Comment on the latest Zeihan: "...We have gone from a civilization that wanted to be Star Trek to a civilisation that wants to be Game of Thrones..."
Or more specifically Dungeons and Dragons, which Musk and Thiel grew up on. I've always thought "Grok" is exactly the sort of name that a 1980s computer geek of this vintage and influences, would probably come up with.
You obviously haven’t read Stranger in A Strange Land. Then again, Musk missed the entire point of the book.
Aha, I see thar you're right and that Grok is a character in the sci-fi novel there.
The Mars theme is in there, again.
There's a similar, but Tolkien, thing with Peter Thiel's (the one who created JD Vance, who believes and has argued for autocracy over democracy) companies:
Palantir Technologies Valar Ventures Mithril Capital Management Rivendell One LLC Lembas LLC Anduril Industries
Some may recognise Palantir. When Thiel invested in a company setting up JD Vance, it was called Narya Capital - which is also Tolkien (Gandalf's Ring of Power).
One concerning thing about Thiel is that he has compared the current USA system to the Weimar Republic.
Both the US Marine Corp ($640m) and the UK (£30m via the International Fund for Ukraine) have signed deals with Anduril Industries in the last week - just to show how well the guy is engaged with government.
The latest Trump/Thiel plan seems to be eliminate all taxes for anyone earning less than 150,000 dollars a year, and then to replace the lost income with tariffs.
Unstupid question: would that work? I don't mean is it a good idea or a bad idea, I mean is it feasible? Would the sums add up?
No.
Do you remember all those people saying "if we just imposed a 1% tax on all share transactions, we could fund everything". It was a big cause celebre in left wing circles post the GFC. And it was, of course, rubbish because it assumed that volumes of share trading would remain the same after the imposition of the tax.
There is the same issue here.
Because if you impose swingeing (say 100%) taxes on imports, then you have a lot less imports*...
And if you have a lot less imports, then you don't have a lot of imports to tax.
So, like with the Tobin tax, it's based on the idea that there is no elasticity involved.
* You might think the "lot less imports" would mean that you would be doing a lot better. But that is by no means clear either: all those industries you have that rely on components from abroad, for example, would be utterly decimated.
But if you have a more reasonable rate (say 25%), then the economy just rebalances around that new reality. It's a structural change, not a magic money tree.
On your industrial raw material imports ? Good luck with that.
@bondegezou taking another L today with the government abolishing NHS management and bureaucracy after his protestations for months that it is impossible and we need more admin staff in the NHS and more managers to suck the blood out of it.
Obviously you're delighted, but I can't see how abolishing NHS England removes the need for its various functions. Be interesting if they can actually reduce overall headcount.
What I'm confused about is who is actually doing Public Health in England now? That's by far the most important thing the NHS needs to fix in terms of obesity, diabetes etc.
Public Health was shifted to the Councils under the last government.
That's stupid. They've got no cash for anything other than social care.
The European Union, one of the most hostile and abusive taxing and tariffing authorities in the World, which was formed for the sole purpose of taking advantage of the United States, has just put a nasty 50% Tariff on Whisky. If this Tariff is not removed immediately, the U.S. will shortly place a 200% Tariff on all WINES, CHAMPAGNES, & ALCOHOLIC PRODUCTS COMING OUT OF FRANCE AND OTHER E.U. REPRESENTED COUNTRIES. This will be great for the Wine and Champagne businesses in the U.S.
No way the EU backs down. Further retaliatory tariffs will be put in place.
Unfortunately I suspect the lead time for Scotland to increase its whisky production as substitution for bourbon is rather long...
The European Union, one of the most hostile and abusive taxing and tariffing authorities in the World, which was formed for the sole purpose of taking advantage of the United States, has just put a nasty 50% Tariff on Whisky. If this Tariff is not removed immediately, the U.S. will shortly place a 200% Tariff on all WINES, CHAMPAGNES, & ALCOHOLIC PRODUCTS COMING OUT OF FRANCE AND OTHER E.U. REPRESENTED COUNTRIES. This will be great for the Wine and Champagne businesses in the U.S.
Popcorn all round - apart from the whisky industry
I think we can expect some USA legal actions on some of these tariffs, as well as responses. Trump's basis for being able to do all of these himself, is - I think - National Emergency. And that is questionable, apart from the national emergency he is creating himself.
WTO is not being pursued yet because of snail's pace (and Canada lost some cases last time round).
He believes in power, not, law. We are about to find out what happens.
Today is the vote in the Bundestag on reforming the debt brake. It's still unclear if it will get the 2 thirds majority needed.
If the Russians agree to the ceasefire Ukraine has accepted it may not be needed for the moment anyway
Nonsense
Putin has said he won't even accept European and NATO peacekeepers, it would likely be Turkish, Brazilian, Indian troops etc enforcing any ceasefire.
It would just be future deterrence NATO nations needed to increase their militaries for
Sorry to be picky but Turkey is in NATO so you could have Australian or New Zealand troops I suppose though I agree more likely are Brazilians, Nigerians or Indians. To be honest, if someone else is paying for them (who?), I imagine some countries would be happy to have their soldiers billeted somewhere else at someone else's expense.
Putin gets on with Erdogan so would probably accept Turkish troops, the Russians already rejected Australian involvement
It is time that the Russians are told to FUCK OFF over what they will and won't accept. The suggestion that they should be able to veto who is president and what nationality of troops are allowed in a sovereign country is beyond outrageous. Every concession is a reward for their aggression. Europe needs to keep all sanctions in place and continue to isolate Russia where possible. More appeasement only encourages the aggressor.
It seems to me the only way Trump can force a quick end to the war that isn't a clear win for Russia is to threaten Putin with a continuation (or even escalation) of US military support for Ukraine if he doesn't make big meaningful concessions. However he can't threaten this with any credibility because he's already made it clear he isn't prepared to stay involved militarily. "You make a deal or we're out" he said to Zelensky in the WH, and for once I think he was speaking the truth. That is his position.
So otoh he wants to get his big moment and live up to his self-image as the great dealmaker, but otoh he can't and won't force Russia to back down from its red lines (being they keep what they've taken and Ukraine gets no Art 5 type protection on the rest). Any deal would therefore be mainly on Russia's terms and can happen only if Ukraine feels forced to sign it due to having no realistic alternative. I think that's what this boils down to now. Will Europe's offer allow Zelensky to genuinely feel that no deal is better than a bad deal?
I think this a pretty good summary of where we are. It's why Europe building up its own military strength is so important, £6bn being cut from benefits should be just the start. Outsourcing our security to America means we have to live with the politics of America, I think a few cuts to the welfare state is a small price to end our obsession with the USA.
We could pop taxes up to French levels, spend 9% of GDP on defence and have military expenditure 3x as high as Russia. The funniest thing about this debate is the rather blatant attempts to shoehorn personal political obsessions into the debate.
My version of this is put fuel duty up to where it should be without the incessant freezes since 2010. That gets you 0.8 per cent of GDP while primarily taxing higher income people, who drive 3x as much as poorer people. And it pushes people off an OPEC controlled commodity onto EVs. Easy. Next.
Yes, the government has an opportunity to put up fuel duty again now that oil prices are falling, but it will be big upwards pressure on inflation. I guess with the UK not pursuing a tit for tat tariff strategy it may actually give the government breathing room as import price inflation will likely fall.
The European Union, one of the most hostile and abusive taxing and tariffing authorities in the World, which was formed for the sole purpose of taking advantage of the United States, has just put a nasty 50% Tariff on Whisky. If this Tariff is not removed immediately, the U.S. will shortly place a 200% Tariff on all WINES, CHAMPAGNES, & ALCOHOLIC PRODUCTS COMING OUT OF FRANCE AND OTHER E.U. REPRESENTED COUNTRIES. This will be great for the Wine and Champagne businesses in the U.S.
There is no US Champagne business. And I thought they spelled whisky as "whiskey" in the US? Is this Trump's Scottish heritage showing through?
Listening to Birbelsingh on Nick Ferrari. This woman is out of control. I recommend anyone with interest in schools policy to listen to this on Global Player. I was shocked. Those of a more conservative point of view will be cheered.
She's flavour of the month with the Christian Nationalists because she banned prayer rituals in school policy (no religious groups such as a Christian Union) then won a court case defending it against a challenge by Muslim pupil. I'll have a listen to Nick Ferrari. As far as I have tracked her, she seems consistent since her first speech to the Conservative Party conference 15 or 16 years ago when she was identified; I'm not sure of the process by which she was identified as Miss Snuffy.
(Religion in Public Life has been an area of interest of mine for decades, as you know.)
That lets the CNats (and GBNews etc) pretend that it's about Muslims, and reflects desire to stir things up, when it was more like a victory for "secular" school cultures excluding religion, which is one groups like the National Secular Society have been on for decades. @BartholomewRoberts may be more up to date than me on that side of it.
It was a somewhat complex argument, because iirc it was about prayer ritual in the playground as effectively a form of protest when her school refused to provide a prayer room for pupils.
The self-described "freedom of XYZ" groups take the other side than they do on "silent prayer" (ie intimidation and interference) outside abortion clinics - for some reason .
It’s interesting to see the reactions.
@Mexicanpete is shocked because it seems like restricting the *requirements* of a minority.
The GBNews take it as anti-Muslim.
Most people don’t want more religion in our schools - even the weak-tea-and-biscuits form of Christianity.
They do when the only outstanding state primary or secondary school in their area is a C of E or Roman Catholic school.
Then you get parents queuing round the block to get into the church congregation on a Sunday for the months leading up to the decision on who gets places so they can get the Vicar's reference
That's 'they have to put up with it' rather than 'want it', on your own testimony.
No they want it as it offers choice from the bog standard comp or academy down the road
No, look at your own language and logic. They only want religious schools when there is no alternative. Ergo they don't want the religion bit.
The rest of the world really should just ignore Trump's tariffs gyrations: they do far more damage to the US economy than to other countries.
I am starting to think the sensible place to invest now is looking like anywhere but the US. All this uncertainty creates a very unstable marketplace. In the meantime, while other global economies are inevitably disrupted by the tariff and defence policies, that creates opportunities for growth in other markets and economies more open to trade with each other. That’s a reversal from the prevailing wisdom at the start of the year.
Lib dem correct on saying no amount of change can be effective without social care, which the government has put on hold and despite suggesting cross party talks nothing has happened
It simply is too difficult apparently but it just cannot be avoided
Absolutely - care and the NHS are utterly entwined despite the efforts to pretend they are not.
My party has identified that the current system is broken. I want us to go much much further. You can't fix the system by cutting bits of it away - we need a new system.
The Liberal Party brought us the welfare state - both its earlier WWI version and then the Beveridge report to create the modern version still with us today. We need a 21st Century Beveridge Report...
The European Union, one of the most hostile and abusive taxing and tariffing authorities in the World, which was formed for the sole purpose of taking advantage of the United States, has just put a nasty 50% Tariff on Whisky. If this Tariff is not removed immediately, the U.S. will shortly place a 200% Tariff on all WINES, CHAMPAGNES, & ALCOHOLIC PRODUCTS COMING OUT OF FRANCE AND OTHER E.U. REPRESENTED COUNTRIES. This will be great for the Wine and Champagne businesses in the U.S.
Whiskey, unless Trump is just genetically unable to use the Yank spelling.
The rest of the world really should just ignore Trump's tariffs gyrations: they do far more damage to the US economy than to other countries.
Provided US consumers don't buy more American made products
You remain under this delusion that America is full of empty factories with workers standing by, just ready to provide Americans with goods if only there were tariffs!
Today is the vote in the Bundestag on reforming the debt brake. It's still unclear if it will get the 2 thirds majority needed.
If the Russians agree to the ceasefire Ukraine has accepted it may not be needed for the moment anyway
Nonsense
Putin has said he won't even accept European and NATO peacekeepers, it would likely be Turkish, Brazilian, Indian troops etc enforcing any ceasefire.
It would just be future deterrence NATO nations needed to increase their militaries for
Sorry to be picky but Turkey is in NATO so you could have Australian or New Zealand troops I suppose though I agree more likely are Brazilians, Nigerians or Indians. To be honest, if someone else is paying for them (who?), I imagine some countries would be happy to have their soldiers billeted somewhere else at someone else's expense.
Putin gets on with Erdogan so would probably accept Turkish troops, the Russians already rejected Australian involvement
It is time that the Russians are told to FUCK OFF over what they will and won't accept. The suggestion that they should be able to veto who is president and what nationality of troops are allowed in a sovereign country is beyond outrageous. Every concession is a reward for their aggression. Europe needs to keep all sanctions in place and continue to isolate Russia where possible. More appeasement only encourages the aggressor.
It seems to me the only way Trump can force a quick end to the war that isn't a clear win for Russia is to threaten Putin with a continuation (or even escalation) of US military support for Ukraine if he doesn't make big meaningful concessions. However he can't threaten this with any credibility because he's already made it clear he isn't prepared to stay involved militarily. "You make a deal or we're out" he said to Zelensky in the WH, and for once I think he was speaking the truth. That is his position.
So otoh he wants to get his big moment and live up to his self-image as the great dealmaker, but otoh he can't and won't force Russia to back down from its red lines (being they keep what they've taken and Ukraine gets no Art 5 type protection on the rest). Any deal would therefore be mainly on Russia's terms and can happen only if Ukraine feels forced to sign it due to having no realistic alternative. I think that's what this boils down to now. Will Europe's offer allow Zelensky to genuinely feel that no deal is better than a bad deal?
I think this a pretty good summary of where we are. It's why Europe building up its own military strength is so important, £6bn being cut from benefits should be just the start. Outsourcing our security to America means we have to live with the politics of America, I think a few cuts to the welfare state is a small price to end our obsession with the USA.
We could pop taxes up to French levels, spend 9% of GDP on defence and have military expenditure 3x as high as Russia. The funniest thing about this debate is the rather blatant attempts to shoehorn personal political obsessions into the debate.
My version of this is put fuel duty up to where it should be without the incessant freezes since 2010. That gets you 0.8 per cent of GDP while primarily taxing higher income people, who drive 3x as much as poorer people. And it pushes people off an OPEC controlled commodity onto EVs. Easy. Next.
Yes, the government has an opportunity to put up fuel duty again now that oil prices are falling, but it will be big upwards pressure on inflation. I guess with the UK not pursuing a tit for tat tariff strategy it may actually give the government breathing room as import price inflation will likely fall.
It's been a downward pressure on inflation for years. I think we're now at a 20% real terms cut since 2010.
Listening to Birbelsingh on Nick Ferrari. This woman is out of control. I recommend anyone with interest in schools policy to listen to this on Global Player. I was shocked. Those of a more conservative point of view will be cheered.
She's flavour of the month with the Christian Nationalists because she banned prayer rituals in school policy (no religious groups such as a Christian Union) then won a court case defending it against a challenge by Muslim pupil. I'll have a listen to Nick Ferrari. As far as I have tracked her, she seems consistent since her first speech to the Conservative Party conference 15 or 16 years ago when she was identified; I'm not sure of the process by which she was identified as Miss Snuffy.
(Religion in Public Life has been an area of interest of mine for decades, as you know.)
That lets the CNats (and GBNews etc) pretend that it's about Muslims, and reflects desire to stir things up, when it was more like a victory for "secular" school cultures excluding religion, which is one groups like the National Secular Society have been on for decades. @BartholomewRoberts may be more up to date than me on that side of it.
It was a somewhat complex argument, because iirc it was about prayer ritual in the playground as effectively a form of protest when her school refused to provide a prayer room for pupils.
The self-described "freedom of XYZ" groups take the other side than they do on "silent prayer" (ie intimidation and interference) outside abortion clinics - for some reason .
It’s interesting to see the reactions.
@Mexicanpete is shocked because it seems like restricting the *requirements* of a minority.
The GBNews take it as anti-Muslim.
Most people don’t want more religion in our schools - even the weak-tea-and-biscuits form of Christianity.
They do when the only outstanding state primary or secondary school in their area is a C of E or Roman Catholic school.
Then you get parents queuing round the block to get into the church congregation on a Sunday for the months leading up to the decision on who gets places so they can get the Vicar's reference
That's 'they have to put up with it' rather than 'want it', on your own testimony.
No they want it as it offers choice from the bog standard comp or academy down the road
No, look at your own language and logic. They only want religious schools when there is no alternative. Ergo they don't want the religion bit.
My own language is clear, as a Conservative I want as many private schools, grammar schools, religious schools, free schools, academies etc as possible ie offer a real alternative. As do parents who choose such schools.
You as a statist socialist want to give consumers one bog standard comp option in education as you dislike choice elsewhere
The European Union, one of the most hostile and abusive taxing and tariffing authorities in the World, which was formed for the sole purpose of taking advantage of the United States, has just put a nasty 50% Tariff on Whisky. If this Tariff is not removed immediately, the U.S. will shortly place a 200% Tariff on all WINES, CHAMPAGNES, & ALCOHOLIC PRODUCTS COMING OUT OF FRANCE AND OTHER E.U. REPRESENTED COUNTRIES. This will be great for the Wine and Champagne businesses in the U.S.
There is no US Champagne business. And I thought they spelled whisky as "whiskey" in the US? Is this Trump's Scottish heritage showing through?
An agreement between the EU and the US allows US producers who were using the term Champagne pre-2006 to continue to do so, so long as they also put the place of origin on the label:
The rest of the world really should just ignore Trump's tariffs gyrations: they do far more damage to the US economy than to other countries.
Provided US consumers don't buy more American made products
You remain under this delusion that America is full of empty factories with workers standing by, just ready to provide Americans with goods if only there were tariffs!
Lib dem correct on saying no amount of change can be effective without social care, which the government has put on hold and despite suggesting cross party talks nothing has happened
It simply is too difficult apparently but it just cannot be avoided
Absolutely - care and the NHS are utterly entwined despite the efforts to pretend they are not.
My party has identified that the current system is broken. I want us to go much much further. You can't fix the system by cutting bits of it away - we need a new system.
The Liberal Party brought us the welfare state - both its earlier WWI version and then the Beveridge report to create the modern version still with us today. We need a 21st Century Beveridge Report...
The Liberals supported an insurance model for healthcare (like Churchill's Tories) and indeed for welfare and unemployment and pensions initally, it was the Attlee Labour government who created the NHS and followed by Wilson expanded non contributory welfare
The rest of the world really should just ignore Trump's tariffs gyrations: they do far more damage to the US economy than to other countries.
Provided US consumers don't buy more American made products
You remain under this delusion that America is full of empty factories with workers standing by, just ready to provide Americans with goods if only there were tariffs!
That is what Trump voters voted for
Yep because low information voters voted based on duff information - the only thing these tariffs are going to do is increase prices and reduce choice
Comment on the latest Zeihan: "...We have gone from a civilization that wanted to be Star Trek to a civilisation that wants to be Game of Thrones..."
Or more specifically Dungeons and Dragons, which Musk and Thiel grew up on. I've always thought "Grok" is exactly the sort of name that a 1980s computer geek of this vintage and influences, would probably come up with.
You obviously haven’t read Stranger in A Strange Land. Then again, Musk missed the entire point of the book.
Aha, I see thar you're right and that Grok is a character in the sci-fi novel there.
The Mars theme is in there, again.
There's a similar, but Tolkien, thing with Peter Thiel's (the one who created JD Vance, who believes and has argued for autocracy over democracy) companies:
Palantir Technologies Valar Ventures Mithril Capital Management Rivendell One LLC Lembas LLC Anduril Industries
Some may recognise Palantir. When Thiel invested in a company setting up JD Vance, it was called Narya Capital - which is also Tolkien (Gandalf's Ring of Power).
One concerning thing about Thiel is that he has compared the current USA system to the Weimar Republic.
Both the US Marine Corp ($640m) and the UK (£30m via the International Fund for Ukraine) have signed deals with Anduril Industries in the last week - just to show how well the guy is engaged with government.
Mordor Management Consultancy Shelob LLC Orc Original Cookie Company Gollum Growth Investments Black Rider Inc Balrog Personal Security PLC
The European Union, one of the most hostile and abusive taxing and tariffing authorities in the World, which was formed for the sole purpose of taking advantage of the United States, has just put a nasty 50% Tariff on Whisky. If this Tariff is not removed immediately, the U.S. will shortly place a 200% Tariff on all WINES, CHAMPAGNES, & ALCOHOLIC PRODUCTS COMING OUT OF FRANCE AND OTHER E.U. REPRESENTED COUNTRIES. This will be great for the Wine and Champagne businesses in the U.S.
Popcorn all round - apart from the whisky industry
I am glad Trump (innacurately for Bourbon) uses 'whisky' without the 'e'. A rare occurence of a 'Britishism' and shows he's a Scotch fan.
Sharing more details in the Commons, Wes Streeting said the work to merge the two organisations had already begun and that immediate steps would be taken to bring NHS England teams into the Department of Health and reduce the duplication of jobs.
The Health Secretary up to 10,000 roles would be scrapped with plans to reduce the overall workforce across both organisations by 50 per cent.
The latest Trump/Thiel plan seems to be eliminate all taxes for anyone earning less than 150,000 dollars a year, and then to replace the lost income with tariffs.
Unstupid question: would that work? I don't mean is it a good idea or a bad idea, I mean is it feasible? Would the sums add up?
No.
Do you remember all those people saying "if we just imposed a 1% tax on all share transactions, we could fund everything". It was a big cause celebre in left wing circles post the GFC. And it was, of course, rubbish because it assumed that volumes of share trading would remain the same after the imposition of the tax.
There is the same issue here.
Because if you impose swingeing (say 100%) taxes on imports, then you have a lot less imports*...
And if you have a lot less imports, then you don't have a lot of imports to tax.
So, like with the Tobin tax, it's based on the idea that there is no elasticity involved.
* You might think the "lot less imports" would mean that you would be doing a lot better. But that is by no means clear either: all those industries you have that rely on components from abroad, for example, would be utterly decimated.
But if you have a more reasonable rate (say 25%), then the economy just rebalances around that new reality. It's a structural change, not a magic money tree.
The question is whether you can replace income tax on all people with incomes below $150,000 with tariffs.
And the answer is no, because a 25% tariff wouldn't raise enough money, unless US government spending was absolutely slashed.
I think they are aiming for cuts of 20% in US Govt spending.
Which will put it all on State Income Tax, perhaps.
With the problem that Musk has reportedly told them to shred records, and they are trying to keep things secret.
US district judge Tanya Chutkan’s order forces Musk to produce documents related to Doge’s activities as part of a lawsuit brought by 14 Democratic state attorneys general that alleges Musk violated the constitution by wielding powers that only Senate-confirmed officials should possess.
Chutkan said in her 14-page decision that she was allowing the state attorneys general to obtain documents from Musk to clarify the scope of his authority, which would inform whether he has been operating unconstitutionally to the extent that Doge’s activities should be halted)
Comment on the latest Zeihan: "...We have gone from a civilization that wanted to be Star Trek to a civilisation that wants to be Game of Thrones..."
Or more specifically Dungeons and Dragons, which Musk and Thiel grew up on. I've always thought "Grok" is exactly the sort of name that a 1980s computer geek of this vintage and influences, would probably come up with.
You obviously haven’t read Stranger in A Strange Land. Then again, Musk missed the entire point of the book.
Aha, I see thar you're right and that Grok is a character in the sci-fi novel there.
The Mars theme is in there, again.
Grok means 'to understand'. It's a term that was taken from Heinlein and has been rattling around the tech (and US tech) culture since at least the 70s.
That was cultural misappropriation (to use an anachronism) [edit]. It was the hippies who used it in the days of the flower power counterculture movement. 1960s.
(No idea what Mr Heinlein thought of that.)
Actually the other way round. Stranger in a Strange Land was published in 1961 - before the emergence of the hippies (in spite of what you might be led to believe by Oddball in Kelly's Heroes )
The rest of the world really should just ignore Trump's tariffs gyrations: they do far more damage to the US economy than to other countries.
Provided US consumers don't buy more American made products
You remain under this delusion that America is full of empty factories with workers standing by, just ready to provide Americans with goods if only there were tariffs!
That is what Trump voters voted for
Yep because low information voters voted based on duff information - the only thing these tariffs are going to do is increase prices and reduce choice
Anne Applebaum @anneapplebaum.bsky.social · 49m Surprise! The Russians, who have repeatedly said they don't want a ceasefire, have once again said they don't want a ceasefire
Lib dem correct on saying no amount of change can be effective without social care, which the government has put on hold and despite suggesting cross party talks nothing has happened
It simply is too difficult apparently but it just cannot be avoided
Absolutely - care and the NHS are utterly entwined despite the efforts to pretend they are not.
My party has identified that the current system is broken. I want us to go much much further. You can't fix the system by cutting bits of it away - we need a new system.
The Liberal Party brought us the welfare state - both its earlier WWI version and then the Beveridge report to create the modern version still with us today. We need a 21st Century Beveridge Report...
Yes. Kicking social care into the 2028+ long grass was one of the most irrational decisions taken by this government. They should have been completely 'Dilnot ready' within weeks of coming into government.
Lib dem correct on saying no amount of change can be effective without social care, which the government has put on hold and despite suggesting cross party talks nothing has happened
It simply is too difficult apparently but it just cannot be avoided
Absolutely - care and the NHS are utterly entwined despite the efforts to pretend they are not.
My party has identified that the current system is broken. I want us to go much much further. You can't fix the system by cutting bits of it away - we need a new system.
The Liberal Party brought us the welfare state - both its earlier WWI version and then the Beveridge report to create the modern version still with us today. We need a 21st Century Beveridge Report...
The Liberals supported an insurance model for healthcare (like Churchill's Tories) and indeed for welfare and unemployment and pensions initally, it was the Attlee Labour government who created the NHS and followed by Wilson expanded non contributory welfare
It is a great shame Atlee didn't listen to the Liberals in that case.
@bondegezou taking another L today with the government abolishing NHS management and bureaucracy after his protestations for months that it is impossible and we need more admin staff in the NHS and more managers to suck the blood out of it.
Obviously you're delighted, but I can't see how abolishing NHS England removes the need for its various functions. Be interesting if they can actually reduce overall headcount.
What I'm confused about is who is actually doing Public Health in England now? That's by far the most important thing the NHS needs to fix in terms of obesity, diabetes etc.
The Streeting line is that executive functions were duplicated between NHS England and the Dept of Health. Those functions will be absorbed into the Dept of Health.
A convicted Ghanaian criminal deported from Britain 12 years ago has been allowed to return under human rights laws because separation from his family left him depressed.
An immigration tribunal ruled that Samuel Frimpong should be allowed to come back to Britain, as deporting him was an “unjustifiable interference” with his rights to a family life under article eight of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
The father of two was deported in 2013 to Ghana after four months in jail for using a faked document to try to “circumvent” the Home Office’s leave to remain rules.
Anne Applebaum @anneapplebaum.bsky.social · 49m Surprise! The Russians, who have repeatedly said they don't want a ceasefire, have once again said they don't want a ceasefire
The latest Trump/Thiel plan seems to be eliminate all taxes for anyone earning less than 150,000 dollars a year, and then to replace the lost income with tariffs.
Unstupid question: would that work? I don't mean is it a good idea or a bad idea, I mean is it feasible? Would the sums add up?
No.
Do you remember all those people saying "if we just imposed a 1% tax on all share transactions, we could fund everything". It was a big cause celebre in left wing circles post the GFC. And it was, of course, rubbish because it assumed that volumes of share trading would remain the same after the imposition of the tax.
There is the same issue here.
Because if you impose swingeing (say 100%) taxes on imports, then you have a lot less imports*...
And if you have a lot less imports, then you don't have a lot of imports to tax.
So, like with the Tobin tax, it's based on the idea that there is no elasticity involved.
* You might think the "lot less imports" would mean that you would be doing a lot better. But that is by no means clear either: all those industries you have that rely on components from abroad, for example, would be utterly decimated.
But if you have a more reasonable rate (say 25%), then the economy just rebalances around that new reality. It's a structural change, not a magic money tree.
On your industrial raw material imports ? Good luck with that.
Listening to Birbelsingh on Nick Ferrari. This woman is out of control. I recommend anyone with interest in schools policy to listen to this on Global Player. I was shocked. Those of a more conservative point of view will be cheered.
She's flavour of the month with the Christian Nationalists because she banned prayer rituals in school policy (no religious groups such as a Christian Union) then won a court case defending it against a challenge by Muslim pupil. I'll have a listen to Nick Ferrari. As far as I have tracked her, she seems consistent since her first speech to the Conservative Party conference 15 or 16 years ago when she was identified; I'm not sure of the process by which she was identified as Miss Snuffy.
(Religion in Public Life has been an area of interest of mine for decades, as you know.)
That lets the CNats (and GBNews etc) pretend that it's about Muslims, and reflects desire to stir things up, when it was more like a victory for "secular" school cultures excluding religion, which is one groups like the National Secular Society have been on for decades. @BartholomewRoberts may be more up to date than me on that side of it.
It was a somewhat complex argument, because iirc it was about prayer ritual in the playground as effectively a form of protest when her school refused to provide a prayer room for pupils.
The self-described "freedom of XYZ" groups take the other side than they do on "silent prayer" (ie intimidation and interference) outside abortion clinics - for some reason .
It’s interesting to see the reactions.
@Mexicanpete is shocked because it seems like restricting the *requirements* of a minority.
The GBNews take it as anti-Muslim.
Most people don’t want more religion in our schools - even the weak-tea-and-biscuits form of Christianity.
They do when the only outstanding state primary or secondary school in their area is a C of E or Roman Catholic school.
Then you get parents queuing round the block to get into the church congregation on a Sunday for the months leading up to the decision on who gets places so they can get the Vicar's reference
That's 'they have to put up with it' rather than 'want it', on your own testimony.
No they want it as it offers choice from the bog standard comp or academy down the road
No, look at your own language and logic. They only want religious schools when there is no alternative. Ergo they don't want the religion bit.
My own language is clear, as a Conservative I want as many private schools, grammar schools, religious schools, free schools, academies etc as possible ie offer a real alternative. As do parents who choose such schools.
You as a statist socialist want to give consumers one bog standard comp option in education as you dislike choice elsewhere
The illusion of choice.
My son's state primary school is non-religious until year 2, then (mildly) C of E from years 3-6. There is no religious element of the admissions process.
But we chose it because it was the best school we were in the catchment area for.
If we'd ended up living the other side of town -which we almost did until a sale fell through - he would that gone to a different, non-religious state primary school. Which is just as good.
The focus for government should be on improving the standards of all schools. The religious element is outdated and doesn't reflect the beliefs of the vast majority of parents of young children.
The European Union, one of the most hostile and abusive taxing and tariffing authorities in the World, which was formed for the sole purpose of taking advantage of the United States, has just put a nasty 50% Tariff on Whisky. If this Tariff is not removed immediately, the U.S. will shortly place a 200% Tariff on all WINES, CHAMPAGNES, & ALCOHOLIC PRODUCTS COMING OUT OF FRANCE AND OTHER E.U. REPRESENTED COUNTRIES. This will be great for the Wine and Champagne businesses in the U.S.
Popcorn all round - apart from the whisky industry
I am glad Trump (innacurately for Bourbon) uses 'whisky' without the 'e'. A rare occurence of a 'Britishism' and shows he's a Scotch fan.
He doesn't drink, hates alcohol. What it does show is he has the literacy of a small child.
Listening to Birbelsingh on Nick Ferrari. This woman is out of control. I recommend anyone with interest in schools policy to listen to this on Global Player. I was shocked. Those of a more conservative point of view will be cheered.
She's flavour of the month with the Christian Nationalists because she banned prayer rituals in school policy (no religious groups such as a Christian Union) then won a court case defending it against a challenge by Muslim pupil. I'll have a listen to Nick Ferrari. As far as I have tracked her, she seems consistent since her first speech to the Conservative Party conference 15 or 16 years ago when she was identified; I'm not sure of the process by which she was identified as Miss Snuffy.
(Religion in Public Life has been an area of interest of mine for decades, as you know.)
That lets the CNats (and GBNews etc) pretend that it's about Muslims, and reflects desire to stir things up, when it was more like a victory for "secular" school cultures excluding religion, which is one groups like the National Secular Society have been on for decades. @BartholomewRoberts may be more up to date than me on that side of it.
It was a somewhat complex argument, because iirc it was about prayer ritual in the playground as effectively a form of protest when her school refused to provide a prayer room for pupils.
The self-described "freedom of XYZ" groups take the other side than they do on "silent prayer" (ie intimidation and interference) outside abortion clinics - for some reason .
It’s interesting to see the reactions.
@Mexicanpete is shocked because it seems like restricting the *requirements* of a minority.
The GBNews take it as anti-Muslim.
Most people don’t want more religion in our schools - even the weak-tea-and-biscuits form of Christianity.
They do when the only outstanding state primary or secondary school in their area is a C of E or Roman Catholic school.
Then you get parents queuing round the block to get into the church congregation on a Sunday for the months leading up to the decision on who gets places so they can get the Vicar's reference
That's 'they have to put up with it' rather than 'want it', on your own testimony.
No they want it as it offers choice from the bog standard comp or academy down the road
No, look at your own language and logic. They only want religious schools when there is no alternative. Ergo they don't want the religion bit.
My own language is clear, as a Conservative I want as many private schools, grammar schools, religious schools, free schools, academies etc as possible ie offer a real alternative. As do parents who choose such schools.
You as a statist socialist want to give consumers one bog standard comp option in education as you dislike choice elsewhere
Where are you planning to get the money from for all those schools?
A convicted Ghanaian criminal deported from Britain 12 years ago has been allowed to return under human rights laws because separation from his family left him depressed.
Can this be challenged on the grounds that it induces depression in the rest of the population?
The latest Trump/Thiel plan seems to be eliminate all taxes for anyone earning less than 150,000 dollars a year, and then to replace the lost income with tariffs.
Unstupid question: would that work? I don't mean is it a good idea or a bad idea, I mean is it feasible? Would the sums add up?
No.
Do you remember all those people saying "if we just imposed a 1% tax on all share transactions, we could fund everything". It was a big cause celebre in left wing circles post the GFC. And it was, of course, rubbish because it assumed that volumes of share trading would remain the same after the imposition of the tax.
There is the same issue here.
Because if you impose swingeing (say 100%) taxes on imports, then you have a lot less imports*...
And if you have a lot less imports, then you don't have a lot of imports to tax.
So, like with the Tobin tax, it's based on the idea that there is no elasticity involved.
* You might think the "lot less imports" would mean that you would be doing a lot better. But that is by no means clear either: all those industries you have that rely on components from abroad, for example, would be utterly decimated.
But if you have a more reasonable rate (say 25%), then the economy just rebalances around that new reality. It's a structural change, not a magic money tree.
The question is whether you can replace income tax on all people with incomes below $150,000 with tariffs.
And the answer is no, because a 25% tariff wouldn't raise enough money, unless US government spending was absolutely slashed.
I think they are aiming for cuts of 20% in US Govt spending.
Which will put it all on State Income Tax, perhaps.
With the problem that Musk has reportedly told them to shred records, and they are trying to keep things secret.
US district judge Tanya Chutkan’s order forces Musk to produce documents related to Doge’s activities as part of a lawsuit brought by 14 Democratic state attorneys general that alleges Musk violated the constitution by wielding powers that only Senate-confirmed officials should possess.
Chutkan said in her 14-page decision that she was allowing the state attorneys general to obtain documents from Musk to clarify the scope of his authority, which would inform whether he has been operating unconstitutionally to the extent that Doge’s activities should be halted)
Hang 'em High.
America will descend into some kind of wild west anarchy unless they can collectively reinstate the rule of law and government and individual respect of it rapidly.
Once something like that is gone, it it will near impossible to bring back.
Anne Applebaum @anneapplebaum.bsky.social · 49m Surprise! The Russians, who have repeatedly said they don't want a ceasefire, have once again said they don't want a ceasefire
SFAICS the purpose of the process is not, sadly, a cease fire, but to give Trump's cohort a chance to come in on the same side as the rest of us by placing the ball in Russia's court and making them respond to the proposal in a way which is embarrassing for the pro Putin lobby in the west to sustain.
This isn't about which side Russia is on, it's about which side USA is on.
The rest of the world really should just ignore Trump's tariffs gyrations: they do far more damage to the US economy than to other countries.
Provided US consumers don't buy more American made products
You remain under this delusion that America is full of empty factories with workers standing by, just ready to provide Americans with goods if only there were tariffs!
The European Union, one of the most hostile and abusive taxing and tariffing authorities in the World, which was formed for the sole purpose of taking advantage of the United States, has just put a nasty 50% Tariff on Whisky. If this Tariff is not removed immediately, the U.S. will shortly place a 200% Tariff on all WINES, CHAMPAGNES, & ALCOHOLIC PRODUCTS COMING OUT OF FRANCE AND OTHER E.U. REPRESENTED COUNTRIES. This will be great for the Wine and Champagne businesses in the U.S.
No way the EU backs down. Further retaliatory tariffs will be put in place.
Unfortunately I suspect the lead time for Scotland to increase its whisky production as substitution for bourbon is rather long...
I should point out that Bourbon and Scotch are not substitutable goods.
The rest of the world really should just ignore Trump's tariffs gyrations: they do far more damage to the US economy than to other countries.
I am starting to think the sensible place to invest now is looking like anywhere but the US. All this uncertainty creates a very unstable marketplace. In the meantime, while other global economies are inevitably disrupted by the tariff and defence policies, that creates opportunities for growth in other markets and economies more open to trade with each other. That’s a reversal from the prevailing wisdom at the start of the year.
Trump's latest income tax plan alone, would wife 25% of all American tax revenue.
No wonder he's talking about "a period of adjustment", and his minions are floating ideas like getting rid of social Security altogether to.pay for it. The other 49% of Americans need to start fighting back very urgently, if they want to prevent either a collapse, or authoritarianism.
Listening to Birbelsingh on Nick Ferrari. This woman is out of control. I recommend anyone with interest in schools policy to listen to this on Global Player. I was shocked. Those of a more conservative point of view will be cheered.
She's flavour of the month with the Christian Nationalists because she banned prayer rituals in school policy (no religious groups such as a Christian Union) then won a court case defending it against a challenge by Muslim pupil. I'll have a listen to Nick Ferrari. As far as I have tracked her, she seems consistent since her first speech to the Conservative Party conference 15 or 16 years ago when she was identified; I'm not sure of the process by which she was identified as Miss Snuffy.
(Religion in Public Life has been an area of interest of mine for decades, as you know.)
That lets the CNats (and GBNews etc) pretend that it's about Muslims, and reflects desire to stir things up, when it was more like a victory for "secular" school cultures excluding religion, which is one groups like the National Secular Society have been on for decades. @BartholomewRoberts may be more up to date than me on that side of it.
It was a somewhat complex argument, because iirc it was about prayer ritual in the playground as effectively a form of protest when her school refused to provide a prayer room for pupils.
The self-described "freedom of XYZ" groups take the other side than they do on "silent prayer" (ie intimidation and interference) outside abortion clinics - for some reason .
It’s interesting to see the reactions.
@Mexicanpete is shocked because it seems like restricting the *requirements* of a minority.
The GBNews take it as anti-Muslim.
Most people don’t want more religion in our schools - even the weak-tea-and-biscuits form of Christianity.
They do when the only outstanding state primary or secondary school in their area is a C of E or Roman Catholic school.
Then you get parents queuing round the block to get into the church congregation on a Sunday for the months leading up to the decision on who gets places so they can get the Vicar's reference
That's 'they have to put up with it' rather than 'want it', on your own testimony.
No they want it as it offers choice from the bog standard comp or academy down the road
No, look at your own language and logic. They only want religious schools when there is no alternative. Ergo they don't want the religion bit.
My own language is clear, as a Conservative I want as many private schools, grammar schools, religious schools, free schools, academies etc as possible ie offer a real alternative. As do parents who choose such schools.
You as a statist socialist want to give consumers one bog standard comp option in education as you dislike choice elsewhere
Where are you planning to get the money from for all those schools?
The same money now spent on comps, there are plenty of them just give more pupils the option to move from them to a grammar school, free school, religious school etc and reverse Labour's VAT on private schools so private schools are more affordable again and can offer more bursaries
Today is the vote in the Bundestag on reforming the debt brake. It's still unclear if it will get the 2 thirds majority needed.
If the Russians agree to the ceasefire Ukraine has accepted it may not be needed for the moment anyway
Nonsense
Putin has said he won't even accept European and NATO peacekeepers, it would likely be Turkish, Brazilian, Indian troops etc enforcing any ceasefire.
It would just be future deterrence NATO nations needed to increase their militaries for
Sorry to be picky but Turkey is in NATO so you could have Australian or New Zealand troops I suppose though I agree more likely are Brazilians, Nigerians or Indians. To be honest, if someone else is paying for them (who?), I imagine some countries would be happy to have their soldiers billeted somewhere else at someone else's expense.
Putin gets on with Erdogan so would probably accept Turkish troops, the Russians already rejected Australian involvement
It is time that the Russians are told to FUCK OFF over what they will and won't accept. The suggestion that they should be able to veto who is president and what nationality of troops are allowed in a sovereign country is beyond outrageous. Every concession is a reward for their aggression. Europe needs to keep all sanctions in place and continue to isolate Russia where possible. More appeasement only encourages the aggressor.
It seems to me the only way Trump can force a quick end to the war that isn't a clear win for Russia is to threaten Putin with a continuation (or even escalation) of US military support for Ukraine if he doesn't make big meaningful concessions. However he can't threaten this with any credibility because he's already made it clear he isn't prepared to stay involved militarily. "You make a deal or we're out" he said to Zelensky in the WH, and for once I think he was speaking the truth. That is his position.
So otoh he wants to get his big moment and live up to his self-image as the great dealmaker, but otoh he can't and won't force Russia to back down from its red lines (being they keep what they've taken and Ukraine gets no Art 5 type protection on the rest). Any deal would therefore be mainly on Russia's terms and can happen only if Ukraine feels forced to sign it due to having no realistic alternative. I think that's what this boils down to now. Will Europe's offer allow Zelensky to genuinely feel that no deal is better than a bad deal?
I think this a pretty good summary of where we are. It's why Europe building up its own military strength is so important, £6bn being cut from benefits should be just the start. Outsourcing our security to America means we have to live with the politics of America, I think a few cuts to the welfare state is a small price to end our obsession with the USA.
We could pop taxes up to French levels, spend 9% of GDP on defence and have military expenditure 3x as high as Russia. The funniest thing about this debate is the rather blatant attempts to shoehorn personal political obsessions into the debate.
My version of this is put fuel duty up to where it should be without the incessant freezes since 2010. That gets you 0.8 per cent of GDP while primarily taxing higher income people, who drive 3x as much as poorer people. And it pushes people off an OPEC controlled commodity onto EVs. Easy. Next.
That massively pushes up inflation and the idea that people can afford to just pop over onto EVs is for the birds. Again it is Robert's comment on elasticity. When you push on something as fundemental as transport, something else gets pushed out in away that not only reduces your return but can actively reverse what you are trying to do.
Sharing more details in the Commons, Wes Streeting said the work to merge the two organisations had already begun and that immediate steps would be taken to bring NHS England teams into the Department of Health and reduce the duplication of jobs.
The Health Secretary up to 10,000 roles would be scrapped with plans to reduce the overall workforce across both organisations by 50 per cent.
This is going to suck up a hell of a lot of ministerial time.
Meanwhile, local government is being reorganized.
More cost and ministerial time.
Nothing done on social care for another five years at least, the one screaming issue that impacts on both NHS and local councils.
The European Union, one of the most hostile and abusive taxing and tariffing authorities in the World, which was formed for the sole purpose of taking advantage of the United States, has just put a nasty 50% Tariff on Whisky. If this Tariff is not removed immediately, the U.S. will shortly place a 200% Tariff on all WINES, CHAMPAGNES, & ALCOHOLIC PRODUCTS COMING OUT OF FRANCE AND OTHER E.U. REPRESENTED COUNTRIES. This will be great for the Wine and Champagne businesses in the U.S.
Popcorn all round - apart from the whisky industry
I am glad Trump (innacurately for Bourbon) uses 'whisky' without the 'e'. A rare occurence of a 'Britishism' and shows he's a Scotch fan.
Listening to Birbelsingh on Nick Ferrari. This woman is out of control. I recommend anyone with interest in schools policy to listen to this on Global Player. I was shocked. Those of a more conservative point of view will be cheered.
She's flavour of the month with the Christian Nationalists because she banned prayer rituals in school policy (no religious groups such as a Christian Union) then won a court case defending it against a challenge by Muslim pupil. I'll have a listen to Nick Ferrari. As far as I have tracked her, she seems consistent since her first speech to the Conservative Party conference 15 or 16 years ago when she was identified; I'm not sure of the process by which she was identified as Miss Snuffy.
(Religion in Public Life has been an area of interest of mine for decades, as you know.)
That lets the CNats (and GBNews etc) pretend that it's about Muslims, and reflects desire to stir things up, when it was more like a victory for "secular" school cultures excluding religion, which is one groups like the National Secular Society have been on for decades. @BartholomewRoberts may be more up to date than me on that side of it.
It was a somewhat complex argument, because iirc it was about prayer ritual in the playground as effectively a form of protest when her school refused to provide a prayer room for pupils.
The self-described "freedom of XYZ" groups take the other side than they do on "silent prayer" (ie intimidation and interference) outside abortion clinics - for some reason .
It’s interesting to see the reactions.
@Mexicanpete is shocked because it seems like restricting the *requirements* of a minority.
The GBNews take it as anti-Muslim.
Most people don’t want more religion in our schools - even the weak-tea-and-biscuits form of Christianity.
They do when the only outstanding state primary or secondary school in their area is a C of E or Roman Catholic school.
Then you get parents queuing round the block to get into the church congregation on a Sunday for the months leading up to the decision on who gets places so they can get the Vicar's reference
That's 'they have to put up with it' rather than 'want it', on your own testimony.
No they want it as it offers choice from the bog standard comp or academy down the road
No, look at your own language and logic. They only want religious schools when there is no alternative. Ergo they don't want the religion bit.
My own language is clear, as a Conservative I want as many private schools, grammar schools, religious schools, free schools, academies etc as possible ie offer a real alternative. As do parents who choose such schools.
You as a statist socialist want to give consumers one bog standard comp option in education as you dislike choice elsewhere
The illusion of choice.
My son's state primary school is non-religious until year 2, then (mildly) C of E from years 3-6. There is no religious element of the admissions process.
But we chose it because it was the best school we were in the catchment area for.
If we'd ended up living the other side of town -which we almost did until a sale fell through - he would that gone to a different, non-religious state primary school. Which is just as good.
The focus for government should be on improving the standards of all schools. The religious element is outdated and doesn't reflect the beliefs of the vast majority of parents of young children.
Just the usual one size fits all rubbish from secular leftists like you.
Nope, we need more choice and more variety of schools including more good faith schools, you could afford to buy into the catchment area of a good school, many in poorer areas can't
Lib dem correct on saying no amount of change can be effective without social care, which the government has put on hold and despite suggesting cross party talks nothing has happened
It simply is too difficult apparently but it just cannot be avoided
Absolutely - care and the NHS are utterly entwined despite the efforts to pretend they are not.
My party has identified that the current system is broken. I want us to go much much further. You can't fix the system by cutting bits of it away - we need a new system.
The Liberal Party brought us the welfare state - both its earlier WWI version and then the Beveridge report to create the modern version still with us today. We need a 21st Century Beveridge Report...
The rest of the world really should just ignore Trump's tariffs gyrations: they do far more damage to the US economy than to other countries.
Provided US consumers don't buy more American made products
You remain under this delusion that America is full of empty factories with workers standing by, just ready to provide Americans with goods if only there were tariffs!
Lib dem correct on saying no amount of change can be effective without social care, which the government has put on hold and despite suggesting cross party talks nothing has happened
It simply is too difficult apparently but it just cannot be avoided
Absolutely - care and the NHS are utterly entwined despite the efforts to pretend they are not.
My party has identified that the current system is broken. I want us to go much much further. You can't fix the system by cutting bits of it away - we need a new system.
The Liberal Party brought us the welfare state - both its earlier WWI version and then the Beveridge report to create the modern version still with us today. We need a 21st Century Beveridge Report...
The Liberals supported an insurance model for healthcare (like Churchill's Tories) and indeed for welfare and unemployment and pensions initally, it was the Attlee Labour government who created the NHS and followed by Wilson expanded non contributory welfare
It is a great shame Atlee didn't listen to the Liberals in that case.
He didn't need to as in 1945 he had a landslide Labour majority
(Religion in Public Life has been an area of interest of mine for decades, as you know....
I did not know that, although given the state of my memory I could simply have forgotten. I will pay more attention, apols
Fair enough ; I may have used different terms for my interest.
I started off with membership of a project at the Selly Oak Colleges (eg Westhill College) in Birmingham back in the 1980s, and have been interested ever since. That particular one evolved into the Human city Initiative, and now the Human City Institute.
It's a very provisional area, as it straddles a sociological boundary known as sacred-secular - everything is always changing, and the area tends to be covered by lots of networks as well as institutions.
@bondegezou taking another L today with the government abolishing NHS management and bureaucracy after his protestations for months that it is impossible and we need more admin staff in the NHS and more managers to suck the blood out of it.
Obviously you're delighted, but I can't see how abolishing NHS England removes the need for its various functions. Be interesting if they can actually reduce overall headcount.
What I'm confused about is who is actually doing Public Health in England now? That's by far the most important thing the NHS needs to fix in terms of obesity, diabetes etc.
The Streeting line is that executive functions were duplicated between NHS England and the Dept of Health. Those functions will be absorbed into the Dept of Health.
It can't take me long to become an armchair PB expert on the overlapping branches of NHS organisation and how to sort them out, starting from my position of complete indifference and ignorance can it?
Listening to Birbelsingh on Nick Ferrari. This woman is out of control. I recommend anyone with interest in schools policy to listen to this on Global Player. I was shocked. Those of a more conservative point of view will be cheered.
She's flavour of the month with the Christian Nationalists because she banned prayer rituals in school policy (no religious groups such as a Christian Union) then won a court case defending it against a challenge by Muslim pupil. I'll have a listen to Nick Ferrari. As far as I have tracked her, she seems consistent since her first speech to the Conservative Party conference 15 or 16 years ago when she was identified; I'm not sure of the process by which she was identified as Miss Snuffy.
(Religion in Public Life has been an area of interest of mine for decades, as you know.)
That lets the CNats (and GBNews etc) pretend that it's about Muslims, and reflects desire to stir things up, when it was more like a victory for "secular" school cultures excluding religion, which is one groups like the National Secular Society have been on for decades. @BartholomewRoberts may be more up to date than me on that side of it.
It was a somewhat complex argument, because iirc it was about prayer ritual in the playground as effectively a form of protest when her school refused to provide a prayer room for pupils.
The self-described "freedom of XYZ" groups take the other side than they do on "silent prayer" (ie intimidation and interference) outside abortion clinics - for some reason .
It’s interesting to see the reactions.
@Mexicanpete is shocked because it seems like restricting the *requirements* of a minority.
The GBNews take it as anti-Muslim.
Most people don’t want more religion in our schools - even the weak-tea-and-biscuits form of Christianity.
They do when the only outstanding state primary or secondary school in their area is a C of E or Roman Catholic school.
Then you get parents queuing round the block to get into the church congregation on a Sunday for the months leading up to the decision on who gets places so they can get the Vicar's reference
That's 'they have to put up with it' rather than 'want it', on your own testimony.
No they want it as it offers choice from the bog standard comp or academy down the road
No, look at your own language and logic. They only want religious schools when there is no alternative. Ergo they don't want the religion bit.
My own language is clear, as a Conservative I want as many private schools, grammar schools, religious schools, free schools, academies etc as possible ie offer a real alternative. As do parents who choose such schools.
You as a statist socialist want to give consumers one bog standard comp option in education as you dislike choice elsewhere
The illusion of choice.
My son's state primary school is non-religious until year 2, then (mildly) C of E from years 3-6. There is no religious element of the admissions process.
But we chose it because it was the best school we were in the catchment area for.
If we'd ended up living the other side of town -which we almost did until a sale fell through - he would that gone to a different, non-religious state primary school. Which is just as good.
The focus for government should be on improving the standards of all schools. The religious element is outdated and doesn't reflect the beliefs of the vast majority of parents of young children.
The new bill says hi.
The schools bill: from parental choice to politicians choosing The threat to parental choice and good schools https://www.neilobrien.co.uk/p/the-schools-bill-from-parental-choice ...One of the very biggest (and under-appreciated) changes it brings about is the undoing of that very first reform: the right of popular schools to grow.
Clause 50 of the Bill gives the local authority the ability to object if good schools want to grow - or even if an academy is proposing to keep its numbers the same.
The size of a school’s intake is known as its “Published Admission Number” (PAN).
The government’s impact assessment says of Clause 50 of the Bill:
“Demographic changes mean there is an increase in the number of surplus places in primary schools…. We want the local authority to have more influence over the PANs for schools in their area.
“This would include scenarios where… a school’s PAN is set at a level which creates viability issues for another local school”..
The rest of the world really should just ignore Trump's tariffs gyrations: they do far more damage to the US economy than to other countries.
Provided US consumers don't buy more American made products
You remain under this delusion that America is full of empty factories with workers standing by, just ready to provide Americans with goods if only there were tariffs!
That is what Trump voters voted for
And if it's just a fantasy ?
They can decide at the next election
I'm taking about the economic consequences, not the electoral.
Listening to Birbelsingh on Nick Ferrari. This woman is out of control. I recommend anyone with interest in schools policy to listen to this on Global Player. I was shocked. Those of a more conservative point of view will be cheered.
She's flavour of the month with the Christian Nationalists because she banned prayer rituals in school policy (no religious groups such as a Christian Union) then won a court case defending it against a challenge by Muslim pupil. I'll have a listen to Nick Ferrari. As far as I have tracked her, she seems consistent since her first speech to the Conservative Party conference 15 or 16 years ago when she was identified; I'm not sure of the process by which she was identified as Miss Snuffy.
(Religion in Public Life has been an area of interest of mine for decades, as you know.)
That lets the CNats (and GBNews etc) pretend that it's about Muslims, and reflects desire to stir things up, when it was more like a victory for "secular" school cultures excluding religion, which is one groups like the National Secular Society have been on for decades. @BartholomewRoberts may be more up to date than me on that side of it.
It was a somewhat complex argument, because iirc it was about prayer ritual in the playground as effectively a form of protest when her school refused to provide a prayer room for pupils.
The self-described "freedom of XYZ" groups take the other side than they do on "silent prayer" (ie intimidation and interference) outside abortion clinics - for some reason .
It’s interesting to see the reactions.
@Mexicanpete is shocked because it seems like restricting the *requirements* of a minority.
The GBNews take it as anti-Muslim.
Most people don’t want more religion in our schools - even the weak-tea-and-biscuits form of Christianity.
They do when the only outstanding state primary or secondary school in their area is a C of E or Roman Catholic school.
Then you get parents queuing round the block to get into the church congregation on a Sunday for the months leading up to the decision on who gets places so they can get the Vicar's reference
That's 'they have to put up with it' rather than 'want it', on your own testimony.
No they want it as it offers choice from the bog standard comp or academy down the road
No, look at your own language and logic. They only want religious schools when there is no alternative. Ergo they don't want the religion bit.
My own language is clear, as a Conservative I want as many private schools, grammar schools, religious schools, free schools, academies etc as possible ie offer a real alternative. As do parents who choose such schools.
You as a statist socialist want to give consumers one bog standard comp option in education as you dislike choice elsewhere
The illusion of choice.
My son's state primary school is non-religious until year 2, then (mildly) C of E from years 3-6. There is no religious element of the admissions process.
But we chose it because it was the best school we were in the catchment area for.
If we'd ended up living the other side of town -which we almost did until a sale fell through - he would that gone to a different, non-religious state primary school. Which is just as good.
The focus for government should be on improving the standards of all schools. The religious element is outdated and doesn't reflect the beliefs of the vast majority of parents of young children.
Just the usual one size fits all rubbish from secular leftists like you.
Nope, we need more choice and more variety of schools including more good faith schools, you could afford to buy into the catchment area of a good school, many in poorer areas can't
I'm no socialist.
State schools of all descriptions are only financially viable if at or close to full attendance per year.
That means there cannot be more significantly more school places in a given area than there are pupils. Unless you want government spending on schools to increase significantly.
In towns and cities there will be some choice due to population density. But that choice doesn't need to include faith schools. Admissions based on parental faith should be in the private sector only.
That is, incidentally, a liberal principle and not a socialist one.
The latest Trump/Thiel plan seems to be eliminate all taxes for anyone earning less than 150,000 dollars a year, and then to replace the lost income with tariffs.
Unstupid question: would that work? I don't mean is it a good idea or a bad idea, I mean is it feasible? Would the sums add up?
No.
Do you remember all those people saying "if we just imposed a 1% tax on all share transactions, we could fund everything". It was a big cause celebre in left wing circles post the GFC. And it was, of course, rubbish because it assumed that volumes of share trading would remain the same after the imposition of the tax.
There is the same issue here.
Because if you impose swingeing (say 100%) taxes on imports, then you have a lot less imports*...
And if you have a lot less imports, then you don't have a lot of imports to tax.
So, like with the Tobin tax, it's based on the idea that there is no elasticity involved.
* You might think the "lot less imports" would mean that you would be doing a lot better. But that is by no means clear either: all those industries you have that rely on components from abroad, for example, would be utterly decimated.
But if you have a more reasonable rate (say 25%), then the economy just rebalances around that new reality. It's a structural change, not a magic money tree.
The question is whether you can replace income tax on all people with incomes below $150,000 with tariffs.
And the answer is no, because a 25% tariff wouldn't raise enough money, unless US government spending was absolutely slashed.
I think they are aiming for cuts of 20% in US Govt spending.
Which will put it all on State Income Tax, perhaps.
With the problem that Musk has reportedly told them to shred records, and they are trying to keep things secret.
US district judge Tanya Chutkan’s order forces Musk to produce documents related to Doge’s activities as part of a lawsuit brought by 14 Democratic state attorneys general that alleges Musk violated the constitution by wielding powers that only Senate-confirmed officials should possess.
Chutkan said in her 14-page decision that she was allowing the state attorneys general to obtain documents from Musk to clarify the scope of his authority, which would inform whether he has been operating unconstitutionally to the extent that Doge’s activities should be halted)
Hang 'em High.
America will descend into some kind of wild west anarchy unless they can collectively reinstate the rule of law and government and individual respect of it rapidly.
Once something like that is gone, it it will near impossible to bring back.
The latest Trump/Thiel plan seems to be eliminate all taxes for anyone earning less than 150,000 dollars a year, and then to replace the lost income with tariffs.
Unstupid question: would that work? I don't mean is it a good idea or a bad idea, I mean is it feasible? Would the sums add up?
No.
Do you remember all those people saying "if we just imposed a 1% tax on all share transactions, we could fund everything". It was a big cause celebre in left wing circles post the GFC. And it was, of course, rubbish because it assumed that volumes of share trading would remain the same after the imposition of the tax.
There is the same issue here.
Because if you impose swingeing (say 100%) taxes on imports, then you have a lot less imports*...
And if you have a lot less imports, then you don't have a lot of imports to tax.
So, like with the Tobin tax, it's based on the idea that there is no elasticity involved.
* You might think the "lot less imports" would mean that you would be doing a lot better. But that is by no means clear either: all those industries you have that rely on components from abroad, for example, would be utterly decimated.
But if you have a more reasonable rate (say 25%), then the economy just rebalances around that new reality. It's a structural change, not a magic money tree.
The question is whether you can replace income tax on all people with incomes below $150,000 with tariffs.
And the answer is no, because a 25% tariff wouldn't raise enough money, unless US government spending was absolutely slashed.
I think they are aiming for cuts of 20% in US Govt spending.
Which will put it all on State Income Tax, perhaps.
With the problem that Musk has reportedly told them to shred records, and they are trying to keep things secret.
US district judge Tanya Chutkan’s order forces Musk to produce documents related to Doge’s activities as part of a lawsuit brought by 14 Democratic state attorneys general that alleges Musk violated the constitution by wielding powers that only Senate-confirmed officials should possess.
Chutkan said in her 14-page decision that she was allowing the state attorneys general to obtain documents from Musk to clarify the scope of his authority, which would inform whether he has been operating unconstitutionally to the extent that Doge’s activities should be halted)
Hang 'em High.
America will descend into some kind of wild west anarchy unless they can collectively reinstate the rule of law and government and individual respect of it rapidly.
Once something like that is gone, it it will near impossible to bring back.
Maybe that is what the anarcho-tech bros want?
Billionaires need the rule of law to protect their own interests, even when they are indifferent to the rights of others. This is one reason why English courts is the chosen forum for so many expensive bits of multi national litigation.
America will descend into some kind of wild west anarchy unless they can collectively reinstate the rule of law and government and individual respect of it rapidly.
Once something like that is gone, it it will near impossible to bring back.
Maybe that is what the anarcho-tech bros want?
It doesn't seem to have occured to these douches that if they get what they want, some sort of North American Russia, that the majority of them will end up dead, in prison, or in exile, as the really nasty ones play ball with the Czar to come out on top.
A convicted Ghanaian criminal deported from Britain 12 years ago has been allowed to return under human rights laws because separation from his family left him depressed.
An immigration tribunal ruled that Samuel Frimpong should be allowed to come back to Britain, as deporting him was an “unjustifiable interference” with his rights to a family life under article eight of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
The father of two was deported in 2013 to Ghana after four months in jail for using a faked document to try to “circumvent” the Home Office’s leave to remain rules.
The latest Trump/Thiel plan seems to be eliminate all taxes for anyone earning less than 150,000 dollars a year, and then to replace the lost income with tariffs.
Unstupid question: would that work? I don't mean is it a good idea or a bad idea, I mean is it feasible? Would the sums add up?
No.
Do you remember all those people saying "if we just imposed a 1% tax on all share transactions, we could fund everything". It was a big cause celebre in left wing circles post the GFC. And it was, of course, rubbish because it assumed that volumes of share trading would remain the same after the imposition of the tax.
There is the same issue here.
Because if you impose swingeing (say 100%) taxes on imports, then you have a lot less imports*...
And if you have a lot less imports, then you don't have a lot of imports to tax.
So, like with the Tobin tax, it's based on the idea that there is no elasticity involved.
* You might think the "lot less imports" would mean that you would be doing a lot better. But that is by no means clear either: all those industries you have that rely on components from abroad, for example, would be utterly decimated.
But if you have a more reasonable rate (say 25%), then the economy just rebalances around that new reality. It's a structural change, not a magic money tree.
The question is whether you can replace income tax on all people with incomes below $150,000 with tariffs.
And the answer is no, because a 25% tariff wouldn't raise enough money, unless US government spending was absolutely slashed.
I think they are aiming for cuts of 20% in US Govt spending.
Which will put it all on State Income Tax, perhaps.
With the problem that Musk has reportedly told them to shred records, and they are trying to keep things secret.
US district judge Tanya Chutkan’s order forces Musk to produce documents related to Doge’s activities as part of a lawsuit brought by 14 Democratic state attorneys general that alleges Musk violated the constitution by wielding powers that only Senate-confirmed officials should possess.
Chutkan said in her 14-page decision that she was allowing the state attorneys general to obtain documents from Musk to clarify the scope of his authority, which would inform whether he has been operating unconstitutionally to the extent that Doge’s activities should be halted)
Hang 'em High.
You know, I don't even oppose a reduction in government spending. In general, the government should spend as little as possible.
But at the same time, it's important to understand where the government spends its money.
And the answer is that Interest Expense, Defense, Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid and Veterans Affairs (basically health care for vets) is the vast bulk of spending.
The US government - like all developed world countries - can fundamentally change how much money it spends, but to do so, it needs to reduce spending on older people. Having the conversation would be honest, and is probably necessary.
Instead, the US government is letting go of air traffic controllers and park rangers to save pennies.
The latest Trump/Thiel plan seems to be eliminate all taxes for anyone earning less than 150,000 dollars a year, and then to replace the lost income with tariffs.
Unstupid question: would that work? I don't mean is it a good idea or a bad idea, I mean is it feasible? Would the sums add up?
No.
Do you remember all those people saying "if we just imposed a 1% tax on all share transactions, we could fund everything". It was a big cause celebre in left wing circles post the GFC. And it was, of course, rubbish because it assumed that volumes of share trading would remain the same after the imposition of the tax.
There is the same issue here.
Because if you impose swingeing (say 100%) taxes on imports, then you have a lot less imports*...
And if you have a lot less imports, then you don't have a lot of imports to tax.
So, like with the Tobin tax, it's based on the idea that there is no elasticity involved.
* You might think the "lot less imports" would mean that you would be doing a lot better. But that is by no means clear either: all those industries you have that rely on components from abroad, for example, would be utterly decimated.
But if you have a more reasonable rate (say 25%), then the economy just rebalances around that new reality. It's a structural change, not a magic money tree.
The question is whether you can replace income tax on all people with incomes below $150,000 with tariffs.
And the answer is no, because a 25% tariff wouldn't raise enough money, unless US government spending was absolutely slashed.
I think they are aiming for cuts of 20% in US Govt spending.
Which will put it all on State Income Tax, perhaps.
With the problem that Musk has reportedly told them to shred records, and they are trying to keep things secret.
US district judge Tanya Chutkan’s order forces Musk to produce documents related to Doge’s activities as part of a lawsuit brought by 14 Democratic state attorneys general that alleges Musk violated the constitution by wielding powers that only Senate-confirmed officials should possess.
Chutkan said in her 14-page decision that she was allowing the state attorneys general to obtain documents from Musk to clarify the scope of his authority, which would inform whether he has been operating unconstitutionally to the extent that Doge’s activities should be halted)
Hang 'em High.
America will descend into some kind of wild west anarchy unless they can collectively reinstate the rule of law and government and individual respect of it rapidly.
Yet whenever you read anything in depth about almost any particular period of US history, it always seems like Wild West anarchy. And not just in the west.
@bondegezou taking another L today with the government abolishing NHS management and bureaucracy after his protestations for months that it is impossible and we need more admin staff in the NHS and more managers to suck the blood out of it.
Obviously you're delighted, but I can't see how abolishing NHS England removes the need for its various functions. Be interesting if they can actually reduce overall headcount.
What I'm confused about is who is actually doing Public Health in England now? That's by far the most important thing the NHS needs to fix in terms of obesity, diabetes etc.
The Streeting line is that executive functions were duplicated between NHS England and the Dept of Health. Those functions will be absorbed into the Dept of Health.
It can't take me long to become an armchair PB expert on the overlapping branches of NHS organisation and how to sort them out, starting from my position of complete indifference and ignorance can it?
To be fair, that ignorance makes you far more knowledgable that every MP I’ve talked to on the subject.
Jeremy Hunt, the former Tory health secretary, said that potentially this announcement could lead to “real transformation”. He told Streeting:
Can I commend the boldness of today’s announcement. If the NHS is going to be turned around, it’s going to need radical reforms.
If the result of today is to replace bureaucratic over-centralisation with political over-centralisation, it will fail. But if what happens today is that we move to the decentralised model that we have for police and for schools, it could be the start of a real transformation.
The latest Trump/Thiel plan seems to be eliminate all taxes for anyone earning less than 150,000 dollars a year, and then to replace the lost income with tariffs.
Unstupid question: would that work? I don't mean is it a good idea or a bad idea, I mean is it feasible? Would the sums add up?
No.
Do you remember all those people saying "if we just imposed a 1% tax on all share transactions, we could fund everything". It was a big cause celebre in left wing circles post the GFC. And it was, of course, rubbish because it assumed that volumes of share trading would remain the same after the imposition of the tax.
There is the same issue here.
Because if you impose swingeing (say 100%) taxes on imports, then you have a lot less imports*...
And if you have a lot less imports, then you don't have a lot of imports to tax.
So, like with the Tobin tax, it's based on the idea that there is no elasticity involved.
* You might think the "lot less imports" would mean that you would be doing a lot better. But that is by no means clear either: all those industries you have that rely on components from abroad, for example, would be utterly decimated.
But if you have a more reasonable rate (say 25%), then the economy just rebalances around that new reality. It's a structural change, not a magic money tree.
The question is whether you can replace income tax on all people with incomes below $150,000 with tariffs.
And the answer is no, because a 25% tariff wouldn't raise enough money, unless US government spending was absolutely slashed.
I think they are aiming for cuts of 20% in US Govt spending.
Which will put it all on State Income Tax, perhaps.
With the problem that Musk has reportedly told them to shred records, and they are trying to keep things secret.
US district judge Tanya Chutkan’s order forces Musk to produce documents related to Doge’s activities as part of a lawsuit brought by 14 Democratic state attorneys general that alleges Musk violated the constitution by wielding powers that only Senate-confirmed officials should possess.
Chutkan said in her 14-page decision that she was allowing the state attorneys general to obtain documents from Musk to clarify the scope of his authority, which would inform whether he has been operating unconstitutionally to the extent that Doge’s activities should be halted)
Hang 'em High.
America will descend into some kind of wild west anarchy unless they can collectively reinstate the rule of law and government and individual respect of it rapidly.
Once something like that is gone, it it will near impossible to bring back.
Maybe that is what the anarcho-tech bros want?
Billionaires need the rule of law to protect their own interests, even when they are indifferent to the rights of others. This is one reason why English courts is the chosen forum for so many expensive bits of multi national litigation.
This is, on one level, the climax of libertariansm. Some of the tech titans have forgotten that capitalism grew up within regulatory structures, and others want to create a new techno-fascist capitalism, to replace the old mechanisms.
Sharing more details in the Commons, Wes Streeting said the work to merge the two organisations had already begun and that immediate steps would be taken to bring NHS England teams into the Department of Health and reduce the duplication of jobs.
The Health Secretary up to 10,000 roles would be scrapped with plans to reduce the overall workforce across both organisations by 50 per cent.
Endeavouring to undo the mess that Landsley made of the NHS has got to be a good thing
(Religion in Public Life has been an area of interest of mine for decades, as you know....
I did not know that, although given the state of my memory I could simply have forgotten. I will pay more attention, apols
Fair enough ; I may have used different terms for my interest.
I started off with membership of a project at the Selly Oak Colleges (eg Westhill College) in Birmingham back in the 1980s, and have been interested ever since. That particular one evolved into the Human city Initiative, and now the Human City Institute.
It's a very provisional area, as it straddles a sociological boundary known as sacred-secular - everything is always changing, and the area tends to be covered by lots of networks as well as institutions.
PS One well known body which tries to straddle boundaries is the RSA, with things like their work on architectural design of schools to enhance the social and educational experience of pupils.
I used to be an FRSA (ie paid membership made to look like a professional qualification) but it was quite expensive (£100 a year in the 1990s?) and went imo too political when one of Blair's people became the boss after leaving No 10.
@bondegezou taking another L today with the government abolishing NHS management and bureaucracy after his protestations for months that it is impossible and we need more admin staff in the NHS and more managers to suck the blood out of it.
Obviously you're delighted, but I can't see how abolishing NHS England removes the need for its various functions. Be interesting if they can actually reduce overall headcount.
What I'm confused about is who is actually doing Public Health in England now? That's by far the most important thing the NHS needs to fix in terms of obesity, diabetes etc.
The Streeting line is that executive functions were duplicated between NHS England and the Dept of Health. Those functions will be absorbed into the Dept of Health.
It can't take me long to become an armchair PB expert on the overlapping branches of NHS organisation and how to sort them out, starting from my position of complete indifference and ignorance can it?
I find the allocation of responsibility (along with the means of funding) for stuff like public health absolutely baffling, and am happy to admit it.
I suspect a lot of the public didn't even know Public Health England no longer existed.
The European Union, one of the most hostile and abusive taxing and tariffing authorities in the World, which was formed for the sole purpose of taking advantage of the United States, has just put a nasty 50% Tariff on Whisky. If this Tariff is not removed immediately, the U.S. will shortly place a 200% Tariff on all WINES, CHAMPAGNES, & ALCOHOLIC PRODUCTS COMING OUT OF FRANCE AND OTHER E.U. REPRESENTED COUNTRIES. This will be great for the Wine and Champagne businesses in the U.S.
No way the EU backs down. Further retaliatory tariffs will be put in place.
Unfortunately I suspect the lead time for Scotland to increase its whisky production as substitution for bourbon is rather long...
Why bother? Bourbon is rubbish and seems to always end up diluted with soft drinks, You can do that Bells, or even a cheap supermarket blend.
Listening to Birbelsingh on Nick Ferrari. This woman is out of control. I recommend anyone with interest in schools policy to listen to this on Global Player. I was shocked. Those of a more conservative point of view will be cheered.
She's flavour of the month with the Christian Nationalists because she banned prayer rituals in school policy (no religious groups such as a Christian Union) then won a court case defending it against a challenge by Muslim pupil. I'll have a listen to Nick Ferrari. As far as I have tracked her, she seems consistent since her first speech to the Conservative Party conference 15 or 16 years ago when she was identified; I'm not sure of the process by which she was identified as Miss Snuffy.
(Religion in Public Life has been an area of interest of mine for decades, as you know.)
That lets the CNats (and GBNews etc) pretend that it's about Muslims, and reflects desire to stir things up, when it was more like a victory for "secular" school cultures excluding religion, which is one groups like the National Secular Society have been on for decades. @BartholomewRoberts may be more up to date than me on that side of it.
It was a somewhat complex argument, because iirc it was about prayer ritual in the playground as effectively a form of protest when her school refused to provide a prayer room for pupils.
The self-described "freedom of XYZ" groups take the other side than they do on "silent prayer" (ie intimidation and interference) outside abortion clinics - for some reason .
It’s interesting to see the reactions.
@Mexicanpete is shocked because it seems like restricting the *requirements* of a minority.
The GBNews take it as anti-Muslim.
Most people don’t want more religion in our schools - even the weak-tea-and-biscuits form of Christianity.
They do when the only outstanding state primary or secondary school in their area is a C of E or Roman Catholic school.
Then you get parents queuing round the block to get into the church congregation on a Sunday for the months leading up to the decision on who gets places so they can get the Vicar's reference
That's 'they have to put up with it' rather than 'want it', on your own testimony.
No they want it as it offers choice from the bog standard comp or academy down the road
No, look at your own language and logic. They only want religious schools when there is no alternative. Ergo they don't want the religion bit.
My own language is clear, as a Conservative I want as many private schools, grammar schools, religious schools, free schools, academies etc as possible ie offer a real alternative. As do parents who choose such schools.
You as a statist socialist want to give consumers one bog standard comp option in education as you dislike choice elsewhere
The illusion of choice.
My son's state primary school is non-religious until year 2, then (mildly) C of E from years 3-6. There is no religious element of the admissions process.
But we chose it because it was the best school we were in the catchment area for.
If we'd ended up living the other side of town -which we almost did until a sale fell through - he would that gone to a different, non-religious state primary school. Which is just as good.
The focus for government should be on improving the standards of all schools. The religious element is outdated and doesn't reflect the beliefs of the vast majority of parents of young children.
The new bill says hi.
The schools bill: from parental choice to politicians choosing The threat to parental choice and good schools https://www.neilobrien.co.uk/p/the-schools-bill-from-parental-choice ...One of the very biggest (and under-appreciated) changes it brings about is the undoing of that very first reform: the right of popular schools to grow.
Clause 50 of the Bill gives the local authority the ability to object if good schools want to grow - or even if an academy is proposing to keep its numbers the same.
The size of a school’s intake is known as its “Published Admission Number” (PAN).
The government’s impact assessment says of Clause 50 of the Bill:
“Demographic changes mean there is an increase in the number of surplus places in primary schools…. We want the local authority to have more influence over the PANs for schools in their area.
“This would include scenarios where… a school’s PAN is set at a level which creates viability issues for another local school”..
I mean that makes sense so long as local authorities aren't stupid about it.
Keep PANs the same (or increase them) for popular oversubscribed schools.
Decrease PANs for unpopular schools, even if it makes them not viable in the long-term.
Ends up increasing the proportion in the better schools.
Today is the vote in the Bundestag on reforming the debt brake. It's still unclear if it will get the 2 thirds majority needed.
If the Russians agree to the ceasefire Ukraine has accepted it may not be needed for the moment anyway
Nonsense
Putin has said he won't even accept European and NATO peacekeepers, it would likely be Turkish, Brazilian, Indian troops etc enforcing any ceasefire.
It would just be future deterrence NATO nations needed to increase their militaries for
Sorry to be picky but Turkey is in NATO so you could have Australian or New Zealand troops I suppose though I agree more likely are Brazilians, Nigerians or Indians. To be honest, if someone else is paying for them (who?), I imagine some countries would be happy to have their soldiers billeted somewhere else at someone else's expense.
Putin gets on with Erdogan so would probably accept Turkish troops, the Russians already rejected Australian involvement
It is time that the Russians are told to FUCK OFF over what they will and won't accept. The suggestion that they should be able to veto who is president and what nationality of troops are allowed in a sovereign country is beyond outrageous. Every concession is a reward for their aggression. Europe needs to keep all sanctions in place and continue to isolate Russia where possible. More appeasement only encourages the aggressor.
It seems to me the only way Trump can force a quick end to the war that isn't a clear win for Russia is to threaten Putin with a continuation (or even escalation) of US military support for Ukraine if he doesn't make big meaningful concessions. However he can't threaten this with any credibility because he's already made it clear he isn't prepared to stay involved militarily. "You make a deal or we're out" he said to Zelensky in the WH, and for once I think he was speaking the truth. That is his position.
So otoh he wants to get his big moment and live up to his self-image as the great dealmaker, but otoh he can't and won't force Russia to back down from its red lines (being they keep what they've taken and Ukraine gets no Art 5 type protection on the rest). Any deal would therefore be mainly on Russia's terms and can happen only if Ukraine feels forced to sign it due to having no realistic alternative. I think that's what this boils down to now. Will Europe's offer allow Zelensky to genuinely feel that no deal is better than a bad deal?
I think this a pretty good summary of where we are. It's why Europe building up its own military strength is so important, £6bn being cut from benefits should be just the start. Outsourcing our security to America means we have to live with the politics of America, I think a few cuts to the welfare state is a small price to end our obsession with the USA.
We could pop taxes up to French levels, spend 9% of GDP on defence and have military expenditure 3x as high as Russia. The funniest thing about this debate is the rather blatant attempts to shoehorn personal political obsessions into the debate.
My version of this is put fuel duty up to where it should be without the incessant freezes since 2010. That gets you 0.8 per cent of GDP while primarily taxing higher income people, who drive 3x as much as poorer people. And it pushes people off an OPEC controlled commodity onto EVs. Easy. Next.
That massively pushes up inflation and the idea that people can afford to just pop over onto EVs is for the birds. Again it is Robert's comment on elasticity. When you push on something as fundemental as transport, something else gets pushed out in away that not only reduces your return but can actively reverse what you are trying to do.
I'm just using it as an example of how the link between defence and welfare spending is a bit contrived.
But it's weird how fuel duty is always described as inflationary, but other taxes, bus/rail fares etc are not. Fuel is 20% cheaper than it was in 2010, so that's consistent deflationary pressure for higher income households. In terms of elasticities, we've disincentivised switching to EVs throughout that period as a result.
America will descend into some kind of wild west anarchy unless they can collectively reinstate the rule of law and government and individual respect of it rapidly.
Once something like that is gone, it it will near impossible to bring back.
Maybe that is what the anarcho-tech bros want?
It doesn't seem to have occured to these douches that if they get what they want, some sort of North American Russia, that the majority of them will end up dead, in prison, or in exile, as the really nasty ones play ball with the Czar to come out on top.
Jeremy Hunt, the former Tory health secretary, said that potentially this announcement could lead to “real transformation”. He told Streeting:
Can I commend the boldness of today’s announcement. If the NHS is going to be turned around, it’s going to need radical reforms.
If the result of today is to replace bureaucratic over-centralisation with political over-centralisation, it will fail. But if what happens today is that we move to the decentralised model that we have for police and for schools, it could be the start of a real transformation.
Hunt basically saying Lansley was an idiot with a stupid and fixated idea?
The latest Trump/Thiel plan seems to be eliminate all taxes for anyone earning less than 150,000 dollars a year, and then to replace the lost income with tariffs.
Unstupid question: would that work? I don't mean is it a good idea or a bad idea, I mean is it feasible? Would the sums add up?
No.
Do you remember all those people saying "if we just imposed a 1% tax on all share transactions, we could fund everything". It was a big cause celebre in left wing circles post the GFC. And it was, of course, rubbish because it assumed that volumes of share trading would remain the same after the imposition of the tax.
There is the same issue here.
Because if you impose swingeing (say 100%) taxes on imports, then you have a lot less imports*...
And if you have a lot less imports, then you don't have a lot of imports to tax.
So, like with the Tobin tax, it's based on the idea that there is no elasticity involved.
* You might think the "lot less imports" would mean that you would be doing a lot better. But that is by no means clear either: all those industries you have that rely on components from abroad, for example, would be utterly decimated.
But if you have a more reasonable rate (say 25%), then the economy just rebalances around that new reality. It's a structural change, not a magic money tree.
The question is whether you can replace income tax on all people with incomes below $150,000 with tariffs.
And the answer is no, because a 25% tariff wouldn't raise enough money, unless US government spending was absolutely slashed.
I think they are aiming for cuts of 20% in US Govt spending.
Which will put it all on State Income Tax, perhaps.
With the problem that Musk has reportedly told them to shred records, and they are trying to keep things secret.
US district judge Tanya Chutkan’s order forces Musk to produce documents related to Doge’s activities as part of a lawsuit brought by 14 Democratic state attorneys general that alleges Musk violated the constitution by wielding powers that only Senate-confirmed officials should possess.
Chutkan said in her 14-page decision that she was allowing the state attorneys general to obtain documents from Musk to clarify the scope of his authority, which would inform whether he has been operating unconstitutionally to the extent that Doge’s activities should be halted)
Hang 'em High.
You know, I don't even oppose a reduction in government spending. In general, the government should spend as little as possible.
But at the same time, it's important to understand where the government spends its money.
And the answer is that Interest Expense, Defense, Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid and Veterans Affairs (basically health care for vets) is the vast bulk of spending.
The US government - like all developed world countries - can fundamentally change how much money it spends, but to do so, it needs to reduce spending on older people. Having the conversation would be honest, and is probably necessary.
Instead, the US government is letting go of air traffic controllers and park rangers to save pennies.
I don't think that's entirely true. They are budgeting for very large cuts in Medicare and veterans' healthcare, but haven't directly admitted that's the intention.
The latest Trump/Thiel plan seems to be eliminate all taxes for anyone earning less than 150,000 dollars a year, and then to replace the lost income with tariffs.
Unstupid question: would that work? I don't mean is it a good idea or a bad idea, I mean is it feasible? Would the sums add up?
No.
Do you remember all those people saying "if we just imposed a 1% tax on all share transactions, we could fund everything". It was a big cause celebre in left wing circles post the GFC. And it was, of course, rubbish because it assumed that volumes of share trading would remain the same after the imposition of the tax.
There is the same issue here.
Because if you impose swingeing (say 100%) taxes on imports, then you have a lot less imports*...
And if you have a lot less imports, then you don't have a lot of imports to tax.
So, like with the Tobin tax, it's based on the idea that there is no elasticity involved.
* You might think the "lot less imports" would mean that you would be doing a lot better. But that is by no means clear either: all those industries you have that rely on components from abroad, for example, would be utterly decimated.
But if you have a more reasonable rate (say 25%), then the economy just rebalances around that new reality. It's a structural change, not a magic money tree.
The question is whether you can replace income tax on all people with incomes below $150,000 with tariffs.
And the answer is no, because a 25% tariff wouldn't raise enough money, unless US government spending was absolutely slashed.
I think they are aiming for cuts of 20% in US Govt spending.
Which will put it all on State Income Tax, perhaps.
With the problem that Musk has reportedly told them to shred records, and they are trying to keep things secret.
US district judge Tanya Chutkan’s order forces Musk to produce documents related to Doge’s activities as part of a lawsuit brought by 14 Democratic state attorneys general that alleges Musk violated the constitution by wielding powers that only Senate-confirmed officials should possess.
Chutkan said in her 14-page decision that she was allowing the state attorneys general to obtain documents from Musk to clarify the scope of his authority, which would inform whether he has been operating unconstitutionally to the extent that Doge’s activities should be halted)
Hang 'em High.
America will descend into some kind of wild west anarchy unless they can collectively reinstate the rule of law and government and individual respect of it rapidly.
Yet whenever you read anything in depth about almost any particular period of US history, it always seems like Wild West anarchy. And not just in the west.
America will descend into some kind of wild west anarchy unless they can collectively reinstate the rule of law and government and individual respect of it rapidly.
Once something like that is gone, it it will near impossible to bring back.
Maybe that is what the anarcho-tech bros want?
It doesn't seem to have occured to these douches that if they get what they want, some sort of North American Russia, that the majority of them will end up dead, in prison, or in exile, as the really nasty ones play ball with the Czar to come out on top.
Yep.
I guess it is the old human story in that they believe it will always be someone else who ends up at the show trials and the gulags and not them. It is never going to be them or their type until suddenly it is.
Jeremy Hunt, the former Tory health secretary, said that potentially this announcement could lead to “real transformation”. He told Streeting:
Can I commend the boldness of today’s announcement. If the NHS is going to be turned around, it’s going to need radical reforms.
If the result of today is to replace bureaucratic over-centralisation with political over-centralisation, it will fail. But if what happens today is that we move to the decentralised model that we have for police and for schools, it could be the start of a real transformation.
It won't, it will just increase admin in the Dept of Health and NHS instead as was the case before NHS England
Jeremy Hunt, the former Tory health secretary, said that potentially this announcement could lead to “real transformation”. He told Streeting:
Can I commend the boldness of today’s announcement. If the NHS is going to be turned around, it’s going to need radical reforms.
If the result of today is to replace bureaucratic over-centralisation with political over-centralisation, it will fail. But if what happens today is that we move to the decentralised model that we have for police and for schools, it could be the start of a real transformation.
I suspect he's not going to like the Schools Bill, then.
Listening to Birbelsingh on Nick Ferrari. This woman is out of control. I recommend anyone with interest in schools policy to listen to this on Global Player. I was shocked. Those of a more conservative point of view will be cheered.
She's flavour of the month with the Christian Nationalists because she banned prayer rituals in school policy (no religious groups such as a Christian Union) then won a court case defending it against a challenge by Muslim pupil. I'll have a listen to Nick Ferrari. As far as I have tracked her, she seems consistent since her first speech to the Conservative Party conference 15 or 16 years ago when she was identified; I'm not sure of the process by which she was identified as Miss Snuffy.
(Religion in Public Life has been an area of interest of mine for decades, as you know.)
That lets the CNats (and GBNews etc) pretend that it's about Muslims, and reflects desire to stir things up, when it was more like a victory for "secular" school cultures excluding religion, which is one groups like the National Secular Society have been on for decades. @BartholomewRoberts may be more up to date than me on that side of it.
It was a somewhat complex argument, because iirc it was about prayer ritual in the playground as effectively a form of protest when her school refused to provide a prayer room for pupils.
The self-described "freedom of XYZ" groups take the other side than they do on "silent prayer" (ie intimidation and interference) outside abortion clinics - for some reason .
It’s interesting to see the reactions.
@Mexicanpete is shocked because it seems like restricting the *requirements* of a minority.
The GBNews take it as anti-Muslim.
Most people don’t want more religion in our schools - even the weak-tea-and-biscuits form of Christianity.
They do when the only outstanding state primary or secondary school in their area is a C of E or Roman Catholic school.
Then you get parents queuing round the block to get into the church congregation on a Sunday for the months leading up to the decision on who gets places so they can get the Vicar's reference
That's 'they have to put up with it' rather than 'want it', on your own testimony.
No they want it as it offers choice from the bog standard comp or academy down the road
No, look at your own language and logic. They only want religious schools when there is no alternative. Ergo they don't want the religion bit.
My own language is clear, as a Conservative I want as many private schools, grammar schools, religious schools, free schools, academies etc as possible ie offer a real alternative. As do parents who choose such schools.
You as a statist socialist want to give consumers one bog standard comp option in education as you dislike choice elsewhere
The illusion of choice.
My son's state primary school is non-religious until year 2, then (mildly) C of E from years 3-6. There is no religious element of the admissions process.
But we chose it because it was the best school we were in the catchment area for.
If we'd ended up living the other side of town -which we almost did until a sale fell through - he would that gone to a different, non-religious state primary school. Which is just as good.
The focus for government should be on improving the standards of all schools. The religious element is outdated and doesn't reflect the beliefs of the vast majority of parents of young children.
Just the usual one size fits all rubbish from secular leftists like you.
Nope, we need more choice and more variety of schools including more good faith schools, you could afford to buy into the catchment area of a good school, many in poorer areas can't
I'm no socialist.
State schools of all descriptions are only financially viable if at or close to full attendance per year.
That means there cannot be more significantly more school places in a given area than there are pupils. Unless you want government spending on schools to increase significantly.
In towns and cities there will be some choice due to population density. But that choice doesn't need to include faith schools. Admissions based on parental faith should be in the private sector only.
That is, incidentally, a liberal principle and not a socialist one.
Yes you are, you are a leftist and a liberal only in the sense of being a liberal secular social democrat.
You want to deny parents choice of state faith schools, free schools, no doubt fully support VAT on private schools and want to close grammar schools. Exactly the type of person we rightwing conservatives must oppose vigorously
Listening to Birbelsingh on Nick Ferrari. This woman is out of control. I recommend anyone with interest in schools policy to listen to this on Global Player. I was shocked. Those of a more conservative point of view will be cheered.
She's flavour of the month with the Christian Nationalists because she banned prayer rituals in school policy (no religious groups such as a Christian Union) then won a court case defending it against a challenge by Muslim pupil. I'll have a listen to Nick Ferrari. As far as I have tracked her, she seems consistent since her first speech to the Conservative Party conference 15 or 16 years ago when she was identified; I'm not sure of the process by which she was identified as Miss Snuffy.
(Religion in Public Life has been an area of interest of mine for decades, as you know.)
That lets the CNats (and GBNews etc) pretend that it's about Muslims, and reflects desire to stir things up, when it was more like a victory for "secular" school cultures excluding religion, which is one groups like the National Secular Society have been on for decades. @BartholomewRoberts may be more up to date than me on that side of it.
It was a somewhat complex argument, because iirc it was about prayer ritual in the playground as effectively a form of protest when her school refused to provide a prayer room for pupils.
The self-described "freedom of XYZ" groups take the other side than they do on "silent prayer" (ie intimidation and interference) outside abortion clinics - for some reason .
It’s interesting to see the reactions.
@Mexicanpete is shocked because it seems like restricting the *requirements* of a minority.
The GBNews take it as anti-Muslim.
Most people don’t want more religion in our schools - even the weak-tea-and-biscuits form of Christianity.
They do when the only outstanding state primary or secondary school in their area is a C of E or Roman Catholic school.
Then you get parents queuing round the block to get into the church congregation on a Sunday for the months leading up to the decision on who gets places so they can get the Vicar's reference
That's 'they have to put up with it' rather than 'want it', on your own testimony.
No they want it as it offers choice from the bog standard comp or academy down the road
No, look at your own language and logic. They only want religious schools when there is no alternative. Ergo they don't want the religion bit.
My own language is clear, as a Conservative I want as many private schools, grammar schools, religious schools, free schools, academies etc as possible ie offer a real alternative. As do parents who choose such schools.
You as a statist socialist want to give consumers one bog standard comp option in education as you dislike choice elsewhere
The illusion of choice.
My son's state primary school is non-religious until year 2, then (mildly) C of E from years 3-6. There is no religious element of the admissions process.
But we chose it because it was the best school we were in the catchment area for.
If we'd ended up living the other side of town -which we almost did until a sale fell through - he would that gone to a different, non-religious state primary school. Which is just as good.
The focus for government should be on improving the standards of all schools. The religious element is outdated and doesn't reflect the beliefs of the vast majority of parents of young children.
The new bill says hi.
The schools bill: from parental choice to politicians choosing The threat to parental choice and good schools https://www.neilobrien.co.uk/p/the-schools-bill-from-parental-choice ...One of the very biggest (and under-appreciated) changes it brings about is the undoing of that very first reform: the right of popular schools to grow.
Clause 50 of the Bill gives the local authority the ability to object if good schools want to grow - or even if an academy is proposing to keep its numbers the same.
The size of a school’s intake is known as its “Published Admission Number” (PAN).
The government’s impact assessment says of Clause 50 of the Bill:
“Demographic changes mean there is an increase in the number of surplus places in primary schools…. We want the local authority to have more influence over the PANs for schools in their area.
“This would include scenarios where… a school’s PAN is set at a level which creates viability issues for another local school”..
I mean that makes sense so long as local authorities aren't stupid about it.
Keep PANs the same (or increase them) for popular oversubscribed schools.
Decrease PANs for unpopular schools, even if it makes them not viable in the long-term.
Ends up increasing the proportion in the better schools.
I'm not an expert on the bill, but from my (limited) knowledge of a couple of local authorities, and their local schools, I wouldn't want to bet a huge amount on that.
It might work; it might not. One problem is the huge erosion of local authority capacity to manage education, over the last couple of decades.
Anne Applebaum @anneapplebaum.bsky.social · 49m Surprise! The Russians, who have repeatedly said they don't want a ceasefire, have once again said they don't want a ceasefire
SFAICS the purpose of the process is not, sadly, a cease fire, but to give Trump's cohort a chance to come in on the same side as the rest of us by placing the ball in Russia's court and making them respond to the proposal in a way which is embarrassing for the pro Putin lobby in the west to sustain.
This isn't about which side Russia is on, it's about which side USA is on.
That's right. A no from Russia gives Trump the chance to say to Putin, "So it's like that, is it? Ok we're restarting and upping our military support for Ukraine. Give me a call when you're ready for peace. Oh and when you do pick up the phone, wear a suit."
He's supposed to be strong and unpredictable after all.
The European Union, one of the most hostile and abusive taxing and tariffing authorities in the World, which was formed for the sole purpose of taking advantage of the United States, has just put a nasty 50% Tariff on Whisky. If this Tariff is not removed immediately, the U.S. will shortly place a 200% Tariff on all WINES, CHAMPAGNES, & ALCOHOLIC PRODUCTS COMING OUT OF FRANCE AND OTHER E.U. REPRESENTED COUNTRIES. This will be great for the Wine and Champagne businesses in the U.S.
No way the EU backs down. Further retaliatory tariffs will be put in place.
Unfortunately I suspect the lead time for Scotland to increase its whisky production as substitution for bourbon is rather long...
Why bother? Bourbon is rubbish and seems to always end up diluted with soft drinks, You can do that Bells, or even a cheap supermarket blend.
Bourbon isn’t all rubbish. John Daniel’s maybe. There are plenty of brands that aren’t.
Listening to Birbelsingh on Nick Ferrari. This woman is out of control. I recommend anyone with interest in schools policy to listen to this on Global Player. I was shocked. Those of a more conservative point of view will be cheered.
She's flavour of the month with the Christian Nationalists because she banned prayer rituals in school policy (no religious groups such as a Christian Union) then won a court case defending it against a challenge by Muslim pupil. I'll have a listen to Nick Ferrari. As far as I have tracked her, she seems consistent since her first speech to the Conservative Party conference 15 or 16 years ago when she was identified; I'm not sure of the process by which she was identified as Miss Snuffy.
(Religion in Public Life has been an area of interest of mine for decades, as you know.)
That lets the CNats (and GBNews etc) pretend that it's about Muslims, and reflects desire to stir things up, when it was more like a victory for "secular" school cultures excluding religion, which is one groups like the National Secular Society have been on for decades. @BartholomewRoberts may be more up to date than me on that side of it.
It was a somewhat complex argument, because iirc it was about prayer ritual in the playground as effectively a form of protest when her school refused to provide a prayer room for pupils.
The self-described "freedom of XYZ" groups take the other side than they do on "silent prayer" (ie intimidation and interference) outside abortion clinics - for some reason .
It’s interesting to see the reactions.
@Mexicanpete is shocked because it seems like restricting the *requirements* of a minority.
The GBNews take it as anti-Muslim.
Most people don’t want more religion in our schools - even the weak-tea-and-biscuits form of Christianity.
They do when the only outstanding state primary or secondary school in their area is a C of E or Roman Catholic school.
Then you get parents queuing round the block to get into the church congregation on a Sunday for the months leading up to the decision on who gets places so they can get the Vicar's reference
That's 'they have to put up with it' rather than 'want it', on your own testimony.
No they want it as it offers choice from the bog standard comp or academy down the road
No, look at your own language and logic. They only want religious schools when there is no alternative. Ergo they don't want the religion bit.
My own language is clear, as a Conservative I want as many private schools, grammar schools, religious schools, free schools, academies etc as possible ie offer a real alternative. As do parents who choose such schools.
You as a statist socialist want to give consumers one bog standard comp option in education as you dislike choice elsewhere
The illusion of choice.
My son's state primary school is non-religious until year 2, then (mildly) C of E from years 3-6. There is no religious element of the admissions process.
But we chose it because it was the best school we were in the catchment area for.
If we'd ended up living the other side of town -which we almost did until a sale fell through - he would that gone to a different, non-religious state primary school. Which is just as good.
The focus for government should be on improving the standards of all schools. The religious element is outdated and doesn't reflect the beliefs of the vast majority of parents of young children.
Just the usual one size fits all rubbish from secular leftists like you.
Nope, we need more choice and more variety of schools including more good faith schools, you could afford to buy into the catchment area of a good school, many in poorer areas can't
I'm no socialist.
State schools of all descriptions are only financially viable if at or close to full attendance per year.
That means there cannot be more significantly more school places in a given area than there are pupils. Unless you want government spending on schools to increase significantly.
In towns and cities there will be some choice due to population density. But that choice doesn't need to include faith schools. Admissions based on parental faith should be in the private sector only.
That is, incidentally, a liberal principle and not a socialist one.
Coming in Halfway through so may get the wrong end of the stick…
The issue is there are very good faith schools that provide an excellent (and not very religious) education. Some LEAs dislike them because they are independent of the LEA. The risk is by giving the LEA control of numbers is it can be used to squeeze these good schools to expand / support weaker providers that are controlled by the LEA.
Surely it’s a basic principle that the good schools should be enabled to grow their pupil headcount?
Listening to Birbelsingh on Nick Ferrari. This woman is out of control. I recommend anyone with interest in schools policy to listen to this on Global Player. I was shocked. Those of a more conservative point of view will be cheered.
Picking up the earlier Birbalsingh / Miss Snuffy headmistress thread, I think this is her on Nick Ferrari this morning. Recording down the page.
To me all her pronouncements on education have a good deal of sense in them, even if there is a need for flexibibility to circumstances.
I think she undermines her case when she strays into political rhetoric for a short period, branding one of Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson's proposals "Marxist", and perhaps somewhat over-defends rapid entry of non-teacher-trained professionals into schools to be trained on the job.
That's like clickbait. She's better than that, and needs to make a distinctive case based on practicalities and experience.
The European Union, one of the most hostile and abusive taxing and tariffing authorities in the World, which was formed for the sole purpose of taking advantage of the United States, has just put a nasty 50% Tariff on Whisky. If this Tariff is not removed immediately, the U.S. will shortly place a 200% Tariff on all WINES, CHAMPAGNES, & ALCOHOLIC PRODUCTS COMING OUT OF FRANCE AND OTHER E.U. REPRESENTED COUNTRIES. This will be great for the Wine and Champagne businesses in the U.S.
There is no US Champagne business. And I thought they spelled whisky as "whiskey" in the US? Is this Trump's Scottish heritage showing through?
A great opportunity for English Sparkling Wine if someone reminds Mr Chump that we are not in the EU.
@bondegezou taking another L today with the government abolishing NHS management and bureaucracy after his protestations for months that it is impossible and we need more admin staff in the NHS and more managers to suck the blood out of it.
Obviously you're delighted, but I can't see how abolishing NHS England removes the need for its various functions. Be interesting if they can actually reduce overall headcount.
What I'm confused about is who is actually doing Public Health in England now? That's by far the most important thing the NHS needs to fix in terms of obesity, diabetes etc.
The Streeting line is that executive functions were duplicated between NHS England and the Dept of Health. Those functions will be absorbed into the Dept of Health.
It can't take me long to become an armchair PB expert on the overlapping branches of NHS organisation and how to sort them out, starting from my position of complete indifference and ignorance can it?
I find the allocation of responsibility (along with the means of funding) for stuff like public health absolutely baffling, and am happy to admit it.
I suspect a lot of the public didn't even know Public Health England no longer existed.
The idea was that local government would have better local knowledge and ties into local communities than the NHS, and that there was benefit in integrating public health activity with other council functions like social care, housing, and environmental health.
The Globalist Wall Street Journal has no idea what they are doing or saying. They are owned by the polluted thinking of the European Union, which was formed for the primary purpose of "screwing" the United States of America. Their (WSJ!) thinking is antiquated and weak, and very bad for the USA. But have no fear, we will WIN on everything!!! Egg prices are down, oil is down, interest rates are down, and TARIFF RELATED MONEY IS POURING INTO THE UNITED STATES. "The only thing you have to fear, is fear itself!"
The European Union, one of the most hostile and abusive taxing and tariffing authorities in the World, which was formed for the sole purpose of taking advantage of the United States, has just put a nasty 50% Tariff on Whisky. If this Tariff is not removed immediately, the U.S. will shortly place a 200% Tariff on all WINES, CHAMPAGNES, & ALCOHOLIC PRODUCTS COMING OUT OF FRANCE AND OTHER E.U. REPRESENTED COUNTRIES. This will be great for the Wine and Champagne businesses in the U.S.
No way the EU backs down. Further retaliatory tariffs will be put in place.
Unfortunately I suspect the lead time for Scotland to increase its whisky production as substitution for bourbon is rather long...
Why bother? Bourbon is rubbish and seems to always end up diluted with soft drinks, You can do that Bells, or even a cheap supermarket blend.
Not all Bourbon is. Its just most people think they have experienced it because they have had Jack Daniels or Southern Comfort.
Listening to Birbelsingh on Nick Ferrari. This woman is out of control. I recommend anyone with interest in schools policy to listen to this on Global Player. I was shocked. Those of a more conservative point of view will be cheered.
She's flavour of the month with the Christian Nationalists because she banned prayer rituals in school policy (no religious groups such as a Christian Union) then won a court case defending it against a challenge by Muslim pupil. I'll have a listen to Nick Ferrari. As far as I have tracked her, she seems consistent since her first speech to the Conservative Party conference 15 or 16 years ago when she was identified; I'm not sure of the process by which she was identified as Miss Snuffy.
(Religion in Public Life has been an area of interest of mine for decades, as you know.)
That lets the CNats (and GBNews etc) pretend that it's about Muslims, and reflects desire to stir things up, when it was more like a victory for "secular" school cultures excluding religion, which is one groups like the National Secular Society have been on for decades. @BartholomewRoberts may be more up to date than me on that side of it.
It was a somewhat complex argument, because iirc it was about prayer ritual in the playground as effectively a form of protest when her school refused to provide a prayer room for pupils.
The self-described "freedom of XYZ" groups take the other side than they do on "silent prayer" (ie intimidation and interference) outside abortion clinics - for some reason .
It’s interesting to see the reactions.
@Mexicanpete is shocked because it seems like restricting the *requirements* of a minority.
The GBNews take it as anti-Muslim.
Most people don’t want more religion in our schools - even the weak-tea-and-biscuits form of Christianity.
They do when the only outstanding state primary or secondary school in their area is a C of E or Roman Catholic school.
Then you get parents queuing round the block to get into the church congregation on a Sunday for the months leading up to the decision on who gets places so they can get the Vicar's reference
That's 'they have to put up with it' rather than 'want it', on your own testimony.
No they want it as it offers choice from the bog standard comp or academy down the road
No, look at your own language and logic. They only want religious schools when there is no alternative. Ergo they don't want the religion bit.
My own language is clear, as a Conservative I want as many private schools, grammar schools, religious schools, free schools, academies etc as possible ie offer a real alternative. As do parents who choose such schools.
You as a statist socialist want to give consumers one bog standard comp option in education as you dislike choice elsewhere
I'm, not a statistr socialist - you are, because you want to impose doctrine on children at the public expense.
You said
"They do when the only outstanding state primary or secondary school in their area is a C of E or Roman Catholic school."
That's crystal clear language. Parents only go to a sectarian school when the others are defective, not because of the religion.
The European Union, one of the most hostile and abusive taxing and tariffing authorities in the World, which was formed for the sole purpose of taking advantage of the United States, has just put a nasty 50% Tariff on Whisky. If this Tariff is not removed immediately, the U.S. will shortly place a 200% Tariff on all WINES, CHAMPAGNES, & ALCOHOLIC PRODUCTS COMING OUT OF FRANCE AND OTHER E.U. REPRESENTED COUNTRIES. This will be great for the Wine and Champagne businesses in the U.S.
No way the EU backs down. Further retaliatory tariffs will be put in place.
Unfortunately I suspect the lead time for Scotland to increase its whisky production as substitution for bourbon is rather long...
Why bother? Bourbon is rubbish and seems to always end up diluted with soft drinks, You can do that Bells, or even a cheap supermarket blend.
Bourbon isn’t all rubbish. John Daniel’s maybe. There are plenty of brands that aren’t.
@bondegezou taking another L today with the government abolishing NHS management and bureaucracy after his protestations for months that it is impossible and we need more admin staff in the NHS and more managers to suck the blood out of it.
Obviously you're delighted, but I can't see how abolishing NHS England removes the need for its various functions. Be interesting if they can actually reduce overall headcount.
What I'm confused about is who is actually doing Public Health in England now? That's by far the most important thing the NHS needs to fix in terms of obesity, diabetes etc.
The Streeting line is that executive functions were duplicated between NHS England and the Dept of Health. Those functions will be absorbed into the Dept of Health.
It can't take me long to become an armchair PB expert on the overlapping branches of NHS organisation and how to sort them out, starting from my position of complete indifference and ignorance can it?
I find the allocation of responsibility (along with the means of funding) for stuff like public health absolutely baffling, and am happy to admit it.
I suspect a lot of the public didn't even know Public Health England no longer existed.
The idea was that local government would have better local knowledge and ties into local communities than the NHS, and that there was benefit in integrating public health activity with other council functions like social care, housing, and environmental health.
I get the vibe, but the practical detail is entirely opaque to me.
Listening to Birbelsingh on Nick Ferrari. This woman is out of control. I recommend anyone with interest in schools policy to listen to this on Global Player. I was shocked. Those of a more conservative point of view will be cheered.
She's flavour of the month with the Christian Nationalists because she banned prayer rituals in school policy (no religious groups such as a Christian Union) then won a court case defending it against a challenge by Muslim pupil. I'll have a listen to Nick Ferrari. As far as I have tracked her, she seems consistent since her first speech to the Conservative Party conference 15 or 16 years ago when she was identified; I'm not sure of the process by which she was identified as Miss Snuffy.
(Religion in Public Life has been an area of interest of mine for decades, as you know.)
That lets the CNats (and GBNews etc) pretend that it's about Muslims, and reflects desire to stir things up, when it was more like a victory for "secular" school cultures excluding religion, which is one groups like the National Secular Society have been on for decades. @BartholomewRoberts may be more up to date than me on that side of it.
It was a somewhat complex argument, because iirc it was about prayer ritual in the playground as effectively a form of protest when her school refused to provide a prayer room for pupils.
The self-described "freedom of XYZ" groups take the other side than they do on "silent prayer" (ie intimidation and interference) outside abortion clinics - for some reason .
It’s interesting to see the reactions.
@Mexicanpete is shocked because it seems like restricting the *requirements* of a minority.
The GBNews take it as anti-Muslim.
Most people don’t want more religion in our schools - even the weak-tea-and-biscuits form of Christianity.
They do when the only outstanding state primary or secondary school in their area is a C of E or Roman Catholic school.
Then you get parents queuing round the block to get into the church congregation on a Sunday for the months leading up to the decision on who gets places so they can get the Vicar's reference
That's 'they have to put up with it' rather than 'want it', on your own testimony.
No they want it as it offers choice from the bog standard comp or academy down the road
No, look at your own language and logic. They only want religious schools when there is no alternative. Ergo they don't want the religion bit.
My own language is clear, as a Conservative I want as many private schools, grammar schools, religious schools, free schools, academies etc as possible ie offer a real alternative. As do parents who choose such schools.
You as a statist socialist want to give consumers one bog standard comp option in education as you dislike choice elsewhere
The illusion of choice.
My son's state primary school is non-religious until year 2, then (mildly) C of E from years 3-6. There is no religious element of the admissions process.
But we chose it because it was the best school we were in the catchment area for.
If we'd ended up living the other side of town -which we almost did until a sale fell through - he would that gone to a different, non-religious state primary school. Which is just as good.
The focus for government should be on improving the standards of all schools. The religious element is outdated and doesn't reflect the beliefs of the vast majority of parents of young children.
Just the usual one size fits all rubbish from secular leftists like you.
Nope, we need more choice and more variety of schools including more good faith schools, you could afford to buy into the catchment area of a good school, many in poorer areas can't
I'm no socialist.
State schools of all descriptions are only financially viable if at or close to full attendance per year.
That means there cannot be more significantly more school places in a given area than there are pupils. Unless you want government spending on schools to increase significantly.
In towns and cities there will be some choice due to population density. But that choice doesn't need to include faith schools. Admissions based on parental faith should be in the private sector only.
That is, incidentally, a liberal principle and not a socialist one.
Yes, a socialist society would have no place for any private schools, faith or otherwise.
I see the Prime Minister is talking about a "cottage industry of checkers and blockers slowing down delivery for working people".
I'm not 100% sure what he means by that and to whom he is referring. Is he thinking about the legal, financial, contractual and environmental checks you see in Cabinet level reports to local councillors and presumably their equivalent at Civil Service level?
The reason such checks are included are usually statutory based on the requirement of Councils to conform to standing orders which in turn derive from legislative and regulatory requirements agreed by Parliament?
I presume he's also warbling on about planning and all the checks and balances imposed by previous Conservative and Labour Governments to ensure applications met certain criteria.
If he wants to stop the checking, fine. All he has to do is repeal the legislation enforcing the checks. If we don't need to prove if a contractor or another organisation is financially viable, fine. If we no longer need to prove a site for development has any nesting bats or similar, also fine but don't blame those doing the checks you and other MPs imposed.
Very common complaint. Sir Humphrey had a point when he said buruecratic empire building was not always a cause of such things.
The Globalist Wall Street Journal has no idea what they are doing or saying. They are owned by the polluted thinking of the European Union, which was formed for the primary purpose of "screwing" the United States of America. Their (WSJ!) thinking is antiquated and weak, and very bad for the USA. But have no fear, we will WIN on everything!!! Egg prices are down, oil is down, interest rates are down, and TARIFF RELATED MONEY IS POURING INTO THE UNITED STATES. "The only thing you have to fear, is fear itself!"
If you didn't already have enough reasons to not buy a Swastikar...
The Highway Patrol’s investigation into a November Cybertruck crash in Piedmont where three college kids died is finding two very Tesla problems: the vehicle immediately caught fire, and its doors would not open.
Listening to Birbelsingh on Nick Ferrari. This woman is out of control. I recommend anyone with interest in schools policy to listen to this on Global Player. I was shocked. Those of a more conservative point of view will be cheered.
She's flavour of the month with the Christian Nationalists because she banned prayer rituals in school policy (no religious groups such as a Christian Union) then won a court case defending it against a challenge by Muslim pupil. I'll have a listen to Nick Ferrari. As far as I have tracked her, she seems consistent since her first speech to the Conservative Party conference 15 or 16 years ago when she was identified; I'm not sure of the process by which she was identified as Miss Snuffy.
(Religion in Public Life has been an area of interest of mine for decades, as you know.)
That lets the CNats (and GBNews etc) pretend that it's about Muslims, and reflects desire to stir things up, when it was more like a victory for "secular" school cultures excluding religion, which is one groups like the National Secular Society have been on for decades. @BartholomewRoberts may be more up to date than me on that side of it.
It was a somewhat complex argument, because iirc it was about prayer ritual in the playground as effectively a form of protest when her school refused to provide a prayer room for pupils.
The self-described "freedom of XYZ" groups take the other side than they do on "silent prayer" (ie intimidation and interference) outside abortion clinics - for some reason .
It’s interesting to see the reactions.
@Mexicanpete is shocked because it seems like restricting the *requirements* of a minority.
The GBNews take it as anti-Muslim.
Most people don’t want more religion in our schools - even the weak-tea-and-biscuits form of Christianity.
They do when the only outstanding state primary or secondary school in their area is a C of E or Roman Catholic school.
Then you get parents queuing round the block to get into the church congregation on a Sunday for the months leading up to the decision on who gets places so they can get the Vicar's reference
That's 'they have to put up with it' rather than 'want it', on your own testimony.
No they want it as it offers choice from the bog standard comp or academy down the road
No, look at your own language and logic. They only want religious schools when there is no alternative. Ergo they don't want the religion bit.
My own language is clear, as a Conservative I want as many private schools, grammar schools, religious schools, free schools, academies etc as possible ie offer a real alternative. As do parents who choose such schools.
You as a statist socialist want to give consumers one bog standard comp option in education as you dislike choice elsewhere
The illusion of choice.
My son's state primary school is non-religious until year 2, then (mildly) C of E from years 3-6. There is no religious element of the admissions process.
But we chose it because it was the best school we were in the catchment area for.
If we'd ended up living the other side of town -which we almost did until a sale fell through - he would that gone to a different, non-religious state primary school. Which is just as good.
The focus for government should be on improving the standards of all schools. The religious element is outdated and doesn't reflect the beliefs of the vast majority of parents of young children.
Just the usual one size fits all rubbish from secular leftists like you.
Nope, we need more choice and more variety of schools including more good faith schools, you could afford to buy into the catchment area of a good school, many in poorer areas can't
I'm no socialist.
State schools of all descriptions are only financially viable if at or close to full attendance per year.
That means there cannot be more significantly more school places in a given area than there are pupils. Unless you want government spending on schools to increase significantly.
In towns and cities there will be some choice due to population density. But that choice doesn't need to include faith schools. Admissions based on parental faith should be in the private sector only.
That is, incidentally, a liberal principle and not a socialist one.
Surely it’s a basic principle that the good schools should be enabled to grow their pupil headcount?
I agree the best schools should increase headcount, but I can see there needs to be an independent arbiter as to which schools increase/maintain and which decrease. Otherwise you end up in a prisoners dilemma situation where every school tries to have more places than they can fill and costs go up.
The principle should be oversubscribed schools get to increase or maintain, unsubscribed schools are required to decrease. Perhaps the legislation should make this clear if local authorities are going to do something stupid.
The religious school part is I opposed any religious based entry criteria to a state funded school. I don't particularly care if run by local authorities, free schools or church run so long as that criteria is met.
The Globalist Wall Street Journal has no idea what they are doing or saying. They are owned by the polluted thinking of the European Union, which was formed for the primary purpose of "screwing" the United States of America. Their (WSJ!) thinking is antiquated and weak, and very bad for the USA. But have no fear, we will WIN on everything!!! Egg prices are down, oil is down, interest rates are down, and TARIFF RELATED MONEY IS POURING INTO THE UNITED STATES. "The only thing you have to fear, is fear itself!"
Fox News host Laura Ingraham advised her viewers to “ignore” the tumbling stock market and “sky is falling reports in the regime press,” because she claims Trump is “good for business.”
Listening to Birbelsingh on Nick Ferrari. This woman is out of control. I recommend anyone with interest in schools policy to listen to this on Global Player. I was shocked. Those of a more conservative point of view will be cheered.
She's flavour of the month with the Christian Nationalists because she banned prayer rituals in school policy (no religious groups such as a Christian Union) then won a court case defending it against a challenge by Muslim pupil. I'll have a listen to Nick Ferrari. As far as I have tracked her, she seems consistent since her first speech to the Conservative Party conference 15 or 16 years ago when she was identified; I'm not sure of the process by which she was identified as Miss Snuffy.
(Religion in Public Life has been an area of interest of mine for decades, as you know.)
That lets the CNats (and GBNews etc) pretend that it's about Muslims, and reflects desire to stir things up, when it was more like a victory for "secular" school cultures excluding religion, which is one groups like the National Secular Society have been on for decades. @BartholomewRoberts may be more up to date than me on that side of it.
It was a somewhat complex argument, because iirc it was about prayer ritual in the playground as effectively a form of protest when her school refused to provide a prayer room for pupils.
The self-described "freedom of XYZ" groups take the other side than they do on "silent prayer" (ie intimidation and interference) outside abortion clinics - for some reason .
It’s interesting to see the reactions.
@Mexicanpete is shocked because it seems like restricting the *requirements* of a minority.
The GBNews take it as anti-Muslim.
Most people don’t want more religion in our schools - even the weak-tea-and-biscuits form of Christianity.
They do when the only outstanding state primary or secondary school in their area is a C of E or Roman Catholic school.
Then you get parents queuing round the block to get into the church congregation on a Sunday for the months leading up to the decision on who gets places so they can get the Vicar's reference
That's 'they have to put up with it' rather than 'want it', on your own testimony.
No they want it as it offers choice from the bog standard comp or academy down the road
No, look at your own language and logic. They only want religious schools when there is no alternative. Ergo they don't want the religion bit.
My own language is clear, as a Conservative I want as many private schools, grammar schools, religious schools, free schools, academies etc as possible ie offer a real alternative. As do parents who choose such schools.
You as a statist socialist want to give consumers one bog standard comp option in education as you dislike choice elsewhere
The illusion of choice.
My son's state primary school is non-religious until year 2, then (mildly) C of E from years 3-6. There is no religious element of the admissions process.
But we chose it because it was the best school we were in the catchment area for.
If we'd ended up living the other side of town -which we almost did until a sale fell through - he would that gone to a different, non-religious state primary school. Which is just as good.
The focus for government should be on improving the standards of all schools. The religious element is outdated and doesn't reflect the beliefs of the vast majority of parents of young children.
Just the usual one size fits all rubbish from secular leftists like you.
Nope, we need more choice and more variety of schools including more good faith schools, you could afford to buy into the catchment area of a good school, many in poorer areas can't
I'm no socialist.
State schools of all descriptions are only financially viable if at or close to full attendance per year.
That means there cannot be more significantly more school places in a given area than there are pupils. Unless you want government spending on schools to increase significantly.
In towns and cities there will be some choice due to population density. But that choice doesn't need to include faith schools. Admissions based on parental faith should be in the private sector only.
That is, incidentally, a liberal principle and not a socialist one.
Coming in Halfway through so may get the wrong end of the stick…
The issue is there are very good faith schools that provide an excellent (and not very religious) education. Some LEAs dislike them because they are independent of the LEA. The risk is by giving the LEA control of numbers is it can be used to squeeze these good schools to expand / support weaker providers that are controlled by the LEA.
Surely it’s a basic principle that the good schools should be enabled to grow their pupil headcount?
Biggest issue with schools was Gove allowing "free schools" total freedom as to their location not where there was need for additional places. Result, some schools becoming unviable as their intake became shared with the free school set up round the corner.
"Good schools" will grow their headcount only as far as they can cream off pupils with high attainment. Case in point the CofE primary school in our LEA, which had a very large site but refused to increase intake for the primary school bulge a few years ago. The council had to squeeze all the additional intake into the LEA controlled schools.
The Globalist Wall Street Journal has no idea what they are doing or saying. They are owned by the polluted thinking of the European Union, which was formed for the primary purpose of "screwing" the United States of America. Their (WSJ!) thinking is antiquated and weak, and very bad for the USA. But have no fear, we will WIN on everything!!! Egg prices are down, oil is down, interest rates are down, and TARIFF RELATED MONEY IS POURING INTO THE UNITED STATES. "The only thing you have to fear, is fear itself!"
Comments
Quite possibly.
Unfortunately I suspect the lead time for Scotland to increase its whisky production as substitution for bourbon is rather long...
WTO is not being pursued yet because of snail's pace (and Canada lost some cases last time round).
He believes in power, not, law. We are about to find out what happens.
And I thought they spelled whisky as "whiskey" in the US? Is this Trump's Scottish heritage showing through?
My party has identified that the current system is broken. I want us to go much much further. You can't fix the system by cutting bits of it away - we need a new system.
The Liberal Party brought us the welfare state - both its earlier WWI version and then the Beveridge report to create the modern version still with us today. We need a 21st Century Beveridge Report...
You as a statist socialist want to give consumers one bog standard comp option in education as you dislike choice elsewhere
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/5388
(The term was supposed to be banned in the Treaty of Versailles, but America didn't sign that in the end...)
Shelob LLC
Orc Original Cookie Company
Gollum Growth Investments
Black Rider Inc
Balrog Personal Security PLC
The Health Secretary up to 10,000 roles would be scrapped with plans to reduce the overall workforce across both organisations by 50 per cent.
Which will put it all on State Income Tax, perhaps.
With the problem that Musk has reportedly told them to shred records, and they are trying to keep things secret.
(Which is illegal under law and has prompted one of the more important Judicial Rulings - there are others around eg FOIA requests to DOGE:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/13/elon-musk-doge-court-ruling-records
US district judge Tanya Chutkan’s order forces Musk to produce documents related to Doge’s activities as part of a lawsuit brought by 14 Democratic state attorneys general that alleges Musk violated the constitution by wielding powers that only Senate-confirmed officials should possess.
Chutkan said in her 14-page decision that she was allowing the state attorneys general to obtain documents from Musk to clarify the scope of his authority, which would inform whether he has been operating unconstitutionally to the extent that Doge’s activities should be halted)
Hang 'em High.
https://david-brin.medium.com/heinleins-future-history-coming-true-before-our-eyes-10356a95556a
For those who don’t know, Brin is big in SF
Anne Applebaum @anneapplebaum.bsky.social
·
49m
Surprise! The Russians, who have repeatedly said they don't want a ceasefire, have once again said they don't want a ceasefire
https://bsky.app/profile/anneapplebaum.bsky.social/post/3lkazc7hdkk2t
I'd tend to assume without evidence to the contrary that public health provision will continue under UKHSA and OHID ?
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/location-of-public-health-england-phe-functions-from-1-october-2021/public-health-system-reforms-location-of-public-health-england-functions-from-1-october
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_for_Health_Improvement_and_Disparities
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_Health_Security_Agency
Though to be honest, I have no real idea.
An immigration tribunal ruled that Samuel Frimpong should be allowed to come back to Britain, as deporting him was an “unjustifiable interference” with his rights to a family life under article eight of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
The father of two was deported in 2013 to Ghana after four months in jail for using a faked document to try to “circumvent” the Home Office’s leave to remain rules.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/03/13/ghanaian-fraudster-deported-from-uk-allowed-to-return/
(Asking for Zathras. No, not Zathras. Zathras. Obviously Zathras wouldn’t want a ceasefire but Zathras would)
My son's state primary school is non-religious until year 2, then (mildly) C of E from years 3-6. There is no religious element of the admissions process.
But we chose it because it was the best school we were in the catchment area for.
If we'd ended up living the other side of town -which we almost did until a sale fell through - he would that gone to a different, non-religious state primary school. Which is just as good.
The focus for government should be on improving the standards of all schools. The religious element is outdated and doesn't reflect the beliefs of the vast majority of parents of young children.
America will descend into some kind of wild west anarchy unless they can collectively reinstate the rule of law and government and individual respect of it rapidly.
Once something like that is gone, it it will near impossible to bring back.
Maybe that is what the anarcho-tech bros want?
This isn't about which side Russia is on, it's about which side USA is on.
Bourbon and Yorkshire whisky, now…
No wonder he's talking about "a period of adjustment", and his minions are floating ideas like getting rid of social Security altogether to.pay for it. The other 49% of Americans need to start fighting back very urgently, if they want to prevent either a collapse, or authoritarianism.
Meanwhile, local government is being reorganized.
More cost and ministerial time.
Nothing done on social care for another five years at least, the one screaming issue that impacts on both NHS and local councils.
Nope, we need more choice and more variety of schools including more good faith schools, you could afford to buy into the catchment area of a good school, many in poorer areas can't
I doubt even Melania could blackmail him to cream off that much.
That’s what Streeting is doing.
We just need to implement Dilnott
I started off with membership of a project at the Selly Oak Colleges (eg Westhill College) in Birmingham back in the 1980s, and have been interested ever since. That particular one evolved into the Human city Initiative, and now the Human City Institute.
It's a very provisional area, as it straddles a sociological boundary known as sacred-secular - everything is always changing, and the area tends to be covered by lots of networks as well as institutions.
The schools bill: from parental choice to politicians choosing
The threat to parental choice and good schools
https://www.neilobrien.co.uk/p/the-schools-bill-from-parental-choice
...One of the very biggest (and under-appreciated) changes it brings about is the undoing of that very first reform: the right of popular schools to grow.
Clause 50 of the Bill gives the local authority the ability to object if good schools want to grow - or even if an academy is proposing to keep its numbers the same.
The size of a school’s intake is known as its “Published Admission Number” (PAN).
The government’s impact assessment says of Clause 50 of the Bill:
“Demographic changes mean there is an increase in the number of surplus places in primary schools…. We want the local authority to have more influence over the PANs for schools in their area.
“This would include scenarios where… a school’s PAN is set at a level which creates viability issues for another local school”..
State schools of all descriptions are only financially viable if at or close to full attendance per year.
That means there cannot be more significantly more school places in a given area than there are pupils. Unless you want government spending on schools to increase significantly.
In towns and cities there will be some choice due to population density. But that choice doesn't need to include faith schools. Admissions based on parental faith should be in the private sector only.
That is, incidentally, a liberal principle and not a socialist one.
We have heard it said that “the Government needs to legislate better”
How could they legislate so that other concerns (public safety, criminal behaviour etc) could trump (ha!) the right to a family life?
But at the same time, it's important to understand where the government spends its money.
And the answer is that Interest Expense, Defense, Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid and Veterans Affairs (basically health care for vets) is the vast bulk of spending.
The US government - like all developed world countries - can fundamentally change how much money it spends, but to do so, it needs to reduce spending on older people. Having the conversation would be honest, and is probably necessary.
Instead, the US government is letting go of air traffic controllers and park rangers to save pennies.
Can I commend the boldness of today’s announcement. If the NHS is going to be turned around, it’s going to need radical reforms.
If the result of today is to replace bureaucratic over-centralisation with political over-centralisation, it will fail. But if what happens today is that we move to the decentralised model that we have for police and for schools, it could be the start of a real transformation.
I used to be an FRSA (ie paid membership made to look like a professional qualification) but it was quite expensive (£100 a year in the 1990s?) and went imo too political when one of Blair's people became the boss after leaving No 10.
I suspect a lot of the public didn't even know Public Health England no longer existed.
Keep PANs the same (or increase them) for popular oversubscribed schools.
Decrease PANs for unpopular schools, even if it makes them not viable in the long-term.
Ends up increasing the proportion in the better schools.
But it's weird how fuel duty is always described as inflationary, but other taxes, bus/rail fares etc are not. Fuel is 20% cheaper than it was in 2010, so that's consistent deflationary pressure for higher income households. In terms of elasticities, we've disincentivised switching to EVs throughout that period as a result.
They are budgeting for very large cuts in Medicare and veterans' healthcare, but haven't directly admitted that's the intention.
I guess it is the old human story in that they believe it will always be someone else who ends up at the show trials and the gulags and not them. It is never going to be them or their type until suddenly it is.
You want to deny parents choice of state faith schools, free schools, no doubt fully support VAT on private schools and want to close grammar schools. Exactly the type of person we rightwing conservatives must oppose vigorously
It might work; it might not.
One problem is the huge erosion of local authority capacity to manage education, over the last couple of decades.
He's supposed to be strong and unpredictable after all.
The issue is there are very good faith schools that provide an excellent (and not very religious) education. Some LEAs dislike them because they are independent of the LEA. The risk is by giving the LEA control of numbers is it can be used to squeeze these good schools to expand / support weaker providers that are controlled by the LEA.
Surely it’s a basic principle that the good schools should be enabled to grow their pupil headcount?
To me all her pronouncements on education have a good deal of sense in them, even if there is a need for flexibibility to circumstances.
I think she undermines her case when she strays into political rhetoric for a short period, branding one of Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson's proposals "Marxist", and perhaps somewhat over-defends rapid entry of non-teacher-trained professionals into schools to be trained on the job.
That's like clickbait. She's better than that, and needs to make a distinctive case based on practicalities and experience.
https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/uk/katharine-birbalsingh-strictest-head-teacher-uniforms-labour/
Are we allowed to call it champagne in Usonia?
The Globalist Wall Street Journal has no idea what they are doing or saying. They are owned by the polluted thinking of the European Union, which was formed for the primary purpose of "screwing" the United States of America. Their (WSJ!) thinking is antiquated and weak, and very bad for the USA. But have no fear, we will WIN on everything!!! Egg prices are down, oil is down, interest rates are down, and TARIFF RELATED MONEY IS POURING INTO THE UNITED STATES. "The only thing you have to fear, is fear itself!"
You said
"They do when the only outstanding state primary or secondary school in their area is a C of E or Roman Catholic school."
That's crystal clear language. Parents only go to a sectarian school when the others are defective, not because of the religion.
The Highway Patrol’s investigation into a November Cybertruck crash in Piedmont where three college kids died is finding two very Tesla problems: the vehicle immediately caught fire, and its doors would not open.
https://sfist.com/2025/03/11/testimony-reveals-doors-would-not-open-on-cybertruck-that-caught-fire-in-piedmont-killing-three/
The principle should be oversubscribed schools get to increase or maintain, unsubscribed schools are required to decrease. Perhaps the legislation should make this clear if local authorities are going to do something stupid.
The religious school part is I opposed any religious based entry criteria to a state funded school. I don't particularly care if run by local authorities, free schools or church run so long as that criteria is met.
Fox News host Laura Ingraham advised her viewers to “ignore” the tumbling stock market and “sky is falling reports in the regime press,” because she claims Trump is “good for business.”
https://bsky.app/profile/joncooper-us.bsky.social/post/3lkb5gusexc2y
"Good schools" will grow their headcount only as far as they can cream off pupils with high attainment.
Case in point the CofE primary school in our LEA, which had a very large site but refused to increase intake for the primary school bulge a few years ago.
The council had to squeeze all the additional intake into the LEA controlled schools.