Sammy Woodhouse, a victim of Rotherham Grooming, who spent her 15th birthday with her rapist who was committing an armed robbery, had a child by him and Rotherham social services forced her to give access to the child to the rapist, and has campaigned on grooming gangs and for girls catches Richard Tice of Reform here.
He does not come off well. He could have stopped and spoke to her.
It’s one thing to use an issue, as a party, for political advantage. It’s another to engage with victims.
Richard Tice isn't convincing as a politician. I think he's an OK man and has some good ideas, but I've never seen an interview or any public appearance where he has inspired me with confidence.
Yeah, I’d agree with that. I don’t think he’s a bad person but given how big this issue is the least he could do is stop and talk to her.
It just gives the impression of Reform using this for point scoring rather than wanting to solve it.
Sadly, he's a walking not very good impression. Hopefully he makes it up to that poor lady. Reform needs to be seen as a different sort of party that doesn't just walk over people to get where it wants to go.
The look on Carney's face here as Trump whines about how his Petrograd bestie was thrown out of the club for no reason other than a bit of genocidal war:
Nothing to see here, just the President of the United States sticking up and shilling for Putin while trashing the former PM of an allied country to their current PM.
Sammy Woodhouse, a victim of Rotherham Grooming, who spent her 15th birthday with her rapist who was committing an armed robbery, had a child by him and Rotherham social services forced her to give access to the child to the rapist, and has campaigned on grooming gangs and for girls catches Richard Tice of Reform here.
He does not come off well. He could have stopped and spoke to her.
It’s one thing to use an issue, as a party, for political advantage. It’s another to engage with victims.
Richard Tice isn't convincing as a politician. I think he's an OK man and has some good ideas, but I've never seen an interview or any public appearance where he has inspired me with confidence.
Yeah, I’d agree with that. I don’t think he’s a bad person but given how big this issue is the least he could do is stop and talk to her.
It just gives the impression of Reform using this for point scoring rather than wanting to solve it.
It's possible that there's a reason for that.
Highlights a problem for Reform. At the moment, they are the most instinctively brilliant retail politician of the 2020s and a bunch of nobodies. That's not the basis for a successful government, and if Nigel makes other plans, his party goes back to being a bunch of nobodies.
Going anywhere near the public is always a risky endeavour for a politician....of course there is a Thick of It episode...The pissy lady.
At least we haven’t advanced as far as the US. Where, if you embarrass a politician in public with the wrong kind of question, the IRS audits you, your business permits get revoked….
The look on Carney's face here as Trump whines about how his Petrograd bestie was thrown out of the club for no reason other than a bit of genocidal war:
Nothing to see here, just the President of the United States sticking up and shilling for Putin while trashing the former PM of an allied country to their current PM.
Not only is it going to be light until ten f*cking pm this weekend, it is also going to be 30 degrees. This is above my comfort zone.
How I yearn for the days when Leon was gloomily drawing his blinds down at 3:30pm.
Come to the Faroes. Today’s temperature peaked at a heady 13C
That’s actually quite warm by Faroese standards. Recent days have averaged a max of 10-11C
It’s amazing how quickly you get used to it. Today the sun came out for about half an hour (hence that high temperature) - and I caught myself thinking: Wow, what a nice day
At the weekend I got a ferry to the far southern island of Suduroy where it reached 15C and I was like Jeez this is baking
What's their migration policy? I wouldn't want to put extra pressure on any local services like fermented sheep suppliers.
There are actually some BAME people here. God knows how they end up so far north
Via Denmark maybe? But the Faroes is not in the EU nor in Schengen. So that doesn’t quite explain it
I’ve noticed that they - the incomers - all speak English rather than Faroese or Danish. Because you can easily get by in English - almost everyone under 50 speaks it
Meanwhile the local paper is headlining racism at a recent Faroese football match. If it exists then I suggest this is the reason: an influx of foreigners speaking English means the demise of Faroese, after 1000 years
On the other hand the Faroese all avidly follow English football, like British foods, listen to Anglo American music, flock to the “Irish” pub, and speak English even amongst themselves… and they love the Thai takeaway restaurant. Which delivers Thai food served by English speaking Thai people
72% say economy "rigged for rich & powerful" 68% "traditional parties don't care about me" 68% "country in decline" 68% "mainstream media want money not truth" 67% "experts don't understand me" 65% "society is broken
Hard to disagree that seems to be the widespread sentiment. The country just doesn’t work for enough people.
Something will give, sooner or later.
Our democracy will probably be what gives.
The entitled classes now outnumber the productive classes so I assume they will keep voting themselves payrises and benefit increases until the nation becomes Argentina. The UK is on a very bumpy road and we still have a chance to divert to a better one but it means big cuts to entitlements and the state to balance the budget and stop living beyond our means.
Look at the hysteria over WFA and slowing the rate of growth, not even cutting, some benefits.
I’m afraid we will end up learning a very hard lesson as there is no will politically to tackle it and by the time the problem needs to be tackled all the guilty parties will be living a well paid retirement.
Eventually the money will run out for those well paid retirements and public sector pensions will get a 50% haircut over a certain amount.
Our medium term outlook to me definitely screams Argentina. It's taken them 80 years to get to the point of people being fed up enough to vote a radical reformer into power who has finally tackled the entitlement issue and cut the size of the state as well as subsidies and benefits. Inflation now down to 1.5% last month, forwards annual rate predicted to be under 20% for the coming year and there's talk about a local currency bond sale next year if inflation continues to fall.
All very dramatic and you might enjoy it but we all know it won't happen like that.
We could raise basic rate now to 25p and h,igher rate to 50p (unfreezing thresholds at the same time). Public sector pensions (which seem a particular bugbear) are taxed whereas state pensions are not. There is a suggestion we should means test entitlement to a basic State pension - not a bad idea though the reaction to that would make the response to removing the Winter Fuel Allowance seem nothing.
Do those who have already benefitted from generous public and indeed private sector pensions really need the state pension as well? It's a thought.
It's quite clear there's not going to be a pot of gold at the end of the DOGE rainbow.
And what does putting up tax to 25% and 50%(!) do for the working age population other than drive them to the exit door? I've been looking at what I might do now that my year off is rapidly coming to an end and we've got a third kid on the way, the 50% mark has always been the psychological red line for me. Why should I go to work only for the state to take half of my productivity and piss it up the wall of the public sector.
No we need to cut benefit entitlements, public sector pensions above a certain size and as I've told you many times at least 1m public sector roles need to go. We're into the negative productivity per worker/pound side of the equation for the state and more money and more workers isn't going to result in better services provision, it will likely get worse. The answer is higher output per worker.
I'm not sure what you mean by "piss it up the wall" of the public sector? You may not be one of those who thinks "the public sector" (and I don't know what you mean by that - central Government, local Government, the NHS, the Police, Fire, Ambulance, the Armed Forces?) is value for money but many rely on it on a daily basis.
You've not explained what "above a certain size" means either - if you mean the pensions paid to CEOs of Councils or Permanent Secretaries you may have a point but if you want to get after those much further down the food chain, then no.
Local Government has lost one million jobs since 2012 - there aren't that many civil servants in the conventional sense. Do you mean going after the NHS, the newly nationalised railways or what?
Isn't that the problem though, we have far too many people relying on it on a daily basis, whether that's for their salary or benefits. It's becoming a self perpetuating mess of a system where a small proportion of very active users take up the resource making it poor value for money. Instead of giving these lazy benefit cheats a kick up the arse the state just enables them by handing them freebie houses and cars because they're "mentally ill" and have "anxiety".
Cut the entitlements, cut the waste, cut a million public sector jobs and push through a 50% haircut for defined benefit pensions above £30k per year (so a £50k DB pension becomes a £40k one, a £70k one becomes a £50k one etc...)
I also don't care where the job losses come from but the NHS seems like a good place to start and I'd also ban agency staffing and severely limit consultant usage, give each department and trust a limited number of consultant days per year (maybe 20) and push them into SAAS usage which has a very fast time to value rather than on-prem custom build solutions that need swathes of consultants and contractors to build something no one will ever know how to maintain once they're all gone.
Thank you for the as always measured response.
There are people especially at the lower end of the food chain (care workers for example) who do an incredible job for not much money. As for the comment about "users", well, yes, it's been proven for every 100 people registered with a GP, 10 come in regularly mainly with chronic conditions, another 10 visit on an energency irregular basis ans 80 don't visit at all.
We've also established there are those who are playing the system and I agree there are and always have been but I would love to see much more done to bring carers (particularly those in the 30-50 age group caring for older parents) as well as those with physical and mental disabilities into the workforce or back into the workforce and companies need to be more flexible and think more flexibly abouy how they can bring these groups into work.
I presume your pension "haircut" would mean what - that an employee would receive more money rather than have it taken as pension contribution and an employer wouldn't have to make their contribution at all but would have to pay the salary? Schemes like LPGS survive because higher paid employees and their employers pay more in to ensure those further down the chain receive their full benefits.
As for consultants, you'll get no argument from me. I found the overwhelming majority of them expensive and utterly useless - they were gouging Councils £1200 per day (if not more) but were they worth it? No. I wouldn't ban them but I would set an upper limit to what they can charge central and local Government - possibly £10 per day (he jested).
It's a popular maxim - those who can, do - those who can afford to become consultants.
I think you are seriously underestimating how much benefits abuse there is. You talk about how we should do more to bring the disabled and such into the workforce, yes that's fair. The issue as I see it is that these people aren't disabled, they don't have any mental conditions but have gamed their way into a system by being coached to pass assessments by assessors who are more interested in ticking the right boxes than ensuring that these people actually have the issues they claim.
Too many of our benefits are a type of UBI for people who are able to meet a minimum threshold of "sick" by government definition. Either we change the definition of what "sick" means back to what it was before Theresa May expanded it (which is a no brainer) or we have much tougher assessments and assessors are targeted on number of applications they are able to reject as the Blair government did in 2002-2007. I think we'll end up needing both to force the lazy back into work.
The particular "coached to pass by assessors" point does not work, as the success rate at Appeal for PIP is something like 70%.
If there is a problem in addition to the results of using sickness benefit as a stash to keep the Unemployment numbers down, it is that the system has been designed (since the early 2010s I think) to be turbo-bureaucratic and assessments done by low skilled staff who are not up to scratch.
That's why an Elon Musk Chainsaw and Bugger the Consequences route will not imo work, and why it did not work in the USA.
If the civil service (national and local) is slashed beyond the bone, it will never work - as RefUK will discover or as we have already discovered in quality of built housing by underesourcing planning and building control.
Not sure what point you're trying to make with the 70% figure.
If its possible to be "coached to pass" you'd expect a high appeal success rate as those who are initially declined seek coaching on how to pass on appeal.
I don't think it bears the weight of those assumptions.
Is there evidence of "coached to pass by assessors"?
From people I know who've been through the process, I doubt it.
The 70% pass on appeal would be evidence it absolutely could be a big problem. You wouldn't expect such a high appeal success rate otherwise.
Its evidence the initial assessment is often hopelessly poorly conducted
Maybe, maybe not.
Maybe the initial assessment was the right one, but then people are coached to pass on appeal.
What evidence is there the appeal is the right result and not the initial one?
Starmer really is terrible at these emotive issues...this is what he told Sky News.
I asked for an audit, the audit has been conducted, the author of the audit says there should be a national inquiry, I have looked at the report, I considered the report, I think she is right, and that is why there will be a national inquiry.
He sounds like he is responding to my claims that my gas meter was misread.
Starmer really is terrible at these emotive issues...
I asked for an audit, the audit has been conducted, the author of the audit says there should be a national inquiry, I have looked at the report, I considered the report, I think she is right, and that is why there will be a national inquiry.
He sounds like he is responding to my claims that my gas meter was misread.
The look on Carney's face here as Trump whines about how his Petrograd bestie was thrown out of the club for no reason other than a bit of genocidal war:
Nothing to see here, just the President of the United States sticking up and shilling for Putin while trashing the former PM of an allied country to their current PM.
If invading Crimea was bad enough to get them thrown out of the G8, what was G7 member Germany doing building Nordstream 2 with them?
Making a serious mistake.
The point is not that we overreacted to Crimea, as Trump and his minions seem to believe. It's that we failed to react sufficiently.
"Reacting" was already too late. The EU trade deal with all the strings attached that we know from our own experience with the NI protocol should never have been pushed unless there was a credible security guarantee. We didn't realise how high the stakes were.
I get the feeling that I might be the only person of that right age, but for whom Oasis / Blue weren't a big thing for me personally, I didn't really care for either at the time and still happy with my alternative choices of music....
Sammy Woodhouse, a victim of Rotherham Grooming, who spent her 15th birthday with her rapist who was committing an armed robbery, had a child by him and Rotherham social services forced her to give access to the child to the rapist, and has campaigned on grooming gangs and for girls catches Richard Tice of Reform here.
He does not come off well. He could have stopped and spoke to her.
It’s one thing to use an issue, as a party, for political advantage. It’s another to engage with victims.
Richard Tice isn't convincing as a politician. I think he's an OK man and has some good ideas, but I've never seen an interview or any public appearance where he has inspired me with confidence.
I was going to write exactly that. He’s notably unimpressive on screen. No presence, no oomph, an empty suit. He’s so bad he could easily be a senior minister in the Labour Cabinet; and I don’t hurl out such insults lightly
Steady on....that bad....I mean he does have one thing up on the entire Labour Cabinet, he has actually run a successful business. That is how far the bar has fallen.
He's telegenic in some ways, but he comes across more as a forgettable panellist on Dragon's Den than as a senior politician.
Sammy Woodhouse, a victim of Rotherham Grooming, who spent her 15th birthday with her rapist who was committing an armed robbery, had a child by him and Rotherham social services forced her to give access to the child to the rapist, and has campaigned on grooming gangs and for girls catches Richard Tice of Reform here.
He does not come off well. He could have stopped and spoke to her.
It’s one thing to use an issue, as a party, for political advantage. It’s another to engage with victims.
Richard Tice isn't convincing as a politician. I think he's an OK man and has some good ideas, but I've never seen an interview or any public appearance where he has inspired me with confidence.
Yeah, I’d agree with that. I don’t think he’s a bad person but given how big this issue is the least he could do is stop and talk to her.
It just gives the impression of Reform using this for point scoring rather than wanting to solve it.
It's possible that there's a reason for that.
Highlights a problem for Reform. At the moment, they are the most instinctively brilliant retail politician of the 2020s and a bunch of nobodies. That's not the basis for a successful government, and if Nigel makes other plans, his party goes back to being a bunch of nobodies.
Yes. Seeds of downfall here
They desperately need five or six seriously talented people around Farage
Matt Goodwin seems like an obvious candidate for a senior role. He basically agrees with the entire Reform agenda (on migration/Woke etc). He’s articulate and telegenic and smarter than anyone in Labour (ok it’s not hard but still)
I get the feeling that I might be the only person of that right age, but for whom Oasis / Blue weren't a big thing for me personally, I didn't really care for either at the time and still happy with my alternative choices of music....
Did you not even like Blue's "Parklife" album?
I didn't actively dislike either, they aren't in the same category of Radiohead live at Glastonbury....just I wasn't that bothered.
72% say economy "rigged for rich & powerful" 68% "traditional parties don't care about me" 68% "country in decline" 68% "mainstream media want money not truth" 67% "experts don't understand me" 65% "society is broken
Hard to disagree that seems to be the widespread sentiment. The country just doesn’t work for enough people.
Something will give, sooner or later.
Our democracy will probably be what gives.
The entitled classes now outnumber the productive classes so I assume they will keep voting themselves payrises and benefit increases until the nation becomes Argentina. The UK is on a very bumpy road and we still have a chance to divert to a better one but it means big cuts to entitlements and the state to balance the budget and stop living beyond our means.
Look at the hysteria over WFA and slowing the rate of growth, not even cutting, some benefits.
I’m afraid we will end up learning a very hard lesson as there is no will politically to tackle it and by the time the problem needs to be tackled all the guilty parties will be living a well paid retirement.
Eventually the money will run out for those well paid retirements and public sector pensions will get a 50% haircut over a certain amount.
Our medium term outlook to me definitely screams Argentina. It's taken them 80 years to get to the point of people being fed up enough to vote a radical reformer into power who has finally tackled the entitlement issue and cut the size of the state as well as subsidies and benefits. Inflation now down to 1.5% last month, forwards annual rate predicted to be under 20% for the coming year and there's talk about a local currency bond sale next year if inflation continues to fall.
All very dramatic and you might enjoy it but we all know it won't happen like that.
We could raise basic rate now to 25p and h,igher rate to 50p (unfreezing thresholds at the same time). Public sector pensions (which seem a particular bugbear) are taxed whereas state pensions are not. There is a suggestion we should means test entitlement to a basic State pension - not a bad idea though the reaction to that would make the response to removing the Winter Fuel Allowance seem nothing.
Do those who have already benefitted from generous public and indeed private sector pensions really need the state pension as well? It's a thought.
It's quite clear there's not going to be a pot of gold at the end of the DOGE rainbow.
And what does putting up tax to 25% and 50%(!) do for the working age population other than drive them to the exit door? I've been looking at what I might do now that my year off is rapidly coming to an end and we've got a third kid on the way, the 50% mark has always been the psychological red line for me. Why should I go to work only for the state to take half of my productivity and piss it up the wall of the public sector.
No we need to cut benefit entitlements, public sector pensions above a certain size and as I've told you many times at least 1m public sector roles need to go. We're into the negative productivity per worker/pound side of the equation for the state and more money and more workers isn't going to result in better services provision, it will likely get worse. The answer is higher output per worker.
I'm not sure what you mean by "piss it up the wall" of the public sector? You may not be one of those who thinks "the public sector" (and I don't know what you mean by that - central Government, local Government, the NHS, the Police, Fire, Ambulance, the Armed Forces?) is value for money but many rely on it on a daily basis.
You've not explained what "above a certain size" means either - if you mean the pensions paid to CEOs of Councils or Permanent Secretaries you may have a point but if you want to get after those much further down the food chain, then no.
Local Government has lost one million jobs since 2012 - there aren't that many civil servants in the conventional sense. Do you mean going after the NHS, the newly nationalised railways or what?
Isn't that the problem though, we have far too many people relying on it on a daily basis, whether that's for their salary or benefits. It's becoming a self perpetuating mess of a system where a small proportion of very active users take up the resource making it poor value for money. Instead of giving these lazy benefit cheats a kick up the arse the state just enables them by handing them freebie houses and cars because they're "mentally ill" and have "anxiety".
Cut the entitlements, cut the waste, cut a million public sector jobs and push through a 50% haircut for defined benefit pensions above £30k per year (so a £50k DB pension becomes a £40k one, a £70k one becomes a £50k one etc...)
I also don't care where the job losses come from but the NHS seems like a good place to start and I'd also ban agency staffing and severely limit consultant usage, give each department and trust a limited number of consultant days per year (maybe 20) and push them into SAAS usage which has a very fast time to value rather than on-prem custom build solutions that need swathes of consultants and contractors to build something no one will ever know how to maintain once they're all gone.
Thank you for the as always measured response.
There are people especially at the lower end of the food chain (care workers for example) who do an incredible job for not much money. As for the comment about "users", well, yes, it's been proven for every 100 people registered with a GP, 10 come in regularly mainly with chronic conditions, another 10 visit on an energency irregular basis ans 80 don't visit at all.
We've also established there are those who are playing the system and I agree there are and always have been but I would love to see much more done to bring carers (particularly those in the 30-50 age group caring for older parents) as well as those with physical and mental disabilities into the workforce or back into the workforce and companies need to be more flexible and think more flexibly abouy how they can bring these groups into work.
I presume your pension "haircut" would mean what - that an employee would receive more money rather than have it taken as pension contribution and an employer wouldn't have to make their contribution at all but would have to pay the salary? Schemes like LPGS survive because higher paid employees and their employers pay more in to ensure those further down the chain receive their full benefits.
As for consultants, you'll get no argument from me. I found the overwhelming majority of them expensive and utterly useless - they were gouging Councils £1200 per day (if not more) but were they worth it? No. I wouldn't ban them but I would set an upper limit to what they can charge central and local Government - possibly £10 per day (he jested).
It's a popular maxim - those who can, do - those who can afford to become consultants.
I think you are seriously underestimating how much benefits abuse there is. You talk about how we should do more to bring the disabled and such into the workforce, yes that's fair. The issue as I see it is that these people aren't disabled, they don't have any mental conditions but have gamed their way into a system by being coached to pass assessments by assessors who are more interested in ticking the right boxes than ensuring that these people actually have the issues they claim.
Too many of our benefits are a type of UBI for people who are able to meet a minimum threshold of "sick" by government definition. Either we change the definition of what "sick" means back to what it was before Theresa May expanded it (which is a no brainer) or we have much tougher assessments and assessors are targeted on number of applications they are able to reject as the Blair government did in 2002-2007. I think we'll end up needing both to force the lazy back into work.
The particular "coached to pass by assessors" point does not work, as the success rate at Appeal for PIP is something like 70%.
If there is a problem in addition to the results of using sickness benefit as a stash to keep the Unemployment numbers down, it is that the system has been designed (since the early 2010s I think) to be turbo-bureaucratic and assessments done by low skilled staff who are not up to scratch.
That's why an Elon Musk Chainsaw and Bugger the Consequences route will not imo work, and why it did not work in the USA.
If the civil service (national and local) is slashed beyond the bone, it will never work - as RefUK will discover or as we have already discovered in quality of built housing by underesourcing planning and building control.
Not sure what point you're trying to make with the 70% figure.
If its possible to be "coached to pass" you'd expect a high appeal success rate as those who are initially declined seek coaching on how to pass on appeal.
I don't think it bears the weight of those assumptions.
Is there evidence of "coached to pass by assessors"?
From people I know who've been through the process, I doubt it.
The 70% pass on appeal would be evidence it absolutely could be a big problem. You wouldn't expect such a high appeal success rate otherwise.
Its evidence the initial assessment is often hopelessly poorly conducted
Maybe, maybe not.
Maybe the initial assessment was the right one, but then people are coached to pass on appeal.
What evidence is there the appeal is the right result and not the initial one?
The appeal is always more accurate. It's like Hawkeye or VAR. Kind of.
Trump with Mark Carney: "The G7 used to be the G8. Barack Obama and a person named Trudeau didn't want to have Russia in, and I would say that was a mistake, because I think you wouldn't have a war right now if you had Russia in."
I don't agree with Trump about the war, but I did think that the whole raison d'être for the G8 was that it brought together the world's 8 biggest economies (or whatever the correct criterion is), who sometimes disagreed profoundly, without fear or favour. What's the point if it's just some club where you can blackball the naughty members? Inviting Ukraine I thought was particularly unserious.
Sammy Woodhouse, a victim of Rotherham Grooming, who spent her 15th birthday with her rapist who was committing an armed robbery, had a child by him and Rotherham social services forced her to give access to the child to the rapist, and has campaigned on grooming gangs and for girls catches Richard Tice of Reform here.
He does not come off well. He could have stopped and spoke to her.
It’s one thing to use an issue, as a party, for political advantage. It’s another to engage with victims.
Richard Tice isn't convincing as a politician. I think he's an OK man and has some good ideas, but I've never seen an interview or any public appearance where he has inspired me with confidence.
Yeah, I’d agree with that. I don’t think he’s a bad person but given how big this issue is the least he could do is stop and talk to her.
It just gives the impression of Reform using this for point scoring rather than wanting to solve it.
Sadly, he's a walking not very good impression. Hopefully he makes it up to that poor lady. Reform needs to be seen as a different sort of party that doesn't just walk over people to get where it wants to go.
Yes, I agree, but that is exactly the impression given here.
72% say economy "rigged for rich & powerful" 68% "traditional parties don't care about me" 68% "country in decline" 68% "mainstream media want money not truth" 67% "experts don't understand me" 65% "society is broken
Hard to disagree that seems to be the widespread sentiment. The country just doesn’t work for enough people.
Something will give, sooner or later.
Our democracy will probably be what gives.
The entitled classes now outnumber the productive classes so I assume they will keep voting themselves payrises and benefit increases until the nation becomes Argentina. The UK is on a very bumpy road and we still have a chance to divert to a better one but it means big cuts to entitlements and the state to balance the budget and stop living beyond our means.
Look at the hysteria over WFA and slowing the rate of growth, not even cutting, some benefits.
I’m afraid we will end up learning a very hard lesson as there is no will politically to tackle it and by the time the problem needs to be tackled all the guilty parties will be living a well paid retirement.
Eventually the money will run out for those well paid retirements and public sector pensions will get a 50% haircut over a certain amount.
Our medium term outlook to me definitely screams Argentina. It's taken them 80 years to get to the point of people being fed up enough to vote a radical reformer into power who has finally tackled the entitlement issue and cut the size of the state as well as subsidies and benefits. Inflation now down to 1.5% last month, forwards annual rate predicted to be under 20% for the coming year and there's talk about a local currency bond sale next year if inflation continues to fall.
All very dramatic and you might enjoy it but we all know it won't happen like that.
We could raise basic rate now to 25p and h,igher rate to 50p (unfreezing thresholds at the same time). Public sector pensions (which seem a particular bugbear) are taxed whereas state pensions are not. There is a suggestion we should means test entitlement to a basic State pension - not a bad idea though the reaction to that would make the response to removing the Winter Fuel Allowance seem nothing.
Do those who have already benefitted from generous public and indeed private sector pensions really need the state pension as well? It's a thought.
It's quite clear there's not going to be a pot of gold at the end of the DOGE rainbow.
And what does putting up tax to 25% and 50%(!) do for the working age population other than drive them to the exit door? I've been looking at what I might do now that my year off is rapidly coming to an end and we've got a third kid on the way, the 50% mark has always been the psychological red line for me. Why should I go to work only for the state to take half of my productivity and piss it up the wall of the public sector.
No we need to cut benefit entitlements, public sector pensions above a certain size and as I've told you many times at least 1m public sector roles need to go. We're into the negative productivity per worker/pound side of the equation for the state and more money and more workers isn't going to result in better services provision, it will likely get worse. The answer is higher output per worker.
I'm not sure what you mean by "piss it up the wall" of the public sector? You may not be one of those who thinks "the public sector" (and I don't know what you mean by that - central Government, local Government, the NHS, the Police, Fire, Ambulance, the Armed Forces?) is value for money but many rely on it on a daily basis.
You've not explained what "above a certain size" means either - if you mean the pensions paid to CEOs of Councils or Permanent Secretaries you may have a point but if you want to get after those much further down the food chain, then no.
Local Government has lost one million jobs since 2012 - there aren't that many civil servants in the conventional sense. Do you mean going after the NHS, the newly nationalised railways or what?
Isn't that the problem though, we have far too many people relying on it on a daily basis, whether that's for their salary or benefits. It's becoming a self perpetuating mess of a system where a small proportion of very active users take up the resource making it poor value for money. Instead of giving these lazy benefit cheats a kick up the arse the state just enables them by handing them freebie houses and cars because they're "mentally ill" and have "anxiety".
Cut the entitlements, cut the waste, cut a million public sector jobs and push through a 50% haircut for defined benefit pensions above £30k per year (so a £50k DB pension becomes a £40k one, a £70k one becomes a £50k one etc...)
I also don't care where the job losses come from but the NHS seems like a good place to start and I'd also ban agency staffing and severely limit consultant usage, give each department and trust a limited number of consultant days per year (maybe 20) and push them into SAAS usage which has a very fast time to value rather than on-prem custom build solutions that need swathes of consultants and contractors to build something no one will ever know how to maintain once they're all gone.
Thank you for the as always measured response.
There are people especially at the lower end of the food chain (care workers for example) who do an incredible job for not much money. As for the comment about "users", well, yes, it's been proven for every 100 people registered with a GP, 10 come in regularly mainly with chronic conditions, another 10 visit on an energency irregular basis ans 80 don't visit at all.
We've also established there are those who are playing the system and I agree there are and always have been but I would love to see much more done to bring carers (particularly those in the 30-50 age group caring for older parents) as well as those with physical and mental disabilities into the workforce or back into the workforce and companies need to be more flexible and think more flexibly abouy how they can bring these groups into work.
I presume your pension "haircut" would mean what - that an employee would receive more money rather than have it taken as pension contribution and an employer wouldn't have to make their contribution at all but would have to pay the salary? Schemes like LPGS survive because higher paid employees and their employers pay more in to ensure those further down the chain receive their full benefits.
As for consultants, you'll get no argument from me. I found the overwhelming majority of them expensive and utterly useless - they were gouging Councils £1200 per day (if not more) but were they worth it? No. I wouldn't ban them but I would set an upper limit to what they can charge central and local Government - possibly £10 per day (he jested).
It's a popular maxim - those who can, do - those who can afford to become consultants.
I think you are seriously underestimating how much benefits abuse there is. You talk about how we should do more to bring the disabled and such into the workforce, yes that's fair. The issue as I see it is that these people aren't disabled, they don't have any mental conditions but have gamed their way into a system by being coached to pass assessments by assessors who are more interested in ticking the right boxes than ensuring that these people actually have the issues they claim.
Too many of our benefits are a type of UBI for people who are able to meet a minimum threshold of "sick" by government definition. Either we change the definition of what "sick" means back to what it was before Theresa May expanded it (which is a no brainer) or we have much tougher assessments and assessors are targeted on number of applications they are able to reject as the Blair government did in 2002-2007. I think we'll end up needing both to force the lazy back into work.
The particular "coached to pass by assessors" point does not work, as the success rate at Appeal for PIP is something like 70%.
If there is a problem in addition to the results of using sickness benefit as a stash to keep the Unemployment numbers down, it is that the system has been designed (since the early 2010s I think) to be turbo-bureaucratic and assessments done by low skilled staff who are not up to scratch.
That's why an Elon Musk Chainsaw and Bugger the Consequences route will not imo work, and why it did not work in the USA.
If the civil service (national and local) is slashed beyond the bone, it will never work - as RefUK will discover or as we have already discovered in quality of built housing by underesourcing planning and building control.
Not sure what point you're trying to make with the 70% figure.
If its possible to be "coached to pass" you'd expect a high appeal success rate as those who are initially declined seek coaching on how to pass on appeal.
I don't think it bears the weight of those assumptions.
Is there evidence of "coached to pass by assessors"?
From people I know who've been through the process, I doubt it.
The 70% pass on appeal would be evidence it absolutely could be a big problem. You wouldn't expect such a high appeal success rate otherwise.
Its evidence the initial assessment is often hopelessly poorly conducted
Maybe, maybe not.
Maybe the initial assessment was the right one, but then people are coached to pass on appeal.
What evidence is there the appeal is the right result and not the initial one?
The appeal is always more accurate. It's like Hawkeye or VAR. Kind of.
What evidence for that claim?
Hawkeye/VAR uses extra technology. What is done on appeal to be more accurate, and how can you know its not due to coaching?
I get the feeling that I might be the only person of that right age, but for whom Oasis / Blue weren't a big thing for me personally, I didn't really care for either at the time and still happy with my alternative choices of music....
Did you not even like Blue's "Parklife" album?
Yeah. That brilliant Album by Blue 😂 I’m sure that’s news to Lee, Duncan, Simon and the other one.
Trump with Mark Carney: "The G7 used to be the G8. Barack Obama and a person named Trudeau didn't want to have Russia in, and I would say that was a mistake, because I think you wouldn't have a war right now if you had Russia in."
I don't agree with Trump about the war, but I did think that the whole raison d'être for the G8 was that it brought together the world's 8 biggest economies (or whatever the correct criterion is), who sometimes disagreed profoundly, without fear or favour. What's the point if it's just some club where you can blackball the naughty members? Inviting Ukraine I thought was particularly unserious.
72% say economy "rigged for rich & powerful" 68% "traditional parties don't care about me" 68% "country in decline" 68% "mainstream media want money not truth" 67% "experts don't understand me" 65% "society is broken
Hard to disagree that seems to be the widespread sentiment. The country just doesn’t work for enough people.
Something will give, sooner or later.
Our democracy will probably be what gives.
The entitled classes now outnumber the productive classes so I assume they will keep voting themselves payrises and benefit increases until the nation becomes Argentina. The UK is on a very bumpy road and we still have a chance to divert to a better one but it means big cuts to entitlements and the state to balance the budget and stop living beyond our means.
Look at the hysteria over WFA and slowing the rate of growth, not even cutting, some benefits.
I’m afraid we will end up learning a very hard lesson as there is no will politically to tackle it and by the time the problem needs to be tackled all the guilty parties will be living a well paid retirement.
Eventually the money will run out for those well paid retirements and public sector pensions will get a 50% haircut over a certain amount.
Our medium term outlook to me definitely screams Argentina. It's taken them 80 years to get to the point of people being fed up enough to vote a radical reformer into power who has finally tackled the entitlement issue and cut the size of the state as well as subsidies and benefits. Inflation now down to 1.5% last month, forwards annual rate predicted to be under 20% for the coming year and there's talk about a local currency bond sale next year if inflation continues to fall.
All very dramatic and you might enjoy it but we all know it won't happen like that.
We could raise basic rate now to 25p and h,igher rate to 50p (unfreezing thresholds at the same time). Public sector pensions (which seem a particular bugbear) are taxed whereas state pensions are not. There is a suggestion we should means test entitlement to a basic State pension - not a bad idea though the reaction to that would make the response to removing the Winter Fuel Allowance seem nothing.
Do those who have already benefitted from generous public and indeed private sector pensions really need the state pension as well? It's a thought.
It's quite clear there's not going to be a pot of gold at the end of the DOGE rainbow.
And what does putting up tax to 25% and 50%(!) do for the working age population other than drive them to the exit door? I've been looking at what I might do now that my year off is rapidly coming to an end and we've got a third kid on the way, the 50% mark has always been the psychological red line for me. Why should I go to work only for the state to take half of my productivity and piss it up the wall of the public sector.
No we need to cut benefit entitlements, public sector pensions above a certain size and as I've told you many times at least 1m public sector roles need to go. We're into the negative productivity per worker/pound side of the equation for the state and more money and more workers isn't going to result in better services provision, it will likely get worse. The answer is higher output per worker.
I'm not sure what you mean by "piss it up the wall" of the public sector? You may not be one of those who thinks "the public sector" (and I don't know what you mean by that - central Government, local Government, the NHS, the Police, Fire, Ambulance, the Armed Forces?) is value for money but many rely on it on a daily basis.
You've not explained what "above a certain size" means either - if you mean the pensions paid to CEOs of Councils or Permanent Secretaries you may have a point but if you want to get after those much further down the food chain, then no.
Local Government has lost one million jobs since 2012 - there aren't that many civil servants in the conventional sense. Do you mean going after the NHS, the newly nationalised railways or what?
Isn't that the problem though, we have far too many people relying on it on a daily basis, whether that's for their salary or benefits. It's becoming a self perpetuating mess of a system where a small proportion of very active users take up the resource making it poor value for money. Instead of giving these lazy benefit cheats a kick up the arse the state just enables them by handing them freebie houses and cars because they're "mentally ill" and have "anxiety".
Cut the entitlements, cut the waste, cut a million public sector jobs and push through a 50% haircut for defined benefit pensions above £30k per year (so a £50k DB pension becomes a £40k one, a £70k one becomes a £50k one etc...)
I also don't care where the job losses come from but the NHS seems like a good place to start and I'd also ban agency staffing and severely limit consultant usage, give each department and trust a limited number of consultant days per year (maybe 20) and push them into SAAS usage which has a very fast time to value rather than on-prem custom build solutions that need swathes of consultants and contractors to build something no one will ever know how to maintain once they're all gone.
Thank you for the as always measured response.
There are people especially at the lower end of the food chain (care workers for example) who do an incredible job for not much money. As for the comment about "users", well, yes, it's been proven for every 100 people registered with a GP, 10 come in regularly mainly with chronic conditions, another 10 visit on an energency irregular basis ans 80 don't visit at all.
We've also established there are those who are playing the system and I agree there are and always have been but I would love to see much more done to bring carers (particularly those in the 30-50 age group caring for older parents) as well as those with physical and mental disabilities into the workforce or back into the workforce and companies need to be more flexible and think more flexibly abouy how they can bring these groups into work.
I presume your pension "haircut" would mean what - that an employee would receive more money rather than have it taken as pension contribution and an employer wouldn't have to make their contribution at all but would have to pay the salary? Schemes like LPGS survive because higher paid employees and their employers pay more in to ensure those further down the chain receive their full benefits.
As for consultants, you'll get no argument from me. I found the overwhelming majority of them expensive and utterly useless - they were gouging Councils £1200 per day (if not more) but were they worth it? No. I wouldn't ban them but I would set an upper limit to what they can charge central and local Government - possibly £10 per day (he jested).
It's a popular maxim - those who can, do - those who can afford to become consultants.
I think you are seriously underestimating how much benefits abuse there is. You talk about how we should do more to bring the disabled and such into the workforce, yes that's fair. The issue as I see it is that these people aren't disabled, they don't have any mental conditions but have gamed their way into a system by being coached to pass assessments by assessors who are more interested in ticking the right boxes than ensuring that these people actually have the issues they claim.
Too many of our benefits are a type of UBI for people who are able to meet a minimum threshold of "sick" by government definition. Either we change the definition of what "sick" means back to what it was before Theresa May expanded it (which is a no brainer) or we have much tougher assessments and assessors are targeted on number of applications they are able to reject as the Blair government did in 2002-2007. I think we'll end up needing both to force the lazy back into work.
The particular "coached to pass by assessors" point does not work, as the success rate at Appeal for PIP is something like 70%.
If there is a problem in addition to the results of using sickness benefit as a stash to keep the Unemployment numbers down, it is that the system has been designed (since the early 2010s I think) to be turbo-bureaucratic and assessments done by low skilled staff who are not up to scratch.
That's why an Elon Musk Chainsaw and Bugger the Consequences route will not imo work, and why it did not work in the USA.
If the civil service (national and local) is slashed beyond the bone, it will never work - as RefUK will discover or as we have already discovered in quality of built housing by underesourcing planning and building control.
Not sure what point you're trying to make with the 70% figure.
If its possible to be "coached to pass" you'd expect a high appeal success rate as those who are initially declined seek coaching on how to pass on appeal.
I don't think it bears the weight of those assumptions.
Is there evidence of "coached to pass by assessors"?
From people I know who've been through the process, I doubt it.
The 70% pass on appeal would be evidence it absolutely could be a big problem. You wouldn't expect such a high appeal success rate otherwise.
Its evidence the initial assessment is often hopelessly poorly conducted
Maybe, maybe not.
Maybe the initial assessment was the right one, but then people are coached to pass on appeal.
What evidence is there the appeal is the right result and not the initial one?
Last hearing Appeals are conducted by the Social Secuity and Child Support Tribunal supported by the courts and tribunals service so its a serious business. You only reach tribunal after requesting (and failing in) a mandatory reconsideration of any rejection and need to apply within a month of final rejection (after a month you need to explain the delay abd can be rejected outright as timed out). Assessments generally aren't just a few questions, they are very intrusive, humiliating and also involve collation of medical evidence. Maybe the 'coaches' are coaching GPs, psychologists, consultants, psychiatrists, mental health workers, care workers and the like too? If you or anyone has evidence the independent tribunal service are serving up dog shit you should probably forward it to the government, they'd be very interested.
I get the feeling that I might be the only person of that right age, but for whom Oasis / Blue weren't a big thing for me personally, I didn't really care for either at the time and still happy with my alternative choices of music....
Did you not even like Blue's "Parklife" album?
Yeah. That brilliant Album by Blue 😂 I’m sure that’s news to Lee, Duncan, Simon and the other one.
Blue's Parklife is nearly as good as Song Two by Eiffel 65
The look on Carney's face here as Trump whines about how his Petrograd bestie was thrown out of the club for no reason other than a bit of genocidal war:
Nothing to see here, just the President of the United States sticking up and shilling for Putin while trashing the former PM of an allied country to their current PM.
If invading Crimea was bad enough to get them thrown out of the G8, what was G7 member Germany doing building Nordstream 2 with them?
Making a serious mistake.
The point is not that we overreacted to Crimea, as Trump and his minions seem to believe. It's that we failed to react sufficiently.
"Reacting" was already too late. The EU trade deal with all the strings attached that we know from our own experience with the NI protocol should never have been pushed unless there was a credible security guarantee. We didn't realise how high the stakes were.
It was late, but not too late at all.
You're basically arguing that Putin can't be deterred, only appeased. I think that's seriously misguided.
Sammy Woodhouse, a victim of Rotherham Grooming, who spent her 15th birthday with her rapist who was committing an armed robbery, had a child by him and Rotherham social services forced her to give access to the child to the rapist, and has campaigned on grooming gangs and for girls catches Richard Tice of Reform here.
He does not come off well. He could have stopped and spoke to her.
It’s one thing to use an issue, as a party, for political advantage. It’s another to engage with victims.
Richard Tice isn't convincing as a politician. I think he's an OK man and has some good ideas, but I've never seen an interview or any public appearance where he has inspired me with confidence.
Yeah, I’d agree with that. I don’t think he’s a bad person but given how big this issue is the least he could do is stop and talk to her.
It just gives the impression of Reform using this for point scoring rather than wanting to solve it.
It's possible that there's a reason for that.
Highlights a problem for Reform. At the moment, they are the most instinctively brilliant retail politician of the 2020s and a bunch of nobodies. That's not the basis for a successful government, and if Nigel makes other plans, his party goes back to being a bunch of nobodies.
It’s a one man cult (not a misprint) at the moment.
The one thing I’m very happy about with them winning control of several councils is the scrutiny they will now get. They will have a record to Defend. They cannot just be opposing for the sake of it. Same with the Lib Dem’s in the south.
Trump with Mark Carney: "The G7 used to be the G8. Barack Obama and a person named Trudeau didn't want to have Russia in, and I would say that was a mistake, because I think you wouldn't have a war right now if you had Russia in."
I don't agree with Trump about the war, but I did think that the whole raison d'être for the G8 was that it brought together the world's 8 biggest economies (or whatever the correct criterion is), who sometimes disagreed profoundly, without fear or favour. What's the point if it's just some club where you can blackball the naughty members? Inviting Ukraine I thought was particularly unserious.
Yes but you've always wanted us to wash our hands of them, haven't you ?
Trump with Mark Carney: "The G7 used to be the G8. Barack Obama and a person named Trudeau didn't want to have Russia in, and I would say that was a mistake, because I think you wouldn't have a war right now if you had Russia in."
I don't agree with Trump about the war, but I did think that the whole raison d'être for the G8 was that it brought together the world's 8 biggest economies (or whatever the correct criterion is), who sometimes disagreed profoundly, without fear or favour. What's the point if it's just some club where you can blackball the naughty members? Inviting Ukraine I thought was particularly unserious.
Slightly more than "naughty".
The United Nations is the United Nations, not the United Nice Nations - if it were that it would be considerably less well-attended and it would defeat the purpose. The same is surely true of the G8/7. Yes, it may not have prevented the Ukraine war, but it certainly would have kept communication going a top level. That has value. As it is, the G7 is just an announcement and a press call on a lawn.
The look on Carney's face here as Trump whines about how his Petrograd bestie was thrown out of the club for no reason other than a bit of genocidal war:
Nothing to see here, just the President of the United States sticking up and shilling for Putin while trashing the former PM of an allied country to their current PM.
If invading Crimea was bad enough to get them thrown out of the G8, what was G7 member Germany doing building Nordstream 2 with them?
Making a serious mistake.
The point is not that we overreacted to Crimea, as Trump and his minions seem to believe. It's that we failed to react sufficiently.
"Reacting" was already too late. The EU trade deal with all the strings attached that we know from our own experience with the NI protocol should never have been pushed unless there was a credible security guarantee. We didn't realise how high the stakes were.
It was late, but not too late at all.
You're basically arguing that Putin can't be deterred, only appeased. I think that's seriously misguided.
No, but there was no way that any form of economic pressure or diplomatic ostracisation was going to get him or anyone else leading the Russian state to reverse the annexation of Crimea.
The that would have stopped it would have been propping up Yanukovych instead of encoraging his overthrow, or in the absence of that, a credible threat of US military force beforehand.
72% say economy "rigged for rich & powerful" 68% "traditional parties don't care about me" 68% "country in decline" 68% "mainstream media want money not truth" 67% "experts don't understand me" 65% "society is broken
Hard to disagree that seems to be the widespread sentiment. The country just doesn’t work for enough people.
Something will give, sooner or later.
Our democracy will probably be what gives.
The entitled classes now outnumber the productive classes so I assume they will keep voting themselves payrises and benefit increases until the nation becomes Argentina. The UK is on a very bumpy road and we still have a chance to divert to a better one but it means big cuts to entitlements and the state to balance the budget and stop living beyond our means.
Look at the hysteria over WFA and slowing the rate of growth, not even cutting, some benefits.
I’m afraid we will end up learning a very hard lesson as there is no will politically to tackle it and by the time the problem needs to be tackled all the guilty parties will be living a well paid retirement.
Eventually the money will run out for those well paid retirements and public sector pensions will get a 50% haircut over a certain amount.
Our medium term outlook to me definitely screams Argentina. It's taken them 80 years to get to the point of people being fed up enough to vote a radical reformer into power who has finally tackled the entitlement issue and cut the size of the state as well as subsidies and benefits. Inflation now down to 1.5% last month, forwards annual rate predicted to be under 20% for the coming year and there's talk about a local currency bond sale next year if inflation continues to fall.
All very dramatic and you might enjoy it but we all know it won't happen like that.
We could raise basic rate now to 25p and h,igher rate to 50p (unfreezing thresholds at the same time). Public sector pensions (which seem a particular bugbear) are taxed whereas state pensions are not. There is a suggestion we should means test entitlement to a basic State pension - not a bad idea though the reaction to that would make the response to removing the Winter Fuel Allowance seem nothing.
Do those who have already benefitted from generous public and indeed private sector pensions really need the state pension as well? It's a thought.
It's quite clear there's not going to be a pot of gold at the end of the DOGE rainbow.
And what does putting up tax to 25% and 50%(!) do for the working age population other than drive them to the exit door? I've been looking at what I might do now that my year off is rapidly coming to an end and we've got a third kid on the way, the 50% mark has always been the psychological red line for me. Why should I go to work only for the state to take half of my productivity and piss it up the wall of the public sector.
No we need to cut benefit entitlements, public sector pensions above a certain size and as I've told you many times at least 1m public sector roles need to go. We're into the negative productivity per worker/pound side of the equation for the state and more money and more workers isn't going to result in better services provision, it will likely get worse. The answer is higher output per worker.
I'm not sure what you mean by "piss it up the wall" of the public sector? You may not be one of those who thinks "the public sector" (and I don't know what you mean by that - central Government, local Government, the NHS, the Police, Fire, Ambulance, the Armed Forces?) is value for money but many rely on it on a daily basis.
You've not explained what "above a certain size" means either - if you mean the pensions paid to CEOs of Councils or Permanent Secretaries you may have a point but if you want to get after those much further down the food chain, then no.
Local Government has lost one million jobs since 2012 - there aren't that many civil servants in the conventional sense. Do you mean going after the NHS, the newly nationalised railways or what?
Isn't that the problem though, we have far too many people relying on it on a daily basis, whether that's for their salary or benefits. It's becoming a self perpetuating mess of a system where a small proportion of very active users take up the resource making it poor value for money. Instead of giving these lazy benefit cheats a kick up the arse the state just enables them by handing them freebie houses and cars because they're "mentally ill" and have "anxiety".
Cut the entitlements, cut the waste, cut a million public sector jobs and push through a 50% haircut for defined benefit pensions above £30k per year (so a £50k DB pension becomes a £40k one, a £70k one becomes a £50k one etc...)
I also don't care where the job losses come from but the NHS seems like a good place to start and I'd also ban agency staffing and severely limit consultant usage, give each department and trust a limited number of consultant days per year (maybe 20) and push them into SAAS usage which has a very fast time to value rather than on-prem custom build solutions that need swathes of consultants and contractors to build something no one will ever know how to maintain once they're all gone.
Thank you for the as always measured response.
There are people especially at the lower end of the food chain (care workers for example) who do an incredible job for not much money. As for the comment about "users", well, yes, it's been proven for every 100 people registered with a GP, 10 come in regularly mainly with chronic conditions, another 10 visit on an energency irregular basis ans 80 don't visit at all.
We've also established there are those who are playing the system and I agree there are and always have been but I would love to see much more done to bring carers (particularly those in the 30-50 age group caring for older parents) as well as those with physical and mental disabilities into the workforce or back into the workforce and companies need to be more flexible and think more flexibly abouy how they can bring these groups into work.
I presume your pension "haircut" would mean what - that an employee would receive more money rather than have it taken as pension contribution and an employer wouldn't have to make their contribution at all but would have to pay the salary? Schemes like LPGS survive because higher paid employees and their employers pay more in to ensure those further down the chain receive their full benefits.
As for consultants, you'll get no argument from me. I found the overwhelming majority of them expensive and utterly useless - they were gouging Councils £1200 per day (if not more) but were they worth it? No. I wouldn't ban them but I would set an upper limit to what they can charge central and local Government - possibly £10 per day (he jested).
It's a popular maxim - those who can, do - those who can afford to become consultants.
I think you are seriously underestimating how much benefits abuse there is. You talk about how we should do more to bring the disabled and such into the workforce, yes that's fair. The issue as I see it is that these people aren't disabled, they don't have any mental conditions but have gamed their way into a system by being coached to pass assessments by assessors who are more interested in ticking the right boxes than ensuring that these people actually have the issues they claim.
Too many of our benefits are a type of UBI for people who are able to meet a minimum threshold of "sick" by government definition. Either we change the definition of what "sick" means back to what it was before Theresa May expanded it (which is a no brainer) or we have much tougher assessments and assessors are targeted on number of applications they are able to reject as the Blair government did in 2002-2007. I think we'll end up needing both to force the lazy back into work.
The particular "coached to pass by assessors" point does not work, as the success rate at Appeal for PIP is something like 70%.
If there is a problem in addition to the results of using sickness benefit as a stash to keep the Unemployment numbers down, it is that the system has been designed (since the early 2010s I think) to be turbo-bureaucratic and assessments done by low skilled staff who are not up to scratch.
That's why an Elon Musk Chainsaw and Bugger the Consequences route will not imo work, and why it did not work in the USA.
If the civil service (national and local) is slashed beyond the bone, it will never work - as RefUK will discover or as we have already discovered in quality of built housing by underesourcing planning and building control.
Not sure what point you're trying to make with the 70% figure.
If its possible to be "coached to pass" you'd expect a high appeal success rate as those who are initially declined seek coaching on how to pass on appeal.
I don't think it bears the weight of those assumptions.
Is there evidence of "coached to pass by assessors"?
From people I know who've been through the process, I doubt it.
The 70% pass on appeal would be evidence it absolutely could be a big problem. You wouldn't expect such a high appeal success rate otherwise.
Its evidence the initial assessment is often hopelessly poorly conducted
Maybe, maybe not.
Maybe the initial assessment was the right one, but then people are coached to pass on appeal.
What evidence is there the appeal is the right result and not the initial one?
The appeal is always more accurate. It's like Hawkeye or VAR. Kind of.
What evidence for that claim?
Hawkeye/VAR uses extra technology. What is done on appeal to be more accurate, and how can you know its not due to coaching?
Sammy Woodhouse, a victim of Rotherham Grooming, who spent her 15th birthday with her rapist who was committing an armed robbery, had a child by him and Rotherham social services forced her to give access to the child to the rapist, and has campaigned on grooming gangs and for girls catches Richard Tice of Reform here.
He does not come off well. He could have stopped and spoke to her.
It’s one thing to use an issue, as a party, for political advantage. It’s another to engage with victims.
Richard Tice isn't convincing as a politician. I think he's an OK man and has some good ideas, but I've never seen an interview or any public appearance where he has inspired me with confidence.
Yeah, I’d agree with that. I don’t think he’s a bad person but given how big this issue is the least he could do is stop and talk to her.
It just gives the impression of Reform using this for point scoring rather than wanting to solve it.
It's possible that there's a reason for that.
Highlights a problem for Reform. At the moment, they are the most instinctively brilliant retail politician of the 2020s and a bunch of nobodies. That's not the basis for a successful government, and if Nigel makes other plans, his party goes back to being a bunch of nobodies.
It’s a one man cult (not a misprint) at the moment.
The one thing I’m very happy about with them winning control of several councils is the scrutiny they will now get. They will have a record to Defend. They cannot just be opposing for the sake of it. Same with the Lib Dem’s in the south.
I think that is the triumph of hope over experience.
The SNP have had nearly two decades in office and largely avoided scrutiny by insisting that anything that goes wrong is somebody else's fault at Westminster and not their responsibility.
I don't think the typical voter knows or cares who their Councillor is, or how its run. There might be some scrutiny, but more likely is a bunch of blaming Westminster for all ills.
Starmer really is terrible at these emotive issues...this is what he told Sky News.
I asked for an audit, the audit has been conducted, the author of the audit says there should be a national inquiry, I have looked at the report, I considered the report, I think she is right, and that is why there will be a national inquiry.
He sounds like he is responding to my claims that my gas meter was misread.
The best kind of leader can do the analytical work and the emoting but if you're going to have a leader who can do just one of those things I'd pick the former any time. See Boris Johnson as evidence in support of this claim.
Trump with Mark Carney: "The G7 used to be the G8. Barack Obama and a person named Trudeau didn't want to have Russia in, and I would say that was a mistake, because I think you wouldn't have a war right now if you had Russia in."
I don't agree with Trump about the war, but I did think that the whole raison d'être for the G8 was that it brought together the world's 8 biggest economies (or whatever the correct criterion is), who sometimes disagreed profoundly, without fear or favour. What's the point if it's just some club where you can blackball the naughty members? Inviting Ukraine I thought was particularly unserious.
Yes but you've always wanted us to wash our hands of them, haven't you ?
I have wanted us to have proportionate involvement, keeping our own national interest at the forefront.
Starmer really is terrible at these emotive issues...this is what he told Sky News.
I asked for an audit, the audit has been conducted, the author of the audit says there should be a national inquiry, I have looked at the report, I considered the report, I think she is right, and that is why there will be a national inquiry.
He sounds like he is responding to my claims that my gas meter was misread.
The best kind of leader can do the analytical work and the emoting but if you're going to have a leader who can do just one of those things I'd pick the former any time. See Boris Johnson as evidence in support of this claim.
I get the feeling that I might be the only person of that right age, but for whom Oasis / Blue weren't a big thing for me personally, I didn't really care for either at the time and still happy with my alternative choices of music....
Did you not even like Blue's "Parklife" album?
Yeah. That brilliant Album by Blue 😂 I’m sure that’s news to Lee, Duncan, Simon and the other one.
Blue's Parklife is nearly as good as Song Two by Eiffel 65
Trump with Mark Carney: "The G7 used to be the G8. Barack Obama and a person named Trudeau didn't want to have Russia in, and I would say that was a mistake, because I think you wouldn't have a war right now if you had Russia in."
I don't agree with Trump about the war, but I did think that the whole raison d'être for the G8 was that it brought together the world's 8 biggest economies (or whatever the correct criterion is), who sometimes disagreed profoundly, without fear or favour. What's the point if it's just some club where you can blackball the naughty members? Inviting Ukraine I thought was particularly unserious.
Slightly more than "naughty".
The United Nations is the United Nations, not the United Nice Nations - if it were that it would be considerably less well-attended and it would defeat the purpose. The same is surely true of the G8/7. Yes, it may not have prevented the Ukraine war, but it certainly would have kept communication going a top level. That has value. As it is, the G7 is just an announcement and a press call on a lawn.
No, the G7 is a group of mostly likeminded advanced economies that share the values of pluralism, liberal democracy and representative government.
At one point Russia was pretending to share those values. When it dropped the veil, they were kicked out of a club they didn't belong to.
Its not the biggest economies, if it was, then China would be a member and Russia still wouldn't be anyway. Russia isn't even in the top 10.
I get the feeling that I might be the only person of that right age, but for whom Oasis / Blue weren't a big thing for me personally, I didn't really care for either at the time and still happy with my alternative choices of music....
Did you not even like Blue's "Parklife" album?
I didn't actively dislike either, they aren't in the same category of Radiohead live at Glastonbury....just I wasn't that bothered.
I used to see Liam G around Primrose Hill quite a lot. He never plucked up the courage to say hello.
Trump with Mark Carney: "The G7 used to be the G8. Barack Obama and a person named Trudeau didn't want to have Russia in, and I would say that was a mistake, because I think you wouldn't have a war right now if you had Russia in."
I don't agree with Trump about the war, but I did think that the whole raison d'être for the G8 was that it brought together the world's 8 biggest economies (or whatever the correct criterion is), who sometimes disagreed profoundly, without fear or favour. What's the point if it's just some club where you can blackball the naughty members? Inviting Ukraine I thought was particularly unserious.
Slightly more than "naughty".
The United Nations is the United Nations, not the United Nice Nations - if it were that it would be considerably less well-attended and it would defeat the purpose. The same is surely true of the G8/7. Yes, it may not have prevented the Ukraine war, but it certainly would have kept communication going a top level. That has value. As it is, the G7 is just an announcement and a press call on a lawn.
No, the G7 is a group of mostly likeminded advanced economies that share the values of pluralism, liberal democracy and representative government.
At one point Russia was pretending to share those values. When it dropped the veil, they were kicked out of a club they didn't belong to.
Its not the biggest economies, if it was, then China would be a member and Russia still wouldn't be anyway. Russia isn't even in the top 10.
I am seeing Oasis at the start of August at Wembley and I am not rowdy.
There must be other Beatles tribute acts who are more your pace.
David Bowie was a successful Anthony Newley tribute act.
Hah. There was always an element of that about the Thin White Duke. That said the run of albums from Hunky Dory to Scarey Monsters must be unexampled in their diversity and quality (excepting the covers album, PinUps). Then it became rather patchy before he hit it out of the park with BlackStar - that was a way to sign off.
Trump with Mark Carney: "The G7 used to be the G8. Barack Obama and a person named Trudeau didn't want to have Russia in, and I would say that was a mistake, because I think you wouldn't have a war right now if you had Russia in."
I don't agree with Trump about the war, but I did think that the whole raison d'être for the G8 was that it brought together the world's 8 biggest economies (or whatever the correct criterion is), who sometimes disagreed profoundly, without fear or favour. What's the point if it's just some club where you can blackball the naughty members? Inviting Ukraine I thought was particularly unserious.
Slightly more than "naughty".
The United Nations is the United Nations, not the United Nice Nations - if it were that it would be considerably less well-attended and it would defeat the purpose. The same is surely true of the G8/7. Yes, it may not have prevented the Ukraine war, but it certainly would have kept communication going a top level. That has value. As it is, the G7 is just an announcement and a press call on a lawn.
Sammy Woodhouse, a victim of Rotherham Grooming, who spent her 15th birthday with her rapist who was committing an armed robbery, had a child by him and Rotherham social services forced her to give access to the child to the rapist, and has campaigned on grooming gangs and for girls catches Richard Tice of Reform here.
He does not come off well. He could have stopped and spoke to her.
It’s one thing to use an issue, as a party, for political advantage. It’s another to engage with victims.
Richard Tice isn't convincing as a politician. I think he's an OK man and has some good ideas, but I've never seen an interview or any public appearance where he has inspired me with confidence.
Yeah, I’d agree with that. I don’t think he’s a bad person but given how big this issue is the least he could do is stop and talk to her.
It just gives the impression of Reform using this for point scoring rather than wanting to solve it.
It's possible that there's a reason for that.
Highlights a problem for Reform. At the moment, they are the most instinctively brilliant retail politician of the 2020s and a bunch of nobodies. That's not the basis for a successful government, and if Nigel makes other plans, his party goes back to being a bunch of nobodies.
Yes. Seeds of downfall here
They desperately need five or six seriously talented people around Farage
Matt Goodwin seems like an obvious candidate for a senior role. He basically agrees with the entire Reform agenda (on migration/Woke etc). He’s articulate and telegenic and smarter than anyone in Labour (ok it’s not hard but still)
Give him a safe bet constituency
I think he'd vaguely be more an asset than a liability, and I am sure he'll get a good shot at a seat if he wants one, but I actually see a similar issue to Tice there - the ingredients are there but the cake comes out a bit shit. I find Goodwin quite a hard watch - starey-eyed and angry. There's nothing wrong with being a polemicist, but it doesn't suit a GBNews show (he stands in for Farage), where you need to be a reassuring and reasonable presence - though not an impartial one. He's not a great broadcaster for me. And being a polemicist doesn't fit with being a pollster.
Zia Yusuf was/is for me, the second best performer in Reform. Poachin (new lady MP) could turn out to be another. I think there are others, but they are very limited in who they put out there in front of a camera.
I get the feeling that I might be the only person of that right age, but for whom Oasis / Blue weren't a big thing for me personally, I didn't really care for either at the time and still happy with my alternative choices of music....
Did you not even like Blue's "Parklife" album?
Yeah. That brilliant Album by Blue 😂 I’m sure that’s news to Lee, Duncan, Simon and the other one.
Blue's Parklife is nearly as good as Song Two by Eiffel 65
Entirely unrelated, but for some reason this old grunge/garage-rock track came to mind.
Trump with Mark Carney: "The G7 used to be the G8. Barack Obama and a person named Trudeau didn't want to have Russia in, and I would say that was a mistake, because I think you wouldn't have a war right now if you had Russia in."
I don't agree with Trump about the war, but I did think that the whole raison d'être for the G8 was that it brought together the world's 8 biggest economies (or whatever the correct criterion is), who sometimes disagreed profoundly, without fear or favour. What's the point if it's just some club where you can blackball the naughty members? Inviting Ukraine I thought was particularly unserious.
Slightly more than "naughty".
The United Nations is the United Nations, not the United Nice Nations - if it were that it would be considerably less well-attended and it would defeat the purpose. The same is surely true of the G8/7. Yes, it may not have prevented the Ukraine war, but it certainly would have kept communication going a top level. That has value. As it is, the G7 is just an announcement and a press call on a lawn.
No, the G7 is a group of mostly likeminded advanced economies that share the values of pluralism, liberal democracy and representative government.
At one point Russia was pretending to share those values. When it dropped the veil, they were kicked out of a club they didn't belong to.
Its not the biggest economies, if it was, then China would be a member and Russia still wouldn't be anyway. Russia isn't even in the top 10.
Either way under any definition, Russia does not belong as a member. It neither meets the criteria there, nor does it meet Luckyguy's alternative criteria.
Trump with Mark Carney: "The G7 used to be the G8. Barack Obama and a person named Trudeau didn't want to have Russia in, and I would say that was a mistake, because I think you wouldn't have a war right now if you had Russia in."
I don't agree with Trump about the war, but I did think that the whole raison d'être for the G8 was that it brought together the world's 8 biggest economies (or whatever the correct criterion is), who sometimes disagreed profoundly, without fear or favour. What's the point if it's just some club where you can blackball the naughty members? Inviting Ukraine I thought was particularly unserious.
Slightly more than "naughty".
A great philosopher once said ‘Naughty, naughty, very naughty’
Sammy Woodhouse, a victim of Rotherham Grooming, who spent her 15th birthday with her rapist who was committing an armed robbery, had a child by him and Rotherham social services forced her to give access to the child to the rapist, and has campaigned on grooming gangs and for girls catches Richard Tice of Reform here.
He does not come off well. He could have stopped and spoke to her.
It’s one thing to use an issue, as a party, for political advantage. It’s another to engage with victims.
Richard Tice isn't convincing as a politician. I think he's an OK man and has some good ideas, but I've never seen an interview or any public appearance where he has inspired me with confidence.
I was going to write exactly that. He’s notably unimpressive on screen. No presence, no oomph, an empty suit. He’s so bad he could easily be a senior minister in the Labour Cabinet; and I don’t hurl out such insults lightly
Tice is worth £40 million from a successful business career before he entered politics though, not many in the Labour Cabinet had a business career like that or even private sector experience at all
Sammy Woodhouse, a victim of Rotherham Grooming, who spent her 15th birthday with her rapist who was committing an armed robbery, had a child by him and Rotherham social services forced her to give access to the child to the rapist, and has campaigned on grooming gangs and for girls catches Richard Tice of Reform here.
He does not come off well. He could have stopped and spoke to her.
It’s one thing to use an issue, as a party, for political advantage. It’s another to engage with victims.
Richard Tice isn't convincing as a politician. I think he's an OK man and has some good ideas, but I've never seen an interview or any public appearance where he has inspired me with confidence.
Yeah, I’d agree with that. I don’t think he’s a bad person but given how big this issue is the least he could do is stop and talk to her.
It just gives the impression of Reform using this for point scoring rather than wanting to solve it.
It's possible that there's a reason for that.
Highlights a problem for Reform. At the moment, they are the most instinctively brilliant retail politician of the 2020s and a bunch of nobodies. That's not the basis for a successful government, and if Nigel makes other plans, his party goes back to being a bunch of nobodies.
It’s a one man cult (not a misprint) at the moment.
The one thing I’m very happy about with them winning control of several councils is the scrutiny they will now get. They will have a record to Defend. They cannot just be opposing for the sake of it. Same with the Lib Dem’s in the south.
I think that is the triumph of hope over experience.
The SNP have had nearly two decades in office and largely avoided scrutiny by insisting that anything that goes wrong is somebody else's fault at Westminster and not their responsibility.
I don't think the typical voter knows or cares who their Councillor is, or how its run. There might be some scrutiny, but more likely is a bunch of blaming Westminster for all ills.
Well in the case of Durham that’s what’s been happening for years. When Labour ran it Simon Henig did exactly that.
72% say economy "rigged for rich & powerful" 68% "traditional parties don't care about me" 68% "country in decline" 68% "mainstream media want money not truth" 67% "experts don't understand me" 65% "society is broken
Hard to disagree that seems to be the widespread sentiment. The country just doesn’t work for enough people.
Something will give, sooner or later.
Our democracy will probably be what gives.
The entitled classes now outnumber the productive classes so I assume they will keep voting themselves payrises and benefit increases until the nation becomes Argentina. The UK is on a very bumpy road and we still have a chance to divert to a better one but it means big cuts to entitlements and the state to balance the budget and stop living beyond our means.
Look at the hysteria over WFA and slowing the rate of growth, not even cutting, some benefits.
I’m afraid we will end up learning a very hard lesson as there is no will politically to tackle it and by the time the problem needs to be tackled all the guilty parties will be living a well paid retirement.
Eventually the money will run out for those well paid retirements and public sector pensions will get a 50% haircut over a certain amount.
Our medium term outlook to me definitely screams Argentina. It's taken them 80 years to get to the point of people being fed up enough to vote a radical reformer into power who has finally tackled the entitlement issue and cut the size of the state as well as subsidies and benefits. Inflation now down to 1.5% last month, forwards annual rate predicted to be under 20% for the coming year and there's talk about a local currency bond sale next year if inflation continues to fall.
All very dramatic and you might enjoy it but we all know it won't happen like that.
We could raise basic rate now to 25p and h,igher rate to 50p (unfreezing thresholds at the same time). Public sector pensions (which seem a particular bugbear) are taxed whereas state pensions are not. There is a suggestion we should means test entitlement to a basic State pension - not a bad idea though the reaction to that would make the response to removing the Winter Fuel Allowance seem nothing.
Do those who have already benefitted from generous public and indeed private sector pensions really need the state pension as well? It's a thought.
It's quite clear there's not going to be a pot of gold at the end of the DOGE rainbow.
And what does putting up tax to 25% and 50%(!) do for the working age population other than drive them to the exit door? I've been looking at what I might do now that my year off is rapidly coming to an end and we've got a third kid on the way, the 50% mark has always been the psychological red line for me. Why should I go to work only for the state to take half of my productivity and piss it up the wall of the public sector.
No we need to cut benefit entitlements, public sector pensions above a certain size and as I've told you many times at least 1m public sector roles need to go. We're into the negative productivity per worker/pound side of the equation for the state and more money and more workers isn't going to result in better services provision, it will likely get worse. The answer is higher output per worker.
I'm not sure what you mean by "piss it up the wall" of the public sector? You may not be one of those who thinks "the public sector" (and I don't know what you mean by that - central Government, local Government, the NHS, the Police, Fire, Ambulance, the Armed Forces?) is value for money but many rely on it on a daily basis.
You've not explained what "above a certain size" means either - if you mean the pensions paid to CEOs of Councils or Permanent Secretaries you may have a point but if you want to get after those much further down the food chain, then no.
Local Government has lost one million jobs since 2012 - there aren't that many civil servants in the conventional sense. Do you mean going after the NHS, the newly nationalised railways or what?
Isn't that the problem though, we have far too many people relying on it on a daily basis, whether that's for their salary or benefits. It's becoming a self perpetuating mess of a system where a small proportion of very active users take up the resource making it poor value for money. Instead of giving these lazy benefit cheats a kick up the arse the state just enables them by handing them freebie houses and cars because they're "mentally ill" and have "anxiety".
Cut the entitlements, cut the waste, cut a million public sector jobs and push through a 50% haircut for defined benefit pensions above £30k per year (so a £50k DB pension becomes a £40k one, a £70k one becomes a £50k one etc...)
I also don't care where the job losses come from but the NHS seems like a good place to start and I'd also ban agency staffing and severely limit consultant usage, give each department and trust a limited number of consultant days per year (maybe 20) and push them into SAAS usage which has a very fast time to value rather than on-prem custom build solutions that need swathes of consultants and contractors to build something no one will ever know how to maintain once they're all gone.
Thank you for the as always measured response.
There are people especially at the lower end of the food chain (care workers for example) who do an incredible job for not much money. As for the comment about "users", well, yes, it's been proven for every 100 people registered with a GP, 10 come in regularly mainly with chronic conditions, another 10 visit on an energency irregular basis ans 80 don't visit at all.
We've also established there are those who are playing the system and I agree there are and always have been but I would love to see much more done to bring carers (particularly those in the 30-50 age group caring for older parents) as well as those with physical and mental disabilities into the workforce or back into the workforce and companies need to be more flexible and think more flexibly abouy how they can bring these groups into work.
I presume your pension "haircut" would mean what - that an employee would receive more money rather than have it taken as pension contribution and an employer wouldn't have to make their contribution at all but would have to pay the salary? Schemes like LPGS survive because higher paid employees and their employers pay more in to ensure those further down the chain receive their full benefits.
As for consultants, you'll get no argument from me. I found the overwhelming majority of them expensive and utterly useless - they were gouging Councils £1200 per day (if not more) but were they worth it? No. I wouldn't ban them but I would set an upper limit to what they can charge central and local Government - possibly £10 per day (he jested).
It's a popular maxim - those who can, do - those who can afford to become consultants.
I think you are seriously underestimating how much benefits abuse there is. You talk about how we should do more to bring the disabled and such into the workforce, yes that's fair. The issue as I see it is that these people aren't disabled, they don't have any mental conditions but have gamed their way into a system by being coached to pass assessments by assessors who are more interested in ticking the right boxes than ensuring that these people actually have the issues they claim.
Too many of our benefits are a type of UBI for people who are able to meet a minimum threshold of "sick" by government definition. Either we change the definition of what "sick" means back to what it was before Theresa May expanded it (which is a no brainer) or we have much tougher assessments and assessors are targeted on number of applications they are able to reject as the Blair government did in 2002-2007. I think we'll end up needing both to force the lazy back into work.
The particular "coached to pass by assessors" point does not work, as the success rate at Appeal for PIP is something like 70%.
If there is a problem in addition to the results of using sickness benefit as a stash to keep the Unemployment numbers down, it is that the system has been designed (since the early 2010s I think) to be turbo-bureaucratic and assessments done by low skilled staff who are not up to scratch.
That's why an Elon Musk Chainsaw and Bugger the Consequences route will not imo work, and why it did not work in the USA.
If the civil service (national and local) is slashed beyond the bone, it will never work - as RefUK will discover or as we have already discovered in quality of built housing by underesourcing planning and building control.
Not sure what point you're trying to make with the 70% figure.
If its possible to be "coached to pass" you'd expect a high appeal success rate as those who are initially declined seek coaching on how to pass on appeal.
I don't think it bears the weight of those assumptions.
Is there evidence of "coached to pass by assessors"?
From people I know who've been through the process, I doubt it.
The 70% pass on appeal would be evidence it absolutely could be a big problem. You wouldn't expect such a high appeal success rate otherwise.
Its evidence the initial assessment is often hopelessly poorly conducted
Maybe, maybe not.
Maybe the initial assessment was the right one, but then people are coached to pass on appeal.
What evidence is there the appeal is the right result and not the initial one?
The appeal is always more accurate. It's like Hawkeye or VAR. Kind of.
What evidence for that claim?
Hawkeye/VAR uses extra technology. What is done on appeal to be more accurate, and how can you know its not due to coaching?
My knowledge on this is the same as yours. Zero.
But Barty feels it in his water which is much more of an aid to inner certainty than knowledge or facts.
Sammy Woodhouse, a victim of Rotherham Grooming, who spent her 15th birthday with her rapist who was committing an armed robbery, had a child by him and Rotherham social services forced her to give access to the child to the rapist, and has campaigned on grooming gangs and for girls catches Richard Tice of Reform here.
He does not come off well. He could have stopped and spoke to her.
It’s one thing to use an issue, as a party, for political advantage. It’s another to engage with victims.
Richard Tice isn't convincing as a politician. I think he's an OK man and has some good ideas, but I've never seen an interview or any public appearance where he has inspired me with confidence.
I was going to write exactly that. He’s notably unimpressive on screen. No presence, no oomph, an empty suit. He’s so bad he could easily be a senior minister in the Labour Cabinet; and I don’t hurl out such insults lightly
Tice is worth £40 million from a successful business career before he entered politics though, not many in the Labour Cabinet had a business career like that or even private sector experience at all
I agree - as I've said he's a very experienced guy I think, with quite a few good ideas. And evidently quite competent in business. But is doesn't translate into good media performances.
Yusuf, also a businessman, convinces on TV (or did till his flounce) a lot more.
72% say economy "rigged for rich & powerful" 68% "traditional parties don't care about me" 68% "country in decline" 68% "mainstream media want money not truth" 67% "experts don't understand me" 65% "society is broken
Hard to disagree that seems to be the widespread sentiment. The country just doesn’t work for enough people.
Something will give, sooner or later.
Our democracy will probably be what gives.
The entitled classes now outnumber the productive classes so I assume they will keep voting themselves payrises and benefit increases until the nation becomes Argentina. The UK is on a very bumpy road and we still have a chance to divert to a better one but it means big cuts to entitlements and the state to balance the budget and stop living beyond our means.
Look at the hysteria over WFA and slowing the rate of growth, not even cutting, some benefits.
I’m afraid we will end up learning a very hard lesson as there is no will politically to tackle it and by the time the problem needs to be tackled all the guilty parties will be living a well paid retirement.
Eventually the money will run out for those well paid retirements and public sector pensions will get a 50% haircut over a certain amount.
Our medium term outlook to me definitely screams Argentina. It's taken them 80 years to get to the point of people being fed up enough to vote a radical reformer into power who has finally tackled the entitlement issue and cut the size of the state as well as subsidies and benefits. Inflation now down to 1.5% last month, forwards annual rate predicted to be under 20% for the coming year and there's talk about a local currency bond sale next year if inflation continues to fall.
All very dramatic and you might enjoy it but we all know it won't happen like that.
We could raise basic rate now to 25p and h,igher rate to 50p (unfreezing thresholds at the same time). Public sector pensions (which seem a particular bugbear) are taxed whereas state pensions are not. There is a suggestion we should means test entitlement to a basic State pension - not a bad idea though the reaction to that would make the response to removing the Winter Fuel Allowance seem nothing.
Do those who have already benefitted from generous public and indeed private sector pensions really need the state pension as well? It's a thought.
It's quite clear there's not going to be a pot of gold at the end of the DOGE rainbow.
And what does putting up tax to 25% and 50%(!) do for the working age population other than drive them to the exit door? I've been looking at what I might do now that my year off is rapidly coming to an end and we've got a third kid on the way, the 50% mark has always been the psychological red line for me. Why should I go to work only for the state to take half of my productivity and piss it up the wall of the public sector.
No we need to cut benefit entitlements, public sector pensions above a certain size and as I've told you many times at least 1m public sector roles need to go. We're into the negative productivity per worker/pound side of the equation for the state and more money and more workers isn't going to result in better services provision, it will likely get worse. The answer is higher output per worker.
I'm not sure what you mean by "piss it up the wall" of the public sector? You may not be one of those who thinks "the public sector" (and I don't know what you mean by that - central Government, local Government, the NHS, the Police, Fire, Ambulance, the Armed Forces?) is value for money but many rely on it on a daily basis.
You've not explained what "above a certain size" means either - if you mean the pensions paid to CEOs of Councils or Permanent Secretaries you may have a point but if you want to get after those much further down the food chain, then no.
Local Government has lost one million jobs since 2012 - there aren't that many civil servants in the conventional sense. Do you mean going after the NHS, the newly nationalised railways or what?
Isn't that the problem though, we have far too many people relying on it on a daily basis, whether that's for their salary or benefits. It's becoming a self perpetuating mess of a system where a small proportion of very active users take up the resource making it poor value for money. Instead of giving these lazy benefit cheats a kick up the arse the state just enables them by handing them freebie houses and cars because they're "mentally ill" and have "anxiety".
Cut the entitlements, cut the waste, cut a million public sector jobs and push through a 50% haircut for defined benefit pensions above £30k per year (so a £50k DB pension becomes a £40k one, a £70k one becomes a £50k one etc...)
I also don't care where the job losses come from but the NHS seems like a good place to start and I'd also ban agency staffing and severely limit consultant usage, give each department and trust a limited number of consultant days per year (maybe 20) and push them into SAAS usage which has a very fast time to value rather than on-prem custom build solutions that need swathes of consultants and contractors to build something no one will ever know how to maintain once they're all gone.
Thank you for the as always measured response.
There are people especially at the lower end of the food chain (care workers for example) who do an incredible job for not much money. As for the comment about "users", well, yes, it's been proven for every 100 people registered with a GP, 10 come in regularly mainly with chronic conditions, another 10 visit on an energency irregular basis ans 80 don't visit at all.
We've also established there are those who are playing the system and I agree there are and always have been but I would love to see much more done to bring carers (particularly those in the 30-50 age group caring for older parents) as well as those with physical and mental disabilities into the workforce or back into the workforce and companies need to be more flexible and think more flexibly abouy how they can bring these groups into work.
I presume your pension "haircut" would mean what - that an employee would receive more money rather than have it taken as pension contribution and an employer wouldn't have to make their contribution at all but would have to pay the salary? Schemes like LPGS survive because higher paid employees and their employers pay more in to ensure those further down the chain receive their full benefits.
As for consultants, you'll get no argument from me. I found the overwhelming majority of them expensive and utterly useless - they were gouging Councils £1200 per day (if not more) but were they worth it? No. I wouldn't ban them but I would set an upper limit to what they can charge central and local Government - possibly £10 per day (he jested).
It's a popular maxim - those who can, do - those who can afford to become consultants.
I think you are seriously underestimating how much benefits abuse there is. You talk about how we should do more to bring the disabled and such into the workforce, yes that's fair. The issue as I see it is that these people aren't disabled, they don't have any mental conditions but have gamed their way into a system by being coached to pass assessments by assessors who are more interested in ticking the right boxes than ensuring that these people actually have the issues they claim.
Too many of our benefits are a type of UBI for people who are able to meet a minimum threshold of "sick" by government definition. Either we change the definition of what "sick" means back to what it was before Theresa May expanded it (which is a no brainer) or we have much tougher assessments and assessors are targeted on number of applications they are able to reject as the Blair government did in 2002-2007. I think we'll end up needing both to force the lazy back into work.
The particular "coached to pass by assessors" point does not work, as the success rate at Appeal for PIP is something like 70%.
If there is a problem in addition to the results of using sickness benefit as a stash to keep the Unemployment numbers down, it is that the system has been designed (since the early 2010s I think) to be turbo-bureaucratic and assessments done by low skilled staff who are not up to scratch.
That's why an Elon Musk Chainsaw and Bugger the Consequences route will not imo work, and why it did not work in the USA.
If the civil service (national and local) is slashed beyond the bone, it will never work - as RefUK will discover or as we have already discovered in quality of built housing by underesourcing planning and building control.
Not sure what point you're trying to make with the 70% figure.
If its possible to be "coached to pass" you'd expect a high appeal success rate as those who are initially declined seek coaching on how to pass on appeal.
I don't think it bears the weight of those assumptions.
Is there evidence of "coached to pass by assessors"?
From people I know who've been through the process, I doubt it.
The 70% pass on appeal would be evidence it absolutely could be a big problem. You wouldn't expect such a high appeal success rate otherwise.
Its evidence the initial assessment is often hopelessly poorly conducted
Maybe, maybe not.
Maybe the initial assessment was the right one, but then people are coached to pass on appeal.
What evidence is there the appeal is the right result and not the initial one?
The appeal is always more accurate. It's like Hawkeye or VAR. Kind of.
What evidence for that claim?
Hawkeye/VAR uses extra technology. What is done on appeal to be more accurate, and how can you know its not due to coaching?
My knowledge on this is the same as yours. Zero.
But Barty feels it in his water which is much more of an aid to inner certainty than knowledge or facts.
I don't, I quite clearly said "maybe, maybe not".
Almost everyone in the discussion, from Max onwards, was speaking with ironclad certainty, despite a disparate array of contradictory views being said by everyone who is certain.
I made it clear I don't know and speculated there could be different possible answers. Yet you accuse the one person to self-describe as not being certain as the one who is.
72% say economy "rigged for rich & powerful" 68% "traditional parties don't care about me" 68% "country in decline" 68% "mainstream media want money not truth" 67% "experts don't understand me" 65% "society is broken
Hard to disagree that seems to be the widespread sentiment. The country just doesn’t work for enough people.
Something will give, sooner or later.
Our democracy will probably be what gives.
The entitled classes now outnumber the productive classes so I assume they will keep voting themselves payrises and benefit increases until the nation becomes Argentina. The UK is on a very bumpy road and we still have a chance to divert to a better one but it means big cuts to entitlements and the state to balance the budget and stop living beyond our means.
Look at the hysteria over WFA and slowing the rate of growth, not even cutting, some benefits.
I’m afraid we will end up learning a very hard lesson as there is no will politically to tackle it and by the time the problem needs to be tackled all the guilty parties will be living a well paid retirement.
Eventually the money will run out for those well paid retirements and public sector pensions will get a 50% haircut over a certain amount.
Our medium term outlook to me definitely screams Argentina. It's taken them 80 years to get to the point of people being fed up enough to vote a radical reformer into power who has finally tackled the entitlement issue and cut the size of the state as well as subsidies and benefits. Inflation now down to 1.5% last month, forwards annual rate predicted to be under 20% for the coming year and there's talk about a local currency bond sale next year if inflation continues to fall.
All very dramatic and you might enjoy it but we all know it won't happen like that.
We could raise basic rate now to 25p and h,igher rate to 50p (unfreezing thresholds at the same time). Public sector pensions (which seem a particular bugbear) are taxed whereas state pensions are not. There is a suggestion we should means test entitlement to a basic State pension - not a bad idea though the reaction to that would make the response to removing the Winter Fuel Allowance seem nothing.
Do those who have already benefitted from generous public and indeed private sector pensions really need the state pension as well? It's a thought.
It's quite clear there's not going to be a pot of gold at the end of the DOGE rainbow.
And what does putting up tax to 25% and 50%(!) do for the working age population other than drive them to the exit door? I've been looking at what I might do now that my year off is rapidly coming to an end and we've got a third kid on the way, the 50% mark has always been the psychological red line for me. Why should I go to work only for the state to take half of my productivity and piss it up the wall of the public sector.
No we need to cut benefit entitlements, public sector pensions above a certain size and as I've told you many times at least 1m public sector roles need to go. We're into the negative productivity per worker/pound side of the equation for the state and more money and more workers isn't going to result in better services provision, it will likely get worse. The answer is higher output per worker.
I'm not sure what you mean by "piss it up the wall" of the public sector? You may not be one of those who thinks "the public sector" (and I don't know what you mean by that - central Government, local Government, the NHS, the Police, Fire, Ambulance, the Armed Forces?) is value for money but many rely on it on a daily basis.
You've not explained what "above a certain size" means either - if you mean the pensions paid to CEOs of Councils or Permanent Secretaries you may have a point but if you want to get after those much further down the food chain, then no.
Local Government has lost one million jobs since 2012 - there aren't that many civil servants in the conventional sense. Do you mean going after the NHS, the newly nationalised railways or what?
Isn't that the problem though, we have far too many people relying on it on a daily basis, whether that's for their salary or benefits. It's becoming a self perpetuating mess of a system where a small proportion of very active users take up the resource making it poor value for money. Instead of giving these lazy benefit cheats a kick up the arse the state just enables them by handing them freebie houses and cars because they're "mentally ill" and have "anxiety".
Cut the entitlements, cut the waste, cut a million public sector jobs and push through a 50% haircut for defined benefit pensions above £30k per year (so a £50k DB pension becomes a £40k one, a £70k one becomes a £50k one etc...)
I also don't care where the job losses come from but the NHS seems like a good place to start and I'd also ban agency staffing and severely limit consultant usage, give each department and trust a limited number of consultant days per year (maybe 20) and push them into SAAS usage which has a very fast time to value rather than on-prem custom build solutions that need swathes of consultants and contractors to build something no one will ever know how to maintain once they're all gone.
Thank you for the as always measured response.
There are people especially at the lower end of the food chain (care workers for example) who do an incredible job for not much money. As for the comment about "users", well, yes, it's been proven for every 100 people registered with a GP, 10 come in regularly mainly with chronic conditions, another 10 visit on an energency irregular basis ans 80 don't visit at all.
We've also established there are those who are playing the system and I agree there are and always have been but I would love to see much more done to bring carers (particularly those in the 30-50 age group caring for older parents) as well as those with physical and mental disabilities into the workforce or back into the workforce and companies need to be more flexible and think more flexibly abouy how they can bring these groups into work.
I presume your pension "haircut" would mean what - that an employee would receive more money rather than have it taken as pension contribution and an employer wouldn't have to make their contribution at all but would have to pay the salary? Schemes like LPGS survive because higher paid employees and their employers pay more in to ensure those further down the chain receive their full benefits.
As for consultants, you'll get no argument from me. I found the overwhelming majority of them expensive and utterly useless - they were gouging Councils £1200 per day (if not more) but were they worth it? No. I wouldn't ban them but I would set an upper limit to what they can charge central and local Government - possibly £10 per day (he jested).
It's a popular maxim - those who can, do - those who can afford to become consultants.
I think you are seriously underestimating how much benefits abuse there is. You talk about how we should do more to bring the disabled and such into the workforce, yes that's fair. The issue as I see it is that these people aren't disabled, they don't have any mental conditions but have gamed their way into a system by being coached to pass assessments by assessors who are more interested in ticking the right boxes than ensuring that these people actually have the issues they claim.
Too many of our benefits are a type of UBI for people who are able to meet a minimum threshold of "sick" by government definition. Either we change the definition of what "sick" means back to what it was before Theresa May expanded it (which is a no brainer) or we have much tougher assessments and assessors are targeted on number of applications they are able to reject as the Blair government did in 2002-2007. I think we'll end up needing both to force the lazy back into work.
The particular "coached to pass by assessors" point does not work, as the success rate at Appeal for PIP is something like 70%.
If there is a problem in addition to the results of using sickness benefit as a stash to keep the Unemployment numbers down, it is that the system has been designed (since the early 2010s I think) to be turbo-bureaucratic and assessments done by low skilled staff who are not up to scratch.
That's why an Elon Musk Chainsaw and Bugger the Consequences route will not imo work, and why it did not work in the USA.
If the civil service (national and local) is slashed beyond the bone, it will never work - as RefUK will discover or as we have already discovered in quality of built housing by underesourcing planning and building control.
Not sure what point you're trying to make with the 70% figure.
If its possible to be "coached to pass" you'd expect a high appeal success rate as those who are initially declined seek coaching on how to pass on appeal.
I don't think it bears the weight of those assumptions.
Is there evidence of "coached to pass by assessors"?
From people I know who've been through the process, I doubt it.
The 70% pass on appeal would be evidence it absolutely could be a big problem. You wouldn't expect such a high appeal success rate otherwise.
Its evidence the initial assessment is often hopelessly poorly conducted
Maybe, maybe not.
Maybe the initial assessment was the right one, but then people are coached to pass on appeal.
What evidence is there the appeal is the right result and not the initial one?
The appeal is always more accurate. It's like Hawkeye or VAR. Kind of.
What evidence for that claim?
Hawkeye/VAR uses extra technology. What is done on appeal to be more accurate, and how can you know its not due to coaching?
My knowledge on this is the same as yours. Zero.
But Barty feels it in his water which is much more of an aid to inner certainty than knowledge or facts.
I don't, I quite clearly said "maybe, maybe not".
Almost everyone in the discussion, from Max onwards, was speaking with ironclad certainty, despite a disparate array of contradictory views being said by everyone who is certain.
I made it clear I don't know and speculated there could be different possible answers. Yet you accuse the one person to self-describe as not being certain as the one who is.
Interesting.
Yep, I’ve always thought you’re the one PBer open to alternative views and self doubt.
I also managed to find a copy of 'The Strange World of Gurney Slade' which was devised by and starred Newley. Really very ahead of it's time.
I’ve got a copy from Network, never watched it, but been watching it on YouTube recently, halfway through. It’s very ahead of its time as you say. Great guest cast and Anneke ‘Dr Who’ Wills in an episode
Not heard that Delia Derbyshire/Newley track for donkeys. Thanks.
Trump with Mark Carney: "The G7 used to be the G8. Barack Obama and a person named Trudeau didn't want to have Russia in, and I would say that was a mistake, because I think you wouldn't have a war right now if you had Russia in."
I don't agree with Trump about the war, but I did think that the whole raison d'être for the G8 was that it brought together the world's 8 biggest economies (or whatever the correct criterion is), who sometimes disagreed profoundly, without fear or favour. What's the point if it's just some club where you can blackball the naughty members? Inviting Ukraine I thought was particularly unserious.
Slightly more than "naughty".
The United Nations is the United Nations, not the United Nice Nations - if it were that it would be considerably less well-attended and it would defeat the purpose. The same is surely true of the G8/7. Yes, it may not have prevented the Ukraine war, but it certainly would have kept communication going a top level. That has value. As it is, the G7 is just an announcement and a press call on a lawn.
Yes, the G7 is absurd
It’s first incarnation was as the “biggest industrialised economies” - the guiding lights of the world economy, intent on discussing economic matters, That was the raison d’etre of the whole shebang
After the rise of China, and now India, it makes no sense seen that way, Now it is basically “the West plus Japan”. These people meet all the time. Why do they require a special forum? It’s a form of vanity, probably
Not only is it going to be light until ten f*cking pm this weekend, it is also going to be 30 degrees. This is above my comfort zone.
How I yearn for the days when Leon was gloomily drawing his blinds down at 3:30pm.
Come to the Faroes. Today’s temperature peaked at a heady 13C
That’s actually quite warm by Faroese standards. Recent days have averaged a max of 10-11C
It’s amazing how quickly you get used to it. Today the sun came out for about half an hour (hence that high temperature) - and I caught myself thinking: Wow, what a nice day
At the weekend I got a ferry to the far southern island of Suduroy where it reached 15C and I was like Jeez this is baking
What's their migration policy? I wouldn't want to put extra pressure on any local services like fermented sheep suppliers.
There are actually some BAME people here. God knows how they end up so far north
Via Denmark maybe? But the Faroes is not in the EU nor in Schengen. So that doesn’t quite explain it
I’ve noticed that they - the incomers - all speak English rather than Faroese or Danish. Because you can easily get by in English - almost everyone under 50 speaks it
Meanwhile the local paper is headlining racism at a recent Faroese football match. If it exists then I suggest this is the reason: an influx of foreigners speaking English means the demise of Faroese, after 1000 years
On the other hand the Faroese all avidly follow English football, like British foods, listen to Anglo American music, flock to the “Irish” pub, and speak English even amongst themselves… and they love the Thai takeaway restaurant. Which delivers Thai food served by English speaking Thai people
Biggest ethnic minority in the Faroes are Filipinos - mail order brides, apparently.
Sammy Woodhouse, a victim of Rotherham Grooming, who spent her 15th birthday with her rapist who was committing an armed robbery, had a child by him and Rotherham social services forced her to give access to the child to the rapist, and has campaigned on grooming gangs and for girls catches Richard Tice of Reform here.
He does not come off well. He could have stopped and spoke to her.
It’s one thing to use an issue, as a party, for political advantage. It’s another to engage with victims.
Richard Tice isn't convincing as a politician. I think he's an OK man and has some good ideas, but I've never seen an interview or any public appearance where he has inspired me with confidence.
Yeah, I’d agree with that. I don’t think he’s a bad person but given how big this issue is the least he could do is stop and talk to her.
It just gives the impression of Reform using this for point scoring rather than wanting to solve it.
It's possible that there's a reason for that.
Highlights a problem for Reform. At the moment, they are the most instinctively brilliant retail politician of the 2020s and a bunch of nobodies. That's not the basis for a successful government, and if Nigel makes other plans, his party goes back to being a bunch of nobodies.
Yes. Seeds of downfall here
They desperately need five or six seriously talented people around Farage
Matt Goodwin seems like an obvious candidate for a senior role. He basically agrees with the entire Reform agenda (on migration/Woke etc). He’s articulate and telegenic and smarter than anyone in Labour (ok it’s not hard but still)
Give him a safe bet constituency
I think he'd vaguely be more an asset than a liability, and I am sure he'll get a good shot at a seat if he wants one, but I actually see a similar issue to Tice there - the ingredients are there but the cake comes out a bit shit. I find Goodwin quite a hard watch - starey-eyed and angry. There's nothing wrong with being a polemicist, but it doesn't suit a GBNews show (he stands in for Farage), where you need to be a reassuring and reasonable presence - though not an impartial one. He's not a great broadcaster for me. And being a polemicist doesn't fit with being a pollster.
Zia Yusuf was/is for me, the second best performer in Reform. Poachin (new lady MP) could turn out to be another. I think there are others, but they are very limited in who they put out there in front of a camera.
Sammy Woodhouse, a victim of Rotherham Grooming, who spent her 15th birthday with her rapist who was committing an armed robbery, had a child by him and Rotherham social services forced her to give access to the child to the rapist, and has campaigned on grooming gangs and for girls catches Richard Tice of Reform here.
He does not come off well. He could have stopped and spoke to her.
It’s one thing to use an issue, as a party, for political advantage. It’s another to engage with victims.
Richard Tice isn't convincing as a politician. I think he's an OK man and has some good ideas, but I've never seen an interview or any public appearance where he has inspired me with confidence.
Yeah, I’d agree with that. I don’t think he’s a bad person but given how big this issue is the least he could do is stop and talk to her.
It just gives the impression of Reform using this for point scoring rather than wanting to solve it.
It's possible that there's a reason for that.
Highlights a problem for Reform. At the moment, they are the most instinctively brilliant retail politician of the 2020s and a bunch of nobodies. That's not the basis for a successful government, and if Nigel makes other plans, his party goes back to being a bunch of nobodies.
Yes. Seeds of downfall here
They desperately need five or six seriously talented people around Farage
Matt Goodwin seems like an obvious candidate for a senior role. He basically agrees with the entire Reform agenda (on migration/Woke etc). He’s articulate and telegenic and smarter than anyone in Labour (ok it’s not hard but still)
Give him a safe bet constituency
I think he'd vaguely be more an asset than a liability, and I am sure he'll get a good shot at a seat if he wants one, but I actually see a similar issue to Tice there - the ingredients are there but the cake comes out a bit shit. I find Goodwin quite a hard watch - starey-eyed and angry. There's nothing wrong with being a polemicist, but it doesn't suit a GBNews show (he stands in for Farage), where you need to be a reassuring and reasonable presence - though not an impartial one. He's not a great broadcaster for me. And being a polemicist doesn't fit with being a pollster.
Zia Yusuf was/is for me, the second best performer in Reform. Poachin (new lady MP) could turn out to be another. I think there are others, but they are very limited in who they put out there in front of a camera.
Pochin was shit on Politics Live the other week.
Highly possible, I've never watched her interviewed.
Sammy Woodhouse, a victim of Rotherham Grooming, who spent her 15th birthday with her rapist who was committing an armed robbery, had a child by him and Rotherham social services forced her to give access to the child to the rapist, and has campaigned on grooming gangs and for girls catches Richard Tice of Reform here.
He does not come off well. He could have stopped and spoke to her.
It’s one thing to use an issue, as a party, for political advantage. It’s another to engage with victims.
Richard Tice isn't convincing as a politician. I think he's an OK man and has some good ideas, but I've never seen an interview or any public appearance where he has inspired me with confidence.
Yeah, I’d agree with that. I don’t think he’s a bad person but given how big this issue is the least he could do is stop and talk to her.
It just gives the impression of Reform using this for point scoring rather than wanting to solve it.
It's possible that there's a reason for that.
Highlights a problem for Reform. At the moment, they are the most instinctively brilliant retail politician of the 2020s and a bunch of nobodies. That's not the basis for a successful government, and if Nigel makes other plans, his party goes back to being a bunch of nobodies.
Yes. Seeds of downfall here
They desperately need five or six seriously talented people around Farage
Matt Goodwin seems like an obvious candidate for a senior role. He basically agrees with the entire Reform agenda (on migration/Woke etc). He’s articulate and telegenic and smarter than anyone in Labour (ok it’s not hard but still)
Give him a safe bet constituency
I think he'd vaguely be more an asset than a liability, and I am sure he'll get a good shot at a seat if he wants one, but I actually see a similar issue to Tice there - the ingredients are there but the cake comes out a bit shit. I find Goodwin quite a hard watch - starey-eyed and angry. There's nothing wrong with being a polemicist, but it doesn't suit a GBNews show (he stands in for Farage), where you need to be a reassuring and reasonable presence - though not an impartial one. He's not a great broadcaster for me. And being a polemicist doesn't fit with being a pollster.
Zia Yusuf was/is for me, the second best performer in Reform. Poachin (new lady MP) could turn out to be another. I think there are others, but they are very limited in who they put out there in front of a camera.
Pochin was shit on Politics Live the other week.
An astonishing opinion from you. For years you’ve been saying “Reform are great and all their politicians are superb on TV”, now you make this total volte face? And you criticise them???
How can we take you seriously as a pundit, from now on?
Trump with Mark Carney: "The G7 used to be the G8. Barack Obama and a person named Trudeau didn't want to have Russia in, and I would say that was a mistake, because I think you wouldn't have a war right now if you had Russia in."
I don't agree with Trump about the war, but I did think that the whole raison d'être for the G8 was that it brought together the world's 8 biggest economies (or whatever the correct criterion is), who sometimes disagreed profoundly, without fear or favour. What's the point if it's just some club where you can blackball the naughty members? Inviting Ukraine I thought was particularly unserious.
Slightly more than "naughty".
The United Nations is the United Nations, not the United Nice Nations - if it were that it would be considerably less well-attended and it would defeat the purpose. The same is surely true of the G8/7. Yes, it may not have prevented the Ukraine war, but it certainly would have kept communication going a top level. That has value. As it is, the G7 is just an announcement and a press call on a lawn.
Yes, the G7 is absurd
It’s first incarnation was as the “biggest industrialised economies” - the guiding lights of the world economy, intent on discussing economic matters, That was the raison d’etre of the whole shebang
After the rise of China, and now India, it makes no sense seen that way, Now it is basically “the West plus Japan”. These people meet all the time. Why do they require a special forum? It’s a form of vanity, probably
Also Trump is right about Putin, in this instance
It's an economic version of NATO. NATO is all the military enemies of Russia; the G7 is all the economic enemies of China.
Sammy Woodhouse, a victim of Rotherham Grooming, who spent her 15th birthday with her rapist who was committing an armed robbery, had a child by him and Rotherham social services forced her to give access to the child to the rapist, and has campaigned on grooming gangs and for girls catches Richard Tice of Reform here.
He does not come off well. He could have stopped and spoke to her.
It’s one thing to use an issue, as a party, for political advantage. It’s another to engage with victims.
Richard Tice isn't convincing as a politician. I think he's an OK man and has some good ideas, but I've never seen an interview or any public appearance where he has inspired me with confidence.
Yeah, I’d agree with that. I don’t think he’s a bad person but given how big this issue is the least he could do is stop and talk to her.
It just gives the impression of Reform using this for point scoring rather than wanting to solve it.
It's possible that there's a reason for that.
Highlights a problem for Reform. At the moment, they are the most instinctively brilliant retail politician of the 2020s and a bunch of nobodies. That's not the basis for a successful government, and if Nigel makes other plans, his party goes back to being a bunch of nobodies.
Yes. Seeds of downfall here
They desperately need five or six seriously talented people around Farage
Matt Goodwin seems like an obvious candidate for a senior role. He basically agrees with the entire Reform agenda (on migration/Woke etc). He’s articulate and telegenic and smarter than anyone in Labour (ok it’s not hard but still)
Give him a safe bet constituency
I think he'd vaguely be more an asset than a liability, and I am sure he'll get a good shot at a seat if he wants one, but I actually see a similar issue to Tice there - the ingredients are there but the cake comes out a bit shit. I find Goodwin quite a hard watch - starey-eyed and angry. There's nothing wrong with being a polemicist, but it doesn't suit a GBNews show (he stands in for Farage), where you need to be a reassuring and reasonable presence - though not an impartial one. He's not a great broadcaster for me. And being a polemicist doesn't fit with being a pollster.
Zia Yusuf was/is for me, the second best performer in Reform. Poachin (new lady MP) could turn out to be another. I think there are others, but they are very limited in who they put out there in front of a camera.
Pochin was shit on Politics Live the other week.
She's the newest of new MPs. It would be more of a surprise if she was any good at all at this stage.
Trump with Mark Carney: "The G7 used to be the G8. Barack Obama and a person named Trudeau didn't want to have Russia in, and I would say that was a mistake, because I think you wouldn't have a war right now if you had Russia in."
I don't agree with Trump about the war, but I did think that the whole raison d'être for the G8 was that it brought together the world's 8 biggest economies (or whatever the correct criterion is), who sometimes disagreed profoundly, without fear or favour. What's the point if it's just some club where you can blackball the naughty members? Inviting Ukraine I thought was particularly unserious.
Slightly more than "naughty".
The United Nations is the United Nations, not the United Nice Nations - if it were that it would be considerably less well-attended and it would defeat the purpose. The same is surely true of the G8/7. Yes, it may not have prevented the Ukraine war, but it certainly would have kept communication going a top level. That has value. As it is, the G7 is just an announcement and a press call on a lawn.
Yes, the G7 is absurd
It’s first incarnation was as the “biggest industrialised economies” - the guiding lights of the world economy, intent on discussing economic matters, That was the raison d’etre of the whole shebang
After the rise of China, and now India, it makes no sense seen that way, Now it is basically “the West plus Japan”. These people meet all the time. Why do they require a special forum? It’s a form of vanity, probably
Also Trump is right about Putin, in this instance
It's an economic version of NATO. NATO is all the military enemies of Russia; the G7 is all the economic enemies of China.
Nice.
But I note the G7 has 7 of the 10 biggest economies, because it also excludes India and Brazil*!
* Some estimates have Brazil's economy bigger than Canada, but some don't.
Apologies if this has already been raised, but Nepal v Netherlands went to a third superover, after the game was tied, and then the superover was tied, and then the second superover was tied. Makes England's WC win look quite pedestrian. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/scorecard/e-227680
Gordon Brown has an op-ed against the assisted suicide bill
Is it really possible it will be defeated? Would he venture out if he thought it was a foregone conclusion?
I doubt v much it has ever been a foregone conclusion. Many MPs said they voted for the principle rather than the detail and now we are into the detail.
Sadly, as I am in favour, I think this has been a bloody mess.
For context, she reportedly had dinner with Melissa Hortman, who was a friend, just hours before her murder.
There are a load of US Cons who are able to convince themselves that Boelter is a deranged Democrat and a whole other group that are willing to propagate this lie for ‘reasons’. A nice ethical debate over who is worse, the latter for me.
Trump and Starmer stand in front of the media and Trump says he has signed the deal with the European Union and in opening the folder the papers fall to the ground, and Starmer busies himself picking them up
On asking Trump for the details. he says that's for later and Starmer hardly gets a word in
Trump of course meant the UK, not the EU and was personally very effusive to Starmer but I am not sure it is where Starmer wants to be
Trump and Starmer stand in front of the media and Trump says he has signed the deal with the European Union and in opening the folder the papers fall to the ground, and Starmer busies himself picking them up
On asking Trump for the details. he says that's for later and Starmer hardly gets a word in
Trump of course meant the UK, not the EU and was personally very effusive to Starmer but I am not sure it is where Starmer wants to be
Begging for a chlorinated chicken bone to deflect from Casey
Trump and Starmer stand in front of the media and Trump says he has signed the deal with the European Union and in opening the folder the papers fall to the ground, and Starmer busies himself picking them up
On asking Trump for the details. he says that's for later and Starmer hardly gets a word in
Trump of course meant the UK, not the EU and was personally very effusive to Starmer but I am not sure it is where Starmer wants to be
Trump and Starmer stand in front of the media and Trump says he has signed the deal with the European Union and in opening the folder the papers fall to the ground, and Starmer busies himself picking them up
On asking Trump for the details. he says that's for later and Starmer hardly gets a word in
Trump of course meant the UK, not the EU and was personally very effusive to Starmer but I am not sure it is where Starmer wants to be
Is this a dream you had?
No it was real and played out live on Sky as I have described
Starmer looks decent picking up things for the doddery old man.
Yes. It seems PB wants its politicians to be macho stereotypes. I’d hope if I were next to an old man who dropped some papers that I’d help pick them up, even if the old man was an evil old man.
Comments
Highlights a problem for Reform. At the moment, they are the most instinctively brilliant retail politician of the 2020s and a bunch of nobodies. That's not the basis for a successful government, and if Nigel makes other plans, his party goes back to being a bunch of nobodies.
The point is not that we overreacted to Crimea, as Trump and his minions seem to believe.
It's that we failed to react sufficiently.
Via Denmark maybe? But the Faroes is not in the EU nor in Schengen. So that doesn’t quite explain it
I’ve noticed that they - the incomers - all speak English rather than Faroese or Danish. Because you can easily get by in English - almost everyone under 50 speaks it
Meanwhile the local paper is headlining racism at a recent Faroese football match. If it exists then I suggest this is the reason: an influx of foreigners speaking English means the demise of Faroese, after 1000 years
On the other hand the Faroese all avidly follow English football, like British foods, listen to Anglo American music, flock to the “Irish” pub, and speak English even amongst themselves… and they love the Thai takeaway restaurant. Which delivers Thai food served by English speaking Thai people
Maybe the initial assessment was the right one, but then people are coached to pass on appeal.
What evidence is there the appeal is the right result and not the initial one?
I asked for an audit, the audit has been conducted, the author of the audit says there should be a national inquiry, I have looked at the report, I considered the report, I think she is right, and that is why there will be a national inquiry.
He sounds like he is responding to my claims that my gas meter was misread.
The summer sun is fading as the year grows old
And darker days are drawing near
The winter winds will be much colder
They desperately need five or six seriously talented people around Farage
Matt Goodwin seems like an obvious candidate for a senior role. He basically agrees with the entire Reform agenda (on migration/Woke etc). He’s articulate and telegenic and smarter than anyone in Labour (ok it’s not hard but still)
Give him a safe bet constituency
Hawkeye/VAR uses extra technology. What is done on appeal to be more accurate, and how can you know its not due to coaching?
If you or anyone has evidence the independent tribunal service are serving up dog shit you should probably forward it to the government, they'd be very interested.
You're basically arguing that Putin can't be deterred, only appeased. I think that's seriously misguided.
The one thing I’m very happy about with them winning control of several councils is the scrutiny they will now get. They will have a record to Defend. They cannot just be opposing for the sake of it. Same with the Lib Dem’s in the south.
The that would have stopped it would have been propping up Yanukovych instead of encoraging his overthrow, or in the absence of that, a credible threat of US military force beforehand.
The SNP have had nearly two decades in office and largely avoided scrutiny by insisting that anything that goes wrong is somebody else's fault at Westminster and not their responsibility.
I don't think the typical voter knows or cares who their Councillor is, or how its run. There might be some scrutiny, but more likely is a bunch of blaming Westminster for all ills.
'It’s a view'.
It rhymes!
At one point Russia was pretending to share those values. When it dropped the veil, they were kicked out of a club they didn't belong to.
Its not the biggest economies, if it was, then China would be a member and Russia still wouldn't be anyway. Russia isn't even in the top 10.
In fact it was formed so the industrialised countries could respond to the oil shock:
https://www.bundesregierung.de/breg-en/service/archive/archive/the-history-of-the-g7-397438
Zia Yusuf was/is for me, the second best performer in Reform. Poachin (new lady MP) could turn out to be another. I think there are others, but they are very limited in who they put out there in front of a camera.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fn4xzm4pi9U
'68 Comeback / A Bridge Too F*ckin' Far
https://bsky.app/profile/atrupar.com/post/3lrqpahglwn2a
https://web.archive.org/web/20211225102211/https://www.g7uk.org/what-is-the-g7/
Either way under any definition, Russia does not belong as a member. It neither meets the criteria there, nor does it meet Luckyguy's alternative criteria.
This Twitter feed on Iran I’ve followed since COVID. He’s well informed.
https://x.com/aliostad/status/1934695974292623715?s=61
Yusuf, also a businessman, convinces on TV (or did till his flounce) a lot more.
Almost everyone in the discussion, from Max onwards, was speaking with ironclad certainty, despite a disparate array of contradictory views being said by everyone who is certain.
I made it clear I don't know and speculated there could be different possible answers. Yet you accuse the one person to self-describe as not being certain as the one who is.
Interesting.
🤡
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGP9UPHsl5I
I also managed to find a copy of 'The Strange World of Gurney Slade' which was devised by and starred Newley. Really very ahead of it's time.
Not heard that Delia Derbyshire/Newley track for donkeys. Thanks.
It’s first incarnation was as the “biggest industrialised economies” - the guiding lights of the world economy, intent on discussing economic matters, That was the raison d’etre of the whole shebang
After the rise of China, and now India, it makes no sense seen that way, Now it is basically “the West plus Japan”. These people meet all the time. Why do they require a special forum? It’s a form of vanity, probably
Also Trump is right about Putin, in this instance
Tommy Sheridan: I'm being victimised for my political past
"The socialist politician said he felt "aggrieved" by the situation and was now seeking to enter politics again as a candidate for the Alba party."
And he is 100% not open to an offer from Reform. 100%. Ok. Maybe 90%. OK THEN 50%. Ish.
He's whining about Trudeau kicking Putin out, a year before Trudeau was elected...
How can we take you seriously as a pundit, from now on?
He visited 4 different addresses. A policewoman saw him at the 3rd but didn't stop him
The victims were still alive at the last house when the police showed up
Mind you, if he says prison was a powder keg, wait till he gets in a party with Nigel Farage.
But I note the G7 has 7 of the 10 biggest economies, because it also excludes India and Brazil*!
* Some estimates have Brazil's economy bigger than Canada, but some don't.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/scorecard/e-227680
"And I have to say it is so refreshing to read a report from someone who cares so little for the opinion of the system."
https://x.com/SophyRidgeSky/status/1934688616430653610
https://x.com/magamichelles69/status/1934637920146895261?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q
Sadly, as I am in favour, I think this has been a bloody mess.
I thought Amy Klobuchar was pretty restrained here:
Klobuchar condemns Mike Lee’s posts about Minnesota suspect: ‘This isn’t funny’
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/5352566-sen-amy-klobuchar-condemns-sen-mike-lee/
For context, she reportedly had dinner with Melissa Hortman, who was a friend, just hours before her murder.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c207yjrn7r6o
I just got the impression he didn't write often these days. But maybe I just don't read the right newspapers...
A nice ethical debate over who is worse, the latter for me.
https://x.com/WalshFreedom/status/1934700996120187002
It has an absurd amount of safeguards that should be stripped in the future, but its better than nothing.
If this ridiculously pared back version isn't good enough for some people, nothing ever will be.
On asking Trump for the details. he says that's for later and Starmer hardly gets a word in
Trump of course meant the UK, not the EU and was personally very effusive to Starmer but I am not sure it is where Starmer wants to be
Such an insight into so many things. Including the decadent lives of Iranian rich kids
The contrast with what we are told is the situation in UK where pretty much everyone and their dog hates him apparently is interesting.
Still - Mandelson is earning his keep. Can't believe this next stage in a trade 'deal' would be happening without the Prince of Passports.
Is it really true about the rich kids?
And is any of it actually filmed in Persia? I would be surprised the clerics let this kind of nonsense be filmed on their streets.
Great deal Keir