A key trouble with UBI is there isn't a single universal level of income that is appropriate.
The needs of a single 18 year-old living with their parents after school are not the same as the needs of a 30 year-old widow with two young children and with no assets or family.
Pretending we can have a one size fits all approach to welfare is well meaning but delusional.
I think the point is that having a universal sum of money you get regardless of what you do gives everyone options. The 30 year old widow with young children could use her UBI to pay for childcare so she can go back to her previous career. The 18 year old living at home can use her UBI to meet her living costs while she takes an internship or an apprenticeship.
The worst thing about the current benefits system is the pettifogging rules which restrict people making life choices that work for them because of the fear of losing money. When I was younger and out of work, I was offered a voluntary role with Oxfam coordinating their online book sales for my local area. I would have loved to do it and it would have been great experience but the Job Centre said I would lose my job seeker's allowance. UBI would have allowed me to boost my employability whilst still having enough to live.
That is absolutely crazy you having to miss that opportunity.
Bart keeps mentionjng cliff edges and he’s right, it’s something ripe for reform and never gets reformed.
A UBi would be fine for me, but it’s how is it funded and at what level is it set,
I object fundementally to the basic priciple of a UBI. The idea that the taxpayer is giving handouts to everyone regardless of need (I am of course in favour of taxpayer support for the needy with a relatively wide definition) seems utterly ludicrous. It creates a vast client state and completely alters the relationship between the citizen and the State.
Whatever happened to the old principle of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"?
I don't think it's practical. The numbers don't work. We can't spend in aggregate more on welfare, so bringing in something which directs money to people who don't need it means less for those who do.
There's a deeper underlying theory for UBI that goes beyond a welfare payment. For example, if you're on £50k a year, under £12k UBI your employer only needs to pay you say £38k to achieve the same labour market outcome.
"Biden's cancer diagnosis leaves America's top doctors stunned
Medical experts have declared it 'inconceivable' that former President Joe Biden's 'aggressive' form of prostate cancer was not caught earlier by doctors."
It's been pointed out that aggressive cancers are, by definition, not caught earlier. When was his last scan for this?
The article quotes DJT Jnr, and seemingly comes from TwitterX, so should be treated with a very large pinch of salt. Google suggests it's unusual but far from unknown, for prostate cancer to be metastatic on first diagnosis, but I am not an expert.
Raised PSA would have been picked up on routine blood tests but is a notoriously unreliable measure.
PSA is unreliable towards false positives - that is, it shows an elevated level and hints at cancer more often than people actually have cancer. As I understand it, a false negative (normal range PSA, but you have cancer) is extremely uncommon.
I wonder if his dementia is an issue? Increased urination from an enlarged prostate doesn't worry the patient if they don't remember getting up to pee ten times a night...
Fascinating article on how Bluesky is tailing off, and slowly self-destructing
TLDR: it's become a bubble chamber of leftoids, who are angry and intolerant of opposing opinions (esp but not always rightwing opinions). This makes it hostile to a lot of newcomers, and so the newbies stop coming. Without opposing opinions to tackle, the Blueskyers either turn on each other, or tediously and pointlessly agree with each other. And they become increasingly misinformed
I reckon if you put a dozen alpha males together for a month, by the end of it one will be the boss, there will be a few caporegimes, and the rest will be running errands, and the same with a dozen more sensitive chaps. This could be what is happening at BlueSky. We are just primates after all
Definitely some of that. And also partly an unhappy evolution - for the Left - that increasingly they don't just dislike rightwing or opposing opinions, they will not tolerate them. To oppose Woke left values - which are of course self evidently true - is to be evil, wrong, malign, Nazi. This shall not do. So anyone that has such opinions gets chased off Bluesky, and the purity police will come for even minor infringements in really niche areas - they use Blocking lists, and basic and very violent abuse
What a shitshow
But as I say this is really bad for the Left. eg the Guardian has quit X with all its 600m users and now only preaches on Bluesky to 33m angry lefties and the odd lepidopterist. And if the Guardian strays an inch from the accepted orthodoxy of the day on, say, Israel or gender or ANYTHING, all it gets is screeds of hatred
How does this benefit the Guardian? It doesn't. Much better for them to be on X with vastly more readers and maybe the chance to persuade the middle ground
Then you get the weird phenomenon of wilful ignorance. Lefties who simply aren't aware of very basic facts because these facts are censored if at all awkward, on places like Bluesky
This is not my experience of BlueSky, and I am not a woke lefty. It's certainly a far more pleasant (and more useable) place than X.
Yes, right-wing shouty types will get push-back and many will block them but the key aspect there is 'shouty', not 'right-wing'. Bubble chambers are never great but they're better than not being able to exclude those who insist on barging in and disrupting unreasonably.
It may well be that X still has 600m registered users but I wonder what the trend is in how many still interact regularly. No doubt it still appeals to a particular political demographic but even to the extent it does, it just doesn't work very well any more, without a proper block facility and with intrusive adverts.
I think Leon has part of a point about Bluesky. The actually good thing about Bluesky is you choose who you see on your timeline, unlike Instagram and X who push all sorts of muck via algorithm. If you want an echo chamber, you can set that up; if you want a collection of thoughtful and well informed commentators, you can get that too - you no longer can on X.
The problem is the replies to those posts, which tend to be ultra-dogmatic left, tedious and grim. There's no good way to control people piling on - some people just restrict replies to those they follow, which is very limiting.
Bluesky needs to sort this out in my view. I'm done with Twitter/X but still undecided about Bluesky.
Having even part of a point is progress, I guess.
However there's no guarantee it will stay like this. All the major social media sites started out providing content that the user essentially chose - yet as time passed and their userbase (and the data held about it) grew, they pump out a good dose of monetised advertising crap, mixed in with what we want to see, as you say. If BS achieves critical mass and staying power, I don't expect it will be able to avoid doing the same.
Well yes. X is the horrific doom loop example that Bluesky could follow, and hasn't yet, where the algorithm pumps out ever more extreme bile and misinformation. Which is why it's only part of a point. But as I don't want any of it, my threshold for leaving is not that high.
Brexiteers have had nine years to outline and deliver a British economy with less ties to the EU that is better for the country. They failed, preferring internecine feuding instead. Isn’t it just logical now for any neutral observer for someone to see if more ties works instead?
Has anyone got a summary of what the changes are for the EU deal? It seems to be a bunch of nothing so far other than extending EU fishing rights for 12 years.
I get the impression that beyond the defence compact and few other specifics, much of it will be 'statement of intent' stuff, with the detail of any actual changes still to be worked through?
Has anyone got a summary of what the changes are for the EU deal? It seems to be a bunch of nothing so far other than extending EU fishing rights for 12 years.
I get the impression that beyond the defence compact and few other specifics, much of it will be 'statement of intent' stuff, with the detail of any actual changes still to be worked through?
The reports this morning are the access to the big bucks of the defence compact is just statement of intent.
Has anyone got a summary of what the changes are for the EU deal? It seems to be a bunch of nothing so far other than extending EU fishing rights for 12 years.
It appears that the date has been set for today, but lots of it is still for under discussion at a later date. A bit like the American deal.
Ability to export sausages again is another win being touted by Jonathan Reynolds.
The Brexiteers told us the big win from Brexit was "Sovereignty"
British voters electing people to take British decisions
This just happened
They are all wildly happy now, right?
Indeed, but you fail to note that nobody is talking about re-joining the EU and this reset is sensible though the fishing deal is controversial
Yet. Unfortunately we'll have to wait until the main right wing party (is that the Conservatives or Reform?) is also in favour of rejoining. Otherwise why would the EU take us back, since we would only be one election away from Brexit Referendum 2.
The Brexiteers told us the big win from Brexit was "Sovereignty"
British voters electing people to take British decisions
This just happened
They are all wildly happy now, right?
Indeed, but you fail to note that nobody is talking about re-joining the EU and this reset is sensible though the fishing deal is controversial
Yet. Unfortunately we'll have to wait until the main right wing party (is that the Conservatives or Reform?) is also in favour of rejoining. Otherwise why would the EU take us back, since we would only be one election away from Brexit Referendum 2.
Frankly I just do not see it in the foreseeable future but that doesn’t mean a good relationship with the EU is not a good thing
Anyone paying attention over the last 18 months would have seen what happens when anyone dares criticise Hamas on these demos. An Iranian guy was arrested multiple times for doing just that. And Tatchell was previously stopped from going on a march because he had a placard that criticised Hamas.
There was this placard from back in 2023 I believe:
Just seen the news about Joe Biden. The condition that took my Father. I hope he can overcome it.
This might sound awful - but if Biden genuinely has dementia then he might be better off not treating the cancer.
Yup, I'm sure it's not an easy situation for his family to be in, yet is it in his interests to have his life lengthened through what will probably be a very tough and painful set of treatments at his age and for what, to live an extra few years with dementia or Alzheimer's? This is precisely the situation where healthcare professionals should be weighing up what the overall benefit for the patient will be rather than just plough on with all of the treatments under the sun.
I remember when my grandad was in a similar situation and diagnosed with brain cancer at 89 years old and the doctor suggested brain surgery which would potentially extend his life for 6-12 months. My parents were fully against it as he would go through a horrible procedure, terrible recovery and all to spend an extra 6-12 months in hospital or convalescent home. In the end it was up to my dad and my uncles/aunt and they came to that decision, so my grandad spent the last couple of months of his life at home surrounded by his family and friends when he died at 90. Not one of them regrets that decision.
"Biden's cancer diagnosis leaves America's top doctors stunned
Medical experts have declared it 'inconceivable' that former President Joe Biden's 'aggressive' form of prostate cancer was not caught earlier by doctors."
"Biden's cancer diagnosis leaves America's top doctors stunned
Medical experts have declared it 'inconceivable' that former President Joe Biden's 'aggressive' form of prostate cancer was not caught earlier by doctors."
A key trouble with UBI is there isn't a single universal level of income that is appropriate.
The needs of a single 18 year-old living with their parents after school are not the same as the needs of a 30 year-old widow with two young children and with no assets or family.
Pretending we can have a one size fits all approach to welfare is well meaning but delusional.
I think the point is that having a universal sum of money you get regardless of what you do gives everyone options. The 30 year old widow with young children could use her UBI to pay for childcare so she can go back to her previous career. The 18 year old living at home can use her UBI to meet her living costs while she takes an internship or an apprenticeship.
The worst thing about the current benefits system is the pettifogging rules which restrict people making life choices that work for them because of the fear of losing money. When I was younger and out of work, I was offered a voluntary role with Oxfam coordinating their online book sales for my local area. I would have loved to do it and it would have been great experience but the Job Centre said I would lose my job seeker's allowance. UBI would have allowed me to boost my employability whilst still having enough to live.
That is absolutely crazy you having to miss that opportunity.
Bart keeps mentionjng cliff edges and he’s right, it’s something ripe for reform and never gets reformed.
A UBi would be fine for me, but it’s how is it funded and at what level is it set,
I object fundementally to the basic priciple of a UBI. The idea that the taxpayer is giving handouts to everyone regardless of need (I am of course in favour of taxpayer support for the needy with a relatively wide definition) seems utterly ludicrous. It creates a vast client state and completely alters the relationship between the citizen and the State.
Whatever happened to the old principle of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"?
I don't think it's practical. The numbers don't work. We can't spend in aggregate more on welfare, so bringing in something which directs money to people who don't need it means less for those who do.
There's a deeper underlying theory for UBI that goes beyond a welfare payment. For example, if you're on £50k a year, under £12k UBI your employer only needs to pay you say £38k to achieve the same labour market outcome.
It all nets out to zero in the end.
Sounds like the sort of thing you'd like to see tried elsewhere first.
Has anyone got a summary of what the changes are for the EU deal? It seems to be a bunch of nothing so far other than extending EU fishing rights for 12 years.
It appears that the date has been set for today, but lots of it is still for under discussion at a later date. A bit like the American deal.
Ability to export sausages again is another win being touted by Jonathan Reynolds.
I hope there’s something in the deal to make it easier for the Scallop fishermen to get their fresh produce to Europe more easily. I don’t much care for what happens to the multi millionaire Aberdeenshire fishing families. They are big enough to deal with any consequences. Highlanders and Islanders not so much.
Was this the final straw that brought Gary Lineker's BBC career to an end?
Gary Lineker's vicious dig at his BBC boss while apologising for antisemitism was the 'final straw' for the corporation with the star expected to resign in shame today.
The 64-year-old said that Alex Kay-Jelski had 'no television experience' and suggested his plans to revamp Match of the Day without him would fail.
We had so much leverage with the fishing rights. We’ve thrown it all away for zip, as far as I can see
You do know this is just an extension of the deal you cheered when BoZo signed it...
It was a concession - a sort of transition period so the EU would lose fishing quota and access more slowly. Extending is a further and separate concession.
Was this the final straw that brought Gary Lineker's BBC career to an end?
Gary Lineker's vicious dig at his BBC boss while apologising for antisemitism was the 'final straw' for the corporation with the star expected to resign in shame today.
The 64-year-old said that Alex Kay-Jelski had 'no television experience' and suggested his plans to revamp Match of the Day without him would fail.
Fascinating article on how Bluesky is tailing off, and slowly self-destructing
TLDR: it's become a bubble chamber of leftoids, who are angry and intolerant of opposing opinions (esp but not always rightwing opinions). This makes it hostile to a lot of newcomers, and so the newbies stop coming. Without opposing opinions to tackle, the Blueskyers either turn on each other, or tediously and pointlessly agree with each other. And they become increasingly misinformed
I reckon if you put a dozen alpha males together for a month, by the end of it one will be the boss, there will be a few caporegimes, and the rest will be running errands, and the same with a dozen more sensitive chaps. This could be what is happening at BlueSky. We are just primates after all
Definitely some of that. And also partly an unhappy evolution - for the Left - that increasingly they don't just dislike rightwing or opposing opinions, they will not tolerate them. To oppose Woke left values - which are of course self evidently true - is to be evil, wrong, malign, Nazi. This shall not do. So anyone that has such opinions gets chased off Bluesky, and the purity police will come for even minor infringements in really niche areas - they use Blocking lists, and basic and very violent abuse
What a shitshow
But as I say this is really bad for the Left. eg the Guardian has quit X with all its 600m users and now only preaches on Bluesky to 33m angry lefties and the odd lepidopterist. And if the Guardian strays an inch from the accepted orthodoxy of the day on, say, Israel or gender or ANYTHING, all it gets is screeds of hatred
How does this benefit the Guardian? It doesn't. Much better for them to be on X with vastly more readers and maybe the chance to persuade the middle ground
Then you get the weird phenomenon of wilful ignorance. Lefties who simply aren't aware of very basic facts because these facts are censored if at all awkward, on places like Bluesky
This is not my experience of BlueSky, and I am not a woke lefty. It's certainly a far more pleasant (and more useable) place than X.
Yes, right-wing shouty types will get push-back and many will block them but the key aspect there is 'shouty', not 'right-wing'. Bubble chambers are never great but they're better than not being able to exclude those who insist on barging in and disrupting unreasonably.
It may well be that X still has 600m registered users but I wonder what the trend is in how many still interact regularly. No doubt it still appeals to a particular political demographic but even to the extent it does, it just doesn't work very well any more, without a proper block facility and with intrusive adverts.
Bluesky is now stalled, with evidence it is declining
It’s a niche place for over-sensitive lefties and centrist Dads. Which is fine if that’s what you want; just don’t expect it to grow and overtake X
But with a base of less than 10% users that X has, I wonder if big accounts (like the Guardian) might quietly shift back to X. What’s the point in preaching to a relatively small number of the converted?
Just seen the news about Joe Biden. The condition that took my Father. I hope he can overcome it.
This might sound awful - but if Biden genuinely has dementia then he might be better off not treating the cancer.
On the face of it it does sound awful but the more you think of it the less awful it becomes although my Dads cancer metastasised into his brain and that was extremely distressing to see.
Has anyone got a summary of what the changes are for the EU deal? It seems to be a bunch of nothing so far other than extending EU fishing rights for 12 years.
It appears that the date has been set for today, but lots of it is still for under discussion at a later date. A bit like the American deal.
Ability to export sausages again is another win being touted by Jonathan Reynolds.
I hope there’s something in the deal to make it easier for the Scallop fishermen to get their fresh produce to Europe more easily. I don’t much care for what happens to the multi millionaire Aberdeenshire fishing families. They are big enough to deal with any consequences. Highlanders and Islanders not so much.
It should do because of the agreement on SPS . This was the big problem with Bozos deal which screwed those who need to ship live produce .
Just seen the news about Joe Biden. The condition that took my Father. I hope he can overcome it.
This might sound awful - but if Biden genuinely has dementia then he might be better off not treating the cancer.
Yup, I'm sure it's not an easy situation for his family to be in, yet is it in his interests to have his life lengthened through what will probably be a very tough and painful set of treatments at his age and for what, to live an extra few years with dementia or Alzheimer's? This is precisely the situation where healthcare professionals should be weighing up what the overall benefit for the patient will be rather than just plough on with all of the treatments under the sun.
I remember when my grandad was in a similar situation and diagnosed with brain cancer at 89 years old and the doctor suggested brain surgery which would potentially extend his life for 6-12 months. My parents were fully against it as he would go through a horrible procedure, terrible recovery and all to spend an extra 6-12 months in hospital or convalescent home. In the end it was up to my dad and my uncles/aunt and they came to that decision, so my grandad spent the last couple of months of his life at home surrounded by his family and friends when he died at 90. Not one of them regrets that decision.
I've had prostate cancer and in my case the treatment ..... radiotherapy ..... was straightforward if tedious. Visit the radiotherapy unit for about ten minutes five times a week for seven (IIRC) weeks.Actually I was usually in the clinic for about 30-45 minutes, allowing for problems etc. However there was a designated parking space and meeting the other men was quite clubbable! It's not given at weekends; apparently the cancer doesn't work Saturdays and Sundays! However, I'm clear now.
BUT, if someone suggested I needed something really unpleasant, like brain surgery, with a long and difficult recovery time, at a couple of years younger than Max's grandad I'd say 'no thanks' too!
"Biden's cancer diagnosis leaves America's top doctors stunned
Medical experts have declared it 'inconceivable' that former President Joe Biden's 'aggressive' form of prostate cancer was not caught earlier by doctors."
Brexiteers have had nine years to outline and deliver a British economy with less ties to the EU that is better for the country. They failed, preferring internecine feuding instead. Isn’t it just logical now for any neutral observer for someone to see if more ties works instead?
A key trouble with UBI is there isn't a single universal level of income that is appropriate.
The needs of a single 18 year-old living with their parents after school are not the same as the needs of a 30 year-old widow with two young children and with no assets or family.
Pretending we can have a one size fits all approach to welfare is well meaning but delusional.
I think the point is that having a universal sum of money you get regardless of what you do gives everyone options. The 30 year old widow with young children could use her UBI to pay for childcare so she can go back to her previous career. The 18 year old living at home can use her UBI to meet her living costs while she takes an internship or an apprenticeship.
The worst thing about the current benefits system is the pettifogging rules which restrict people making life choices that work for them because of the fear of losing money. When I was younger and out of work, I was offered a voluntary role with Oxfam coordinating their online book sales for my local area. I would have loved to do it and it would have been great experience but the Job Centre said I would lose my job seeker's allowance. UBI would have allowed me to boost my employability whilst still having enough to live.
That is absolutely crazy you having to miss that opportunity.
Bart keeps mentionjng cliff edges and he’s right, it’s something ripe for reform and never gets reformed.
A UBi would be fine for me, but it’s how is it funded and at what level is it set,
I object fundementally to the basic priciple of a UBI. The idea that the taxpayer is giving handouts to everyone regardless of need (I am of course in favour of taxpayer support for the needy with a relatively wide definition) seems utterly ludicrous. It creates a vast client state and completely alters the relationship between the citizen and the State.
Whatever happened to the old principle of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"?
Your viewpoint that it's a handout regardless of need is the issue. That's not the point of a negative income tax.
What Friedman advocated is a reform of tax, so that instead of a personal allowance there's a negative amount of tax paid (the UBI) if not earning then a simple tax rate going up from that.
That simplifies our tax system dramatically, eliminates the cliff edges, and ensures people are always better off working than not working.
It eliminates bureaucracy and it eliminates perverse incentives not to work.
The UBI should be viewed the same as the tax free allowance today, just a modified version of it without cliff edges.
I wait to hear the details of the reset but to be honest I think most of it seems sensible and certainly it must be in everyone's interest for the UK and EU to join together in defence and security
However, fishing will be the subject to cause the most controversy with Farage already announcing the end of UK fishing
Ultimately I do not think it will move the polls either way much
If you announce the end of UK fishing and UK fishing doesn't end, you'd normally be laughed out of court. But Farage gets to play by a different set of rules.
"Biden's cancer diagnosis leaves America's top doctors stunned
Medical experts have declared it 'inconceivable' that former President Joe Biden's 'aggressive' form of prostate cancer was not caught earlier by doctors."
Anyone paying attention over the last 18 months would have seen what happens when anyone dares criticise Hamas on these demos. An Iranian guy was arrested multiple times for doing just that. And Tatchell was previously stopped from going on a march because he had a placard that criticised Hamas.
I believe the Iranian guy was arrested again over the weekend. It would be interesting to know a bit more context about why he keeps getting his collar felt.
From memory because he criticises Hamas. And that's very provocative for those nice pro Palestine demonstrators.
So we didn't get anything on eGates at all. We were going to get them anyway as other friendly countries will when the new system comes in.
Starmer would pay full price for a Carpetright carpet.
That’s really bad expectations management if so. I thought the egates thing was ludicrous, but also quite clever politics (unusual for Starmer). Because it genuinely sounds quite good to the 89% of people who are stupid
“Yay, an end to the Brexit queues”
But we actually got nothing on something we promised?
Just seen the news about Joe Biden. The condition that took my Father. I hope he can overcome it.
This might sound awful - but if Biden genuinely has dementia then he might be better off not treating the cancer.
On the face of it it does sound awful but the more you think of it the less awful it becomes although my Dads cancer metastasised into his brain and that was extremely distressing to see.
Yes, I can sympathise with that - my Mum had a brain tumour too. Not fun. At all.
On the other hand - my mother in law was treated for cancer only to end up as a shell of her former self. She wasn't really showing signs when treated but the dementia started showing not long afterwards. If we had known then what we know now...
Actually in the main this reset is much like Sunak was suggesting, and apart from the fishing, I expect he would have been pleased to conclude this reset
The exciting thing politically about this huge EU surrender deal betrayal from the Tory and Reform perspective is that over the next four years the huge damage it does to the UK will become very evident. Won't it?
Just seen the news about Joe Biden. The condition that took my Father. I hope he can overcome it.
This might sound awful - but if Biden genuinely has dementia then he might be better off not treating the cancer.
Yup, I'm sure it's not an easy situation for his family to be in, yet is it in his interests to have his life lengthened through what will probably be a very tough and painful set of treatments at his age and for what, to live an extra few years with dementia or Alzheimer's? This is precisely the situation where healthcare professionals should be weighing up what the overall benefit for the patient will be rather than just plough on with all of the treatments under the sun.
I remember when my grandad was in a similar situation and diagnosed with brain cancer at 89 years old and the doctor suggested brain surgery which would potentially extend his life for 6-12 months. My parents were fully against it as he would go through a horrible procedure, terrible recovery and all to spend an extra 6-12 months in hospital or convalescent home. In the end it was up to my dad and my uncles/aunt and they came to that decision, so my grandad spent the last couple of months of his life at home surrounded by his family and friends when he died at 90. Not one of them regrets that decision.
I don't think it's something healthcare professionals can weigh up, and nor should they: that's not their role nor their right, when questions of quality of life are so personal.
But what they can do - and, from what it sounds like, they did in your family's case - is provide expert opinion on the options and leave it to the patient themself, or, where the patient isn't able to make that decision, their close family caring for them.
The exciting thing politically about this huge EU surrender deal betrayal from the Tory and Reform perspective is that over the next four years the huge damage it does to the UK will become very evident. Won't it?
That is the wrong response
The correct one is will this and other deals make a positive way people feel and experience in their lives in 2028
Actually in the main this reset is much like Sunak was suggesting, and apart from the fishing, I expect he would have been pleased to conclude this reset
The Mail's readers have decided that it's yet another reason to arrest Starmer for treason, though. He's evil, weak, stupid, treacherous, and a surrender money, apparently. All in a days work.
A key trouble with UBI is there isn't a single universal level of income that is appropriate.
The needs of a single 18 year-old living with their parents after school are not the same as the needs of a 30 year-old widow with two young children and with no assets or family.
Pretending we can have a one size fits all approach to welfare is well meaning but delusional.
I think the point is that having a universal sum of money you get regardless of what you do gives everyone options. The 30 year old widow with young children could use her UBI to pay for childcare so she can go back to her previous career. The 18 year old living at home can use her UBI to meet her living costs while she takes an internship or an apprenticeship.
The worst thing about the current benefits system is the pettifogging rules which restrict people making life choices that work for them because of the fear of losing money. When I was younger and out of work, I was offered a voluntary role with Oxfam coordinating their online book sales for my local area. I would have loved to do it and it would have been great experience but the Job Centre said I would lose my job seeker's allowance. UBI would have allowed me to boost my employability whilst still having enough to live.
That is absolutely crazy you having to miss that opportunity.
Bart keeps mentionjng cliff edges and he’s right, it’s something ripe for reform and never gets reformed.
A UBi would be fine for me, but it’s how is it funded and at what level is it set,
I object fundementally to the basic priciple of a UBI. The idea that the taxpayer is giving handouts to everyone regardless of need (I am of course in favour of taxpayer support for the needy with a relatively wide definition) seems utterly ludicrous. It creates a vast client state and completely alters the relationship between the citizen and the State.
Whatever happened to the old principle of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"?
I don't think it's practical. The numbers don't work. We can't spend in aggregate more on welfare, so bringing in something which directs money to people who don't need it means less for those who do.
On fishing rights I am greatly entertained by performative wazzockry from the Tories. Local Tories seem to be screeching on about the current blessed fishing deal being given away by the government.
Have they actually spoken to NE fishing bodies? The current deal is crap. And hated. With details why.
Actually in the main this reset is much like Sunak was suggesting, and apart from the fishing, I expect he would have been pleased to conclude this reset
The Mail's readers have decided that it's yet another reason to arrest Starmer for treason, though. He's evil, weak, stupid, treacherous, and a surrender money, apparently. All in a days work.
Forget the Mail and GB news and especially readers comments and social media and wait to see how public opinion reacts over the next few weeks
The exciting thing politically about this huge EU surrender deal betrayal from the Tory and Reform perspective is that over the next four years the huge damage it does to the UK will become very evident. Won't it?
That is the wrong response
The correct one is will this and other deals make a positive way people feel and experience in their lives in 2028
Yes, I agree. I was being sarcastic. The Tories responding exactly the same way as Reform is a mistake. In particular, because the net effect of closer UK/EU cooperation is likely to be positive - and British business will be vocal in opposing it being torn up.
Or even a surrender monkey ! He would never surrender for money, surely. Nige will be dusting off his riverboat and Alan Partridge blazer for another "Hero of Britain's fishing" demo.
On Biden, his decision to run again in 2023 is looking even worse now. When did he know how bad the situation is? When you put yourself forward for the presidency, you're signing up for a five-year deal or so (one as candidate, four as president). Yes, there can occasionally be exceptions when you're the incumbent and there's a crisis so immediate and critical to deal with that such considerations override longer-term prospects (looking at you, FDR, 1944), but such cases are rare and were not in place in 2023.
When he declined to withdraw, he blocked the field for a competitive primary race which at the very minimum ensured that Harris wasn't match-fit going into the campaign, probably prevented a better candidate emerging and either way undermined their democratic legitimacy. And for what? It seems an even more selfish and/or deluded decision than it did at the time.
Just seen the news about Joe Biden. The condition that took my Father. I hope he can overcome it.
This might sound awful - but if Biden genuinely has dementia then he might be better off not treating the cancer.
Yup, I'm sure it's not an easy situation for his family to be in, yet is it in his interests to have his life lengthened through what will probably be a very tough and painful set of treatments at his age and for what, to live an extra few years with dementia or Alzheimer's? This is precisely the situation where healthcare professionals should be weighing up what the overall benefit for the patient will be rather than just plough on with all of the treatments under the sun.
I remember when my grandad was in a similar situation and diagnosed with brain cancer at 89 years old and the doctor suggested brain surgery which would potentially extend his life for 6-12 months. My parents were fully against it as he would go through a horrible procedure, terrible recovery and all to spend an extra 6-12 months in hospital or convalescent home. In the end it was up to my dad and my uncles/aunt and they came to that decision, so my grandad spent the last couple of months of his life at home surrounded by his family and friends when he died at 90. Not one of them regrets that decision.
I don't think it's something healthcare professionals can weigh up, and nor should they: that's not their role nor their right, when questions of quality of life are so personal.
But what they can do - and, from what it sounds like, they did in your family's case - is provide expert opinion on the options and leave it to the patient themself, or, where the patient isn't able to make that decision, their close family caring for them.
All of which illustrates what a farce the debate over the Assisted Dying Bill quickly became.
Just seen the news about Joe Biden. The condition that took my Father. I hope he can overcome it.
This might sound awful - but if Biden genuinely has dementia then he might be better off not treating the cancer.
On the face of it it does sound awful but the more you think of it the less awful it becomes although my Dads cancer metastasised into his brain and that was extremely distressing to see.
Yes, I can sympathise with that - my Mum had a brain tumour too. Not fun. At all.
On the other hand - my mother in law was treated for cancer only to end up as a shell of her former self. She wasn't really showing signs when treated but the dementia started showing not long afterwards. If we had known then what we know now...
I remember giving my Dad a hug a few months before he died and he’d always been big. Not morbidly obese but well built. He wore a baggy shirt. What really shocked me was how he was all skin and bone.
On fishing rights I am greatly entertained by performative wazzockry from the Tories. Local Tories seem to be screeching on about the current blessed fishing deal being given away by the government.
Have they actually spoken to NE fishing bodies? The current deal is crap. And hated. With details why.
I’m looking at it from a French perspective because - for various reasons - I got to know the French fishing industry very well last year
They made it clear they hated Brexit as it gave more fish to the British (they didn’t complain about us being selfish, they just said it was bad for THEM) and they were terrified the next deal would be worse. They expected worse - and they were gonna attack Paris when it happened
That’s what I mean when I say we had massive leverage. If we’ve yielded and allowed a really long extension then I do hope Starmer has used this leverage and gained a massive concession in return
A key trouble with UBI is there isn't a single universal level of income that is appropriate.
The needs of a single 18 year-old living with their parents after school are not the same as the needs of a 30 year-old widow with two young children and with no assets or family.
Pretending we can have a one size fits all approach to welfare is well meaning but delusional.
I think the point is that having a universal sum of money you get regardless of what you do gives everyone options. The 30 year old widow with young children could use her UBI to pay for childcare so she can go back to her previous career. The 18 year old living at home can use her UBI to meet her living costs while she takes an internship or an apprenticeship.
The worst thing about the current benefits system is the pettifogging rules which restrict people making life choices that work for them because of the fear of losing money. When I was younger and out of work, I was offered a voluntary role with Oxfam coordinating their online book sales for my local area. I would have loved to do it and it would have been great experience but the Job Centre said I would lose my job seeker's allowance. UBI would have allowed me to boost my employability whilst still having enough to live.
That is absolutely crazy you having to miss that opportunity.
Bart keeps mentionjng cliff edges and he’s right, it’s something ripe for reform and never gets reformed.
A UBi would be fine for me, but it’s how is it funded and at what level is it set,
I object fundementally to the basic priciple of a UBI. The idea that the taxpayer is giving handouts to everyone regardless of need (I am of course in favour of taxpayer support for the needy with a relatively wide definition) seems utterly ludicrous. It creates a vast client state and completely alters the relationship between the citizen and the State.
Whatever happened to the old principle of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"?
I don't think it's practical. The numbers don't work. We can't spend in aggregate more on welfare, so bringing in something which directs money to people who don't need it means less for those who do.
Doesn’t a negative income tax negate that?
In most UBI schemes
- personal allowance is the UBI - Pension is UBI
Which leave how many adults?
Someone earning £30k / year today takes home just over £25k of that after tax and NI.
With a UBI of £12k and a flat rate of 50%, they would take home £27k.
It is just a matter of setting the right tax rate. All cliff edges disappear.
Is someone inside or pro government going to defend the deal we've done because at the moment the only story is fishing betrayal. Come on guys what have you got?
On Biden, his decision to run again in 2023 is looking even worse now. When did he know how bad the situation is? When you put yourself forward for the presidency, you're signing up for a five-year deal or so (one as candidate, four as president). Yes, there can occasionally be exceptions when you're the incumbent and there's a crisis so immediate and critical to deal with that such considerations override longer-term prospects (looking at you, FDR, 1944), but such cases are rare and were not in place in 2023.
When he declined to withdraw, he blocked the field for a competitive primary race which at the very minimum ensured that Harris wasn't match-fit going into the campaign, probably prevented a better candidate emerging and either way undermined their democratic legitimacy. And for what? It seems an even more selfish and/or deluded decision than it did at the time.
Some of us were pointing this out as early as 2022 but we were told to shut up and stop shilling for Trump because “Biden’s always had a stammer”
Is someone inside or pro government going to defend the deal we've done because at the moment the only story is fishing betrayal. Come on guys what have you got?
Remember - the impact of the Tory’s hard Brexit was particularly bad for fishing because 1) the sector exported a lot to Europe 2) is highly sensitive to trade barriers (famously fish needs to get to its customer quickly…). Almost no sector was worse affected
Fascinating article on how Bluesky is tailing off, and slowly self-destructing
TLDR: it's become a bubble chamber of leftoids, who are angry and intolerant of opposing opinions (esp but not always rightwing opinions). This makes it hostile to a lot of newcomers, and so the newbies stop coming. Without opposing opinions to tackle, the Blueskyers either turn on each other, or tediously and pointlessly agree with each other. And they become increasingly misinformed
I reckon if you put a dozen alpha males together for a month, by the end of it one will be the boss, there will be a few caporegimes, and the rest will be running errands, and the same with a dozen more sensitive chaps. This could be what is happening at BlueSky. We are just primates after all
Definitely some of that. And also partly an unhappy evolution - for the Left - that increasingly they don't just dislike rightwing or opposing opinions, they will not tolerate them. To oppose Woke left values - which are of course self evidently true - is to be evil, wrong, malign, Nazi. This shall not do. So anyone that has such opinions gets chased off Bluesky, and the purity police will come for even minor infringements in really niche areas - they use Blocking lists, and basic and very violent abuse
What a shitshow
But as I say this is really bad for the Left. eg the Guardian has quit X with all its 600m users and now only preaches on Bluesky to 33m angry lefties and the odd lepidopterist. And if the Guardian strays an inch from the accepted orthodoxy of the day on, say, Israel or gender or ANYTHING, all it gets is screeds of hatred
How does this benefit the Guardian? It doesn't. Much better for them to be on X with vastly more readers and maybe the chance to persuade the middle ground
Then you get the weird phenomenon of wilful ignorance. Lefties who simply aren't aware of very basic facts because these facts are censored if at all awkward, on places like Bluesky
This is not my experience of BlueSky, and I am not a woke lefty. It's certainly a far more pleasant (and more useable) place than X.
Yes, right-wing shouty types will get push-back and many will block them but the key aspect there is 'shouty', not 'right-wing'. Bubble chambers are never great but they're better than not being able to exclude those who insist on barging in and disrupting unreasonably.
It may well be that X still has 600m registered users but I wonder what the trend is in how many still interact regularly. No doubt it still appeals to a particular political demographic but even to the extent it does, it just doesn't work very well any more, without a proper block facility and with intrusive adverts.
Bluesky is now stalled, with evidence it is declining
It’s a niche place for over-sensitive lefties and centrist Dads. Which is fine if that’s what you want; just don’t expect it to grow and overtake X
But with a base of less than 10% users that X has, I wonder if big accounts (like the Guardian) might quietly shift back to X. What’s the point in preaching to a relatively small number of the converted?
For The Guardian, it probably has more active readers on BlueSky than X, excluding those who want to be annoyed and offended on the latter. Horses for courses.
Anyway, the majority of the people I follow as individuals are active on BSky and not on X, so that's where I post. As well as not wanting to give Musk the numbers.
It’s an awkward fact that what drives productivity growth is not generally people starting up their own businesses. Those are often some of the least productive per worker, particularly in the services and retail sectors.
It’s very large companies that employ thousands of staff investing in process improvement and automation.
That’s not an argument against encouraging entrepreneurship, but productivity isn’t the metric if that’s what you want.
That's a massive generalisation which doesn't really hold - some industries benefit from huge economies of scale, in others, particularly those where you need to respond quickly to specific customer requirements, size is irrelevant or can be a disadvantage.
But the real elephant in the UK productivity room is of course the largest, most powerful, stupidest and greediest organisation of all - the public sector. Not only has its own productivity performance in the last 25 years been positively catastrophic, it has also, through never-ending red tape and distortionary taxes, stopped the private sector (especially small entrepreneurs) from being productive.
When it comes to productivity, as so much else, for the last generation, government has been the problem not the solution.
Is someone inside or pro government going to defend the deal we've done because at the moment the only story is fishing betrayal. Come on guys what have you got?
Remember - the impact of the Tory’s hard Brexit was particularly bad for fishing because 1) the sector exported a lot to Europe 2) is highly sensitive to trade barriers (famously fish needs to get to its customer quickly…). Almost no sector was worse affected
Frankly, the smart comms is probably to let the Brexit right unleash hell on the shadows of ghosts, and then have some people involved in fishing say "this deal works well for us, because..."
It's the kind of thing I would expect a lawyer to do, and being given enough rope is what did for Boris.
Is someone inside or pro government going to defend the deal we've done because at the moment the only story is fishing betrayal. Come on guys what have you got?
Remember - the impact of the Tory’s hard Brexit was particularly bad for fishing because 1) the sector exported a lot to Europe 2) is highly sensitive to trade barriers (famously fish needs to get to its customer quickly…). Almost no sector was worse affected
Now, with much of British business on her side, Reeves will be able to argue that a new administration would jeopardise improved trade deals. While her Brexiteer opponents cry betrayal, the Chancellor will emphasise growth and stability.
On this, the government believes it has an increasingly strong story to tell. “If you add together the India deal, the America deal and the European deal, you can clearly see a UK government improving the terms of trade at a rapid clip,” a senior source told me.
In another political universe, Leavers would be claiming this flurry of deals as a “Brexit benefit”, offering sceptical but constructive opposition. But as they speak only of British failure, Labour believes it can trap Reform and the Tories on the wrong side of both voters and business.
Chancellor Reeves: "Our biggest trading partners are our friends, our allies in the EU. For too long it's been too difficult to export, to bring in talent, to trade with our nearest neighbours and that's not good enough because it's held back our growth."
Fascinating article on how Bluesky is tailing off, and slowly self-destructing
TLDR: it's become a bubble chamber of leftoids, who are angry and intolerant of opposing opinions (esp but not always rightwing opinions). This makes it hostile to a lot of newcomers, and so the newbies stop coming. Without opposing opinions to tackle, the Blueskyers either turn on each other, or tediously and pointlessly agree with each other. And they become increasingly misinformed
I reckon if you put a dozen alpha males together for a month, by the end of it one will be the boss, there will be a few caporegimes, and the rest will be running errands, and the same with a dozen more sensitive chaps. This could be what is happening at BlueSky. We are just primates after all
Definitely some of that. And also partly an unhappy evolution - for the Left - that increasingly they don't just dislike rightwing or opposing opinions, they will not tolerate them. To oppose Woke left values - which are of course self evidently true - is to be evil, wrong, malign, Nazi. This shall not do. So anyone that has such opinions gets chased off Bluesky, and the purity police will come for even minor infringements in really niche areas - they use Blocking lists, and basic and very violent abuse
What a shitshow
But as I say this is really bad for the Left. eg the Guardian has quit X with all its 600m users and now only preaches on Bluesky to 33m angry lefties and the odd lepidopterist. And if the Guardian strays an inch from the accepted orthodoxy of the day on, say, Israel or gender or ANYTHING, all it gets is screeds of hatred
How does this benefit the Guardian? It doesn't. Much better for them to be on X with vastly more readers and maybe the chance to persuade the middle ground
Then you get the weird phenomenon of wilful ignorance. Lefties who simply aren't aware of very basic facts because these facts are censored if at all awkward, on places like Bluesky
This is not my experience of BlueSky, and I am not a woke lefty. It's certainly a far more pleasant (and more useable) place than X.
Yes, right-wing shouty types will get push-back and many will block them but the key aspect there is 'shouty', not 'right-wing'. Bubble chambers are never great but they're better than not being able to exclude those who insist on barging in and disrupting unreasonably.
It may well be that X still has 600m registered users but I wonder what the trend is in how many still interact regularly. No doubt it still appeals to a particular political demographic but even to the extent it does, it just doesn't work very well any more, without a proper block facility and with intrusive adverts.
Bluesky is now stalled, with evidence it is declining
It’s a niche place for over-sensitive lefties and centrist Dads. Which is fine if that’s what you want; just don’t expect it to grow and overtake X
But with a base of less than 10% users that X has, I wonder if big accounts (like the Guardian) might quietly shift back to X. What’s the point in preaching to a relatively small number of the converted?
For The Guardian, it probably has more active readers on BlueSky than X, excluding those who want to be annoyed and offended on the latter. Horses for courses.
Anyway, the majority of the people I follow as individuals are active on BSky and not on X, so that's where I post. As well as not wanting to give Musk the numbers.
Actually I just checked and the five biggest Guardian writers I can name - Polly Tuscany, James Harris, Owen Jones, Marina Hyde, Jonathan Freedland - are all still on X and all still very actively tweeting
So in effect the Guardian hasn’t really left X at all, just its official accounts. And I bet they return quietly, for the same reason their star writers are still on X. It’s the big arena, the global conversation, it’s where you want to be
One other thing I would be interested in. A lot of chatter about how the British don't like eating seafood - that's why we sell to Europe. I'd be very interested to see some figures on the cost of fresh north sea shell/fish per gramme of protein compared to say a free range chicken. Herring and mackeral aren't too expensive but isn't much of this really a luxury market?
On Biden, his decision to run again in 2023 is looking even worse now. When did he know how bad the situation is? When you put yourself forward for the presidency, you're signing up for a five-year deal or so (one as candidate, four as president). Yes, there can occasionally be exceptions when you're the incumbent and there's a crisis so immediate and critical to deal with that such considerations override longer-term prospects (looking at you, FDR, 1944), but such cases are rare and were not in place in 2023.
When he declined to withdraw, he blocked the field for a competitive primary race which at the very minimum ensured that Harris wasn't match-fit going into the campaign, probably prevented a better candidate emerging and either way undermined their democratic legitimacy. And for what? It seems an even more selfish and/or deluded decision than it did at the time.
Some of us were pointing this out as early as 2022 but we were told to shut up and stop shilling for Trump because “Biden’s always had a stammer”
I don't think I was one. I certainly argued that Biden shouldn't stand again in mid- to late-2023, when the decision needed to be made.
Mind you, noting Biden's weaknesses isn't ramping Trump (and I appreciate you're not saying it is). Quite the contrary: Biden's decision to run - and that there was no Democrat willing to take him on and provide a viable alternative - contributed greatly to Trump's return.
A key trouble with UBI is there isn't a single universal level of income that is appropriate.
The needs of a single 18 year-old living with their parents after school are not the same as the needs of a 30 year-old widow with two young children and with no assets or family.
Pretending we can have a one size fits all approach to welfare is well meaning but delusional.
I think the point is that having a universal sum of money you get regardless of what you do gives everyone options. The 30 year old widow with young children could use her UBI to pay for childcare so she can go back to her previous career. The 18 year old living at home can use her UBI to meet her living costs while she takes an internship or an apprenticeship.
The worst thing about the current benefits system is the pettifogging rules which restrict people making life choices that work for them because of the fear of losing money. When I was younger and out of work, I was offered a voluntary role with Oxfam coordinating their online book sales for my local area. I would have loved to do it and it would have been great experience but the Job Centre said I would lose my job seeker's allowance. UBI would have allowed me to boost my employability whilst still having enough to live.
That is absolutely crazy you having to miss that opportunity.
Bart keeps mentionjng cliff edges and he’s right, it’s something ripe for reform and never gets reformed.
A UBi would be fine for me, but it’s how is it funded and at what level is it set,
I object fundementally to the basic priciple of a UBI. The idea that the taxpayer is giving handouts to everyone regardless of need (I am of course in favour of taxpayer support for the needy with a relatively wide definition) seems utterly ludicrous. It creates a vast client state and completely alters the relationship between the citizen and the State.
Whatever happened to the old principle of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"?
I don't think it's practical. The numbers don't work. We can't spend in aggregate more on welfare, so bringing in something which directs money to people who don't need it means less for those who do.
The game changer could well be AI. If in a short space of time, millions of people become less able to earn what they need, and those with deep pockets are able to earn even more money but employ fewer people, then the maths may have to change.
A universal income could end up being a tax on AI workers, that is paid to humans.
It’s the big arena, the global conversation, it’s where you want to be
The big fascist arena, it's the global alt-right bubble conversation.
It might be where you want to be...
I think X is like a gateway drug to fascism, because it partiy still is genuinely an international arena, and partly through its new algorithms, promotes extremist views in almost all international discussions.
The challenge for the Tories is - what would you do differently? What is in this deal that shouldn’t be? Why was the status quo better (particularly when people have generally found the status quo to be pretty rubbish) and what would you do to improve the situation.
Same question for Farage, but he’ll probably get away with it more because he didn’t have a hand to play in the original deal and can just continue his betrayal narrative.
Yes, and that bovine fool David Frost crawled from under a stone too. I must say that the Brexit nutters remind me of the Bourbons after 1815- they have forgotten nothing and learned nothing. The idea that there is some mob determined to defend the details of the highly flawed May/Johnson Brexit deal as though it was holy writ is delusion on an industrial scale.
The truth is that the majority, including the majority of those who voted to Leave, are aware that Brexit as it stands is a failure (indeed it is why the Tories are on life support, because they have been getting the blame for it). Therefore some reset has clearly got to happen. In 2016 the then PM of Luxembourg said, slightly incredulously, that Britain seemed to want to move from being in the EU and opting out, to being out of the EU and opting in. The fact is though, that pragmatic Britain *does* want that. So the shrill screams of "treachery" in the far right media just looks silly.
That is not to say that this latest deal is the be all and end all, since all it is really doing is merely starting the process where we do "opt in" to as much of the EU as we deem to be sensible. In the days of Trump, that could turn out to be a lot more than these rather timid measures, and end up moving us towards a full-on set of treaties.
Europe is offering a partnership with Britain, while the USA under Trump is offering humiliation and cynical subservience to the Mad King. The choice is pretty straightforward. Even if you are as dumb as Frost, it should be clear that the best policy is to at least keep our options open. The fact that the Brexit nutters won´t countenance any agreements and scream "treachery" any time we even talk to the EU is rendering them irrelevant.
For both economic and strategic reasons, a new alliance has to be built. If the right fail to understand that, they will be buried.
After the past 14 years, it doesn´t look like much of a loss.
Anyone paying attention over the last 18 months would have seen what happens when anyone dares criticise Hamas on these demos. An Iranian guy was arrested multiple times for doing just that. And Tatchell was previously stopped from going on a march because he had a placard that criticised Hamas.
There was this placard from back in 2023 I believe:
If you cannot criticise Hamas then that is in fact a problem.
Those that don’t accept that the freedoms offered to them in this country apply to everyone equally need to experience the full power of the modern neo-liberal state. Personally.
One other thing I would be interested in. A lot of chatter about how the British don't like eating seafood - that's why we sell to Europe. I'd be very interested to see some figures on the cost of fresh north sea shell/fish per gramme of protein compared to say a free range chicken. Herring and mackeral aren't too expensive but isn't much of this really a luxury market?
For all that fishing became some kind of totemic battle, the elephant in the room was always that we don't want to eat "our" fish. We like to eat stuff that swims in other people's waters and not our own. So of course a deal was needed - we need to be able to export Langoustine and import Cod.
Never mind "giving our fishing rights away", we need to be able to trade as well. Our post-Brexit fishing deals have all included granting fishing rights in our waters as part of the package, just as they include our rights to fish in other people's waters.
Ah, I have found one Guardian writer who has actually followed through and moved to Bluesky
George Monbiot
Problem is he’s gone from 530,000 followers to 125,000 - and those 125,000 will be people extremely likely to agree with him. He doesn’t need those people - he’s a campaigning journalist (and a rather good one - I admire his eloquent passion). He wants and needs to PERSUADE
So what’s he gained from this move? Well, he’s stuck it to Musk, which I suppose something, but he’s also lost a huge and valuable audience
A "significant amount" of private data including details of domestic abuse victims has been hacked from Legal Aid's online system.
The Ministry of Justice said the agency's services were hacked in April and data dating back to 2010 was downloaded. The BBC understands that more than two million pieces of information were taken.
The breach covers all areas of the aid system - including domestic abuse victims, those in family cases and others facing criminal prosecution.
"This data may have included... addresses of applicants, dates of birth, national ID numbers, criminal history, employment and financial data such as... debts and payments," the MoJ said.
*EU says it will work swiftly to explore British participation in its defence fund. Language there is limited.
We all remember the promise to explore reform to CAP...the being part of the defence fund was touted by Starmer as a big deal.
Europe “oh shit, Russia is threatening us”
UK “don’t worry, we will stand by you, put resources and money into defending Europe as we all stand together”
Europe “ we need a fund to buy weapons as part of this defence and solidarity”
UK “cool, well we have lots of defence manuf” Europe, “uh no, just because you are helping defend us using your military, intelligence capabilities and funding Ukraine it doesn’t mean you get anything back. unless of course you give us a load of extra things to thank us for allowing you to do a load of the heavy lifting in defending our continent and showing solidarity.”
Twats.
I am not sure you can blame the EU and its members for standing up for their own national interests. You can blame Starmer for standing up for their own national interests though. Whoever's side he's on, it isn't ours.
Most people probably want jobs that are slightly better paid and slightly more interesting than the ones they're doing. They don't want the government to give them a bit of extra money so they can spend more time sitting on the sofa staring at a screen. But the elites would love that because it gives them another opportunity to feel superior to ordinary people, which explains the popularity of UBI with the think-tank set.
Most people probably want jobs that are slightly better paid and slightly more interesting than the ones they're doing. They don't want the government to give them a bit of extra money so they can spend more time sitting on the sofa staring at a screen. But the elites would love that because it gives them another opportunity to feel superior to ordinary people, which explains the popularity of UBI with the think-tank set.
Even if you think that fishing rights aren't a big economic issue, it's still politically inept to put them in the spotlight again, unless you have some really big wins, and no e-gates are not a big win, there's no reason why e-gate access should not be the norm essentially everywhere.
Starmer's political skills are barely above the level of Sunak.
The Brits don’t eat enough fish . And an SPS deal means UK fisheries can sell more into the EU especially catch that needs to be exported live .
We should change the fact that we don't though.
The minor concern of heavy metals notwithstanding, we don't eat enough fish. 'Five portions of fruit and veg a day' was made up by American fruit and veg growers with no medical basis, so I don't see why 'two portions of fish a week' cannot be a national campaign, with considerably more basis in science.
Comments
It all nets out to zero in the end.
Brexiteers have had nine years to outline and deliver a British economy with less ties to the EU that is better for the country. They failed, preferring internecine feuding instead. Isn’t it just logical now for any neutral observer for someone to see if more ties works instead?
Ability to export sausages again is another win being touted by Jonathan Reynolds.
Unfortunately we'll have to wait until the main right wing party (is that the Conservatives or Reform?) is also in favour of rejoining. Otherwise why would the EU take us back, since we would only be one election away from Brexit Referendum 2.
@trussliz
No Parliament can bind its successor.
This "deal" must be jettisoned in 2029.
We await details but:
“Put it this way.
Only one side is leaking the documents with joy.”
https://x.com/mrharrycole/status/1924378743935484145?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw
I remember when my grandad was in a similar situation and diagnosed with brain cancer at 89 years old and the doctor suggested brain surgery which would potentially extend his life for 6-12 months. My parents were fully against it as he would go through a horrible procedure, terrible recovery and all to spend an extra 6-12 months in hospital or convalescent home. In the end it was up to my dad and my uncles/aunt and they came to that decision, so my grandad spent the last couple of months of his life at home surrounded by his family and friends when he died at 90. Not one of them regrets that decision.
https://x.com/PeterTatchell/status/1723441409410158949
Hope you’re doing okay after the Romanian result.
Let me just go and check if there's still a sky up there above us.
Yep, there is.
No change there, then.
https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1923910769478910415
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYpSDNyVsFM
I have some Royal Mail shares from the privatisation several years ago.
The company are now being taken over by Czech guy.
I cannot make head nor tail of where things are and where I stand.
The shares are shown in my online portfolio with a major bank but are shown as having zero value.
There was supposed to have been some kind of special dividend paid a week or two ago but I can see no sign of the money.
Anyone know what is going on or what is supposed to be happening.
Whatever you think of his crisps and politics, Lineker was a damn good MotD host.
It’s a niche place for over-sensitive lefties and centrist Dads. Which is fine if that’s what you want; just don’t expect it to grow and overtake X
But with a base of less than 10% users that X has, I wonder if big accounts (like the Guardian) might quietly shift back to X. What’s the point in preaching to a relatively small number of the converted?
It's not given at weekends; apparently the cancer doesn't work Saturdays and Sundays!
However, I'm clear now.
BUT, if someone suggested I needed something really unpleasant, like brain surgery, with a long and difficult recovery time, at a couple of years younger than Max's grandad I'd say 'no thanks' too!
https://x.com/VPPressSec/status/1924377856513052719
The strange thing is you DO care
What Friedman advocated is a reform of tax, so that instead of a personal allowance there's a negative amount of tax paid (the UBI) if not earning then a simple tax rate going up from that.
That simplifies our tax system dramatically, eliminates the cliff edges, and ensures people are always better off working than not working.
It eliminates bureaucracy and it eliminates perverse incentives not to work.
The UBI should be viewed the same as the tax free allowance today, just a modified version of it without cliff edges.
“Yay, an end to the Brexit queues”
But we actually got nothing on something we promised?
Wonderful to see the Mail fuming about the deal.
On the other hand - my mother in law was treated for cancer only to end up as a shell of her former self. She wasn't really showing signs when treated but the dementia started showing not long afterwards. If we had known then what we know now...
But what they can do - and, from what it sounds like, they did in your family's case - is provide expert opinion on the options and leave it to the patient themself, or, where the patient isn't able to make that decision, their close family caring for them.
The correct one is will this and other deals make a positive way people feel and experience in their lives in 2028
Starmer for treason, though. He's evil, weak, stupid, treacherous, and a surrender money, apparently.
All in a days work.
- personal allowance is the UBI
- Pension is UBI
Which leave how many adults?
Have they actually spoken to NE fishing bodies? The current deal is crap. And hated. With details why.
It may even be positive, who knows ?
He would never surrender for money, surely.
Nige will be dusting off his riverboat and Alan Partridge blazer for another "Hero of Britain's fishing" demo.
When he declined to withdraw, he blocked the field for a competitive primary race which at the very minimum ensured that Harris wasn't match-fit going into the campaign, probably prevented a better candidate emerging and either way undermined their democratic legitimacy. And for what? It seems an even more selfish and/or deluded decision than it did at the time.
They made it clear they hated Brexit as it gave more fish to the British (they didn’t complain about us being selfish, they just said it was bad for THEM) and they were terrified the next deal would be worse. They expected worse - and they were gonna attack Paris when it happened
That’s what I mean when I say we had massive leverage. If we’ve yielded and allowed a really long extension then I do hope Starmer has used this leverage and gained a massive concession in return
With a UBI of £12k and a flat rate of 50%, they would take home £27k.
It is just a matter of setting the right tax rate. All cliff edges disappear.
Remember - the impact of the Tory’s hard Brexit was particularly bad for fishing because 1) the sector exported a lot to Europe 2) is highly sensitive to trade barriers (famously fish needs to get to its customer quickly…). Almost no sector was worse affected
https://bsky.app/profile/torstenbell.bsky.social/post/3lpjdhwppnk2f
Anyway, the majority of the people I follow as individuals are active on BSky and not on X, so that's where I post. As well as not wanting to give Musk the numbers.
But the real elephant in the UK productivity room is of course the largest, most powerful, stupidest and greediest organisation of all - the public sector. Not only has its own productivity performance in the last 25 years been positively catastrophic, it has also, through never-ending red tape and distortionary taxes, stopped the private sector (especially small entrepreneurs) from being productive.
When it comes to productivity, as so much else, for the last generation, government has been the problem not the solution.
It's the kind of thing I would expect a lawyer to do, and being given enough rope is what did for Boris.
"Breaking news : son of caravan magnate who tried to steal golden toilet from Blenheim Palace avoid prison."
On this, the government believes it has an increasingly strong story to tell. “If you add together the India deal, the America deal and the European deal, you can clearly see a UK government improving the terms of trade at a rapid clip,” a senior source told me.
In another political universe, Leavers would be claiming this flurry of deals as a “Brexit benefit”, offering sceptical but constructive opposition. But as they speak only of British failure, Labour believes it can trap Reform and the Tories on the wrong side of both voters and business.
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk-politics/2025/05/labour-europe-deal-trap-for-brexiteers-trap-keir-starmer
@bestforbritain.bsky.social
Chancellor Reeves: "Our biggest trading partners are our friends, our allies in the EU. For too long it's been too difficult to export, to bring in talent, to trade with our nearest neighbours and that's not good enough because it's held back our growth."
Incredible that this even needs saying. ~AA
So in effect the Guardian hasn’t really left X at all, just its official accounts. And I bet they return quietly, for the same reason their star writers are still on X. It’s the big arena, the global conversation, it’s where you want to be
Mind you, noting Biden's weaknesses isn't ramping Trump (and I appreciate you're not saying it is). Quite the contrary: Biden's decision to run - and that there was no Democrat willing to take him on and provide a viable alternative - contributed greatly to Trump's return.
It might be where you want to be...
A universal income could end up being a tax on AI workers, that is paid to humans.
Same question for Farage, but he’ll probably get away with it more because he didn’t have a hand to play in the original deal and can just continue his betrayal narrative.
The truth is that the majority, including the majority of those who voted to Leave, are aware that Brexit as it stands is a failure (indeed it is why the Tories are on life support, because they have been getting the blame for it). Therefore some reset has clearly got to happen. In 2016 the then PM of Luxembourg said, slightly incredulously, that Britain seemed to want to move from being in the EU and opting out, to being out of the EU and opting in. The fact is though, that pragmatic Britain *does* want that. So the shrill screams of "treachery" in the far right media just looks silly.
That is not to say that this latest deal is the be all and end all, since all it is really doing is merely starting the process where we do "opt in" to as much of the EU as we deem to be sensible. In the days of Trump, that could turn out to be a lot more than these rather timid measures, and end up moving us towards a full-on set of treaties.
Europe is offering a partnership with Britain, while the USA under Trump is offering humiliation and cynical subservience to the Mad King. The choice is pretty straightforward. Even if you are as dumb as Frost, it should be clear that the best policy is to at least keep our options open. The fact that the Brexit nutters won´t countenance any agreements and scream "treachery" any time we even talk to the EU is rendering them irrelevant.
For both economic and strategic reasons, a new alliance has to be built. If the right fail to understand that, they will be buried.
After the past 14 years, it doesn´t look like much of a loss.
Those that don’t accept that the freedoms offered to them in this country apply to everyone equally need to experience the full power of the modern neo-liberal state. Personally.
Never mind "giving our fishing rights away", we need to be able to trade as well. Our post-Brexit fishing deals have all included granting fishing rights in our waters as part of the package, just as they include our rights to fish in other people's waters.
George Monbiot
Problem is he’s gone from 530,000 followers to 125,000 - and those 125,000 will be people extremely likely to agree with him. He doesn’t need those people - he’s a campaigning journalist (and a rather good one - I admire his eloquent passion). He wants and needs to PERSUADE
So what’s he gained from this move? Well, he’s stuck it to Musk, which I suppose something, but he’s also lost a huge and valuable audience
The Ministry of Justice said the agency's services were hacked in April and data dating back to 2010 was downloaded. The BBC understands that more than two million pieces of information were taken.
The breach covers all areas of the aid system - including domestic abuse victims, those in family cases and others facing criminal prosecution.
"This data may have included... addresses of applicants, dates of birth, national ID numbers, criminal history, employment and financial data such as... debts and payments," the MoJ said.
Starmer's political skills are barely above the level of Sunak.
The minor concern of heavy metals notwithstanding, we don't eat enough fish. 'Five portions of fruit and veg a day' was made up by American fruit and veg growers with no medical basis, so I don't see why 'two portions of fish a week' cannot be a national campaign, with considerably more basis in science.