not to raise certain taxes.
But the question is, if she hadn’t, would it have damaged Labour’s electoral chances?
I was intrigued he supported the changes on farmers.
I think he’s right, she should have raised VAT and fuel duty.
She could hardly have done more damage - Labour could end up third in a poll in the near future.
I am not as convinced as others that this is the end but I am convinced the winter fuel allowance cut was a big mistake.
Ken Clarke is a big supporter of what might be termed a globalist agenda. He has an almost mythical status as someone perceived as a competent Tory COTE, and he did preside over an economy going in the right direction, but recovery was always fairly likely with a good industrial base and (after Black Wednesday) a low pound. He would have made a poor and divisive leader, and though he might have some interesting tactical or presentational advice for Reeves, his policies in this instance would have taken as much money off people, and would therefore have ended up just as unpopular.
I do not perceive there being any way that budget was going to be popular based on the money they needed to raise.
Hunt would have had just the same problem.
The question therefore is. what would be the least unpopular or most long-term impactful changes for the country.
I therefore think the changes to the farmers were and are right.
Winter fuel seems like something they’ll just bring back again so I can’t see how long term it made sense to cut that. Bad decision.
Tax changes to employers. Unsure about this one.
Not raising fuel duty is and was lunacy.
Same for the triple lock. They should have removed that whilst they were at it.
Overall, if they wanted to be unpopular from this budget it’s quite mad they didn’t do more stuff to actually re-balance the economy.
Winter fuel though is politically unsustainable at this point without change.
Why can the size of the civil service not be reduced to pre-Covid numbers? That would have both improved the numbers, and the public's perception that the pain was being heaped on taxpayers while those employed by the state got big pay rises and continued to be shit.
Brexit? I've speculated this before, but the ramp up in numbers coincides, with a short lag, with the referendum. Is it simply that we've had to do more administration ourselves rather than outsourcing to the EU? There must be some roles that we used to pay for as part of the EU and now employ directly ourselves.
Or were the cuts from 2010-2016 simply unsustainable and this is the unwind? We're only a little above 2010 levels with a much larger population.
There needs to be a proper distinction drawn between extra civil servants needed for the brexit process, and extra civil servants needed permanently to administer matters now within our control. It can't be huge numbers because, as pro-europeans enjoy reminding us, the Brussels bureaucracy is actually quite small.
Though creating bits of admin which previously didn't exist and putting all the admin load on one state rather than across 28 can't help.
There's that AJP Taylor extract that a certain kind of small-stater likes to quote,
Until August 1914 a sensible, law-abiding Englishman could pass through life and hardly notice the existence of the state, beyond the post office and the policeman. He could live where he liked and as he liked. He had no official number or identity card. He could travel abroad or leave his country for ever without a passport or any sort of official permission. He could exchange his money for any other currency without restriction or limit. He could buy goods from any country in the world on the same terms as he bought goods at home. For that matter, a foreigner could spend his life in this country without permit and without informing the police.
If that is your ideal, then Britain post-Brexit is further from it than it was immediately before.
Funny old world.
That world (if it really existed - no tariffs before 1914, really?) was killed by the welfare state. So you do have to be a certain kind of small stater - one who wants to abolish the welfare state as a whole. Bit fringe.
As a corollary, the practical application of a UBI comes with a whole body of questions about eligibility based on citizenship and residency that imply quite a hard line on border drawing, to an extent that I don't think many supporters of UBI appreciate.
The answer, that many do not like, is that eligibility for a UBI would be strictly linked to citizenship and/or residency.
They do not like it, because the implication is
1) A large number of people would be outside the benefits system. 2) The cost of employing non citizen/resident labour would effectively skyrocket.
Well you or I might think that. But it's not obvious to me that those in power would link UBI to British citizens.
If you simply offered 20K a year for existing here, immigration would get.... interesting.
As it is, the myth in the various bits of the developing world (carefully cultivated) is that you can claim benefits & work here the moment you turn up....
Which isn’t far wrong when we house immigrants and give them money as soon as they claim asylum.
I’m not sure how you resolve the issue though as our language makes us the preferred destination for an awful lot of people
Adopt Welsh as the official UK language and phase out English?
That would raise human rights issues.
“You had that knowledge! Art a fool? Are ye minded to utter that name and die?” “Utter it? Why certainly. I would utter it if it was Welsh.” “Ye are even a dead man, then….”
With Sednaya in the news, this popped up from 2019.
You couldn't make it up.
#France's far-right meet with #Assad & celebrate by drinking Cotes Du Rhone in #Sednaya - home to #Syria's infamous prison & its bespoke crematorium, where ~3,000 people are executed each year, each signed off by Grand Mufti Hassoun, who they also met! https://x.com/Charles_Lister/status/1168907417784131587
I dont object to having an official ID Card. But I would object to having it on my phone - or being mandated to carry it - or it being linked to a big brother database. In other words a bit like a simplified passport.
Do you drive? If you do you are mandated to carry a card linked to a big brother database that acts like a simplified passport.
The database is not integrated (or attempted to be) with everything else in your life. The policeman can’t look up your medical records using your driving license.
I hope Assad has been allocated a flat in the Projects. Perhaps next to Snowdon.
He's worth about $2 billion. Or was. I'm sure he'll have access to a few tens of millions, at least.
Sadly, it doesn't always go badly for ex-dictators. Imelda Marcos is 95 years old, and her son is now the president.
Hmmm. Probably easier said than done, particularly if the cash is in the West. How much USD can one get into a 23kg suitcase?
~1g per $100 bill, so $2.3m.
Worth paying for extra baggage allowance.
Even with Ryanair?
cost you $3M
The 'beauty' of Ryanair is you get what you pay for. If you don't pay for it, you don't get it.
OKC, unfortunately nowadays you pay for it and you don't get it
Few years since I've (been able/ had any need) to use Ryanair, and while I don't like the company (and especially the seats) they do what they say they'll do.
I dont object to having an official ID Card. But I would object to having it on my phone - or being mandated to carry it - or it being linked to a big brother database. In other words a bit like a simplified passport.
Do you drive? If you do you are mandated to carry a card linked to a big brother database that acts like a simplified passport.
The database is not integrated (or attempted to be) with everything else in your life. The policeman can’t look up your medical records using your driving license.
I’ve just listened to Ken Clarke’s analysis of the Budget again.
I think he’s right that Reeves completely boxed herself in by promising not to raise certain taxes.
But the question is, if she hadn’t, would it have damaged Labour’s electoral chances?
I was intrigued he supported the changes on farmers.
I think he’s right, she should have raised VAT and fuel duty.
She could hardly have done more damage - Labour could end up third in a poll in the near future.
I am not as convinced as others that this is the end but I am convinced the winter fuel allowance cut was a big mistake.
Ken Clarke is a big supporter of what might be termed a globalist agenda. He has an almost mythical status as someone perceived as a competent Tory COTE, and he did preside over an economy going in the right direction, but recovery was always fairly likely with a good industrial base and (after Black Wednesday) a low pound. He would have made a poor and divisive leader, and though he might have some interesting tactical or presentational advice for Reeves, his policies in this instance would have taken as much money off people, and would therefore have ended up just as unpopular.
I do not perceive there being any way that budget was going to be popular based on the money they needed to raise.
Hunt would have had just the same problem.
The question therefore is. what would be the least unpopular or most long-term impactful changes for the country.
I therefore think the changes to the farmers were and are right.
Winter fuel seems like something they’ll just bring back again so I can’t see how long term it made sense to cut that. Bad decision.
Tax changes to employers. Unsure about this one.
Not raising fuel duty is and was lunacy.
Same for the triple lock. They should have removed that whilst they were at it.
Overall, if they wanted to be unpopular from this budget it’s quite mad they didn’t do more stuff to actually re-balance the economy.
Winter fuel though is politically unsustainable at this point without change.
Why can the size of the civil service not be reduced to pre-Covid numbers? That would have both improved the numbers, and the public's perception that the pain was being heaped on taxpayers while those employed by the state got big pay rises and continued to be shit.
Brexit? I've speculated this before, but the ramp up in numbers coincides, with a short lag, with the referendum. Is it simply that we've had to do more administration ourselves rather than outsourcing to the EU? There must be some roles that we used to pay for as part of the EU and now employ directly ourselves.
Or were the cuts from 2010-2016 simply unsustainable and this is the unwind? We're only a little above 2010 levels with a much larger population.
There needs to be a proper distinction drawn between extra civil servants needed for the brexit process, and extra civil servants needed permanently to administer matters now within our control. It can't be huge numbers because, as pro-europeans enjoy reminding us, the Brussels bureaucracy is actually quite small.
Though creating bits of admin which previously didn't exist and putting all the admin load on one state rather than across 28 can't help.
There's that AJP Taylor extract that a certain kind of small-stater likes to quote,
Until August 1914 a sensible, law-abiding Englishman could pass through life and hardly notice the existence of the state, beyond the post office and the policeman. He could live where he liked and as he liked. He had no official number or identity card. He could travel abroad or leave his country for ever without a passport or any sort of official permission. He could exchange his money for any other currency without restriction or limit. He could buy goods from any country in the world on the same terms as he bought goods at home. For that matter, a foreigner could spend his life in this country without permit and without informing the police.
If that is your ideal, then Britain post-Brexit is further from it than it was immediately before.
Funny old world.
That world (if it really existed - no tariffs before 1914, really?) was killed by the welfare state. So you do have to be a certain kind of small stater - one who wants to abolish the welfare state as a whole. Bit fringe.
As a corollary, the practical application of a UBI comes with a whole body of questions about eligibility based on citizenship and residency that imply quite a hard line on border drawing, to an extent that I don't think many supporters of UBI appreciate.
The answer, that many do not like, is that eligibility for a UBI would be strictly linked to citizenship and/or residency.
They do not like it, because the implication is
1) A large number of people would be outside the benefits system. 2) The cost of employing non citizen/resident labour would effectively skyrocket.
Well you or I might think that. But it's not obvious to me that those in power would link UBI to British citizens.
If you simply offered 20K a year for existing here, immigration would get.... interesting.
As it is, the myth in the various bits of the developing world (carefully cultivated) is that you can claim benefits & work here the moment you turn up....
Which isn’t far wrong when we house immigrants and give them money as soon as they claim asylum.
That's just because asylum seekers are forbidden to work for no good reason. If nothing else they could be employed picking up rubbish from parks or city streets. It is absurd that we don't let them and instead have to feed and house them at vast public expense.
I've got.a day off (my second last before Christmas, last is a week Friday), and I've been watching the first series of Tales Of The Unexpected from 1979 on Amazon
I'm loving it
Episode 2, Mrs Bixby And The Colonel's Coat, has Michael Hordern as Mr Bixby. I met him when I was about ten years old; we went to the same school - sixty six years apart, he was there for some prize day when I won a maths prize. He said "well done Blanche" as he handed me my £5 book token
Episode 4, Lamb To The Slaughter, stars Brian Blessed as a cop. I think it's my favourite episode so far
I’ve just listened to Ken Clarke’s analysis of the Budget again.
I think he’s right that Reeves completely boxed herself in by promising not to raise certain taxes.
But the question is, if she hadn’t, would it have damaged Labour’s electoral chances?
I was intrigued he supported the changes on farmers.
I think he’s right, she should have raised VAT and fuel duty.
She could hardly have done more damage - Labour could end up third in a poll in the near future.
I am not as convinced as others that this is the end but I am convinced the winter fuel allowance cut was a big mistake.
Ken Clarke is a big supporter of what might be termed a globalist agenda. He has an almost mythical status as someone perceived as a competent Tory COTE, and he did preside over an economy going in the right direction, but recovery was always fairly likely with a good industrial base and (after Black Wednesday) a low pound. He would have made a poor and divisive leader, and though he might have some interesting tactical or presentational advice for Reeves, his policies in this instance would have taken as much money off people, and would therefore have ended up just as unpopular.
I do not perceive there being any way that budget was going to be popular based on the money they needed to raise.
Hunt would have had just the same problem.
The question therefore is. what would be the least unpopular or most long-term impactful changes for the country.
I therefore think the changes to the farmers were and are right.
Winter fuel seems like something they’ll just bring back again so I can’t see how long term it made sense to cut that. Bad decision.
Tax changes to employers. Unsure about this one.
Not raising fuel duty is and was lunacy.
Same for the triple lock. They should have removed that whilst they were at it.
Overall, if they wanted to be unpopular from this budget it’s quite mad they didn’t do more stuff to actually re-balance the economy.
Winter fuel though is politically unsustainable at this point without change.
Why can the size of the civil service not be reduced to pre-Covid numbers? That would have both improved the numbers, and the public's perception that the pain was being heaped on taxpayers while those employed by the state got big pay rises and continued to be shit.
Brexit? I've speculated this before, but the ramp up in numbers coincides, with a short lag, with the referendum. Is it simply that we've had to do more administration ourselves rather than outsourcing to the EU? There must be some roles that we used to pay for as part of the EU and now employ directly ourselves.
Or were the cuts from 2010-2016 simply unsustainable and this is the unwind? We're only a little above 2010 levels with a much larger population.
There needs to be a proper distinction drawn between extra civil servants needed for the brexit process, and extra civil servants needed permanently to administer matters now within our control. It can't be huge numbers because, as pro-europeans enjoy reminding us, the Brussels bureaucracy is actually quite small.
Though creating bits of admin which previously didn't exist and putting all the admin load on one state rather than across 28 can't help.
There's that AJP Taylor extract that a certain kind of small-stater likes to quote,
Until August 1914 a sensible, law-abiding Englishman could pass through life and hardly notice the existence of the state, beyond the post office and the policeman. He could live where he liked and as he liked. He had no official number or identity card. He could travel abroad or leave his country for ever without a passport or any sort of official permission. He could exchange his money for any other currency without restriction or limit. He could buy goods from any country in the world on the same terms as he bought goods at home. For that matter, a foreigner could spend his life in this country without permit and without informing the police.
If that is your ideal, then Britain post-Brexit is further from it than it was immediately before.
Funny old world.
That world (if it really existed - no tariffs before 1914, really?) was killed by the welfare state. So you do have to be a certain kind of small stater - one who wants to abolish the welfare state as a whole. Bit fringe.
As a corollary, the practical application of a UBI comes with a whole body of questions about eligibility based on citizenship and residency that imply quite a hard line on border drawing, to an extent that I don't think many supporters of UBI appreciate.
My personal view is that UBI is a horror show for all kinds of reasons.
Unless AI slashes the number of permanent full time jobs available, UBI is simply too costly
In which case I believe you are in favour of UBI funded by a robot tax.
If it was a robot it would be far easier to tax than a computer program which could move to another computer in another country any time it wanted to.
I just doesn’t believe AI as something that can be taxed easily.
Every country in the world would have to introduce a UBI funded by a tax on robots and computer programs employed by corporations if AI led to mass unemployment globally
Do we not perceive any world where Reform UK supports Labour? Why must we assume they will ally with the Tories?
If Labour were the Opposition then that might be conceivable, but not to prop up an incumbent government, no.
I meant after the election. People assume Reform UK will support the Tories into government.
Do we not perceive any scenario where they actually support Labour?
What if the seats don’t work?
Can Reform support Labour? Yes, if Big Nige wants to, he might easily point to Labour's deportations and reduced immigration as justification for supporting Labour.
Would Reform want to support Labour? Well, both parties' voters probably like increased spending.
So it is certainly possible that Reform will support Labour. Whether it is likely is another matter.
The single most important thing about Reform is that they are against the status quo. So if the next election results in a hung Parliament I would think there's very little chance of Reform supporting the status quo option - of Labour continuing in government.
Yes - I think that is correct.
I further think that they would rule out any coalitions with the existing parties. A weak, minority government of *someone else* is exactly what they would want.
Hitler was offered the deputy chancellor position a whole stack of times, but resolutely refused to take that role, until eventually they ran out of alternative credible chancellors.
Changing the subject, of course.
Do Reform actually want power? I have no way of knowing, but I suspect that they know that the compromises with reality that actual power will entail will not be much fun. Meanwhile, they have the opportunity of being almost as effective in moving the dial on public policy by sitting on the right hand side of both Labour and the Conservatives with the threat of hoovering off votes should either of those parties get too technocratic.
That is, after all, how UKIP effected their #1 policy item without actually having to touch government.
Utlimately, what does Nigel want?
I'm sure he likes the idea of being Prime Minister- what ambitious politician wouldn't? But does he really want the ballsache of doing the job through his late sixties? And if he doesn't, what does he want?
To have a platform, to have people listen to him, to have the excitement of being the guy upsetting the apple cart.
I think that's it, isn't it? Brexit is done, he could have retired happily, job done (and he did leave UKIP leadership, afterall) but I think he missed being in the limelight, which is understandable. Wishing happy birthday to Hugh Janus didn't quite cut it
Actually being PM, I agree, could be his worst nightmare after the first couple of days or so.
He'd be up for PM, I'd have thought. It's the apex of his profession and it grants him an official place in history. His wiki page would have under his picture "Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. In office: xx/xx/2029 to xx/xx/xx". There's no substitute for that. There's only been 58 PMs (if we count Liz Truss) and he'd be the 59th. It's a different league to "self-styled architect of Brexit" or whatever.
I’ve just listened to Ken Clarke’s analysis of the Budget again.
I think he’s right that Reeves completely boxed herself in by promising not to raise certain taxes.
But the question is, if she hadn’t, would it have damaged Labour’s electoral chances?
I was intrigued he supported the changes on farmers.
I think he’s right, she should have raised VAT and fuel duty.
She could hardly have done more damage - Labour could end up third in a poll in the near future.
I am not as convinced as others that this is the end but I am convinced the winter fuel allowance cut was a big mistake.
Ken Clarke is a big supporter of what might be termed a globalist agenda. He has an almost mythical status as someone perceived as a competent Tory COTE, and he did preside over an economy going in the right direction, but recovery was always fairly likely with a good industrial base and (after Black Wednesday) a low pound. He would have made a poor and divisive leader, and though he might have some interesting tactical or presentational advice for Reeves, his policies in this instance would have taken as much money off people, and would therefore have ended up just as unpopular.
I do not perceive there being any way that budget was going to be popular based on the money they needed to raise.
Hunt would have had just the same problem.
The question therefore is. what would be the least unpopular or most long-term impactful changes for the country.
I therefore think the changes to the farmers were and are right.
Winter fuel seems like something they’ll just bring back again so I can’t see how long term it made sense to cut that. Bad decision.
Tax changes to employers. Unsure about this one.
Not raising fuel duty is and was lunacy.
Same for the triple lock. They should have removed that whilst they were at it.
Overall, if they wanted to be unpopular from this budget it’s quite mad they didn’t do more stuff to actually re-balance the economy.
Winter fuel though is politically unsustainable at this point without change.
Why can the size of the civil service not be reduced to pre-Covid numbers? That would have both improved the numbers, and the public's perception that the pain was being heaped on taxpayers while those employed by the state got big pay rises and continued to be shit.
Brexit? I've speculated this before, but the ramp up in numbers coincides, with a short lag, with the referendum. Is it simply that we've had to do more administration ourselves rather than outsourcing to the EU? There must be some roles that we used to pay for as part of the EU and now employ directly ourselves.
Or were the cuts from 2010-2016 simply unsustainable and this is the unwind? We're only a little above 2010 levels with a much larger population.
There needs to be a proper distinction drawn between extra civil servants needed for the brexit process, and extra civil servants needed permanently to administer matters now within our control. It can't be huge numbers because, as pro-europeans enjoy reminding us, the Brussels bureaucracy is actually quite small.
Though creating bits of admin which previously didn't exist and putting all the admin load on one state rather than across 28 can't help.
There's that AJP Taylor extract that a certain kind of small-stater likes to quote,
Until August 1914 a sensible, law-abiding Englishman could pass through life and hardly notice the existence of the state, beyond the post office and the policeman. He could live where he liked and as he liked. He had no official number or identity card. He could travel abroad or leave his country for ever without a passport or any sort of official permission. He could exchange his money for any other currency without restriction or limit. He could buy goods from any country in the world on the same terms as he bought goods at home. For that matter, a foreigner could spend his life in this country without permit and without informing the police.
If that is your ideal, then Britain post-Brexit is further from it than it was immediately before.
Funny old world.
That world (if it really existed - no tariffs before 1914, really?) was killed by the welfare state. So you do have to be a certain kind of small stater - one who wants to abolish the welfare state as a whole. Bit fringe.
As a corollary, the practical application of a UBI comes with a whole body of questions about eligibility based on citizenship and residency that imply quite a hard line on border drawing, to an extent that I don't think many supporters of UBI appreciate.
My personal view is that UBI is a horror show for all kinds of reasons.
Unless AI slashes the number of permanent full time jobs available, UBI is simply too costly
In which case I believe you are in favour of UBI funded by a robot tax.
If it was a robot it would be far easier to tax than a computer program which could move to another computer in another country any time it wanted to.
I just doesn’t believe AI as something that can be taxed easily.
Every country in the world would have to introduce a UBI funded by a tax on robots and computer programs employed by corporations if AI led to mass unemployment globally
What’s to stop all the robots buying farmland to avoid tax?
Do we not perceive any world where Reform UK supports Labour? Why must we assume they will ally with the Tories?
If Labour were the Opposition then that might be conceivable, but not to prop up an incumbent government, no.
I meant after the election. People assume Reform UK will support the Tories into government.
Do we not perceive any scenario where they actually support Labour?
What if the seats don’t work?
Can Reform support Labour? Yes, if Big Nige wants to, he might easily point to Labour's deportations and reduced immigration as justification for supporting Labour.
Would Reform want to support Labour? Well, both parties' voters probably like increased spending.
So it is certainly possible that Reform will support Labour. Whether it is likely is another matter.
The single most important thing about Reform is that they are against the status quo. So if the next election results in a hung Parliament I would think there's very little chance of Reform supporting the status quo option - of Labour continuing in government.
Yes - I think that is correct.
I further think that they would rule out any coalitions with the existing parties. A weak, minority government of *someone else* is exactly what they would want.
Hitler was offered the deputy chancellor position a whole stack of times, but resolutely refused to take that role, until eventually they ran out of alternative credible chancellors.
Changing the subject, of course.
Do Reform actually want power? I have no way of knowing, but I suspect that they know that the compromises with reality that actual power will entail will not be much fun. Meanwhile, they have the opportunity of being almost as effective in moving the dial on public policy by sitting on the right hand side of both Labour and the Conservatives with the threat of hoovering off votes should either of those parties get too technocratic.
That is, after all, how UKIP effected their #1 policy item without actually having to touch government.
Utlimately, what does Nigel want?
I'm sure he likes the idea of being Prime Minister- what ambitious politician wouldn't? But does he really want the ballsache of doing the job through his late sixties? And if he doesn't, what does he want?
To have a platform, to have people listen to him, to have the excitement of being the guy upsetting the apple cart.
I think that's it, isn't it? Brexit is done, he could have retired happily, job done (and he did leave UKIP leadership, afterall) but I think he missed being in the limelight, which is understandable. Wishing happy birthday to Hugh Janus didn't quite cut it
Actually being PM, I agree, could be his worst nightmare after the first couple of days or so.
I think he wants a knighthood. He wants to be accepted into the establishment.
I've got.a day off (my second last before Christmas, last is a week Friday), and I've been watching the first series of Tales Of The Unexpected from 1979 on Amazon
I'm loving it
Episode 2, Mrs Bixby And The Colonel's Coat, has Michael Hordern as Mr Bixby. I met him when I was about ten years old; we went to the same school - sixty six years apart, he was there for some prize day when I won a maths prize. He said "well done Blanche" as he handed me my £5 book token
Episode 4, Lamb To The Slaughter, stars Brian Blessed as a cop. I think it's my favourite episode so far
Is the "royal jelly" one with Timothy West in that series?
I've got.a day off (my second last before Christmas, last is a week Friday), and I've been watching the first series of Tales Of The Unexpected from 1979 on Amazon
I'm loving it
Episode 2, Mrs Bixby And The Colonel's Coat, has Michael Hordern as Mr Bixby. I met him when I was about ten years old; we went to the same school - sixty six years apart, he was there for some prize day when I won a maths prize. He said "well done Blanche" as he handed me my £5 book token
Episode 4, Lamb To The Slaughter, stars Brian Blessed as a cop. I think it's my favourite episode so far
No spoiler alert.
I like the one where a vagrant is found to have his back tattooed by a now celebrated and valuable artist. Various art dealers discuss how much they would pay him to have the skin safely surgically removed, but in the end some benevolent soul offers him board and lodging on his private beach in the South of France where he can walk around topless and the world can enjoy the masterpiece...
Do we not perceive any world where Reform UK supports Labour? Why must we assume they will ally with the Tories?
If Labour were the Opposition then that might be conceivable, but not to prop up an incumbent government, no.
I meant after the election. People assume Reform UK will support the Tories into government.
Do we not perceive any scenario where they actually support Labour?
What if the seats don’t work?
Can Reform support Labour? Yes, if Big Nige wants to, he might easily point to Labour's deportations and reduced immigration as justification for supporting Labour.
Would Reform want to support Labour? Well, both parties' voters probably like increased spending.
So it is certainly possible that Reform will support Labour. Whether it is likely is another matter.
The single most important thing about Reform is that they are against the status quo. So if the next election results in a hung Parliament I would think there's very little chance of Reform supporting the status quo option - of Labour continuing in government.
Yes - I think that is correct.
I further think that they would rule out any coalitions with the existing parties. A weak, minority government of *someone else* is exactly what they would want.
Hitler was offered the deputy chancellor position a whole stack of times, but resolutely refused to take that role, until eventually they ran out of alternative credible chancellors.
Changing the subject, of course.
Do Reform actually want power? I have no way of knowing, but I suspect that they know that the compromises with reality that actual power will entail will not be much fun. Meanwhile, they have the opportunity of being almost as effective in moving the dial on public policy by sitting on the right hand side of both Labour and the Conservatives with the threat of hoovering off votes should either of those parties get too technocratic.
That is, after all, how UKIP effected their #1 policy item without actually having to touch government.
Utlimately, what does Nigel want?
I'm sure he likes the idea of being Prime Minister- what ambitious politician wouldn't? But does he really want the ballsache of doing the job through his late sixties? And if he doesn't, what does he want?
To have a platform, to have people listen to him, to have the excitement of being the guy upsetting the apple cart.
I think that's it, isn't it? Brexit is done, he could have retired happily, job done (and he did leave UKIP leadership, afterall) but I think he missed being in the limelight, which is understandable. Wishing happy birthday to Hugh Janus didn't quite cut it
Actually being PM, I agree, could be his worst nightmare after the first couple of days or so.
He'd be up for PM, I'd have thought. It's the apex of his profession and it grants him an official place in history. His wiki page would have under his picture "Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. In office: xx/xx/2029 to xx/xx/xx". There's no substitute for that. There's only been 58 PMs (if we count Liz Truss) and he'd be the 59th. It's a different league to "self-styled architect of Brexit" or whatever.
Is being PM really hard work if you think the state shouldn't do very much ?
It's not as though he'd run for re-election, and Brexit shows he doesn't give two hoots about being responsible for something which turns out to be an unpopular mess.
Sounds right up his street. And he'd probably relish the hospital pass to his successor.
I've got.a day off (my second last before Christmas, last is a week Friday), and I've been watching the first series of Tales Of The Unexpected from 1979 on Amazon
I'm loving it
Episode 2, Mrs Bixby And The Colonel's Coat, has Michael Hordern as Mr Bixby. I met him when I was about ten years old; we went to the same school - sixty six years apart, he was there for some prize day when I won a maths prize. He said "well done Blanche" as he handed me my £5 book token
Episode 4, Lamb To The Slaughter, stars Brian Blessed as a cop. I think it's my favourite episode so far
Is the "royal jelly" one with Timothy West in that series?
Fist one in series two; I expect I'll have watched it soon
I hope Assad has been allocated a flat in the Projects. Perhaps next to Snowdon.
He's worth about $2 billion. Or was. I'm sure he'll have access to a few tens of millions, at least.
Sadly, it doesn't always go badly for ex-dictators. Imelda Marcos is 95 years old, and her son is now the president.
Hmmm. Probably easier said than done, particularly if the cash is in the West. How much USD can one get into a 23kg suitcase?
~1g per $100 bill, so $2.3m.
Worth paying for extra baggage allowance.
Even with Ryanair?
cost you $3M
The 'beauty' of Ryanair is you get what you pay for. If you don't pay for it, you don't get it.
OKC, unfortunately nowadays you pay for it and you don't get it
Few years since I've (been able/ had any need) to use Ryanair, and while I don't like the company (and especially the seats) they do what they say they'll do.
If you follow their rules and pay what they ask.
in many cases they are far from cheap nowadays
our recent flights were 700 and almost 300 for luggage. OK if you can survive with what's on your back and one spare pair of underpants
I’ve just listened to Ken Clarke’s analysis of the Budget again.
I think he’s right that Reeves completely boxed herself in by promising not to raise certain taxes.
But the question is, if she hadn’t, would it have damaged Labour’s electoral chances?
I was intrigued he supported the changes on farmers.
I think he’s right, she should have raised VAT and fuel duty.
She could hardly have done more damage - Labour could end up third in a poll in the near future.
I am not as convinced as others that this is the end but I am convinced the winter fuel allowance cut was a big mistake.
Ken Clarke is a big supporter of what might be termed a globalist agenda. He has an almost mythical status as someone perceived as a competent Tory COTE, and he did preside over an economy going in the right direction, but recovery was always fairly likely with a good industrial base and (after Black Wednesday) a low pound. He would have made a poor and divisive leader, and though he might have some interesting tactical or presentational advice for Reeves, his policies in this instance would have taken as much money off people, and would therefore have ended up just as unpopular.
I do not perceive there being any way that budget was going to be popular based on the money they needed to raise.
Hunt would have had just the same problem.
The question therefore is. what would be the least unpopular or most long-term impactful changes for the country.
I therefore think the changes to the farmers were and are right.
Winter fuel seems like something they’ll just bring back again so I can’t see how long term it made sense to cut that. Bad decision.
Tax changes to employers. Unsure about this one.
Not raising fuel duty is and was lunacy.
Same for the triple lock. They should have removed that whilst they were at it.
Overall, if they wanted to be unpopular from this budget it’s quite mad they didn’t do more stuff to actually re-balance the economy.
Winter fuel though is politically unsustainable at this point without change.
Why can the size of the civil service not be reduced to pre-Covid numbers? That would have both improved the numbers, and the public's perception that the pain was being heaped on taxpayers while those employed by the state got big pay rises and continued to be shit.
Brexit? I've speculated this before, but the ramp up in numbers coincides, with a short lag, with the referendum. Is it simply that we've had to do more administration ourselves rather than outsourcing to the EU? There must be some roles that we used to pay for as part of the EU and now employ directly ourselves.
Or were the cuts from 2010-2016 simply unsustainable and this is the unwind? We're only a little above 2010 levels with a much larger population.
There needs to be a proper distinction drawn between extra civil servants needed for the brexit process, and extra civil servants needed permanently to administer matters now within our control. It can't be huge numbers because, as pro-europeans enjoy reminding us, the Brussels bureaucracy is actually quite small.
Though creating bits of admin which previously didn't exist and putting all the admin load on one state rather than across 28 can't help.
There's that AJP Taylor extract that a certain kind of small-stater likes to quote,
Until August 1914 a sensible, law-abiding Englishman could pass through life and hardly notice the existence of the state, beyond the post office and the policeman. He could live where he liked and as he liked. He had no official number or identity card. He could travel abroad or leave his country for ever without a passport or any sort of official permission. He could exchange his money for any other currency without restriction or limit. He could buy goods from any country in the world on the same terms as he bought goods at home. For that matter, a foreigner could spend his life in this country without permit and without informing the police.
If that is your ideal, then Britain post-Brexit is further from it than it was immediately before.
Funny old world.
That world (if it really existed - no tariffs before 1914, really?) was killed by the welfare state. So you do have to be a certain kind of small stater - one who wants to abolish the welfare state as a whole. Bit fringe.
As a corollary, the practical application of a UBI comes with a whole body of questions about eligibility based on citizenship and residency that imply quite a hard line on border drawing, to an extent that I don't think many supporters of UBI appreciate.
The answer, that many do not like, is that eligibility for a UBI would be strictly linked to citizenship and/or residency.
They do not like it, because the implication is
1) A large number of people would be outside the benefits system. 2) The cost of employing non citizen/resident labour would effectively skyrocket.
Well you or I might think that. But it's not obvious to me that those in power would link UBI to British citizens.
If you simply offered 20K a year for existing here, immigration would get.... interesting.
As it is, the myth in the various bits of the developing world (carefully cultivated) is that you can claim benefits & work here the moment you turn up....
Which isn’t far wrong when we house immigrants and give them money as soon as they claim asylum.
That's just because asylum seekers are forbidden to work for no good reason. If nothing else they could be employed picking up rubbish from parks or city streets. It is absurd that we don't let them and instead have to feed and house them at vast public expense.
Then moan endlessly about how much they cost us.
A doctrinaire and unbelievably stupid policy. Shame on the Tories, and shame on this government for not changing it.
Do we not perceive any world where Reform UK supports Labour? Why must we assume they will ally with the Tories?
If Labour were the Opposition then that might be conceivable, but not to prop up an incumbent government, no.
I meant after the election. People assume Reform UK will support the Tories into government.
Do we not perceive any scenario where they actually support Labour?
What if the seats don’t work?
Can Reform support Labour? Yes, if Big Nige wants to, he might easily point to Labour's deportations and reduced immigration as justification for supporting Labour.
Would Reform want to support Labour? Well, both parties' voters probably like increased spending.
So it is certainly possible that Reform will support Labour. Whether it is likely is another matter.
The single most important thing about Reform is that they are against the status quo. So if the next election results in a hung Parliament I would think there's very little chance of Reform supporting the status quo option - of Labour continuing in government.
Yes - I think that is correct.
I further think that they would rule out any coalitions with the existing parties. A weak, minority government of *someone else* is exactly what they would want.
Hitler was offered the deputy chancellor position a whole stack of times, but resolutely refused to take that role, until eventually they ran out of alternative credible chancellors.
Changing the subject, of course.
Do Reform actually want power? I have no way of knowing, but I suspect that they know that the compromises with reality that actual power will entail will not be much fun. Meanwhile, they have the opportunity of being almost as effective in moving the dial on public policy by sitting on the right hand side of both Labour and the Conservatives with the threat of hoovering off votes should either of those parties get too technocratic.
That is, after all, how UKIP effected their #1 policy item without actually having to touch government.
Utlimately, what does Nigel want?
I'm sure he likes the idea of being Prime Minister- what ambitious politician wouldn't? But does he really want the ballsache of doing the job through his late sixties? And if he doesn't, what does he want?
To have a platform, to have people listen to him, to have the excitement of being the guy upsetting the apple cart.
I think that's it, isn't it? Brexit is done, he could have retired happily, job done (and he did leave UKIP leadership, afterall) but I think he missed being in the limelight, which is understandable. Wishing happy birthday to Hugh Janus didn't quite cut it
Actually being PM, I agree, could be his worst nightmare after the first couple of days or so.
He'd be up for PM, I'd have thought. It's the apex of his profession and it grants him an official place in history. His wiki page would have under his picture "Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. In office: xx/xx/2029 to xx/xx/xx". There's no substitute for that. There's only been 58 PMs (if we count Liz Truss) and he'd be the 59th. It's a different league to "self-styled architect of Brexit" or whatever.
Sure. There's an element of Johnson to it. But I can't help thinking he'd be off fairly soon, having secured said wiki page place. But probably after exceeding Truss's term.
There's also the possibility that he'd just largely outsource the PM job to someone else, while enjoying the trappings of it. Richard Tice, perhaps
Curtis: “I went out and said to the four people working in the office if you were being flirted with, which of these would you prefer? They definitely picked the cards. so it was a community decision.”
Comments
Thirty mins of not being able to open my eye and rather nasty burning sensation later...
At least you know that it will end...
Worth paying for extra baggage allowance.
1. Jump on the 'crush crime' agenda - this is a good (potentially amazing) prospectus from the man who got XL Bully dogs banned. It is a very suitable agenda for Badenoch's 'neither left nor right' approach is it is a thoughtful set of policies with no overtones of profiling, and very little 'anger', but a lot of potential solutions.
https://youtu.be/_4EfwqQuN7I?feature=shared
2. Jump on Fraser Nelson's campaign to get people off sick pay. Not as simple as he doesn't have 'oven-ready' policies, but as he says, almost every country in the world does it better than us, so pick a country and steal their system.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/12/06/the-daily-t-fraser-nelson-getting-britain-back-to-work/
Both blights on the country, both reasonable soft-right spokespeople, both leading into good, effective changes that Kemi can claim she has 'engineered'.
Get some policies and stop being scared of the ball.
As a start, if you start putting European citizens into such a system, you will spark a diplomatic collision.
On the practicalities - note that no European country (and no democracy around the world) requires everything linked up like that, with unfettered access. And that it would be illegal in many of them.
Just on the fraud issue it is insane.
There’s regular stories of police officers being disciplined for data protection breaches, usually stuff like looking up current or former partners on the computer. For any such national database you should have a small fraud team, who spend their days going through the logs looking for suspicious activity or patterns of behaviour.
Is "Prosecutor Alex Chalk KC" the former Justice Secretary in this heartwarming tale of a girl stabbed to death in a row over a teddy bear?
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/elianne-andam-murder-croydon-disrespect-anger-whitgift-b1198903.html
They just run trials in more and more cities, as the early adopters (SF; LA etc) progress.
Self-driving cars are being tested in southeast Ohio, Miami, and Austin. Many more cities are becoming hubs for trial and error, and this only means one thing: we’ll slowly start transitioning from Human-driven to human-less drivers.
https://x.com/PeterDiamandis/status/1866090873135464890
The hard problem - a universal driving machine - is bypassed.
I don't understand UC enough to be able to say but possibly UC-based ESA does already do this????
Contributory ESA certainly doesn't although you are allowed "permitted work". But many steer well clear of this because they know it is a trap to trigger a re-assessment.
First thing to do is stop the things that are making people cling to the benefit because they fear losing everything.
On your last point though, you may be correct - EU commission head count is apparently 32k, far smaller than our increase in head count. Maybe it's all in agencies etc, but e.g. EMA has apparently 897 (!) staff compared to MHRA with 1.4k (different remits, of course, but the EMA looks astonishingly small to me)
Why would you have to abolish the welfare state? Old age pensions came into existence in this world, after all.
Changing the subject, of course.
https://www.thejc.com/lets-talk/im-a-non-jewish-academic-british-universities-are-racist-cszctyyp
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cz7qenxy8r2o
Well that's embarrassing.
How was yesterday any different?
It was, of course, because Iraq had been invaded by foreign troops who supposedly brought resources and a plan…
However what I'm sensing here is you bridling at the gate to tell me for the 100th time what a horror iyo that Blair era aborted scheme was. I'm not releasing that gate.
It's the Laffer Curve in action - if you impose effective atxation of up to 100% (complete loss of benefits, instantly), then people will not take that action. Even at 86% - it means working for a £2 an hour, take home.
That is, after all, how UKIP effected their #1 policy item without actually having to touch government.
They do not like it, because the implication is
1) A large number of people would be outside the benefits system.
2) The cost of employing non citizen/resident labour would effectively skyrocket.
There has been looting of Assad's palace, but not of all government buildings, museums, etc as far as I've seen reported.
(I've no experience in the wordy parts of academia, so can't comment on the underlying issue, really, but I don't think you'd get away with writing the alleged at my institution).
All the sane objections are to the bizarre ideas of linking everything with unfettered access via the card database.
The logic of it makes UBI quite an attractive policy for Reform in some respects.
I'm sure he likes the idea of being Prime Minister- what ambitious politician wouldn't? But does he really want the ballsache of doing the job through his late sixties? And if he doesn't, what does he want?
One of the few MPs for whom losing their seat has meant a pay rise
I think that's it, isn't it? Brexit is done, he could have retired happily, job done (and he did leave UKIP leadership, afterall) but I think he missed being in the limelight, which is understandable. Wishing happy birthday to Hugh Janus didn't quite cut it
Actually being PM, I agree, could be his worst nightmare after the first couple of days or so.
And the was a mass liberalisation of trade towards the end of the 19thC.
As it is, the myth in the various bits of the developing world (carefully cultivated) is that you can claim benefits & work here the moment you turn up....
If there making an effort round here they must be feeling confident.
County Council seat was, last time, a Green gain from Conservative and the District Council seats are both Indies, with Green support.
Of course, 20 years ago we had a Labour MP for a while. Very good he was, too.
I’m not sure how you resolve the issue though as our language makes us the preferred destination for an awful lot of people
This is quite interesting on the effects of post covid migration to western countries.
And police will nowadays accept a bank card at the roadside as that allows them to match things up enough anyway
I just doesn’t believe AI as something that can be taxed easily.
“You had that knowledge! Art a fool? Are ye minded to utter that name and die?”
“Utter it? Why certainly. I would utter it if it was Welsh.”
“Ye are even a dead man, then….”
You couldn't make it up.
#France's far-right meet with #Assad & celebrate by drinking Cotes Du Rhone in #Sednaya - home to #Syria's infamous prison & its bespoke crematorium, where ~3,000 people are executed each year, each signed off by Grand Mufti Hassoun, who they also met!
https://x.com/Charles_Lister/status/1168907417784131587
If you follow their rules and pay what they ask.
Then moan endlessly about how much they cost us.
I'm loving it
Episode 2, Mrs Bixby And The Colonel's Coat, has Michael Hordern as Mr Bixby. I met him when I was about ten years old; we went to the same school - sixty six years apart, he was there for some prize day when I won a maths prize. He said "well done Blanche" as he handed me my £5 book token
Episode 4, Lamb To The Slaughter, stars Brian Blessed as a cop. I think it's my favourite episode so far
‘It is quite creepy’: Keira Knightley flagged ‘stalkerish’ aspects while shooting Love Actually
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2024/dec/09/keira-knightley-love-actually-quite-creepy-stalkerish-cue-cards
Just like BoZo
And like BoZo, we would be mad to do it...
I like the one where a vagrant is found to have his back tattooed by a now celebrated and valuable artist. Various art dealers discuss how much they would pay him to have the skin safely surgically removed, but in the end some benevolent soul offers him board and lodging on his private beach in the South of France where he can walk around topless and the world can enjoy the masterpiece...
It's not as though he'd run for re-election, and Brexit shows he doesn't give two hoots about being responsible for something which turns out to be an unpopular mess.
Sounds right up his street.
And he'd probably relish the hospital pass to his successor.
our recent flights were 700 and almost 300 for luggage. OK if you can survive with what's on your back and one spare pair of underpants
Shame on the Tories, and shame on this government for not changing it.
There's also the possibility that he'd just largely outsource the PM job to someone else, while enjoying the trappings of it. Richard Tice, perhaps
And I say this as someone who has watched Big Momma's House.
WTF were the other options?