“The referendum…” - what referendum? We’ve never had one on PR.
The one silver lining with the rise of Reform is that it puts fairer voting back on the agenda.
What is "fair" about losers winning?
I agree, which is why we should get rid of FPTP. If you can't see that an election is different from a horse race and that the additional candidates impacts the results of others there is no hope for you. Try this ridiculous example:
A constituency has 100 Conservatives and 2 Labour voters. All the Conservatives decide to stand because they think they are best. Only 1 Labour stands. The result will be Labour wins with 2 votes under FPTP with all the Conservatives getting 1 vote. The complete opposite of what the electorate wants.
Under STV a Conservative would win with 100 votes.
So your statement was complete illogical nonsense.
Musk is driving a coach and fours through US law, for example giving his not-security-cleared tech bros in short trousers access to classified information and systems, with no lawful authority.
I think if a democratic USA comes out at the other end of this he will be for the legal high jump. Subject, maybe, to a pardon from Trump.
Seeing reports on the activities of Suella Braverman at Heritage Foundation (could be NATCON 2025) last weekend, she is reaching for language around 'UK has imported fifth column's, and 'UK has become Islamist', and is hanging out with Lozza Fox.
She's playing into the Republican Maga fairy stories favoured by the likes of JD Vance and Elon Musk.
Reform UK know they have a problem with their extreme radical right faction, and attempted entryism by the likes of the Patriotic Alternative and similar groups to take them further Right.
I think Braverman may be too toxic for them, if they wish to broaden their appeal. She could end up with a party such as Reclaim, not Ref UK.
Other bad news: Senator Susan Collins is going to support Tusli Gabbard’s nomination.
I blame Covid. In the first Trump administration the lunatics hadn't completely taken over the asylum like they have now. We all know people who went down rabbit holes during lockdown, and never came back. Happened to plenty of us ourselves to a certain extent.
I'm coming round to the idea that *none* of the lockdowns were worth it. Yes, more people would have died, health systems would have been overwhelmed, and elected officials would have been punished for that, governments may have fallen. But suspending people's freedoms to such an degree has radicalised large numbers of people in a way that is not healthy for democracy. Why are so many young people willing to say democracy isn't all that, and maybe they'd prefer a dictatorship? They've already been kept under house arrest in a democracy.
Spot on..👌
I’m not so sure on the desire for a Strong Leader.
That is down to the populist “One trick the politicians hate..” policies that float around on Twatter etc.
When you combine it with the Process State, where it takes 5 years and a million pounds a mile to create a bike path, the obvious answer is The Strong Man.
Who will implement all those cost & problem free policies that fix everything. Overnight.
Though when that "Strong Man" forces through a policy they don't like, such as ending WFP or putting IHT on agricultural land they don't seem to like it much.
Part of the point of my header on Sunday is that there are already very few restraints on the executive, and even fewer democratic restraints.
Oh indeed. And the methodical creating of precedents…
For example, in the US, under Obama and Biden, the precedent that the executive branch can prevent Federal laws being applied. Even that if a *state* applies a federal law - this can be illegal!
This was because they hated laws passed by a Republican Congress on immigration.
Enter Trump…
The balance between the Executive and the Legislature is going to be an interesting one to watch.
There’s plenty of Democrats who are appalled at what’s going on now, a hardened Executive with a plan for major change and seemingly needing little approval to do it. Today’s example is the effective abolition of USAID, which had been established by an executive order in the first place.
However, there’s were plenty of Republicans who were equally appalled by Biden’s executive actions, especially in the last few weeks of his Presidency.
Will the Democrats seek to limit executive power next time they have the opportunity to do so, and will their President sign the Bill when it gets to his or her desk?
In the meantime, might a cross-party group of legislators at least advance the Bill to that stage, so they can make hay from Trump’s refusal to sign it?
Other bad news: Senator Susan Collins is going to support Tusli Gabbard’s nomination.
I blame Covid. In the first Trump administration the lunatics hadn't completely taken over the asylum like they have now. We all know people who went down rabbit holes during lockdown, and never came back. Happened to plenty of us ourselves to a certain extent.
I'm coming round to the idea that *none* of the lockdowns were worth it. Yes, more people would have died, health systems would have been overwhelmed, and elected officials would have been punished for that, governments may have fallen. But suspending people's freedoms to such an degree has radicalised large numbers of people in a way that is not healthy for democracy. Why are so many young people willing to say democracy isn't all that, and maybe they'd prefer a dictatorship? They've already been kept under house arrest in a democracy.
@rcs1000 has pointed (repeatedly) that self lockdown rapidly occurred in countries that didn’t go the legalistic route.
“Disease passed from person to person? Hmmm… If I stay 10 feet away from everyone….”
It was happening here too. All three lockdowns were enforced after infections had already peaked.
As far as I can see, that is wrong. The first Covid wave in 2020, for example, peaked on 19 April with about 5,113,000 confirmed new cases in the UK. But lockdown was first declared by Johnson on 23 March and gained legal force on 26 March, which was well before the peak.
Other bad news: Senator Susan Collins is going to support Tusli Gabbard’s nomination.
I blame Covid. In the first Trump administration the lunatics hadn't completely taken over the asylum like they have now. We all know people who went down rabbit holes during lockdown, and never came back. Happened to plenty of us ourselves to a certain extent.
I'm coming round to the idea that *none* of the lockdowns were worth it. Yes, more people would have died, health systems would have been overwhelmed, and elected officials would have been punished for that, governments may have fallen. But suspending people's freedoms to such an degree has radicalised large numbers of people in a way that is not healthy for democracy. Why are so many young people willing to say democracy isn't all that, and maybe they'd prefer a dictatorship? They've already been kept under house arrest in a democracy.
There was no argument for locking down healthy young people who were about as likely to be struck by lightning as they were to die from COVID.
There was some argument for measures for over-70s or those who were otherwise vulnerable.
Instead we got a wildly excessive terror campaign and an economically devastating furlough scheme that we're still paying for. At least Starmer wasn't in power then - it would have been even worse with him.
Other bad news: Senator Susan Collins is going to support Tusli Gabbard’s nomination.
I blame Covid. In the first Trump administration the lunatics hadn't completely taken over the asylum like they have now. We all know people who went down rabbit holes during lockdown, and never came back. Happened to plenty of us ourselves to a certain extent.
I'm coming round to the idea that *none* of the lockdowns were worth it. Yes, more people would have died, health systems would have been overwhelmed, and elected officials would have been punished for that, governments may have fallen. But suspending people's freedoms to such an degree has radicalised large numbers of people in a way that is not healthy for democracy. Why are so many young people willing to say democracy isn't all that, and maybe they'd prefer a dictatorship? They've already been kept under house arrest in a democracy.
Spot on..👌
I’m not so sure on the desire for a Strong Leader.
That is down to the populist “One trick the politicians hate..” policies that float around on Twatter etc.
When you combine it with the Process State, where it takes 5 years and a million pounds a mile to create a bike path, the obvious answer is The Strong Man.
Who will implement all those cost & problem free policies that fix everything. Overnight.
Though when that "Strong Man" forces through a policy they don't like, such as ending WFP or putting IHT on agricultural land they don't seem to like it much.
Part of the point of my header on Sunday is that there are already very few restraints on the executive, and even fewer democratic restraints.
Oh indeed. And the methodical creating of precedents…
For example, in the US, under Obama and Biden, the precedent that the executive branch can prevent Federal laws being applied. Even that if a *state* applies a federal law - this can be illegal!
This was because they hated laws passed by a Republican Congress on immigration.
Enter Trump…
The balance between the Executive and the Legislature is going to be an interesting one to watch.
There’s plenty of Democrats who are appalled at what’s going on now, a hardened Executive with a plan for major change and seeming needing little approval to do it. Today’s example is the effective abolition of USAID, which had been established by an executive order in the first place.
However, there’s were plenty of Republicans who were appalled by Biden’s executive actions, especially in the last few weeks of his Presidency.
Will the Democrats seek to limit executive power next time they have the opportunity to do so, and will their President sign the Bill when it gets to his or her desk?
USAID is aiui not quite that clear.
It was institutionalised in the congressional system by teh Foreign Assistance Act 1961, which set up mechanisms for congressional approval of financing etc, and asked the President to create it.
Just occurred to me that 1025 was the apex of the Eastern Roman Empire, after the rise of Islam.
Huge infighting coupled with the arrival of Turks, Normans, and Pechenegs at the same time led to its rapid decline from a major power to one constantly on the back foot.
Edited extra bit: sleepily forgot to add that this happens to be a thousand years ago now. I suspect few people would correctly guess the most powerful state in Europe a thousand years ago.
Morning PB.
Yes, plus the Latins and Crusades, and the sacking of Constantinople, didn't help, when the Byzantines had actually asked for the their help.
An enormously stupid error for Western European self-interest, without which there might still be a fair-sized Eastern empire.
Aye, the Fourth Crusade was dumb as hell.
Great shame the Romans fell, but there we are.
Counterfactuals are not great but it seems to me that the decline of the trad Roman empire and its replacement in the west of what has led to now is both brilliant and fascinating. And the period Europe 400-1500 would have been much duller and less creative without it, though no doubt easier to understand.
Like most people I don't care a lot for the Crusades; but they are also misunderstood. Noticing that Jerusalem and the land around it remains the most contested on the planet to this day should make us stop and think.
A key question is this: What is it about our sensibility which means that it is damnably awful that (mostly) European Christians sought to conquer and control Jerusalem and the eastern Mediterranean but much less so for all the others who sought do do so?
I am sure the "let them go" brigade will not care.
Abu Dhabi, along with its fellow UAE emirate Dubai, wants a slice of the British millionaire exodus action. Its rulers understand that the wealthy families pouring out of London, have certain lifestyle requirements the fast growing Gulf city-state cannot currently offer. Private members’ clubs are one. Top British public schools of the sort admired by the global elite the world over are another. To that end Harrow is scheduled to open two schools, one in Abu Dhabi and one in Dubai, in 2026.
Bang goes half our taxes. There is a far-from-trivial chance the UK will go bankrupt in this one Labour term, or at least suffer a catastrophic loss of market confidence
That the loss of few hundred high earners could eliminate "half our taxes" just goes to show how ridiculously top-heavy the UK has become.
The top rate of income tax is only 45%. CGT is 24/28%.
Other bad news: Senator Susan Collins is going to support Tusli Gabbard’s nomination.
I blame Covid. In the first Trump administration the lunatics hadn't completely taken over the asylum like they have now. We all know people who went down rabbit holes during lockdown, and never came back. Happened to plenty of us ourselves to a certain extent.
I'm coming round to the idea that *none* of the lockdowns were worth it. Yes, more people would have died, health systems would have been overwhelmed, and elected officials would have been punished for that, governments may have fallen. But suspending people's freedoms to such an degree has radicalised large numbers of people in a way that is not healthy for democracy. Why are so many young people willing to say democracy isn't all that, and maybe they'd prefer a dictatorship? They've already been kept under house arrest in a democracy.
@rcs1000 has pointed (repeatedly) that self lockdown rapidly occurred in countries that didn’t go the legalistic route.
“Disease passed from person to person? Hmmm… If I stay 10 feet away from everyone….”
It was happening here too. All three lockdowns were enforced after infections had already peaked.
As far as I can see, that is wrong. The first Covid wave in 2020, for example, peaked on 19 April with about 5,113,000 confirmed new cases in the UK. But lockdown was first declared by Johnson on 23 March and gained legal force on 26 March, which was well before the peak.
Yes, but at that time the link between confirmed cases and the actual prevalence of the disease was slight. Testing was rare, and many (most?) people with it went through it without making an impact on the stats.
Just occurred to me that 1025 was the apex of the Eastern Roman Empire, after the rise of Islam.
Huge infighting coupled with the arrival of Turks, Normans, and Pechenegs at the same time led to its rapid decline from a major power to one constantly on the back foot.
Edited extra bit: sleepily forgot to add that this happens to be a thousand years ago now. I suspect few people would correctly guess the most powerful state in Europe a thousand years ago.
Morning PB.
Yes, plus the Latins and Crusades, and the sacking of Constantinople, didn't help, when the Byzantines had actually asked for the their help.
An enormously stupid error for Western European self-interest, without which there might still be a fair-sized Eastern empire.
Aye, the Fourth Crusade was dumb as hell.
Great shame the Romans fell, but there we are.
Counterfactuals are not great but it seems to me that the decline of the trad Roman empire and its replacement in the west of what has led to now is both brilliant and fascinating. And the period Europe 400-1500 would have been much duller and less creative without it, though no doubt easier to understand.
Like most people I don't care a lot for the Crusades; but they are also misunderstood. Noticing that Jerusalem and the land around it remains the most contested on the planet to this day should make us stop and think.
A key question is this: What is it about our sensibility which means that it is damnably awful that (mostly) European Christians sought to conquer and control Jerusalem and the eastern Mediterranean but much less so for all the others who sought do do so?
Mr. (Ms? Sorry, I forget), Algakirk, that territory was also heavily contested between the Seleucids and Ptolemies.
Musk is driving a coach and fours through US law, for example giving his not-security-cleared tech bros in short trousers access to classified information and systems, with no lawful authority.
I think if a democratic USA comes out at the other end of this he will be for the legal high jump. Subject, maybe, to a pardon from Trump.
It's all too chaotic to keep up, but in the most lawyered and litigious nation on earth, are there not multiple parties seeking multiple injunctions from a myriad of courts for all the illegalities?
Musk is driving a coach and fours through US law, for example giving his not-security-cleared tech bros in short trousers access to classified information and systems, with no lawful authority.
I think if a democratic USA comes out at the other end of this he will be for the legal high jump. Subject, maybe, to a pardon from Trump.
I liked this from an outrages Senator yesterday
"You cannot wave away an agency that you don't like or that you disagree with by executive order, or by literally storming into the building and taking over the servers."
Other bad news: Senator Susan Collins is going to support Tusli Gabbard’s nomination.
I blame Covid. In the first Trump administration the lunatics hadn't completely taken over the asylum like they have now. We all know people who went down rabbit holes during lockdown, and never came back. Happened to plenty of us ourselves to a certain extent.
I'm coming round to the idea that *none* of the lockdowns were worth it. Yes, more people would have died, health systems would have been overwhelmed, and elected officials would have been punished for that, governments may have fallen. But suspending people's freedoms to such an degree has radicalised large numbers of people in a way that is not healthy for democracy. Why are so many young people willing to say democracy isn't all that, and maybe they'd prefer a dictatorship? They've already been kept under house arrest in a democracy.
There was no argument for locking down healthy young people who were about as likely to be struck by lightning as they were to die from COVID.
There was some argument for measures for over-70s or those who were otherwise vulnerable.
Instead we got a wildly excessive terror campaign and an economically devastating furlough scheme that we're still paying for. At least Starmer wasn't in power then - it would have been even worse with him.
You cannot isolate the old and vulnerable from the young and healthy. It doesn't work. Who goes to work at the old people's home?
Just occurred to me that 1025 was the apex of the Eastern Roman Empire, after the rise of Islam.
Huge infighting coupled with the arrival of Turks, Normans, and Pechenegs at the same time led to its rapid decline from a major power to one constantly on the back foot.
Edited extra bit: sleepily forgot to add that this happens to be a thousand years ago now. I suspect few people would correctly guess the most powerful state in Europe a thousand years ago.
Morning PB.
Yes, plus the Latins and Crusades, and the sacking of Constantinople, didn't help, when the Byzantines had actually asked for the their help.
An enormously stupid error for Western European self-interest, without which there might still be a fair-sized Eastern empire.
Aye, the Fourth Crusade was dumb as hell.
Great shame the Romans fell, but there we are.
Counterfactuals are not great but it seems to me that the decline of the trad Roman empire and its replacement in the west of what has led to now is both brilliant and fascinating. And the period Europe 400-1500 would have been much duller and less creative without it, though no doubt easier to understand.
Like most people I don't care a lot for the Crusades; but they are also misunderstood. Noticing that Jerusalem and the land around it remains the most contested on the planet to this day should make us stop and think.
A key question is this: What is it about our sensibility which means that it is damnably awful that (mostly) European Christians sought to conquer and control Jerusalem and the eastern Mediterranean but much less so for all the others who sought do do so?
Some people like to glory in their guilt.
Post-colonial discourse tends to prioritise between conquerors. Some warmongering, slave-hunting ancestors are heroic, others are brutal thieves.
Just occurred to me that 1025 was the apex of the Eastern Roman Empire, after the rise of Islam.
Huge infighting coupled with the arrival of Turks, Normans, and Pechenegs at the same time led to its rapid decline from a major power to one constantly on the back foot.
Edited extra bit: sleepily forgot to add that this happens to be a thousand years ago now. I suspect few people would correctly guess the most powerful state in Europe a thousand years ago.
Morning PB.
Yes, plus the Latins and Crusades, and the sacking of Constantinople, didn't help, when the Byzantines had actually asked for the their help.
An enormously stupid error for Western European self-interest, without which there might still be a fair-sized Eastern empire.
Aye, the Fourth Crusade was dumb as hell.
Great shame the Romans fell, but there we are.
Counterfactuals are not great but it seems to me that the decline of the trad Roman empire and its replacement in the west of what has led to now is both brilliant and fascinating. And the period Europe 400-1500 would have been much duller and less creative without it, though no doubt easier to understand.
Like most people I don't care a lot for the Crusades; but they are also misunderstood. Noticing that Jerusalem and the land around it remains the most contested on the planet to this day should make us stop and think.
A key question is this: What is it about our sensibility which means that it is damnably awful that (mostly) European Christians sought to conquer and control Jerusalem and the eastern Mediterranean but much less so for all the others who sought do do so?
Mr. (Ms? Sorry, I forget), Algakirk, that territory was also heavily contested between the Seleucids and Ptolemies.
The list is endless and goes back to the beginning of writing, at least 5000 years+. My simple question is: Why pick on Crusaders (awful though it was) out of the multiplicity of options, from Egyptians to Elamites, fron Babylonians to Persians, Arabians to Greeks etc. I suggest they were neither better nor worse.
Other bad news: Senator Susan Collins is going to support Tusli Gabbard’s nomination.
I blame Covid. In the first Trump administration the lunatics hadn't completely taken over the asylum like they have now. We all know people who went down rabbit holes during lockdown, and never came back. Happened to plenty of us ourselves to a certain extent.
I'm coming round to the idea that *none* of the lockdowns were worth it. Yes, more people would have died, health systems would have been overwhelmed, and elected officials would have been punished for that, governments may have fallen. But suspending people's freedoms to such an degree has radicalised large numbers of people in a way that is not healthy for democracy. Why are so many young people willing to say democracy isn't all that, and maybe they'd prefer a dictatorship? They've already been kept under house arrest in a democracy.
@rcs1000 has pointed (repeatedly) that self lockdown rapidly occurred in countries that didn’t go the legalistic route.
“Disease passed from person to person? Hmmm… If I stay 10 feet away from everyone….”
That seems to be a further argument for not having enforced lockdowns.
What would you do in the hypothetical situation where the pandemic virus was massively more likely to be fatal (say 10% mortality across all age groups), but a bit less infectious than Covid ? And we knew could produce a vaccine in relatively short order.
I agree there should be an extremely high bar against future lockdowns - but a much lower bar and much faster reaction on travel restrictions. Along with the domestic capacity to produce test kits.
These are difficult decisions, which is why I generally respect the job those making the decisions did at the time, though with hindsight I think there were too many lockdowns going on for too long, with too many restrictions.
So I just don't know. 10% mortality across all age groups I think would force governments to take strong measures. But it all depends. What is the aim of the lockdown? Eradicating the disease completely? Flattening the curve? Buying time for vaccines/treatments to become available? ...
I don't have an aim for any future lockdown - it would depend on the particular circumstances; my point is that we should be planning this out as future health policy, rather than just saying "we did it wrong last time".
The things we should be doing, irrespective of any particular virus, is stuff like significantly enhancing our public heath surveillance (PCR testing of things like wastewater is cheap now); building capacity for rapidly producing lateral flow tests (rather than spending £30bn on the old ludicrously expensive and slow PCR, as we did with Covid, we could potentially test the entire population, several times a month, for a few £100m in the event of another real emergency); having domestic vaccine capacity.
None of the would burden the economy, or individuals, to any degree at all. It's just cheap insurance, which would have public health benefits even if there isn't another pandemic for the next few decades.
And draft a flexible plan for a real emergency, working out what measures might be effective if implemented within the first couple of weeks. Because if we wait for the emergency, they won't be available to us otherwise.
I am sure the "let them go" brigade will not care.
Abu Dhabi, along with its fellow UAE emirate Dubai, wants a slice of the British millionaire exodus action. Its rulers understand that the wealthy families pouring out of London, have certain lifestyle requirements the fast growing Gulf city-state cannot currently offer. Private members’ clubs are one. Top British public schools of the sort admired by the global elite the world over are another. To that end Harrow is scheduled to open two schools, one in Abu Dhabi and one in Dubai, in 2026.
Bang goes half our taxes. There is a far-from-trivial chance the UK will go bankrupt in this one Labour term, or at least suffer a catastrophic loss of market confidence
That the loss of few hundred high earners could eliminate "half our taxes" just goes to show how ridiculously top-heavy the UK has become.
The top rate of income tax is only 45%. CGT is 24/28%.
The loss of a few hundred high earners would not remotely eliminate half our taxes. That's the key point. That's just a bullshit claim.
Musk is driving a coach and fours through US law, for example giving his not-security-cleared tech bros in short trousers access to classified information and systems, with no lawful authority.
I think if a democratic USA comes out at the other end of this he will be for the legal high jump. Subject, maybe, to a pardon from Trump.
I liked this from an outrages Senator yesterday
"You cannot wave away an agency that you don't like or that you disagree with by executive order, or by literally storming into the building and taking over the servers."
Bro, they just did...
I think he meant "you can't legally". Which is true.
Can someone tell me what is this PR system where you elect a single MP?
The public want their cake and eat it.
The additional member system, as in Scotland.
Doesn't elect a single MP. Elects two classes of MP and isn't properly proportional. Can be played by having two allied parties, one to win FPTP seats and the other ti win list seats.
It does elect a single constituency MP.
Plus the others.
I feel that I might be turning into a bit of an HY on this topic, so I will leave it there!
Just to say, I favour d'Hondt with party primaries to determine the order of candidates on the list.
Why not be more efficient and have an open list system? You vote for a list, but you also get a vote within the list at the same time to determine the order of candidates.
Can someone tell me what is this PR system where you elect a single MP?
The public want their cake and eat it.
Single Stochastic Vote. Put all the votes in a very big sack. Pull one out. Whoever that vote is for, gets elected. Averaged over 650 seats it will be proportional.
I am sure the "let them go" brigade will not care.
Abu Dhabi, along with its fellow UAE emirate Dubai, wants a slice of the British millionaire exodus action. Its rulers understand that the wealthy families pouring out of London, have certain lifestyle requirements the fast growing Gulf city-state cannot currently offer. Private members’ clubs are one. Top British public schools of the sort admired by the global elite the world over are another. To that end Harrow is scheduled to open two schools, one in Abu Dhabi and one in Dubai, in 2026.
It is stupid and self-sabotaging to drive out the wealthiest especially when they pay taxes. Some people on twitter genuinely believe if they go it is no problem as they pay no tax.
Some of the wealthiest pay remarkably little tax, some pay a lot. We need to recognise both types exist.
Other bad news: Senator Susan Collins is going to support Tusli Gabbard’s nomination.
I blame Covid. In the first Trump administration the lunatics hadn't completely taken over the asylum like they have now. We all know people who went down rabbit holes during lockdown, and never came back. Happened to plenty of us ourselves to a certain extent.
I'm coming round to the idea that *none* of the lockdowns were worth it. Yes, more people would have died, health systems would have been overwhelmed, and elected officials would have been punished for that, governments may have fallen. But suspending people's freedoms to such an degree has radicalised large numbers of people in a way that is not healthy for democracy. Why are so many young people willing to say democracy isn't all that, and maybe they'd prefer a dictatorship? They've already been kept under house arrest in a democracy.
@rcs1000 has pointed (repeatedly) that self lockdown rapidly occurred in countries that didn’t go the legalistic route.
“Disease passed from person to person? Hmmm… If I stay 10 feet away from everyone….”
It was happening here too. All three lockdowns were enforced after infections had already peaked.
As far as I can see, that is wrong. The first Covid wave in 2020, for example, peaked on 19 April with about 5,113,000 confirmed new cases in the UK. But lockdown was first declared by Johnson on 23 March and gained legal force on 26 March, which was well before the peak.
Yes, but at that time the link between confirmed cases and the actual prevalence of the disease was slight. Testing was rare, and many (most?) people with it went through it without making an impact on the stats.
Well, yes, but you'd still expect the peak in confirmed cases to roughly match the actual peak in cases, even if the confirmed figure was a gross underestimate. What I don't see is any justification for Driver's assersion that the peak happened before lockdown began. Is there is any justification for this claim?
Just occurred to me that 1025 was the apex of the Eastern Roman Empire, after the rise of Islam.
Huge infighting coupled with the arrival of Turks, Normans, and Pechenegs at the same time led to its rapid decline from a major power to one constantly on the back foot.
Edited extra bit: sleepily forgot to add that this happens to be a thousand years ago now. I suspect few people would correctly guess the most powerful state in Europe a thousand years ago.
Morning PB.
Yes, plus the Latins and Crusades, and the sacking of Constantinople, didn't help, when the Byzantines had actually asked for the their help.
An enormously stupid error for Western European self-interest, without which there might still be a fair-sized Eastern empire.
Aye, the Fourth Crusade was dumb as hell.
Great shame the Romans fell, but there we are.
Counterfactuals are not great but it seems to me that the decline of the trad Roman empire and its replacement in the west of what has led to now is both brilliant and fascinating. And the period Europe 400-1500 would have been much duller and less creative without it, though no doubt easier to understand.
Like most people I don't care a lot for the Crusades; but they are also misunderstood. Noticing that Jerusalem and the land around it remains the most contested on the planet to this day should make us stop and think.
A key question is this: What is it about our sensibility which means that it is damnably awful that (mostly) European Christians sought to conquer and control Jerusalem and the eastern Mediterranean but much less so for all the others who sought do do so?
Mr. (Ms? Sorry, I forget), Algakirk, that territory was also heavily contested between the Seleucids and Ptolemies.
The list is endless and goes back to the beginning of writing, at least 5000 years+. My simple question is: Why pick on Crusaders (awful though it was) out of the multiplicity of options, from Egyptians to Elamites, fron Babylonians to Persians, Arabians to Greeks etc. I suggest they were neither better nor worse.
Sir Steven Runciman hated the crusaders, for sacking Constantinople (as you and MD pointed out, an act of self-defeating stupidity). He wrote a very influential denunciation of them.
“The referendum…” - what referendum? We’ve never had one on PR.
The one silver lining with the rise of Reform is that it puts fairer voting back on the agenda.
What is "fair" about losers winning?
I agree, which is why we should get rid of FPTP. If you can't see that an election is different from a horse race and that the additional candidates impacts the results of others there is no hope for you. Try this ridiculous example:
A constituency has 100 Conservatives and 2 Labour voters. All the Conservatives decide to stand because they think they are best. Only 1 Labour stands. The result will be Labour wins with 2 votes under FPTP with all the Conservatives getting 1 vote. The complete opposite of what the electorate wants.
Under STV a Conservative would win with 100 votes.
So your statement was complete illogical nonsense.
What PR does is shift the difficult business of bringing together different views from the electorate to the politicians, who are better-informed and more able to judge what is an acceptable compromise, but perhaps less representative of what the electorate actually wanted. With FPTP, people are forced to decide whether backing preferred party X is more important to them than supporting tolerable party Y to keep out party Z. With PR, the decision is passed to professional politicians. It's not obvious which is better, IMHO.
A variation that appears in practice, e.g. in Scandinavia, is that the coalitions that will be formed are largely pre-defined, so you know that you;re voting from a centre-left or centre-right government, but additionally can help determined the exact flavour. That seems to me the best option, but hard to guarantee by legislation.
I am sure the "let them go" brigade will not care.
Abu Dhabi, along with its fellow UAE emirate Dubai, wants a slice of the British millionaire exodus action. Its rulers understand that the wealthy families pouring out of London, have certain lifestyle requirements the fast growing Gulf city-state cannot currently offer. Private members’ clubs are one. Top British public schools of the sort admired by the global elite the world over are another. To that end Harrow is scheduled to open two schools, one in Abu Dhabi and one in Dubai, in 2026.
Bang goes half our taxes. There is a far-from-trivial chance the UK will go bankrupt in this one Labour term, or at least suffer a catastrophic loss of market confidence
That the loss of few hundred high earners could eliminate "half our taxes" just goes to show how ridiculously top-heavy the UK has become.
The top rate of income tax is only 45%. CGT is 24/28%.
The loss of a few hundred high earners would not remotely eliminate half our taxes. That's the key point. That's just a bullshit claim.
Other bad news: Senator Susan Collins is going to support Tusli Gabbard’s nomination.
I blame Covid. In the first Trump administration the lunatics hadn't completely taken over the asylum like they have now. We all know people who went down rabbit holes during lockdown, and never came back. Happened to plenty of us ourselves to a certain extent.
I'm coming round to the idea that *none* of the lockdowns were worth it. Yes, more people would have died, health systems would have been overwhelmed, and elected officials would have been punished for that, governments may have fallen. But suspending people's freedoms to such a degree has radicalised large numbers of people in a way that is not healthy for democracy. Why are so many young people willing to say democracy isn't all that, and maybe they'd prefer a dictatorship? They've already been kept under house arrest in a democracy.
You’re over thinking it. It’s a combination of economics and lived experience
With asset prices where they are relative to incomes, young people can’t realistically aspire to 2.4 children and a home of their own. They have no stake in society. So why not vote to upend the table - after all, it couldn’t be worse could it… and they don’t have the lived experience to say otherwise. I grew up with Commando comics, Spain and Greece (?) were still dictatorships, the USSR ruled over 10s of millions. We could all (except Nick Palmer) see that democracy was far far better. The young these days don’t have those reference points. Anyone under 40 has no effective memory of life before the Berlin Wall came down or of Tiananmen Square
General Franco is still dead…
And then they go to university with tons of Chinese students who tell them about the zillion miles of high speed rail, jobs, factories, growth…
Other bad news: Senator Susan Collins is going to support Tusli Gabbard’s nomination.
I blame Covid. In the first Trump administration the lunatics hadn't completely taken over the asylum like they have now. We all know people who went down rabbit holes during lockdown, and never came back. Happened to plenty of us ourselves to a certain extent.
I'm coming round to the idea that *none* of the lockdowns were worth it. Yes, more people would have died, health systems would have been overwhelmed, and elected officials would have been punished for that, governments may have fallen. But suspending people's freedoms to such an degree has radicalised large numbers of people in a way that is not healthy for democracy. Why are so many young people willing to say democracy isn't all that, and maybe they'd prefer a dictatorship? They've already been kept under house arrest in a democracy.
I was thinking about this again; why Trump? And why Trump a second time?
Covid did exaccerbate things, but America was already on this path, and if there is one thing that changed America it was 9/11. 9/11 really punctured the balloon that the 21st century was going to work out swimmingly. With the end of the Cold War and the collapse of communism in Europe, through the Clinton administration and the dot.com boom, everything appeared to be going America's way. And the rest of the liberal and democratic world was along for the ride. China looked to be going in a good direction. People even used to talk about Russia in the EU and NATO.
9/11 happened and the "the end of history" idea died with it. Rather than entering a new era of stability and prosperity for all, with a single super power we've seen the downside and complexity of globalisation, and America has been on a path to isolation and authoritarianism since then. Obama bucked that trend, but it doesn't feel like he did much more than delay things, that was the last hurrah for a liberal establishment that has no easy answers, because there are no easy answers. So the people vote for the lies, egged on by the propaganda and disinformation which is now ubiquitous. So you get Trump, who can evade justice, and you get him again, and likely with worse to follow in his footsteps.
If there is way out of this mess I'm damned if I know what it is, and I'm sure it won't be easy, swift, or pleasant.
AV isn't about proportionality. It's about being able to vote for who you want, rather than for the person, among realistic winners in the constituency, that you dislike least, as your additional preferences still count.
I've generally voted for who I like best anyway, except when (fairly rarely) in constituencies where the result might be close; then I vote tactically. I almost cocked up a few GEs ago when I voted for the party I supported and the constituency result was super close between two other parties (<100 votes). I'd have voted differently, for one of the contender parties, had I known. Under AV I wouldn't need to make that choice.
I support (and voted for) AV for that reason. But I'd rather have a more proportional system that still preserves constituency MPs - STV.
I am sure the "let them go" brigade will not care.
Abu Dhabi, along with its fellow UAE emirate Dubai, wants a slice of the British millionaire exodus action. Its rulers understand that the wealthy families pouring out of London, have certain lifestyle requirements the fast growing Gulf city-state cannot currently offer. Private members’ clubs are one. Top British public schools of the sort admired by the global elite the world over are another. To that end Harrow is scheduled to open two schools, one in Abu Dhabi and one in Dubai, in 2026.
It is stupid and self-sabotaging to drive out the wealthiest especially when they pay taxes. Some people on twitter genuinely believe if they go it is no problem as they pay no tax.
Some of the wealthiest pay remarkably little tax, some pay a lot. We need to recognise both types exist.
But it's the ones who pay a lot whom we're losing. It's the ones who pay a lot of tax for whom high tax rates are a disincentive to stay. And the ones who pay 'remarkably little' still pay far more in absolute terms than the average Joe.
Britain takes a much greater proportion of its tax from high earners than most countries. You might justifiably think this an unhealthily top-heavy structure, but that doesn't mean that taking away much of that top chunk won't be painful.
Musk is driving a coach and fours through US law, for example giving his not-security-cleared tech bros in short trousers access to classified information and systems, with no lawful authority.
I think if a democratic USA comes out at the other end of this he will be for the legal high jump. Subject, maybe, to a pardon from Trump.
I liked this from an outrages Senator yesterday
"You cannot wave away an agency that you don't like or that you disagree with by executive order, or by literally storming into the building and taking over the servers."
Bro, they just did...
There was a German mini-series called Charitè at War, about the Berlin hospital during the Second World War. One of the protagonists, a surgeon called Sauerbrook (a real guy, apparently, not sure how accurate or not the portrayal is) is proud and fairly old fashioned man. He goes around, protecting some patients and relying on his status to stop anyone questioning him. In a later episode the SS come and beat the shit out of one of his patients. Sauerbrook protests, "Ich bin Der Sauerbrook!" He yells, angrily. The SS beat the shit out of him too. In that moment you can see a man who thought he was living in a troubled, but somewhat similar, world to the one he knew suddenly realise that his status, his rank and privilege all meant absolutely nothing in the face of fanatics who were happily ripping it all up to build a new order. That quote above is just a longer "Ich bin der Sauerbrook!".
Can someone tell me what is this PR system where you elect a single MP?
The public want their cake and eat it.
Single Stochastic Vote. Put all the votes in a very big sack. Pull one out. Whoever that vote is for, gets elected. Averaged over 650 seats it will be proportional.
Oooh, we could also bootstrap it and get confidence intervals on the results
(Meaningless, of course, where the complete data are available, although it would perhaps give a degree of measure of the uncertainty had people randomly voted/not got round to voting, but biased if that propensity varies by party)
Musk is driving a coach and fours through US law, for example giving his not-security-cleared tech bros in short trousers access to classified information and systems, with no lawful authority.
I think if a democratic USA comes out at the other end of this he will be for the legal high jump. Subject, maybe, to a pardon from Trump.
Presidential authority - ie, ability to issue pardons while personally being above the law - is a dangerous and gaping hole in US governance. Seems to mean Trump and his allies can do anything, however illegal, without any fear of a comeuppance later. The red danger light is blinking furiously.
Other bad news: Senator Susan Collins is going to support Tusli Gabbard’s nomination.
I blame Covid. In the first Trump administration the lunatics hadn't completely taken over the asylum like they have now. We all know people who went down rabbit holes during lockdown, and never came back. Happened to plenty of us ourselves to a certain extent.
I'm coming round to the idea that *none* of the lockdowns were worth it. Yes, more people would have died, health systems would have been overwhelmed, and elected officials would have been punished for that, governments may have fallen. But suspending people's freedoms to such a degree has radicalised large numbers of people in a way that is not healthy for democracy. Why are so many young people willing to say democracy isn't all that, and maybe they'd prefer a dictatorship? They've already been kept under house arrest in a democracy.
You’re over thinking it. It’s a combination of economics and lived experience
With asset prices where they are relative to incomes, young people can’t realistically aspire to 2.4 children and a home of their own. They have no stake in society. So why not vote to upend the table - after all, it couldn’t be worse could it… and they don’t have the lived experience to say otherwise. I grew up with Commando comics, Spain and Greece (?) were still dictatorships, the USSR ruled over 10s of millions. We could all (except Nick Palmer) see that democracy was far far better. The young these days don’t have those reference points. Anyone under 40 has no effective memory of life before the Berlin Wall came down or of Tiananmen Square
Could be. Maybe polling in countries and US states that didn't really go for lockdowns would disprove my theory
Musk is driving a coach and fours through US law, for example giving his not-security-cleared tech bros in short trousers access to classified information and systems, with no lawful authority.
I think if a democratic USA comes out at the other end of this he will be for the legal high jump. Subject, maybe, to a pardon from Trump.
I liked this from an outrages Senator yesterday
"You cannot wave away an agency that you don't like or that you disagree with by executive order, or by literally storming into the building and taking over the servers."
Bro, they just did...
It was always obvious the rule of law would be an early casualty of a second Trump victory. At some point, markets are going to understand just how bad it is for business to operate in a country without fully enforceable judgments handed down by an an independent judiciary.
I think voters always preferred PR to AV which was only a half way house between FPTP and PR.
Note even Conservative voters are coming round to PR, split almost half and half between PR and FPTP and unsurprisingly are more likely to think PR would have led to a better result at the GE than Labour voters given it would have produced a hung parliament not a Labour majority.
PR would also ensure the Tories and Reform who stay separate distinctive parties with seats allocated according to their voteshare. The Tories could then try and form governments with Reform or the LDs post election. A divided right would also not just hand undeserved seats to Labour with as little as 25-30% of the vote as now under FPTP
I am sure the "let them go" brigade will not care.
Abu Dhabi, along with its fellow UAE emirate Dubai, wants a slice of the British millionaire exodus action. Its rulers understand that the wealthy families pouring out of London, have certain lifestyle requirements the fast growing Gulf city-state cannot currently offer. Private members’ clubs are one. Top British public schools of the sort admired by the global elite the world over are another. To that end Harrow is scheduled to open two schools, one in Abu Dhabi and one in Dubai, in 2026.
Bang goes half our taxes. There is a far-from-trivial chance the UK will go bankrupt in this one Labour term, or at least suffer a catastrophic loss of market confidence
That the loss of few hundred high earners could eliminate "half our taxes" just goes to show how ridiculously top-heavy the UK has become.
The top rate of income tax is only 45%. CGT is 24/28%.
The loss of a few hundred high earners would not remotely eliminate half our taxes. That's the key point. That's just a bullshit claim.
Yes, but it's far more than 'a few hundred' high earners who are leaving. You are weirdly complacent about the scale of the problem.
(hi copilot - do we know how many high earners or high net worth individuals have left Britain since labour came to power? Copilot said: Copilot Yes, there has been a notable exodus of high earners and high-net-worth individuals from the UK since the Labour Party came to power in 2024. In 2024 alone, approximately 10,800 high-net-worth individuals left the UK1. This includes 78 centi-millionaires and 12 billionaires1.
The primary reasons for this exodus include increased taxes and the end of non-domicile status, which have made the UK less attractive for wealthy individuals12.
Is there anything specific you would like to know more about regarding this trend?
Other bad news: Senator Susan Collins is going to support Tusli Gabbard’s nomination.
I blame Covid. In the first Trump administration the lunatics hadn't completely taken over the asylum like they have now. We all know people who went down rabbit holes during lockdown, and never came back. Happened to plenty of us ourselves to a certain extent.
I'm coming round to the idea that *none* of the lockdowns were worth it. Yes, more people would have died, health systems would have been overwhelmed, and elected officials would have been punished for that, governments may have fallen. But suspending people's freedoms to such an degree has radicalised large numbers of people in a way that is not healthy for democracy. Why are so many young people willing to say democracy isn't all that, and maybe they'd prefer a dictatorship? They've already been kept under house arrest in a democracy.
I was thinking about this again; why Trump? And why Trump a second time?
Covid did exaccerbate things, but America was already on this path, and if there is one thing that changed America it was 9/11. 9/11 really punctured the balloon that the 21st century was going to work out swimmingly. With the end of the Cold War and the collapse of communism in Europe, through the Clinton administration and the dot.com boom, everything appeared to be going America's way. And the rest of the liberal and democratic world was along for the ride. China looked to be going in a good direction. People even used to talk about Russia in the EU and NATO.
9/11 happened and the "the end of history" idea died with it. Rather than entering a new era of stability and prosperity for all, with a single super power we've seen the downside and complexity of globalisation, and America has been on a path to isolation and authoritarianism since then. Obama bucked that trend, but it doesn't feel like he did much more than delay things, that was the last hurrah for a liberal establishment that has no easy answers, because there are no easy answers. So the people vote for the lies, egged on by the propaganda and disinformation which is now ubiquitous. So you get Trump, who can evade justice, and you get him again, and likely with worse to follow in his footsteps.
If there is way out of this mess I'm damned if I know what it is, and I'm sure it won't be easy, swift, or pleasant.
I remain of the view that the simple answer for why Trump pt 2 is that inflation was very high during Biden's term. (If you want extra reasons, then it's about the polarisation of media and the creation of a truth-free right wing populist media bubble.)
Just occurred to me that 1025 was the apex of the Eastern Roman Empire, after the rise of Islam.
Huge infighting coupled with the arrival of Turks, Normans, and Pechenegs at the same time led to its rapid decline from a major power to one constantly on the back foot.
Edited extra bit: sleepily forgot to add that this happens to be a thousand years ago now. I suspect few people would correctly guess the most powerful state in Europe a thousand years ago.
Morning PB.
Yes, plus the Latins and Crusades, and the sacking of Constantinople, didn't help, when the Byzantines had actually asked for the their help.
An enormously stupid error for Western European self-interest, without which there might still be a fair-sized Eastern empire.
Aye, the Fourth Crusade was dumb as hell.
Great shame the Romans fell, but there we are.
Counterfactuals are not great but it seems to me that the decline of the trad Roman empire and its replacement in the west of what has led to now is both brilliant and fascinating. And the period Europe 400-1500 would have been much duller and less creative without it, though no doubt easier to understand.
Like most people I don't care a lot for the Crusades; but they are also misunderstood. Noticing that Jerusalem and the land around it remains the most contested on the planet to this day should make us stop and think.
A key question is this: What is it about our sensibility which means that it is damnably awful that (mostly) European Christians sought to conquer and control Jerusalem and the eastern Mediterranean but much less so for all the others who sought do do so?
Mr. (Ms? Sorry, I forget), Algakirk, that territory was also heavily contested between the Seleucids and Ptolemies.
The list is endless and goes back to the beginning of writing, at least 5000 years+. My simple question is: Why pick on Crusaders (awful though it was) out of the multiplicity of options, from Egyptians to Elamites, fron Babylonians to Persians, Arabians to Greeks etc. I suggest they were neither better nor worse.
Sir Steven Runciman hated the crusaders, for sacking Constantinople (as you and MD pointed out, an act of self-defeating stupidity). He wrote a very influential denunciation of them.
Who could possibly disagree? And what are we to make of the Romans who destroyed Jerusalem and the second Temple? And the Babylonians who destroyed the first Temple? And so on, right up to this very moment.
“The referendum…” - what referendum? We’ve never had one on PR.
The one silver lining with the rise of Reform is that it puts fairer voting back on the agenda.
What is "fair" about losers winning?
I agree, which is why we should get rid of FPTP. If you can't see that an election is different from a horse race and that the additional candidates impacts the results of others there is no hope for you. Try this ridiculous example:
A constituency has 100 Conservatives and 2 Labour voters. All the Conservatives decide to stand because they think they are best. Only 1 Labour stands. The result will be Labour wins with 2 votes under FPTP with all the Conservatives getting 1 vote. The complete opposite of what the electorate wants.
Under STV a Conservative would win with 100 votes.
So your statement was complete illogical nonsense.
What PR does is shift the difficult business of bringing together different views from the electorate to the politicians, who are better-informed and more able to judge what is an acceptable compromise, but perhaps less representative of what the electorate actually wanted. With FPTP, people are forced to decide whether backing preferred party X is more important to them than supporting tolerable party Y to keep out party Z. With PR, the decision is passed to professional politicians. It's not obvious which is better, IMHO.
A variation that appears in practice, e.g. in Scandinavia, is that the coalitions that will be formed are largely pre-defined, so you know that you;re voting from a centre-left or centre-right government, but additionally can help determined the exact flavour. That seems to me the best option, but hard to guarantee by legislation.
I agree it isn't easy. I was just pointing out the nonsense of the post I was replying to.
As already discussed it is very difficult to get a PR system that is proportional and also meets other requirements of the electorate. SSV just feels very wrong and doesn't differentiate between good and bad candidates (not that FPTP has been much cop at that either when in many places you will get a donkey provided it has the right rosette on it). I hate lists for umpteen reasons that I won't bore with here. STV would be my favourite, although the constituencies are now much larger and this is not completely proportional, but acceptable to me as being close enough. It also tends to result in the best candidates (as far as the electorate is concerned anyway) being elected from each party. I am not entirely anti AV as a step forward. It is far from proportional. In fact it can give a worse result than FPTP, but usually only in situations where there is a very clear winner anyway.
I find it interesting that parties who want to keep FPTP never use it for their own internal elections, but usually use some form of STV/AV.
Listening to Nigel Farage this morning on Today, does anyone really think this is the man to lead us out of our troubles and to a new golden age. Hugely successful politician he may be and have been but he is devoid of ideas and simply an empty vessel into which people project their own hopes, fears, desires and whatnot.
This is true. Also true is that the awful framing and imprecision of the questions he was asked - including lengthy rambles - were as if designed to allow him to say nothing at length.
Yes, her disdain dripped through the questions. That said, he is now the leader of a political party that is riding high in the polls (!) and hence should be more polished than he was. He will learn, I suppose.
Farage not knowing a thing about the EU and how it works is a given but I was genuinely surprised he decided to advocate a free trade agreement with the US. Canada and Mexico have one. It is very clearly not worth the paper it is written on.
Maybe I've missed it, but I'm not aware of the current government increasing taxes on the income or wealth of all these millionaires and multi-millionaires who are apparently fleeing the country. Which taxes have gone up?
I am sure the "let them go" brigade will not care.
Abu Dhabi, along with its fellow UAE emirate Dubai, wants a slice of the British millionaire exodus action. Its rulers understand that the wealthy families pouring out of London, have certain lifestyle requirements the fast growing Gulf city-state cannot currently offer. Private members’ clubs are one. Top British public schools of the sort admired by the global elite the world over are another. To that end Harrow is scheduled to open two schools, one in Abu Dhabi and one in Dubai, in 2026.
Bang goes half our taxes. There is a far-from-trivial chance the UK will go bankrupt in this one Labour term, or at least suffer a catastrophic loss of market confidence
That the loss of few hundred high earners could eliminate "half our taxes" just goes to show how ridiculously top-heavy the UK has become.
The top rate of income tax is only 45%. CGT is 24/28%.
The loss of a few hundred high earners would not remotely eliminate half our taxes. That's the key point. That's just a bullshit claim.
It was in a post by Leon
Is this another area he is expert in ?
Income tax is roughly 26% of all government revenue
30% of all income tax is paid by 1% of taxpayers.
But that 1% is 300,000 people
The top 100 pay about £5bn
The top 100 tend to be people like Chris Hohn, Alex Gerko, Denise Coates (B365), Mike Ashley, Fred Done (Betfred), Tim Martin (Wetherspoons). Many on the list are giving huge amounts to charity. Some (Denise Coates) structure their income so they pay more tax than really necessary.
Just occurred to me that 1025 was the apex of the Eastern Roman Empire, after the rise of Islam.
Huge infighting coupled with the arrival of Turks, Normans, and Pechenegs at the same time led to its rapid decline from a major power to one constantly on the back foot.
Edited extra bit: sleepily forgot to add that this happens to be a thousand years ago now. I suspect few people would correctly guess the most powerful state in Europe a thousand years ago.
Morning PB.
Yes, plus the Latins and Crusades, and the sacking of Constantinople, didn't help, when the Byzantines had actually asked for the their help.
An enormously stupid error for Western European self-interest, without which there might still be a fair-sized Eastern empire.
And the Pope still with authority over Moscow and Athens
I am sure the "let them go" brigade will not care.
Abu Dhabi, along with its fellow UAE emirate Dubai, wants a slice of the British millionaire exodus action. Its rulers understand that the wealthy families pouring out of London, have certain lifestyle requirements the fast growing Gulf city-state cannot currently offer. Private members’ clubs are one. Top British public schools of the sort admired by the global elite the world over are another. To that end Harrow is scheduled to open two schools, one in Abu Dhabi and one in Dubai, in 2026.
It is stupid and self-sabotaging to drive out the wealthiest especially when they pay taxes. Some people on twitter genuinely believe if they go it is no problem as they pay no tax.
Some of the wealthiest pay remarkably little tax, some pay a lot. We need to recognise both types exist.
But it's the ones who pay a lot whom we're losing. It's the ones who pay a lot of tax for whom high tax rates are a disincentive to stay. And the ones who pay 'remarkably little' still pay far more in absolute terms than the average Joe.
Britain takes a much greater proportion of its tax from high earners than most countries. You might justifiably think this an unhealthily top-heavy structure, but that doesn't mean that taking away much of that top chunk won't be painful.
Yep. I'd package it up with low-wage labour as economic/fiscal cheat codes that can go some way to cover for anaemic productivity growth, but ultimately fail to drive innovation, tax revenues and efficiency across the broader economy and population.
As we become more and more reliant on these factors, the harder it becomes to disentangle ourselves. And it's built on sand, with the flight of a few rich people or a sudden drop in immigration leading to an economic crisis.
Other bad news: Senator Susan Collins is going to support Tusli Gabbard’s nomination.
I blame Covid. In the first Trump administration the lunatics hadn't completely taken over the asylum like they have now. We all know people who went down rabbit holes during lockdown, and never came back. Happened to plenty of us ourselves to a certain extent.
I'm coming round to the idea that *none* of the lockdowns were worth it. Yes, more people would have died, health systems would have been overwhelmed, and elected officials would have been punished for that, governments may have fallen. But suspending people's freedoms to such an degree has radicalised large numbers of people in a way that is not healthy for democracy. Why are so many young people willing to say democracy isn't all that, and maybe they'd prefer a dictatorship? They've already been kept under house arrest in a democracy.
I agree. My trust in government evaporated with covid, and I am government (well, public sector). Example: I used to favour road pricing as a better and more effective solution to road tax (the externalities of you driving 10 miles down empty country roads in North Yorkshire are rather lower than you driving ten miles across Greater Manchester, and the public transport alternatives less apparent, so seemed a good solution to me) - but now there's no way I'd want to give government that level of information over my movements. I just don't trust them any more.
I am sure the "let them go" brigade will not care.
Abu Dhabi, along with its fellow UAE emirate Dubai, wants a slice of the British millionaire exodus action. Its rulers understand that the wealthy families pouring out of London, have certain lifestyle requirements the fast growing Gulf city-state cannot currently offer. Private members’ clubs are one. Top British public schools of the sort admired by the global elite the world over are another. To that end Harrow is scheduled to open two schools, one in Abu Dhabi and one in Dubai, in 2026.
It is stupid and self-sabotaging to drive out the wealthiest especially when they pay taxes. Some people on twitter genuinely believe if they go it is no problem as they pay no tax.
Some of the wealthiest pay remarkably little tax, some pay a lot. We need to recognise both types exist.
But it's the ones who pay a lot whom we're losing. It's the ones who pay a lot of tax for whom high tax rates are a disincentive to stay. And the ones who pay 'remarkably little' still pay far more in absolute terms than the average Joe.
Britain takes a much greater proportion of its tax from high earners than most countries. You might justifiably think this an unhealthily top-heavy structure, but that doesn't mean that taking away much of that top chunk won't be painful.
Britain takes a much greater proportion of its income tax from high earners than most countries and I am in favour of changing that. I am also in favour of taxing some unearned income more.
The burden of all taxes across the population in the UK is not unhealthily top heavy. Income tax is not the only tax.
Maybe I've missed it, but I'm not aware of the current government increasing taxes on the income or wealth of all these millionaires and multi-millionaires who are apparently fleeing the country. Which taxes have gone up?
Millionaire Hard-up farmers selling up and fleeing the country before their land gets ripped from them their heirs when they die?
Trump is doing some very odd things. This attack on Direct File, which saves ordinary folk about $11 billion in accountancy fees, is going to piss a lot of people off.
'China has announced retaliatory tariffs on some American goods, as US tariffs on all Chinese goods come into force
The Chinese tariffs - due to begin on Monday - would put a 15% import tax on US coal and liquefied natural gas, plus 10% on crude oil, agricultural machinery, pick-up trucks, and some sports cars
The 10% tariff on all Chinese imports to the US began at 00:01 ET on Tuesday (05:01 GMT)'
I remain of the view that the simple answer for why Trump pt 2 is that inflation was very high during Biden's term. (If you want extra reasons, then it's about the polarisation of media and the creation of a truth-free right wing populist media bubble.)
Inflation does play a part, as does covid, and all the other hot button issues that drive public anger, but the path was already being followed. If it hadn't been inflation after covid it would have been something else, perhaps for the 2028 election.
I think voters always preferred PR to AV which was only a half way house between FPTP and PR.
Note even Conservative voters are coming round to PR, split almost half and half between PR and FPTP and unsurprisingly are more likely to think PR would have led to a better result at the GE than Labour voters given it would have produced a hung parliament not a Labour majority.
PR would also ensure the Tories and Reform who stay separate distinctive parties with seats allocated according to their voteshare. The Tories could then try and form governments with Reform or the LDs post election. A divided right would also not just hand undeserved seats to Labour with as little as 25-30% of the vote as now under FPTP
Excellent post @HYUFD and I know you voted for AV in the referendum so what I am about to say doesn't apply to you, but I find it really annoying when Conservatives (and this applies to Labour as well) come around to something only when it suits them and not based on fundamental fairness.
I give you the example of the 'Literal Democrats' who deprived the LDs of the Devon seat in the Euro elections many decades ago. Tories thought this hilarious, particularly as they won the seat.
Only when 'Conservatories' started standing did they think the law needed changing with the Electoral Commission vetting names and the addition of emblems on ballot papers.
Still and excellent post @hyufd and my post wasn't against your post but it gave me an opportunity to vent my spleen. Thank you.
PS. I also have just noticed you liked my example posted earlier - Thank you. Good to have cross party agreement on stuff, even if we disagree on some fundamentals.
I am sure the "let them go" brigade will not care.
Abu Dhabi, along with its fellow UAE emirate Dubai, wants a slice of the British millionaire exodus action. Its rulers understand that the wealthy families pouring out of London, have certain lifestyle requirements the fast growing Gulf city-state cannot currently offer. Private members’ clubs are one. Top British public schools of the sort admired by the global elite the world over are another. To that end Harrow is scheduled to open two schools, one in Abu Dhabi and one in Dubai, in 2026.
Bang goes half our taxes. There is a far-from-trivial chance the UK will go bankrupt in this one Labour term, or at least suffer a catastrophic loss of market confidence
That the loss of few hundred high earners could eliminate "half our taxes" just goes to show how ridiculously top-heavy the UK has become.
The top rate of income tax is only 45%. CGT is 24/28%.
The loss of a few hundred high earners would not remotely eliminate half our taxes. That's the key point. That's just a bullshit claim.
Yes, but it's far more than 'a few hundred' high earners who are leaving. You are weirdly complacent about the scale of the problem.
(hi copilot - do we know how many high earners or high net worth individuals have left Britain since labour came to power? Copilot said: Copilot Yes, there has been a notable exodus of high earners and high-net-worth individuals from the UK since the Labour Party came to power in 2024. In 2024 alone, approximately 10,800 high-net-worth individuals left the UK1. This includes 78 centi-millionaires and 12 billionaires1.
The primary reasons for this exodus include increased taxes and the end of non-domicile status, which have made the UK less attractive for wealthy individuals12.
Is there anything specific you would like to know more about regarding this trend?
A specific bullshit claim was made. I rebutted the bullshit claim. I'm not certain that makes me "weirdly complacent". I'd be overjoyed if PB had fewer bullshit claims being posted so we could spend more time discussing reasonable concerns.
“The referendum…” - what referendum? We’ve never had one on PR.
The one silver lining with the rise of Reform is that it puts fairer voting back on the agenda.
What is "fair" about losers winning?
I agree, which is why we should get rid of FPTP. If you can't see that an election is different from a horse race and that the additional candidates impacts the results of others there is no hope for you. Try this ridiculous example:
A constituency has 100 Conservatives and 2 Labour voters. All the Conservatives decide to stand because they think they are best. Only 1 Labour stands. The result will be Labour wins with 2 votes under FPTP with all the Conservatives getting 1 vote. The complete opposite of what the electorate wants.
Under STV a Conservative would win with 100 votes.
So your statement was complete illogical nonsense.
What PR does is shift the difficult business of bringing together different views from the electorate to the politicians, who are better-informed and more able to judge what is an acceptable compromise, but perhaps less representative of what the electorate actually wanted. With FPTP, people are forced to decide whether backing preferred party X is more important to them than supporting tolerable party Y to keep out party Z. With PR, the decision is passed to professional politicians. It's not obvious which is better, IMHO.
A variation that appears in practice, e.g. in Scandinavia, is that the coalitions that will be formed are largely pre-defined, so you know that you;re voting from a centre-left or centre-right government, but additionally can help determined the exact flavour. That seems to me the best option, but hard to guarantee by legislation.
I agree it isn't easy. I was just pointing out the nonsense of the post I was replying to.
As already discussed it is very difficult to get a PR system that is proportional and also meets other requirements of the electorate. SSV just feels very wrong and doesn't differentiate between good and bad candidates (not that FPTP has been much cop at that either when in many places you will get a donkey provided it has the right rosette on it). I hate lists for umpteen reasons that I won't bore with here. STV would be my favourite, although the constituencies are now much larger and this is not completely proportional, but acceptable to me as being close enough. It also tends to result in the best candidates (as far as the electorate is concerned anyway) being elected from each party. I am not entirely anti AV as a step forward. It is far from proportional. In fact it can give a worse result than FPTP, but usually only in situations where there is a very clear winner anyway.
I find it interesting that parties who want to keep FPTP never use it for their own internal elections, but usually use some form of STV/AV.
It's not just "very difficult to get a PR system that is proportional and also meets other requirements of the electorate". It's impossible (Arrow, 1950). So, yes, we should give up on perfection and pick the best option available.
The best option, I suggest, involves both proportionality and ordinality. That can be STV. It can also be an open list system. The UK has a stronger tradition of the former.
Trump is doing some very odd things. This attack on Direct File, which saves ordinary folk about $11 billion in accountancy fees, is going to piss a lot of people off.
This is kind of the hope. Some revolutionary governments end up taking ideology to impractical extremes and make life hard for everyone. That’s the moment at which they either get thrown out or double down violently to ensure they can’t be thrown out.
Really interesting exerpt from Mike Benz being interviewed by Glen Greenwald, about how USAID is the glue that holds together the tentacles of US activist foreign policy, funding groups all over the world to advocate for internet censorship in the name of ‘saving democracy’.
Really interesting exerpt from Mike Benz being interviewed by Glen Greenwald, about how USAID is the glue that holds together the tentacles of US activist foreign policy, funding groups all over the world to advocate for internet censorship in the name of ‘saving democracy’.
Michael Benz, a former Trump State Department official whose work has been cited in congressional hearings and promoted by Elon Musk, has become a go-to voice for Republican criticism of government and social media censorship in the past year.
But before his stints in government and as a pundit, Benz appears to have been a pseudonymous alt-right content creator who courted and interacted with white nationalists and posted videos espousing racist conspiracy theories, according to recordings, livestreams and blog posts reviewed by NBC News.
The pseudonym, Frame Game, posted videos and participated in podcasts and livestreams during the rise of the alt-right following Donald Trump’s election. Frame Game avoided showing his face in his videos or appearances, during which he pushed a variety of far-right narratives including the “Great Replacement Theory” that posits the white race is being eradicated in America for politics and profits. In others, Frame Game said he was a white identitarian, railed against the idea of diversity and made montages urging white viewers to unite under the banner of race.
In interviews with white nationalists, Frame Game blamed Jews for “controlling the media” and for the decline of the white race. “If you were to remove the Jewish influence on the West,” he said in one video, “white people would not face the threat of white genocide that they currently do.”
Trump is doing some very odd things. This attack on Direct File, which saves ordinary folk about $11 billion in accountancy fees, is going to piss a lot of people off.
It's only odd if you forget the mantra, "Will this enrich private businessmen?"
Really interesting exerpt from Mike Benz being interviewed by Glen Greenwald, about how USAID is the glue that holds together the tentacles of US activist foreign policy, funding groups all over the world to advocate for internet censorship in the name of ‘saving democracy’.
If anyone had any faith in GB energy and what Miliband is doing, I doubt it would last the two minutes of this interview with the Chairman. I certainly can't imagine it will last beyond the next set of energy price increases in April, the third consecutive ones. Going to impact on inflation and more bad news for Reeves and Starmer.
'Donald Trump's new Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy performs a raunchy 'Chippendale' striptease and gets his nipple licked in a cringeworthy clip from his forgotten past in reality TV.
The resurfaced footage shows the man tasked with restoring confidence in America's shaken airline industry prancing around in nothing but his tighty whities, socks, and eyeglasses.
Set to sultry saxophone music, the risqué routine begins with a 20-something Duffy gyrating near-naked in front of a window while fellow contestants from MTV's The Real World: Boston howl with laughter.'
Really interesting exerpt from Mike Benz being interviewed by Glen Greenwald, about how USAID is the glue that holds together the tentacles of US activist foreign policy, funding groups all over the world to advocate for internet censorship in the name of ‘saving democracy’.
'Donald Trump's new Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy performs a raunchy 'Chippendale' striptease and gets his nipple licked in a cringeworthy clip from his forgotten past in reality TV.
The resurfaced footage shows the man tasked with restoring confidence in America's shaken airline industry prancing around in nothing but his tighty whities, socks, and eyeglasses.
Set to sultry saxophone music, the risqué routine begins with a 20-something Duffy gyrating near-naked in front of a window while fellow contestants from MTV's The Real World: Boston howl with laughter.'
If anyone had any faith in GB energy and what Miliband is doing, I doubt it would last the two minutes of this interview with the Chairman. I certainly can't imagine it will last beyond the next set of energy price increases in April, the third consecutive ones. Going to impact on inflation and more bad news for Reeves and Starmer.
'Donald Trump's new Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy performs a raunchy 'Chippendale' striptease and gets his nipple licked in a cringeworthy clip from his forgotten past in reality TV.
The resurfaced footage shows the man tasked with restoring confidence in America's shaken airline industry prancing around in nothing but his tighty whities, socks, and eyeglasses.
Set to sultry saxophone music, the risqué routine begins with a 20-something Duffy gyrating near-naked in front of a window while fellow contestants from MTV's The Real World: Boston howl with laughter.'
Just occurred to me that 1025 was the apex of the Eastern Roman Empire, after the rise of Islam.
Huge infighting coupled with the arrival of Turks, Normans, and Pechenegs at the same time led to its rapid decline from a major power to one constantly on the back foot.
Edited extra bit: sleepily forgot to add that this happens to be a thousand years ago now. I suspect few people would correctly guess the most powerful state in Europe a thousand years ago.
Morning PB.
Yes, plus the Latins and Crusades, and the sacking of Constantinople, didn't help, when the Byzantines had actually asked for the their help.
An enormously stupid error for Western European self-interest, without which there might still be a fair-sized Eastern empire.
Aye, the Fourth Crusade was dumb as hell.
Great shame the Romans fell, but there we are.
Counterfactuals are not great but it seems to me that the decline of the trad Roman empire and its replacement in the west of what has led to now is both brilliant and fascinating. And the period Europe 400-1500 would have been much duller and less creative without it, though no doubt easier to understand.
Like most people I don't care a lot for the Crusades; but they are also misunderstood. Noticing that Jerusalem and the land around it remains the most contested on the planet to this day should make us stop and think.
A key question is this: What is it about our sensibility which means that it is damnably awful that (mostly) European Christians sought to conquer and control Jerusalem and the eastern Mediterranean but much less so for all the others who sought do do so?
Mr. (Ms? Sorry, I forget), Algakirk, that territory was also heavily contested between the Seleucids and Ptolemies.
The list is endless and goes back to the beginning of writing, at least 5000 years+. My simple question is: Why pick on Crusaders (awful though it was) out of the multiplicity of options, from Egyptians to Elamites, fron Babylonians to Persians, Arabians to Greeks etc. I suggest they were neither better nor worse.
Sir Steven Runciman hated the crusaders, for sacking Constantinople (as you and MD pointed out, an act of self-defeating stupidity). He wrote a very influential denunciation of them.
Who could possibly disagree? And what are we to make of the Romans who destroyed Jerusalem and the second Temple? And the Babylonians who destroyed the first Temple? And so on, right up to this very moment.
I view the Sack of Constantinople as "It was worse than a crime, it was a blunder." A still-viable Eastern Empire would have kept the Turks out of the Balkans and Southern Russia.
Really interesting exerpt from Mike Benz being interviewed by Glen Greenwald, about how USAID is the glue that holds together the tentacles of US activist foreign policy, funding groups all over the world to advocate for internet censorship in the name of ‘saving democracy’.
This is the aid that Zelensky himself said the other day has gone mostly to American bureaucracy rather than to actually doing the job it was supposed to do. He says he received less than half the aid that the US said they’d sent.
I am sure the "let them go" brigade will not care.
Abu Dhabi, along with its fellow UAE emirate Dubai, wants a slice of the British millionaire exodus action. Its rulers understand that the wealthy families pouring out of London, have certain lifestyle requirements the fast growing Gulf city-state cannot currently offer. Private members’ clubs are one. Top British public schools of the sort admired by the global elite the world over are another. To that end Harrow is scheduled to open two schools, one in Abu Dhabi and one in Dubai, in 2026.
Bang goes half our taxes. There is a far-from-trivial chance the UK will go bankrupt in this one Labour term, or at least suffer a catastrophic loss of market confidence
That the loss of few hundred high earners could eliminate "half our taxes" just goes to show how ridiculously top-heavy the UK has become.
The top rate of income tax is only 45%. CGT is 24/28%.
The loss of a few hundred high earners would not remotely eliminate half our taxes. That's the key point. That's just a bullshit claim.
Yes, but it's far more than 'a few hundred' high earners who are leaving. You are weirdly complacent about the scale of the problem.
(hi copilot - do we know how many high earners or high net worth individuals have left Britain since labour came to power? Copilot said: Copilot Yes, there has been a notable exodus of high earners and high-net-worth individuals from the UK since the Labour Party came to power in 2024. In 2024 alone, approximately 10,800 high-net-worth individuals left the UK1. This includes 78 centi-millionaires and 12 billionaires1.
The primary reasons for this exodus include increased taxes and the end of non-domicile status, which have made the UK less attractive for wealthy individuals12.
Is there anything specific you would like to know more about regarding this trend?
A specific bullshit claim was made. I rebutted the bullshit claim. I'm not certain that makes me "weirdly complacent". I'd be overjoyed if PB had fewer bullshit claims being posted so we could spend more time discussing reasonable concerns.
Ah - my inference from what you said was that your view was that it was only 'a few hundred high earners' who had left and therefore the problem was small.
Other bad news: Senator Susan Collins is going to support Tusli Gabbard’s nomination.
I blame Covid. In the first Trump administration the lunatics hadn't completely taken over the asylum like they have now. We all know people who went down rabbit holes during lockdown, and never came back. Happened to plenty of us ourselves to a certain extent.
I'm coming round to the idea that *none* of the lockdowns were worth it. Yes, more people would have died, health systems would have been overwhelmed, and elected officials would have been punished for that, governments may have fallen. But suspending people's freedoms to such an degree has radicalised large numbers of people in a way that is not healthy for democracy. Why are so many young people willing to say democracy isn't all that, and maybe they'd prefer a dictatorship? They've already been kept under house arrest in a democracy.
I agree. My trust in government evaporated with covid, and I am government (well, public sector). Example: I used to favour road pricing as a better and more effective solution to road tax (the externalities of you driving 10 miles down empty country roads in North Yorkshire are rather lower than you driving ten miles across Greater Manchester, and the public transport alternatives less apparent, so seemed a good solution to me) - but now there's no way I'd want to give government that level of information over my movements. I just don't trust them any more.
If you carry a phone round with you, as most of us do, the government knows where you are anyway.
I am sure the "let them go" brigade will not care.
Abu Dhabi, along with its fellow UAE emirate Dubai, wants a slice of the British millionaire exodus action. Its rulers understand that the wealthy families pouring out of London, have certain lifestyle requirements the fast growing Gulf city-state cannot currently offer. Private members’ clubs are one. Top British public schools of the sort admired by the global elite the world over are another. To that end Harrow is scheduled to open two schools, one in Abu Dhabi and one in Dubai, in 2026.
Bang goes half our taxes. There is a far-from-trivial chance the UK will go bankrupt in this one Labour term, or at least suffer a catastrophic loss of market confidence
That the loss of few hundred high earners could eliminate "half our taxes" just goes to show how ridiculously top-heavy the UK has become.
The top rate of income tax is only 45%. CGT is 24/28%.
The loss of a few hundred high earners would not remotely eliminate half our taxes. That's the key point. That's just a bullshit claim.
Yes, but it's far more than 'a few hundred' high earners who are leaving. You are weirdly complacent about the scale of the problem.
(hi copilot - do we know how many high earners or high net worth individuals have left Britain since labour came to power? Copilot said: Copilot Yes, there has been a notable exodus of high earners and high-net-worth individuals from the UK since the Labour Party came to power in 2024. In 2024 alone, approximately 10,800 high-net-worth individuals left the UK1. This includes 78 centi-millionaires and 12 billionaires1.
The primary reasons for this exodus include increased taxes and the end of non-domicile status, which have made the UK less attractive for wealthy individuals12.
Is there anything specific you would like to know more about regarding this trend?
A specific bullshit claim was made. I rebutted the bullshit claim. I'm not certain that makes me "weirdly complacent". I'd be overjoyed if PB had fewer bullshit claims being posted so we could spend more time discussing reasonable concerns.
I'd have more sympathy if these high net worth individuals were facing marginal tax rates of 83-98%, as in the 1970's.
The UK must be among the top dozen best places to be a high net worth individual (taking into account culture, shopping, low crime rates, non-murderous governments and political rivals, beautiful countryside, etc.)
Really interesting exerpt from Mike Benz being interviewed by Glen Greenwald, about how USAID is the glue that holds together the tentacles of US activist foreign policy, funding groups all over the world to advocate for internet censorship in the name of ‘saving democracy’.
This is the aid that Zelensky himself said the other day has gone mostly to American bureaucracy rather than to actually doing the job it was supposed to do. He says he received less than half the aid that the US said they’d sent.
Other bad news: Senator Susan Collins is going to support Tusli Gabbard’s nomination.
I blame Covid. In the first Trump administration the lunatics hadn't completely taken over the asylum like they have now. We all know people who went down rabbit holes during lockdown, and never came back. Happened to plenty of us ourselves to a certain extent.
I'm coming round to the idea that *none* of the lockdowns were worth it. Yes, more people would have died, health systems would have been overwhelmed, and elected officials would have been punished for that, governments may have fallen. But suspending people's freedoms to such an degree has radicalised large numbers of people in a way that is not healthy for democracy. Why are so many young people willing to say democracy isn't all that, and maybe they'd prefer a dictatorship? They've already been kept under house arrest in a democracy.
I agree. My trust in government evaporated with covid, and I am government (well, public sector). Example: I used to favour road pricing as a better and more effective solution to road tax (the externalities of you driving 10 miles down empty country roads in North Yorkshire are rather lower than you driving ten miles across Greater Manchester, and the public transport alternatives less apparent, so seemed a good solution to me) - but now there's no way I'd want to give government that level of information over my movements. I just don't trust them any more.
If you carry a phone round with you, as most of us do, the government knows where you are anyway.
Is it OK if I get a bit pedantic here? If you carry a phone round with you, as most of us do, a private company knows where you are and the government has the ability to know where you are.
Other bad news: Senator Susan Collins is going to support Tusli Gabbard’s nomination.
I blame Covid. In the first Trump administration the lunatics hadn't completely taken over the asylum like they have now. We all know people who went down rabbit holes during lockdown, and never came back. Happened to plenty of us ourselves to a certain extent.
I'm coming round to the idea that *none* of the lockdowns were worth it. Yes, more people would have died, health systems would have been overwhelmed, and elected officials would have been punished for that, governments may have fallen. But suspending people's freedoms to such an degree has radicalised large numbers of people in a way that is not healthy for democracy. Why are so many young people willing to say democracy isn't all that, and maybe they'd prefer a dictatorship? They've already been kept under house arrest in a democracy.
I agree. My trust in government evaporated with covid, and I am government (well, public sector). Example: I used to favour road pricing as a better and more effective solution to road tax (the externalities of you driving 10 miles down empty country roads in North Yorkshire are rather lower than you driving ten miles across Greater Manchester, and the public transport alternatives less apparent, so seemed a good solution to me) - but now there's no way I'd want to give government that level of information over my movements. I just don't trust them any more.
If you carry a phone round with you, as most of us do, the government knows where you are anyway.
The ANPR network is so pervasive that doing road pricing wouldn't tell them anything they don't already know.
Trump is doing some very odd things. This attack on Direct File, which saves ordinary folk about $11 billion in accountancy fees, is going to piss a lot of people off.
It's only odd if you forget the mantra, "Will this enrich private businessmen?"
That is actually one of the things I was expecting Trump to implement as every Republican wanted it killed at the request of a campaign funding source - I mean the market is worth $11bn a year - you could throw $1bn into campaign funds and still make $10bn a year
The killer bit here is that there is no open source equivalent so people are going to have to pay.
Trump is doing some very odd things. This attack on Direct File, which saves ordinary folk about $11 billion in accountancy fees, is going to piss a lot of people off.
It's only odd if you forget the mantra, "Will this enrich private businessmen?"
That is actually one of the things I was expecting Trump to implement as every Republican wanted it killed at the request of a campaign funding source - I mean the market is worth $11bn a year - you could throw $1bn into campaign funds and still make $10bn a year
The killer bit here is that there is no open source equivalent so people are going to have to pay.
That’s the sort of project that couple of serious developers could do in a week, at least for Federal taxes. It’s only complicated because it’s deliberately made damn complicated by the vested interests who lobby the politicians.
Other bad news: Senator Susan Collins is going to support Tusli Gabbard’s nomination.
I blame Covid. In the first Trump administration the lunatics hadn't completely taken over the asylum like they have now. We all know people who went down rabbit holes during lockdown, and never came back. Happened to plenty of us ourselves to a certain extent.
I'm coming round to the idea that *none* of the lockdowns were worth it. Yes, more people would have died, health systems would have been overwhelmed, and elected officials would have been punished for that, governments may have fallen. But suspending people's freedoms to such an degree has radicalised large numbers of people in a way that is not healthy for democracy. Why are so many young people willing to say democracy isn't all that, and maybe they'd prefer a dictatorship? They've already been kept under house arrest in a democracy.
I agree. My trust in government evaporated with covid, and I am government (well, public sector). Example: I used to favour road pricing as a better and more effective solution to road tax (the externalities of you driving 10 miles down empty country roads in North Yorkshire are rather lower than you driving ten miles across Greater Manchester, and the public transport alternatives less apparent, so seemed a good solution to me) - but now there's no way I'd want to give government that level of information over my movements. I just don't trust them any more.
A significant and growing number of people have no faith in government, policing, legal system or the media. It's reflected in the current polling.
Hardly surprising when this week we have a woman in court because she is being forced to get changed with a man or lose her job. A man is arrested for burning a book and then has his name, address and full date of birth plastered on social media by the police, putting a big arrow on his back. (Amazing what the police are willing to reveal when they want to.) A 14 year boy is stabbed to death in school and it barely makes the news, because....reasons.
Other bad news: Senator Susan Collins is going to support Tusli Gabbard’s nomination.
I blame Covid. In the first Trump administration the lunatics hadn't completely taken over the asylum like they have now. We all know people who went down rabbit holes during lockdown, and never came back. Happened to plenty of us ourselves to a certain extent.
I'm coming round to the idea that *none* of the lockdowns were worth it. Yes, more people would have died, health systems would have been overwhelmed, and elected officials would have been punished for that, governments may have fallen. But suspending people's freedoms to such an degree has radicalised large numbers of people in a way that is not healthy for democracy. Why are so many young people willing to say democracy isn't all that, and maybe they'd prefer a dictatorship? They've already been kept under house arrest in a democracy.
I agree. My trust in government evaporated with covid, and I am government (well, public sector). Example: I used to favour road pricing as a better and more effective solution to road tax (the externalities of you driving 10 miles down empty country roads in North Yorkshire are rather lower than you driving ten miles across Greater Manchester, and the public transport alternatives less apparent, so seemed a good solution to me) - but now there's no way I'd want to give government that level of information over my movements. I just don't trust them any more.
If you carry a phone round with you, as most of us do, the government knows where you are anyway.
Do they? Wouldn't they need a warrant or at least some excuse?
Unless you mean the Chinese and American governments (and oligarchs)?
I think if a democratic USA comes out at the other end of this he will be for the legal high jump. Subject, maybe, to a pardon from Trump.
Yes, that is the terrifying aspect of all this. Musk *has* to dismantle democracy in the US or he will end up in a cell for many years. It's a do or die play.
Other bad news: Senator Susan Collins is going to support Tusli Gabbard’s nomination.
I blame Covid. In the first Trump administration the lunatics hadn't completely taken over the asylum like they have now. We all know people who went down rabbit holes during lockdown, and never came back. Happened to plenty of us ourselves to a certain extent.
I'm coming round to the idea that *none* of the lockdowns were worth it. Yes, more people would have died, health systems would have been overwhelmed, and elected officials would have been punished for that, governments may have fallen. But suspending people's freedoms to such an degree has radicalised large numbers of people in a way that is not healthy for democracy. Why are so many young people willing to say democracy isn't all that, and maybe they'd prefer a dictatorship? They've already been kept under house arrest in a democracy.
I agree. My trust in government evaporated with covid, and I am government (well, public sector). Example: I used to favour road pricing as a better and more effective solution to road tax (the externalities of you driving 10 miles down empty country roads in North Yorkshire are rather lower than you driving ten miles across Greater Manchester, and the public transport alternatives less apparent, so seemed a good solution to me) - but now there's no way I'd want to give government that level of information over my movements. I just don't trust them any more.
If you carry a phone round with you, as most of us do, the government knows where you are anyway.
Do they? Wouldn't they need a warrant or at least some excuse?
Unless you mean the Chinese and American governments (and oligarchs)?
Trump is doing some very odd things. This attack on Direct File, which saves ordinary folk about $11 billion in accountancy fees, is going to piss a lot of people off.
It's only odd if you forget the mantra, "Will this enrich private businessmen?"
That is actually one of the things I was expecting Trump to implement as every Republican wanted it killed at the request of a campaign funding source - I mean the market is worth $11bn a year - you could throw $1bn into campaign funds and still make $10bn a year
The killer bit here is that there is no open source equivalent so people are going to have to pay.
That’s the sort of project that couple of serious developers could do in a week, at least for Federal taxes. It’s only complicated because it’s deliberately made damn complicated by the vested interests who lobby the politicians.
Another Twatterisation - a little while ago, there was someone, in the U.K., ranting or Reddit about how the tax system was opaque and you couldn’t “file your taxes online”
Other bad news: Senator Susan Collins is going to support Tusli Gabbard’s nomination.
I blame Covid. In the first Trump administration the lunatics hadn't completely taken over the asylum like they have now. We all know people who went down rabbit holes during lockdown, and never came back. Happened to plenty of us ourselves to a certain extent.
I'm coming round to the idea that *none* of the lockdowns were worth it. Yes, more people would have died, health systems would have been overwhelmed, and elected officials would have been punished for that, governments may have fallen. But suspending people's freedoms to such an degree has radicalised large numbers of people in a way that is not healthy for democracy. Why are so many young people willing to say democracy isn't all that, and maybe they'd prefer a dictatorship? They've already been kept under house arrest in a democracy.
I agree. My trust in government evaporated with covid, and I am government (well, public sector). Example: I used to favour road pricing as a better and more effective solution to road tax (the externalities of you driving 10 miles down empty country roads in North Yorkshire are rather lower than you driving ten miles across Greater Manchester, and the public transport alternatives less apparent, so seemed a good solution to me) - but now there's no way I'd want to give government that level of information over my movements. I just don't trust them any more.
If you carry a phone round with you, as most of us do, the government knows where you are anyway.
Do they? Wouldn't they need a warrant or at least some excuse?
Unless you mean the Chinese and American governments (and oligarchs)?
Yes, what should be said is the government CAN know where you are at all times.
I think if a democratic USA comes out at the other end of this he will be for the legal high jump. Subject, maybe, to a pardon from Trump.
Yes, that is the terrifying aspect of all this. Musk *has* to dismantle democracy in the US or he will end up in a cell for many years. It's a do or die play.
Except he won't
His extralegal activity (if there is any) will go unpunished. They are operating above the law.
JUST IN: A federal judge in Washington says she's concerned that the White House is still implementing the spending freeze that she and a Rhode Island judge have ordered temporarily halted.
Judge AliKhan is inclined to issue a restraining order.
'Donald Trump's new Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy performs a raunchy 'Chippendale' striptease and gets his nipple licked in a cringeworthy clip from his forgotten past in reality TV.
The resurfaced footage shows the man tasked with restoring confidence in America's shaken airline industry prancing around in nothing but his tighty whities, socks, and eyeglasses.
Set to sultry saxophone music, the risqué routine begins with a 20-something Duffy gyrating near-naked in front of a window while fellow contestants from MTV's The Real World: Boston howl with laughter.'
I am sure the "let them go" brigade will not care.
Abu Dhabi, along with its fellow UAE emirate Dubai, wants a slice of the British millionaire exodus action. Its rulers understand that the wealthy families pouring out of London, have certain lifestyle requirements the fast growing Gulf city-state cannot currently offer. Private members’ clubs are one. Top British public schools of the sort admired by the global elite the world over are another. To that end Harrow is scheduled to open two schools, one in Abu Dhabi and one in Dubai, in 2026.
Bang goes half our taxes. There is a far-from-trivial chance the UK will go bankrupt in this one Labour term, or at least suffer a catastrophic loss of market confidence
That the loss of few hundred high earners could eliminate "half our taxes" just goes to show how ridiculously top-heavy the UK has become.
The top rate of income tax is only 45%. CGT is 24/28%.
The loss of a few hundred high earners would not remotely eliminate half our taxes. That's the key point. That's just a bullshit claim.
Yes, but it's far more than 'a few hundred' high earners who are leaving. You are weirdly complacent about the scale of the problem.
(hi copilot - do we know how many high earners or high net worth individuals have left Britain since labour came to power? Copilot said: Copilot Yes, there has been a notable exodus of high earners and high-net-worth individuals from the UK since the Labour Party came to power in 2024. In 2024 alone, approximately 10,800 high-net-worth individuals left the UK1. This includes 78 centi-millionaires and 12 billionaires1.
The primary reasons for this exodus include increased taxes and the end of non-domicile status, which have made the UK less attractive for wealthy individuals12.
Is there anything specific you would like to know more about regarding this trend?
A specific bullshit claim was made. I rebutted the bullshit claim. I'm not certain that makes me "weirdly complacent". I'd be overjoyed if PB had fewer bullshit claims being posted so we could spend more time discussing reasonable concerns.
I'd have more sympathy if these high net worth individuals were facing marginal tax rates of 83-98%, as in the 1970's.
The UK must be among the top dozen best places to be a high net worth individual (taking into account culture, shopping, low crime rates, non-murderous governments and political rivals, beautiful countryside, etc.)
Low crime rates?? Where do you live?
One of the main reasons given for quitting london is the relatively high crime rate. “I can’t wear my Rolex outdoors” etc
Polls on any given issue only really mean much if the said issue is particularly salient. The electoral system clearly isn't, and indeed it wasn't much when there was a referendum on the issue in 2011.
Socialists often point out polls showing overwhelming public support for nationalising various industries. Ultra tough-on-crime types often point out polls showing strong support for capital punishment. Again, these issues aren't particularly salient and do not necessarily indicate the levels of support if they did become salient and/or referendums were held on them.
Polls on any given issue only really mean much if the said issue is particularly salient. The electoral system clearly isn't, and indeed it wasn't much when there was a referendum on the issue in 2011.
Socialists often point out polls showing overwhelming public support for nationalising various industries. Ultra tough-on-crime types often point out polls showing strong support for capital punishment. Again, these issues aren't particularly salient and do not necessarily indicate the levels of support if they did become salient and/or referendums were held on them.
Farage should offer a referendum on capital punishment
Really interesting exerpt from Mike Benz being interviewed by Glen Greenwald, about how USAID is the glue that holds together the tentacles of US activist foreign policy, funding groups all over the world to advocate for internet censorship in the name of ‘saving democracy’.
This is the aid that Zelensky himself said the other day has gone mostly to American bureaucracy rather than to actually doing the job it was supposed to do. He says he received less than half the aid that the US said they’d sent.
The bulk of the USAID 40 billion hasn't been direct humanitarian aid as such, but rather contributions to the World Bank "Public Expenditures for Administrative Capacity Endurance (PEACE)" fund, which helps pay for things like the wages of non-security public employees. Either way, it's clearly not what Zelensky is complaining about in the video.
It's sad to see what's happened to @Sandpit, they used to be someone I probably didn't agree with often politically, but had a valuable perspective backed up with facts. Nowadays (at least on certain topics) a very high percentage of posts are misleading or simply false.
'Donald Trump's new Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy performs a raunchy 'Chippendale' striptease and gets his nipple licked in a cringeworthy clip from his forgotten past in reality TV.
The resurfaced footage shows the man tasked with restoring confidence in America's shaken airline industry prancing around in nothing but his tighty whities, socks, and eyeglasses.
Set to sultry saxophone music, the risqué routine begins with a 20-something Duffy gyrating near-naked in front of a window while fellow contestants from MTV's The Real World: Boston howl with laughter.'
Other bad news: Senator Susan Collins is going to support Tusli Gabbard’s nomination.
I blame Covid. In the first Trump administration the lunatics hadn't completely taken over the asylum like they have now. We all know people who went down rabbit holes during lockdown, and never came back. Happened to plenty of us ourselves to a certain extent.
I'm coming round to the idea that *none* of the lockdowns were worth it. Yes, more people would have died, health systems would have been overwhelmed, and elected officials would have been punished for that, governments may have fallen. But suspending people's freedoms to such an degree has radicalised large numbers of people in a way that is not healthy for democracy. Why are so many young people willing to say democracy isn't all that, and maybe they'd prefer a dictatorship? They've already been kept under house arrest in a democracy.
I agree. My trust in government evaporated with covid, and I am government (well, public sector). Example: I used to favour road pricing as a better and more effective solution to road tax (the externalities of you driving 10 miles down empty country roads in North Yorkshire are rather lower than you driving ten miles across Greater Manchester, and the public transport alternatives less apparent, so seemed a good solution to me) - but now there's no way I'd want to give government that level of information over my movements. I just don't trust them any more.
If you carry a phone round with you, as most of us do, the government knows where you are anyway.
Is it OK if I get a bit pedantic here? If you carry a phone round with you, as most of us do, a private company knows where you are and the government has the ability to know where you are.
Which, presumably, would be similar for road pricing. Not that it would make a whole load of difference anyway, given the prevalence of ANPR cameras. Since the government already knows where our cars are (or has the ability to know), I don't see any great privacy problem in using that information for road pricing.
Other bad news: Senator Susan Collins is going to support Tusli Gabbard’s nomination.
I blame Covid. In the first Trump administration the lunatics hadn't completely taken over the asylum like they have now. We all know people who went down rabbit holes during lockdown, and never came back. Happened to plenty of us ourselves to a certain extent.
I'm coming round to the idea that *none* of the lockdowns were worth it. Yes, more people would have died, health systems would have been overwhelmed, and elected officials would have been punished for that, governments may have fallen. But suspending people's freedoms to such an degree has radicalised large numbers of people in a way that is not healthy for democracy. Why are so many young people willing to say democracy isn't all that, and maybe they'd prefer a dictatorship? They've already been kept under house arrest in a democracy.
I agree. My trust in government evaporated with covid, and I am government (well, public sector). Example: I used to favour road pricing as a better and more effective solution to road tax (the externalities of you driving 10 miles down empty country roads in North Yorkshire are rather lower than you driving ten miles across Greater Manchester, and the public transport alternatives less apparent, so seemed a good solution to me) - but now there's no way I'd want to give government that level of information over my movements. I just don't trust them any more.
A significant and growing number of people have no faith in government, policing, legal system or the media. It's reflected in the current polling.
Hardly surprising when this week we have a woman in court because she is being forced to get changed with a man or lose her job. A man is arrested for burning a book and then has his name, address and full date of birth plastered on social media by the police, putting a big arrow on his back. (Amazing what the police are willing to reveal when they want to.) A 14 year boy is stabbed to death in school and it barely makes the news, because....reasons.
'Donald Trump's new Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy performs a raunchy 'Chippendale' striptease and gets his nipple licked in a cringeworthy clip from his forgotten past in reality TV.
The resurfaced footage shows the man tasked with restoring confidence in America's shaken airline industry prancing around in nothing but his tighty whities, socks, and eyeglasses.
Set to sultry saxophone music, the risqué routine begins with a 20-something Duffy gyrating near-naked in front of a window while fellow contestants from MTV's The Real World: Boston howl with laughter.'
I do not wish to click through to that, but he sounds like the US's version of our very own Gorgeous George
Well guess what, today’s young politicians were students two decades ago, just as everyone started going everywhere with a camera.
Pretty much every new politician from now is going to have silly videos of them in a past life online somewhere.
Fortunately for me, two decades ago when I was a student the phones (that students could afford, at least) were still pretty naff, so I reckon any videos are deniable as being me
'Donald Trump's new Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy performs a raunchy 'Chippendale' striptease and gets his nipple licked in a cringeworthy clip from his forgotten past in reality TV.
The resurfaced footage shows the man tasked with restoring confidence in America's shaken airline industry prancing around in nothing but his tighty whities, socks, and eyeglasses.
Set to sultry saxophone music, the risqué routine begins with a 20-something Duffy gyrating near-naked in front of a window while fellow contestants from MTV's The Real World: Boston howl with laughter.'
Really interesting exerpt from Mike Benz being interviewed by Glen Greenwald, about how USAID is the glue that holds together the tentacles of US activist foreign policy, funding groups all over the world to advocate for internet censorship in the name of ‘saving democracy’.
This is the aid that Zelensky himself said the other day has gone mostly to American bureaucracy rather than to actually doing the job it was supposed to do. He says he received less than half the aid that the US said they’d sent.
The bulk of the USAID 40 billion hasn't been direct humanitarian aid as such, but rather contributions to the World Bank "Public Expenditures for Administrative Capacity Endurance (PEACE)" fund, which helps pay for things like the wages of non-security public employees. Either way, it's clearly not what Zelensky is complaining about in the video.
It's sad to see what's happened to Sandpit, they used to be someone I probably didn't agree with often politically, but had a valuable perspective backed up with facts. Nowadays (at least on certain topics) a very high percentage of posts are misleading or simply false.
You shouldn't be surprised to hear that I want to see as much aid as possible end up in Ukraine. That also means carefully auditing the money, so that it actually ends up where it’s supposed to be, and not consumed by a massive blob of NGOs enriching themselves from government largesse.
The people talking about USAID over the past couple of days have the receipts, there’s plenty of evidence of wasteful spending layers of management and bureaucracy between the government and the actual work being done on the ground.
Far too much of the political discourse in the US revolves around how much money is being spent, rather than what’s actually being delivered for that money.
'Donald Trump's new Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy performs a raunchy 'Chippendale' striptease and gets his nipple licked in a cringeworthy clip from his forgotten past in reality TV.
The resurfaced footage shows the man tasked with restoring confidence in America's shaken airline industry prancing around in nothing but his tighty whities, socks, and eyeglasses.
Set to sultry saxophone music, the risqué routine begins with a 20-something Duffy gyrating near-naked in front of a window while fellow contestants from MTV's The Real World: Boston howl with laughter.'
Really interesting exerpt from Mike Benz being interviewed by Glen Greenwald, about how USAID is the glue that holds together the tentacles of US activist foreign policy, funding groups all over the world to advocate for internet censorship in the name of ‘saving democracy’.
This is the aid that Zelensky himself said the other day has gone mostly to American bureaucracy rather than to actually doing the job it was supposed to do. He says he received less than half the aid that the US said they’d sent.
The bulk of the USAID 40 billion hasn't been direct humanitarian aid as such, but rather contributions to the World Bank "Public Expenditures for Administrative Capacity Endurance (PEACE)" fund, which helps pay for things like the wages of non-security public employees. Either way, it's clearly not what Zelensky is complaining about in the video.
It's sad to see what's happened to @Sandpit, they used to be someone I probably didn't agree with often politically, but had a valuable perspective backed up with facts. Nowadays (at least on certain topics) a very high percentage of posts are misleading or simply false.
Comments
A constituency has 100 Conservatives and 2 Labour voters. All the Conservatives decide to stand because they think they are best. Only 1 Labour stands. The result will be Labour wins with 2 votes under FPTP with all the Conservatives getting 1 vote. The complete opposite of what the electorate wants.
Under STV a Conservative would win with 100 votes.
So your statement was complete illogical nonsense.
Musk is driving a coach and fours through US law, for example giving his not-security-cleared tech bros in short trousers access to classified information and systems, with no lawful authority.
I think if a democratic USA comes out at the other end of this he will be for the legal high jump. Subject, maybe, to a pardon from Trump.
She's playing into the Republican Maga fairy stories favoured by the likes of JD Vance and Elon Musk.
Reform UK know they have a problem with their extreme radical right faction, and attempted entryism by the likes of the Patriotic Alternative and similar groups to take them further Right.
I think Braverman may be too toxic for them, if they wish to broaden their appeal. She could end up with a party such as Reclaim, not Ref UK.
https://x.com/implausibleblog/status/1884551584908030220
IMO Kemi needs to un-Kaze her party PDQ.
There’s plenty of Democrats who are appalled at what’s going on now, a hardened Executive with a plan for major change and seemingly needing little approval to do it. Today’s example is the effective abolition of USAID, which had been established by an executive order in the first place.
However, there’s were plenty of Republicans who were equally appalled by Biden’s executive actions, especially in the last few weeks of his Presidency.
Will the Democrats seek to limit executive power next time they have the opportunity to do so, and will their President sign the Bill when it gets to his or her desk?
In the meantime, might a cross-party group of legislators at least advance the Bill to that stage, so they can make hay from Trump’s refusal to sign it?
https://www.econbiz.de/Record/replaying-the-1992-general-election-how-britain-would-have-voted-under-alternative-election-systems-dunleavy-patrick/10000870421
There was some argument for measures for over-70s or those who were otherwise vulnerable.
Instead of trying to terrify everybody, the government should have explained much more clearly who was in danger from COVID (and yes, we knew as early as March 2020 who they were, see Fig 5 here https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/deathsinvolvingcovid19englandandwales/deathsoccurringinmarch2020#characteristics-of-those-dying-from-covid-19 and here https://www.statista.com/statistics/1105431/covid-case-fatality-rates-us-by-age-group/) and encouraged them to self-isolate where practicable accordingly, and for other people to take sensible measures around them. For instance, I ignored all lockdown rules with younger people, but met elderly relatives outside and stayed a sensible distance from them.
Instead we got a wildly excessive terror campaign and an economically devastating furlough scheme that we're still paying for. At least Starmer wasn't in power then - it would have been even worse with him.
It was institutionalised in the congressional system by teh Foreign Assistance Act 1961, which set up mechanisms for congressional approval of financing etc, and asked the President to create it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Assistance_Act
(I'm not sure how it all works out, but given that the bulk of Congress is a collection of Trump finger puppets they won't remedy it.)
Like most people I don't care a lot for the Crusades; but they are also misunderstood. Noticing that Jerusalem and the land around it remains the most contested on the planet to this day should make us stop and think.
A key question is this: What is it about our sensibility which means that it is damnably awful that (mostly) European Christians sought to conquer and control Jerusalem and the eastern Mediterranean but much less so for all the others who sought do do so?
The top rate of income tax is only 45%. CGT is 24/28%.
This preserves single members, produces a highly proportional result, eliminates tactical voting, allows multiple candidates per party.
"You cannot wave away an agency that you don't like or that you disagree with by executive order, or by literally storming into the building and taking over the servers."
Bro, they just did...
Post-colonial discourse tends to prioritise between conquerors. Some warmongering, slave-hunting ancestors are heroic, others are brutal thieves.
The things we should be doing, irrespective of any particular virus, is stuff like significantly enhancing our public heath surveillance (PCR testing of things like wastewater is cheap now); building capacity for rapidly producing lateral flow tests (rather than spending £30bn on the old ludicrously expensive and slow PCR, as we did with Covid, we could potentially test the entire population, several times a month, for a few £100m in the event of another real emergency); having domestic vaccine capacity.
None of the would burden the economy, or individuals, to any degree at all. It's just cheap insurance, which would have public health benefits even if there isn't another pandemic for the next few decades.
And draft a flexible plan for a real emergency, working out what measures might be effective if implemented within the first couple of weeks. Because if we wait for the emergency, they won't be available to us otherwise.
Which is true.
Put all the votes in a very big sack. Pull one out. Whoever that vote is for, gets elected.
Averaged over 650 seats it will be proportional.
A variation that appears in practice, e.g. in Scandinavia, is that the coalitions that will be formed are largely pre-defined, so you know that you;re voting from a centre-left or centre-right government, but additionally can help determined the exact flavour. That seems to me the best option, but hard to guarantee by legislation.
And then they go to university with tons of Chinese students who tell them about the zillion miles of high speed rail, jobs, factories, growth…
Covid did exaccerbate things, but America was already on this path, and if there is one thing that changed America it was 9/11. 9/11 really punctured the balloon that the 21st century was going to work out swimmingly. With the end of the Cold War and the collapse of communism in Europe, through the Clinton administration and the dot.com boom, everything appeared to be going America's way. And the rest of the liberal and democratic world was along for the ride. China looked to be going in a good direction. People even used to talk about Russia in the EU and NATO.
9/11 happened and the "the end of history" idea died with it. Rather than entering a new era of stability and prosperity for all, with a single super power we've seen the downside and complexity of globalisation, and America has been on a path to isolation and authoritarianism since then. Obama bucked that trend, but it doesn't feel like he did much more than delay things, that was the last hurrah for a liberal establishment that has no easy answers, because there are no easy answers. So the people vote for the lies, egged on by the propaganda and disinformation which is now ubiquitous. So you get Trump, who can evade justice, and you get him again, and likely with worse to follow in his footsteps.
If there is way out of this mess I'm damned if I know what it is, and I'm sure it won't be easy, swift, or pleasant.
I've generally voted for who I like best anyway, except when (fairly rarely) in constituencies where the result might be close; then I vote tactically. I almost cocked up a few GEs ago when I voted for the party I supported and the constituency result was super close between two other parties (<100 votes). I'd have voted differently, for one of the contender parties, had I known. Under AV I wouldn't need to make that choice.
I support (and voted for) AV for that reason. But I'd rather have a more proportional system that still preserves constituency MPs - STV.
And the ones who pay 'remarkably little' still pay far more in absolute terms than the average Joe.
Britain takes a much greater proportion of its tax from high earners than most countries. You might justifiably think this an unhealthily top-heavy structure, but that doesn't mean that taking away much of that top chunk won't be painful.
(Meaningless, of course, where the complete data are available, although it would perhaps give a degree of measure of the uncertainty had people randomly voted/not got round to voting, but biased if that propensity varies by party)
Note even Conservative voters are coming round to PR, split almost half and half between PR and FPTP and unsurprisingly are more likely to think PR would have led to a better result at the GE than Labour voters given it would have produced a hung parliament not a Labour majority.
PR would also ensure the Tories and Reform who stay separate distinctive parties with seats allocated according to their voteshare. The Tories could then try and form governments with Reform or the LDs post election. A divided right would also not just hand undeserved seats to Labour with as little as 25-30% of the vote as now under FPTP
(hi copilot - do we know how many high earners or high net worth individuals have left Britain since labour came to power?
Copilot said:
Copilot
Yes, there has been a notable exodus of high earners and high-net-worth individuals from the UK since the Labour Party came to power in 2024. In 2024 alone, approximately 10,800 high-net-worth individuals left the UK1. This includes 78 centi-millionaires and 12 billionaires1.
The primary reasons for this exodus include increased taxes and the end of non-domicile status, which have made the UK less attractive for wealthy individuals12.
Is there anything specific you would like to know more about regarding this trend?
1 https://moneyweek.com/personal-finance/tax/where-rich-relocate-to
2 https://www.forthcapital.com/uk/articles/record-numbers-of-high-net-worth-individuals-are-leaving-the-uk-where-are-they-going-and-why )
As already discussed it is very difficult to get a PR system that is proportional and also meets other requirements of the electorate. SSV just feels very wrong and doesn't differentiate between good and bad candidates (not that FPTP has been much cop at that either when in many places you will get a donkey provided it has the right rosette on it). I hate lists for umpteen reasons that I won't bore with here. STV would be my favourite, although the constituencies are now much larger and this is not completely proportional, but acceptable to me as being close enough. It also tends to result in the best candidates (as far as the electorate is concerned anyway) being elected from each party. I am not entirely anti AV as a step forward. It is far from proportional. In fact it can give a worse result than FPTP, but usually only in situations where there is a very clear winner anyway.
I find it interesting that parties who want to keep FPTP never use it for their own internal elections, but usually use some form of STV/AV.
Income tax is roughly 26% of all government revenue
30% of all income tax is paid by 1% of taxpayers.
But that 1% is 300,000 people
The top 100 pay about £5bn
The top 100 tend to be people like Chris Hohn, Alex Gerko, Denise Coates (B365), Mike Ashley, Fred Done (Betfred), Tim Martin (Wetherspoons).
Many on the list are giving huge amounts to charity.
Some (Denise Coates) structure their income so they pay more tax than really necessary.
As we become more and more reliant on these factors, the harder it becomes to disentangle ourselves. And it's built on sand, with the flight of a few rich people or a sudden drop in immigration leading to an economic crisis.
My trust in government evaporated with covid, and I am government (well, public sector). Example: I used to favour road pricing as a better and more effective solution to road tax (the externalities of you driving 10 miles down empty country roads in North Yorkshire are rather lower than you driving ten miles across Greater Manchester, and the public transport alternatives less apparent, so seemed a good solution to me) - but now there's no way I'd want to give government that level of information over my movements. I just don't trust them any more.
The burden of all taxes across the population in the UK is not unhealthily top heavy. Income tax is not the only tax.
The Chinese tariffs - due to begin on Monday - would put a 15% import tax on US coal and liquefied natural gas, plus 10% on crude oil, agricultural machinery, pick-up trucks, and some sports cars
The 10% tariff on all Chinese imports to the US began at 00:01 ET on Tuesday (05:01 GMT)'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c8d90v1m6qvt
I give you the example of the 'Literal Democrats' who deprived the LDs of the Devon seat in the Euro elections many decades ago. Tories thought this hilarious, particularly as they won the seat.
Only when 'Conservatories' started standing did they think the law needed changing with the Electoral Commission vetting names and the addition of emblems on ballot papers.
Still and excellent post @hyufd and my post wasn't against your post but it gave me an opportunity to vent my spleen. Thank you.
PS. I also have just noticed you liked my example posted earlier - Thank you. Good to have cross party agreement on stuff, even if we disagree on some fundamentals.
The best option, I suggest, involves both proportionality and ordinality. That can be STV. It can also be an open list system. The UK has a stronger tradition of the former.
https://x.com/mikebenzcyber/status/1886637578259959898
(His 40 minute lecture pinned to the top of his feed, entitled “The History of the Intelligence State” is also well worth watching if you have time).
Michael Benz, a former Trump State Department official whose work has been cited in congressional hearings and promoted by Elon Musk, has become a go-to voice for Republican criticism of government and social media censorship in the past year.
But before his stints in government and as a pundit, Benz appears to have been a pseudonymous alt-right content creator who courted and interacted with white nationalists and posted videos espousing racist conspiracy theories, according to recordings, livestreams and blog posts reviewed by NBC News.
The pseudonym, Frame Game, posted videos and participated in podcasts and livestreams during the rise of the alt-right following Donald Trump’s election. Frame Game avoided showing his face in his videos or appearances, during which he pushed a variety of far-right narratives including the “Great Replacement Theory” that posits the white race is being eradicated in America for politics and profits. In others, Frame Game said he was a white identitarian, railed against the idea of diversity and made montages urging white viewers to unite under the banner of race.
In interviews with white nationalists, Frame Game blamed Jews for “controlling the media” and for the decline of the white race. “If you were to remove the Jewish influence on the West,” he said in one video, “white people would not face the threat of white genocide that they currently do.”
Wtf has happened to you.
https://news.sky.com/story/keir-starmers-1-000-jobs-pledge-could-take-20-years-gb-energy-boss-admits-13302168
The resurfaced footage shows the man tasked with restoring confidence in America's shaken airline industry prancing around in nothing but his tighty whities, socks, and eyeglasses.
Set to sultry saxophone music, the risqué routine begins with a 20-something Duffy gyrating near-naked in front of a window while fellow contestants from MTV's The Real World: Boston howl with laughter.'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14356075/Donald-Trumps-new-Transportation-Secretary-Sean-Duffy-raunchy-dance-video-real-world.html
Will Maier last beyond the next set of energy price increases?
https://x.com/its_the_dr/status/1886213310149976313
The UK must be among the top dozen best places to be a high net worth individual (taking into account culture, shopping, low crime rates, non-murderous governments and political rivals, beautiful countryside, etc.)
The killer bit here is that there is no open source equivalent so people are going to have to pay.
Hardly surprising when this week we have a woman in court because she is being forced to get changed with a man or lose her job. A man is arrested for burning a book and then has his name, address and full date of birth plastered on social media by the police, putting a big arrow on his back. (Amazing what the police are willing to reveal when they want to.) A 14 year boy is stabbed to death in school and it barely makes the news, because....reasons.
Unless you mean the Chinese and American governments (and oligarchs)?
Errrrrrr…
His extralegal activity (if there is any) will go unpunished. They are operating above the law.
@kyledcheney.bsky.social
JUST IN: A federal judge in Washington says she's concerned that the White House is still implementing the spending freeze that she and a Rhode Island judge have ordered temporarily halted.
Judge AliKhan is inclined to issue a restraining order.
@davidallengreen.bsky.social
The ultimate power of any court is in its coercive orders - and a machinery to readily enforce those orders.
But once those coercive orders are defied without sanction, there is nothing left.
That’s it: game over.
Just pieces of paper with fancy words and writing.
One of the main reasons given for quitting london is the relatively high crime rate. “I can’t wear my Rolex outdoors” etc
Socialists often point out polls showing overwhelming public support for nationalising various industries. Ultra tough-on-crime types often point out polls showing strong support for capital punishment. Again, these issues aren't particularly salient and do not necessarily indicate the levels of support if they did become salient and/or referendums were held on them.
“Let the people decide”
Who could argue with that?
It's sad to see what's happened to @Sandpit, they used to be someone I probably didn't agree with often politically, but had a valuable perspective backed up with facts. Nowadays (at least on certain topics) a very high percentage of posts are misleading or simply false.
Pretty much every new politician from now is going to have silly videos of them in a past life online somewhere.
The people talking about USAID over the past couple of days have the receipts, there’s plenty of evidence of wasteful spending layers of management and bureaucracy between the government and the actual work being done on the ground.
Far too much of the political discourse in the US revolves around how much money is being spent, rather than what’s actually being delivered for that money.
It happens.